Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: To those who ruined all hope in oakland....

Posted 7 years ago on Nov. 3, 2011, 11:14 a.m. EST by tunafish (3) from Harrisburg, PA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The cop visibility drops and what happens? All the progress is ruined by those who need a babysitter all the time. Breaking into buildings, starting fires, and general douchebaggery does nothing to advance anything. You think some people would have learned from the broken windows, spray painted flags and such yesterday.

Even if the game is rigged you still have to find a way to play by the rules to get ahead. We may not have lobbyist to help us cheat to get ahead but we still have the first amendment to use until somebody violates the rights of another party by breaking shit and being a menace. Go read a god damn history book and learn how anything positive has been accomplished for the oppressed, cheated and abused in this nation.

To those of you that hurt the progress in oakland and the movement of a whole: Fuck you.



Read the Rules
[-] 8 points by hairlessOrphan (522) 7 years ago

"...are encouraged to self-organize to shut down their cities and rebuild their communities in whatever manner they are comfortable with and capable of."


So... you got what you asked for. You can't be mad when people take you at face value. If this is what they are "comfortable with and capable of", then you asked for it - "whatever manner" - so you own it, too.

If you want better than this, demand better than this. Stop making these anything-goes declarations. Get your act together, and you will have the legitimization to oppose these acts of adolescent anarchic vandalism. Until then, you own it, too.

[-] 1 points by jkintree (84) 7 years ago

You accurately quoted the statement from occupywallst, and included a link to the original article. Thank you. We learn from our mistakes.

Here is another quote from that same article that I especially liked, "It is time for us to come together and build a new world through the power of the individual and the community. We are not here to make requests of a corrupt political system - we are here to take our lives back into our own hands. We are not acknowledging subservience. There is no higher power than the power of the people. We are not asking for assistance. We are declaring independence. Our demand is not to those in power, it is to those individuals still silenced. Join us."

[-] 1 points by hairlessOrphan (522) 7 years ago

No offense, because I know you all mean well, but my reaction to that quote was:




I admit I was unfriendly, but I don't think people are really fully cognizant of their ideology - and how ideological assumptions are betrayed by language and reinforced by repetition, whether or not people actually mean them. For example, implicitly equating the existence of the state to the subservience of the people is just wrong-headed - and it's dangerous to boot.

[-] 1 points by jkintree (84) 7 years ago

To speak of "our corrupt political system" is not an ideological abstraction. It is the best explanation, for example, of why citizens of the United States continue to be denied single payer national health insurance. The state could be a means of liberating us from the greed, inefficiency, and inequality of private, for-profit health insurance.

If national health insurance was a demand of the Occupy movement, to whom would we take this demand? To Congress? No, Congress has demonstrated that it is corrupted. That deck is stacked against us. It is time , as stated by occupywallst, to take our lives, and power to make these decisions, into our own hands.

[-] 1 points by hairlessOrphan (522) 7 years ago

You got one thing right: government corruption is the problem.

So let me get this straight: your proposed solution is to pretend government doesn't exist? Your proposed solution is to live in a make-believe world where there's no government, no rule of law, no international diplomatic relations, no legitimization?

[-] 1 points by jkintree (84) 7 years ago

Let me tell you my proposed solution, speaking only for myself, so you stop projecting your misunderstanding onto it. Just as Article Six of the United States Constition says, "...This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land;" we need to create a World Constitution that shall be the supreme Law for the planet.

Instead of tacking on a Bill of Rights after ratification of the World Constitution, as was done with the first ten amendments to the US Constitution, the core, primary document of the World Constitution should be the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In addition to new global law enforcement agencies and global supreme court, all local, state, and national law enforcement agencies and courts should be required to enforce the articles of the UDHR.

Ratification of this World Constitution should be through a global referendum. We are very close to a quorum, half of the global population, with Internet access. The referendum could be organized over the Internet, yet for the sake of verifiability, could be conducted with paper ballots.

I know that many people within and outside the Occupy movement do not agree with this proposal. Let's take it to a vote, a direct referendum for all citizens of planet Earth, and see what the will of the people is. There could be no higher legitimization than this.

[-] 1 points by hairlessOrphan (522) 7 years ago

You are absolutely correct that there is - under current political thought - no higher legitimization than the people. In my informal polling i.e. directly asking and challenging dozens of people here, you are the only one who has even obliquely made that statement. But don't you see how that fundamentally makes it impossible to frame the relationship between governance and people as dominant - subservient? It can only be the other way around. Fundamentally - even if we, the people, have not claimed or wielded our authority properly - government is still and (until they bring out the military forces to try to contest "legitimacy of the people" with "legitimacy of force of arms") must be subservient to the people.

This should always have been the starting point for Occupy. This is not scientific rocketry.

Side-note: as far as Planetary Constitution goes, it may be legitimized by majority vote in a direct referendum, but even if it wins by an unheard of margin of 75% yea to 25% nay, recognize that still means almost 2 billion people who disagree with it and will still be forced to live under it. I'm not saying that's good or bad, I'm just saying this is the fundamental cost of global rule.

[-] 5 points by Rael (176) 7 years ago

This is what happens when a movement refuses to define itself. It ends up getting defined by its most radical elements.

[-] 4 points by SFCitizen (18) 7 years ago

Thank you! You know, I had a bad feeling when I saw some of the nutjobs screaming their heads off at occupy San Francisco. The fact that there were rational people in the crowd with good ideas will not be remembered. Perhaps the people that started this chaotic undefined protest can raise money to pay for the property destroyed by their thoughtlessness. I know folks in Oakland that are further left than me who are very disappointed with these folks bent on riots and destruction.

[-] 3 points by iam99pct (115) 7 years ago

Well let's just hold on for a minute. WE define this movement, not CNN. What I SAW in this minor incident was 3-5 average citizens of Oakland defending a corporate chain store from 100 black-clad (police-instigated) adolescent vandals.


  • one of the largest area labor walkouts in the last 40 years
  • A diverse coalition of citizens from white collar to the homeless marching together
  • a peaceful assembly of 10,000 people, with NO POLICE, (marred only by one driver who ran over 2 protestors, caused multiple fractures, who was RELEASED by police without even a report!)
[-] 1 points by ibanez (41) 7 years ago

And yet they stood by and allow vandalism to occur

[-] 2 points by iam99pct (115) 7 years ago

obviously you don't know how to click hyperlinked text.

Hint: when text is blue on the internetz you can click it...

[-] 2 points by Cremona (7) 7 years ago

actually I saw protestors surround vandalists so that they would stop.

[-] 1 points by TheScreamingHead (239) 7 years ago

how did you get that anchor text and link to work? I do a href and it does it as text!

[-] 1 points by iam99pct (115) 7 years ago

use parens () for the text and brackets [] for the link, no space in between

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 7 years ago

(Other way around. For more information, google "markdown syntax".)

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 7 years ago

Here's what you apparently "missed" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056887/Occupy-Oakland-general-strike-Cops-use-tear-gas-protests-turns-violent.html

Because you failed to define this movement, it allowed ANYONE and EVERYONE to participate without having to worry about matching your definition or not. Now the world is seeing this and defining it FOR you.

[-] 2 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 7 years ago

True, but especially true when there is an active element on the ground looking to sabotage a basically peaceful movement with violence. It happened to the assemblies protesting the murder of Oscar Grant.-------

Families and friends protesting the lack of justice stood by helpless as infiltrating groups were bussed in by some anonymous power. Those groups immediately started violent riots and the media only reported that part.------

Definition is not quite enough. Effective, lawful long term strategy that is defined separates completely. Therein the infiltrators can only expose themselves.

[-] 1 points by Cayce (83) 7 years ago

Labels only matter when you allow yourself to be defined by them. I can be called a Father, a Son, a Brother, a Friend, Funny, Sarcastic, Serious, Rediculous.... and they would all be true from time to time.

However, that is not what defines me. People will define this Movement for themselves in the end. You may feel like it's "everybody", but that is because you will find 5 people who want to talk negatively and look at things negatively for ever 1 person that looks at the positives and actually posts about it.

Have you ever got great customer service from a representative over the phone? And when you did, did you ask to speak with a Supervisor or Manager to tell them what a great experience you had? Most likely not. But have you ever asked to speak with a Supervisor or Manager when you have had horrible customer service? Probably.

That's the world we currently live in. This movement hopes to change that.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 7 years ago

Very true and very sad. Entropy wins yet again.

[-] 1 points by Meeky (186) from Los Angeles, CA 7 years ago

Yes that is rather a shame.

[+] -5 points by TheREAL99 (120) 7 years ago

"general douchebaggery does nothing" - I disagree.

I think "general douchebaggery" fully expresses what OWS, & Marxism in general, is all about. The more media attention, the better.

[-] 5 points by me2 (534) 7 years ago

I agree. Disgraceful behavior. And enough with the agents provocateur allegations already, it's becoming a kneejerk dogmatic reaction and losing its credibility.

[-] 2 points by sudoname (1001) from Berkeley, CA 7 years ago

I have heard they were a specific group that was using OWS for cover. I don't think anyone knows the details yet.

[-] 1 points by tsizzle (73) from De Pere, WI 7 years ago

the problem is nobody has a clue what OWS is, thus anyone can define it to suit their agenda...These protests are quickly going nowhere

[-] 3 points by sudoname (1001) from Berkeley, CA 7 years ago

It's true they can define it to their own agenda. It takes a few days to really figure out what OWS is about, since OWS won't tell anybody. I think these recent events will at least be a wakeup call.

[-] -1 points by seaglass (671) from Brigantine, NJ 7 years ago

No its not. Anyone familiar with how the PTB operate know this kind of shit was expected. The Corps. and the Gov't they own have plenty of agents trained to do just this kind of shit to destroy movements on the left. On the right they promote the group ( like the so called Tea party) and even allow people to carry automatic weapons to their rallies.

[-] 4 points by bambooman (5) from Phillipsburg, NJ 7 years ago

“I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.” - Mohandas K. Gandhi

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 7 years ago

Gandhi's definition of violence excluded property damage. In fact, his faction did burn down a number of colonial administration buildings and break its share of windows. Violence is something you do to other people.

[-] 4 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 7 years ago

Bottom line---the further this OWS movement goes, the more we're going to have to deal with troublemakers-with-authority-issues infiltrating the ranks and using us to get their rocks off.

Not to mention possible provocateurs and police agents.

We need a nonviolent, effective, pre-planned tactic to deal with rioting and more importantly with the public perception thereof.

Perhaps protestors could swarm the rioters and chant "this is a peaceful protest" or something.

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 7 years ago

Do Not swarm troublemakers, swarm away from them, leave them isolated and exposed, post pictures of them with warnings.

[-] 1 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 7 years ago

That could work too.

[-] 2 points by hairlessOrphan (522) 7 years ago

But will not work is the situation where a third of the people swarm towards, a third swarm away, and the rest just kind of mill around.

[-] 2 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 7 years ago

LOL milling about is a major problem.

That is why we need to figure out a tactic, then elevate it to the level of a meme, like the people's mike.

[-] 3 points by minnesota (5) from St Paul, MN 7 years ago

OWS is gets stronger when the city of Oakland reacted to non violent demonstrations with violence. And OWS gets weaker when they failed to adequately control the violet anarchists that infiltrated their demonstration. But they tried...and will eventually find a way to do so.

On the other hand...I don't think the city of Oakland will be able to easily implement an alternative to using force. They would have to collaborate with the non-violent demostrators to do that...and politically they want to distance themselves from OWS.

When you have a well armed force capable of "crushing" dissent you tend to use it instead of any of the other alternatives. You may regret it later..but you still tend to use it first.

In this case it will just attract more demonstrators that believe the best response to violence is violence.

WE can stop the violence on our side...video the anarchists...seperate those that feel they must wear masks from those that will show their face. Help the police identify those who commit violent acts and hide among you. They are as cowardly as the Oakland govt officials that use riot police on violent and non-violent demonstrators alike.

OWS doesn't represent violent anarchy...it represents a new, more equitable, order. Sure..anarchists are part of the 99%. A very small part. We cannot allow them to control the message. If violent anarchy become the message...we have lost.

[-] 3 points by SFCitizen (18) 7 years ago

The teargassing may have been an overreaction but it was not unprovoked. There were people in your movement provoking this reaction. I've heard this from both the news and some of the "peaceful" protesters who couldn't control the thugs they invited in.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 7 years ago

All hope is not ruined. That's hysteria. Furthermore there will be more of this kind of thing. They are called paid provocaturs. Get used to it. Find solutions. Don't whine.

[-] 2 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 7 years ago

it is sad about oakland. We have let our local people know we don't agree with those actions, and wont let it happen here. we told the police chief if our camp was coopted by violence, we'd go home. Hopefully that this will be the end to it and move forward with message not mayhem

[-] 2 points by julianzs (147) 7 years ago

Before we attempt to confuse the perpetrators with the peaceful occupiers we need to find who they were and who planned their violence.

[-] 2 points by wnws (2) 7 years ago

I agree with them occupying the foreclosed building to draw public attention to government spending cut on homeless aid programs. If they were arrested voluntarily and peacefully in the building, that would be a successful protest. But it seems that there were clashes with the police outside the building, whether it was provoked or unprovoked it is not sure. If it was unprovoked, those people provoking the police should be responsible.

[-] 2 points by WarmItUp (301) 7 years ago

There is mounting evidence that Undercover officers infiltrated the movement in an effort to allow for a reason to use tear gas again. Check out these videos and ignore the rumors that these extremists came from within our ranks. and btw...Why are you all calling graffiti violence, it is not violent, since when has vandalism and violence been considered the same thing. violence is what happened when the cops fired on scott olson and sent him to the emergency room. The police are instigating this when the whole city riots they get tons and tons of emergency federal aid. it is in their best interest to instigate a riot. Which did not happen so stop calling this a riot. http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/10648-video-police-infiltrators-at-occupy-oakland.html

[-] 2 points by private20 (5) 7 years ago

I'm glad that people are talking about this aspect of the protests and to me it is huge. I was around during the Vietnam war protests and saw first hand how much confusion and disorder is caused when fringe elements who are just looking for a way to incite violence and vent their rage basically nullify any good that people are trying to do. Something needs to happen to clarify the theme of peaceful protest to any wannabees out there who get involved in the movement and don't know what it stands for. Just looking around on the internet it is easy to see the disrespect for us coming from many quarters and not just trolls and haters. Another thing, more attention should be given even to what happens on livestream during "down time". Live streaming is a wonderful communication tool. I love it. But people's perceptions of the movement are often formed right there. I've seen the comments of people who go on live streaming at odd times and the commentary they hear is about Dungeons and Dragons or who got drunk that night or the merits of vegetarianism. OK I can deal with that, I don't have a problem with it, I understand. But there are others out there who DON'T understand and who are looking on there to see what this movement is all about. I'm just saying. If they tune in in the middle of the night, what are they going to hear and see? The whole world, is indeed, watching.

[-] 1 points by KenO (9) 7 years ago

agree with you on that. OTOH some people somewhere will identify with whatever randomness is being said. ;)

[-] 2 points by jimboes (5) from Boston, MA 7 years ago

just a thought from dorchester in boston...the OWS have devised a very efficient and clever way of communicating en mass by hand gestures. maybe a set of hand signals and someother striking gesture(laying on the ground) could be implemented when in the course of events things get out of control...it would i guess be like throwing a bucket of cold water on the area and the people there in. just an idea...i have been so moved by the thoughtfulness and courage of these people...we just have to stay on top of the game and we can make a dif.

[-] 1 points by KenO (9) 7 years ago

this seems like a good idea.

either (A) everyone lie down like guns were being fired or (B) tackle the shit out of these provoking vandals (someone saw 20-30 of them get off the bart at 19th street station) and pepper spray and zip tie them up.

[-] 2 points by bethlany88 (134) from Vancouver, WA 7 years ago

Do you think it might have been staged to bring down the movement? People sent in to make ows look bad?? Then again their are always gonna be dumb a's in every group right? who knows.....but yes i agree the lack of public leadership and direction is dragging ows down and supporters are becoming less enthused.

[-] 2 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 7 years ago

It is up to the folks at disruptive scenes to make the videos that show the disruption is not their making. More and more people are getting their reports on the computer rather than the TV station. Even when one agrees with a given slant, what is reported is largely meaningless fodder.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

Hope was not ruined

The world still heard the protest

[-] 2 points by amfischetti (2) 7 years ago

I feel that by allowing a violent fringe element to overtake the peaceful protest, you leave yourself open for the media to discredit the message and the messengers. The spin in local news around Oakland is that the protest ended in terrific violence instead of focusing on the peaceful protest and general strike. The media also focused on the teachers who skipped school that day and that was very unpopular according to comments left by readers. The truth is that a fringe group became violent around midnight after a full day of peaceful protest and word is that some of the Occupy Movement protesters attempted to stop them but couldn't. I don't know if there is any truth to that though. I think that the other problem that Occupy encampments have is that they are a magnet for the homeless. It's another group that the media will focus on to discredit the protest. These are things to think about and consider. Peaceful protest and civil disobedience is one thing but violence shouldn't be an aspect of the movement. It only hurts it.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 7 years ago

I would think they would be glad that the homeless have somewhere to go where they are treated with respect (I hope). After all, they've been living in this kind of world for some time and may be able to help. As for troublemakers, you might surround them as a group and do the downward finger wave while chanting something peaceful.

[-] 2 points by Idaltu (662) 7 years ago

I really do understand your anger....it was ugly and defeats the purpose of OWS. The problem is that a few (not many) of the 99% have a different objective...and that is the total destruction of our government. It only takes one or two in a crowd to turn peaceful people into a mob of rioters who do not share the goal of those FEW. So why do they jump in and riot? It has noting to do with objectives..and everything to do with the flaming of human emotions. The few are well aware of this knee jerk reaction of humans and they use it to achieve chaos. That is what they wanted. They know that at a large enough level (across the US) chaos will force action and in that action people will get hurt and when they do they are likely to support absurd objectives.

The following explains this very well.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)

[-] 2 points by BreadLandPeace (359) 7 years ago

Thanks everyone for such enlightened comments, but regarding the one just above by idaltu, "It only takes one or two in a crowd to turn peaceful people into a mob of rioters who do not share the goal of those FEW."

But that didn't happen--the 60-70 "anarchists" didn't morph into thousands, or even hundreds, which is fantastic. In fact, most of the OWS occupiers tried to stop them.

I do think OWS has to be a lot, lot tougher, including limiting blocks, and probably needs some public spokespeople who can vehemently denounce the crazies. Otherwise, a small group, perhaps even connected to the 1% small group, will continue to create huge obstacles between us and the majority of the country, 99%, who represent the only power that can change society--the American people.

But even with that dangerous element of rioters, OWS succeeded in bringing seven THOUSAND people to the general strike! What a victory! And this is less than two months since the movement began.

Congratulations Occupy Oakland and OWS!!!!

[-] 2 points by hairlessOrphan (522) 7 years ago

"The few (not many)?" People need to realize that whatever they imagine the statistics to be, empirically the movement is lead by those who speak up, and its "accomplishments" are defined by those who work toward their own objectives. As of right now, that is anarchists and their resultant chaos - it's the same philosophical foundation of decentralization and lack of accountability that you glorify in the GA and working group structures. So people can see its benefits in the GA, but what made them think they would be protected from its costs?

Your hypothetical rest-of-the-people are not standing up to the anarchist streak - quite the contrary, most of them are defending it by refusing the alternatives. Therefore, their efforts are going towards achieving the anarchists' goals. Therefore, they are part of "the few (not many)," and no amount of after-the-fact hand-wringing will absolve them of it. That so-called few looks pretty big to me.

If you support the movement in its current structure, and if you defend the current organizational and operational structure, then regardless of what you secretly believe, empirically you've bought into its underlying anarchy. So you own your share of it.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 7 years ago

Do you realize that OWS was started by anarchists? I believe they want peaceful change. Not sure who the culprits were behind the violence. But OWS at its core - is anarchists. They started and they control it. I don't believe many people understand this fact. I think there are many people who identify with the protest. Not the anarchy. The goals of the anarchists are quite different than the goals of many protesters.

[-] 2 points by hairlessOrphan (522) 7 years ago

This is the one reason I have hope: because by its very nature anarchy can not control the movement's development.

The rallying banner was not anarchistic. The fact that anarchists started the movement is immaterial, because anarchists can not philosophically maintain itself by force. The reason they're still the dominant paradigm is because people don't have the courage to face flaws. It's subterfuge ("Oh God we're going to be co-opted! Oh God, the MSM will kill us!") and inertia ("Why fix what isn't broken? Look guys it's working!").

Right now, it's a race between the violence and vandalism discrediting the larger movement vs. the violence and vandalism motivating supporters to look themselves in the mirror. I have a very obvious desire to see the latter win out. The broader movement is still young - what is happening now has not calcified. That's why I'm screaming my fool head off about it. There is time to do better.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 7 years ago

I think the anarchists are controlling the development to some degree. Because they control the NYC GA. There has been a rather large contingent for weeks - calling for the initial demands - to be brought up at the GA. It never happens. Because the GA has zero intention of addressing the grievances that has attracted so many protesters. The GA will not address because that is not their goal. Their goal is to gain support for replacing our Representative Republic with Direct Democracy and some form of anarchistic society. Most often I have heard Anarcho-Syndicalism.

What do you mean when you say the "rallying banner was not anarchistic"?

[-] 2 points by hairlessOrphan (522) 7 years ago

Simply put: the cry that got world's attention was, "We are the 99%," not "We are totally out of control, maaaaan!"

I agree that the anarchists are directing the current GA, but they can not enforce that direction. It's working because everyone lets them do it. They're all still enamored with the feel-good benefits, and they are not facing the costs. Hence my (seemingly lone voice) insisting that they have to own the violence they've legitimized - that is the cost.

If they rack up enough costs and people start to understand their culpability, we might finally see some pushback. And if push came to shove, and non-anarchists were motivated (and brave enough) to assert their influence over GA, it would be philosophically and foundationally incoherent - not to mention structurally difficult - for anarchists as a minority voice to continue to impose their ideology. The development of the spokes council could be a glimmer of hope. I haven't read up on the details of its organization. But I understand there was some resistance to the idea, and it was overcome by a clear majority.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 7 years ago

You certainly have a point. I hope you are right.

[-] 0 points by Frankie (733) 7 years ago

And you think that they'll just shut up and go away then? Sorry. They've mostly just been putting up with the finger-diddle BS just long enough to try to attract more people to it. Once they feel that their purposes aren't being served, then they'll go their own way and do their own thing. You don't really expect a bunch of anarchists to just fall in line do you? ; ) lol

The more likely outcome will be the typical splintering and, like it or not, the whole "movement" still will be viewed in light of the actions of what to most are indistinguishable members. In the same way that people tend to view the "Tea Party" as single group when that's far from the fact.

[-] 1 points by hairlessOrphan (522) 7 years ago

I agree that the likely outcome is a splintering. And then we will find out, based on the proportions, what democracy really looks like. Look, if the fact of the matter is that a clear majority really want anarchistic chaos, and that is borne out empirically when supporters are given an honest choice, then I will STFU and move to Sweden.

Right now, we're not getting an honest choice. It's either this or the existing establishment power structure of democracy suborned by money. I completely understand the choice of the lesser of two evils. What I don't understand is the resignation that this is the best we can do. So I rail against it.

And one more thing: the way to combat distortion is clarity. And the way to achieve clarity is first by having a solid philosophical foundation and second by facing up to and owning your history - warts and all. The formula is simple: truth and accountability. It is not easy to do, but it is not too complex to understand. I have no doubt that, after the movement splinters, there will be residual consequences - and every day we let anarchic vandalism carry the day only adds to more headaches when we finally turn things around. Fine. The road is long - no one promised us punch and pie. But I am ever the optimist, and I believe that Truth tells.

[-] 0 points by Frankie (733) 7 years ago

Exactly right. And in large part the whole idea from that side isn't so much about any particular issues it's simply to try to leverage general discontent into an overall uprising of the population. No, that's not everyone and particularly those who came to it casually later. But at the core that very certainly is the intent. Anyone who doubts that doesn't have to listen to us, they can go and look at the many statements made by some of the groups involved and hear it from them directly.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 7 years ago

It took me a while, and some tip offs, to figure it out. I think it is coming out into the open more lately. Or does it just seem that way because I know now? I'm not sure! I do give the anarchists credit. I think the protest needed to happen. I just don't agree with their end game.

[-] 1 points by Frankie (733) 7 years ago

Yep. There are valid issues but most aren't anything new and that doesn't mean that I'm going to align myself with anyone simply on that basis when there are significant differences in approach and core values. As one of many similar examples, Louis Farrakan's movement raises some valid issues, but I'm not signing up with them either.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 7 years ago

I've been getting more involved with the 99%Declaration group. Mainly because so far it seems anarchy free, and they want to work with and through government.

https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/ http://the99delegation.forumotion.com/

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 7 years ago

You believe anarchy is violence free? Here's the father of OWS anarchists.


[-] 1 points by April (3196) 7 years ago

So far, this movement has stressed peaceful action. And mostly it has been peaceful. I don't see any evidence to the contrary. What is the evidence that links the Front de liberation to OWS?

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 7 years ago

OWS born from hard-left Canadian socialists well aware of the front de libération du Québec. Oakland Front Liberation, a faction of OWS, named after the front de libération du Québec and having started the distribution of pamphlets inciting violence.

I don't believe all OWS supports this, but I do believe the OWS anarchists do and are well aware of their roots. Time will tell.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 7 years ago

That makes sense, it just seems weird that they chose to accuse the movement of the most ridiculous nonsense. Do you know anything about the Soros connection? How do you think this piece fits into the puzzle?


[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 7 years ago

Thanks for the link. I don't know much about the Soros connection. That's something I have to start reading about. It's my next homework ;-)

What I find fascinating is the massive number of people asking OWS to start tabling demands and clear objectives. They seem to think OWS just popped out of the blue and that it is poorly organized. Nothing could be further from the truth. We might very well be witnessing one of the most well planned anarchic movements in history. We can at least say it is the most global ever to have occurred. You don't get many people in many cities all around the world to dedicate their time to camp and march by fluke. OWS is highly organized and has been very well planned.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 7 years ago

The mass media is a combination of clueless (unintentional?) and discrediting (intentional) of the movement. The only hopeful group I've seen so far is this one. Split from OWS a few weeks ago. But I feel like alot of people in OWS are hooked on the koolaid here. And don't understand the underlying intentions of the OWS organizers.

What I haven't been able to figure - is if the main stream media wants to discredit the movement, how come they don't go public with the fact that a group of anarchists are running this thing? Are they really that clueless?? Instead, they just make fun of people with long hair and drum beating??? The main stream media are clearly part of the 1% who benefit from the corruption of the government. So wouldn't it be in their interest to discredit with something more meaningful?

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 7 years ago

The media and the government don't want to look like accusers. If they came out and said - "Look, these are just anarchists!", most people would think this is some kind of conspiracy theory or that the government is trying to trick them. The vast majority don't understand politics too well, and they already have a great distrust for the government. Most likely, the media wants to wait for protesters to make mistakes like the ones they made in Oakland. They want to catch them with their pants down. If OWS kill the business of one of the "99%", let rapes go unnoticed, etc... then the media will hone on that like hawks. Slowly, the government hopes the people will trust it again, then it will be able to move and dismantle the whole thing with their full support.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 7 years ago

That makes alot of sense based on what I'm seeing and hearing. Do you think it is possible for the protest side, that is, people wanting legitimate change working through and with government, to overcome the agenda of the OWS elite? I guess alot of that depends on government, if government is willing to listen and act on the "demands" coming from the protest. I'm going to do some reading about Quebec. It took 5 years! Thats a long time to protest!

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 7 years ago

It's all about trust in the government. When no one trusts the government, it opens the doors to anarchists to rally people with a common complaint. The government certainly abused its powers and earned our distrust, then you have all kinds of conspiracy theories that act like a mind cancer and cripple critical thought. OWS certainly chose the right time to act. A system needs laws put in place to keep the government transparent and corruption free, then people can trust it. Plato wrote about how to stop Oligarchies in the Republic.

At this point, I have no idea how it's going to play out. I'm from Canada, but currently living in Indonesia, and I never lived in America (only visited), so I'm not really aware how the situation is being treated in the mass media. I have a hard time believing OWS could seriously destabilize the government with their method, but I don't know. It's hard to analyze these things, there are a lot of factors.

I'm hoping some protesters aim to get organized and channel Occupy's energy into really positive action. A lot of people are talking about it, so it might be possible. Hopefully, a few intelligent scholars who understand the situation will take the reigns and steer them in the right direction.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 7 years ago

Intersting. I think their short term plan is to keep it peaceful anyway. They gain more support that way. Long term, who knows. What do you think their end game is? The best I can figure is some kind of Anarchistic society, based on Direct Democracy, being how they seem to push that idea so hard. And use it at the GA's.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 7 years ago

I believe the people behind OWS are very smart anarchists. They designed the movement to make it look like there are no leaders, but everything was well prepared. They wanted Occupy factions to pop up in many cities in America, and across the world. They wanted these factions to remain independent of each other in order to increase chaos amongst the movement. They know direct democracy doesn't scale, and this is why they use it. As each Occupy faction grows, it will eventually succumb to the limit of direct democracy and fracture into subgroups, thus by creating even more chaos. Each Occupy faction will crumble in a different way and form different types of subgroups depending on the culture of the cities in which they are. Some will crumble before others. Oakland has already turned towards violence. Some will remain peaceful. This means officials will have to deal with each Occupy in different ways, thereby increasing the chaos.

True anarchists do not want to take control because they do not believe in a system of control, in a government. What they want is to create as much chaos as possible. Occupy has been designed to do just this. Metaphorically, they are throwing sand in the air and they do not care how it lands. They believe the system cannot be fixed, and that it could not be worse. They believe the fastest way to find a cure is to shake the system heavily until it breaks. Once it is broken, they will leave it to someone else to put it back together. There work will have been done.

The front de libération du Québec succeeded in this way. Throughout the 60's they terrorized Québec politics. The system was shaken quite heavily. Five years later, in the mid 70's, a proper political party was formed called the partie Québecquois. It had the same preoccupations as the front, but it was a normal political party with a defined platform and clear goals. They still exist today and continue to fight for the same ideas the front pushed during its reign of terror.

The goal of an anarchy is not to take power, but to dismantle it.

[-] 1 points by Idaltu (662) 7 years ago

I suppose you are saying that no one is innocent if they engaged in the movement to begin with. That is absurd...it would point a finger of guilt at everyone, including those who had nothing to do with the rioting. However, if you could convince everyone of that you control the masses from ever doing anything at an independent level...this works very well in religion. You would do well as a preacher. (underlying anarchy ah ha the work of the devil...and you have no more evidence for this than a preacher has for the existence of the devil),

[-] 2 points by hairlessOrphan (522) 7 years ago

No. I am saying that no one is innocent if they engaged in the movement and did not work to improve it. If they have actively defended the underlying philosophy of unaccountability - knowingly or unknowingly - they have to own this. If they have only passively defended it - by not speaking up and not facing up to the obvious costs of unaccountability - then they own it to a lesser extent, but they still own it.

This has nothing to do with stomping out individuality or individual initiative. There is a middle ground between religious fanaticism / blind faith and unaccountability. Look for it, I urge you to look for it. Set aside your ego and find a better solution than this, because this is supposed to be more important than feeling good and looking awesome. What's going on here is slowly becoming a game. People are forgetting what is at stake.

I dismiss your ad hominem attack. I acknowledge the insult, but it is tangential, here.

[-] 2 points by Idaltu (662) 7 years ago

The following is a comment I made to another post...but it is relevant here because it tells you exactly where I am at at a personal level..

The simple truth for myself is that I am really fuck'in tired of the debate. There is nothing to debate. The US government is owned by the wealthy. What the hell needs to be debated? Either you like the situation or you don't. I've heard this bullshit all my life (I'm 68)...yea lets sit down and talk. This will end in one of two ways...(1) tyranny in full gear (2) total change of the system....I guess I am to the point where I am saying 'shit or get off the pot'.

This forum is filled with those who like the current situation. I can tell them this: "you are not going to like either (1) or (2)".

[-] 2 points by hairlessOrphan (522) 7 years ago

And here is my response to your thesis: "What the hell needs to be debated? Either you like the situation or you don't."

What needs to be debated is the solution. I'm tired of it, too, but it needs to be done. Setting yourself up as a purely opposition movement is intrinsically making the statement, "anything is better than this." But that statement is nothing but a failure of imagination. It can always get worse. I may hate this system as it stands, but transforming it into, for example, Syria? That's not better than this.

[-] 2 points by Idaltu (662) 7 years ago

I don't disagree with you at all....I am simply willing to risk getting a worse situation for the possibility of winning real 'social evolution'. Admittedly it is a long shot.

[-] 2 points by hairlessOrphan (522) 7 years ago

I am with you on the opportunity. All I want to do is point out that a little discipline, a little intellectual courage, and a little work drastically improves the odds of a social and cultural awakening, and drastically reduces the odds of martial law. Can't we all see that?

Without the serious, adult conversation about what we should work towards, any outcome is possible. Right now, the goal is: "rebuild their communities in whatever manner they are comfortable with and capable of." Is that as good as it gets? I will not advocate the other extreme of autocracy, but we've got to narrow the domain of possible outcomes better than this, because this legitimizes anarchic violence every bit as much as it legitimizes GA's jazz hands, and to embrace this as a philosophical foundation is to embrace everything that it legitimizes.

[-] 2 points by sudoname (1001) from Berkeley, CA 7 years ago

I heard that the group that took over the office building was not from OWS and was using OWS as a cover. Everyone knows OWS is peaceful.

[-] 2 points by MachineShopHippie (216) from Louisville, KY 7 years ago

Please be vigilant for this kind of behavior. What better way to shut the movement down than to infiltrate it with people who will carry the OWS banner and act like hooligans? The only reason the movement is still alive is because we have a constitutional right to peaceful assembly. The moment it is not peaceful, it is classified as a riot and can be evicted or forcibly removed 'for the public good'. Subversives have been planted in civil rights movements forever, OWS needs to realize that billions of dollars are at stake for these companies if they end up getting regulated or fined. What would it cost to hire a guy to camp out and cause a little trouble?

[-] 2 points by BreadLandPeace (359) 7 years ago

Thank you!

[-] 2 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 7 years ago

I like your handle, machineshophippie.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

how many windows were broken?

how many fires were set?

how many are hyper focused on a smash and burn that happen while the people were marching for justice

[-] 1 points by daddyo14171 (48) 7 years ago

The letter written below and posted at the Occupy Oakland website doesn't help. Apparently some of the leaders there are in favor of anarchy and involved in the decision making. I read earlier today that the general assembly in Oakland decided not to denounce violence but to remain mute.


[-] 1 points by greeneyeswideopen (3) from Westmount, QC 7 years ago

I agree. Unfortunately, that it a common and natural result of frustration, anger. How many times have we seen violence in demonstrations throughout history. Nevertheless, the 99% will lose if there is any violence. It gives the 1% ample reason to suppress.

[-] 1 points by greeneyeswideopen (3) from Westmount, QC 7 years ago

I agree. Unfortunately, that it a common and natural result of frustration, anger. How many times have we seen violence in demonstrations throughout history. Nevertheless, the 99% will lose if there is any violence. It gives the 1% ample reason to suppress.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 7 years ago

I think it was a justified reaction for injuring protesters and nearly killing one of them.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33770) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

I agree. The vandals should be rejected by everyone who wants to move forward. But to say they ruined the Oakland movement is perhaps a bit premature. After all if we were to condemn the many over the actions of the few. Well... might not the middle east be glowing in the dark?

What should be done is that we speak out against the vandalism and the vandals. Who is to say that they were even supporters of our movement. How easy to shut down a demonstration by a little applied subversive action.

Consider the guy several days ago with the rifle strapped to his back.

[-] 1 points by Suley02man (8) 7 years ago

I propose that if, and when, this subversive type of element hijacks a march, rally, etc., we cease all activity- stop, detach and return to base. We must separate ourselves from this element. I suspect they may very well be 'planted.' OWS protestors, should have simply stopped the march and returned to camp. This would have left the rogue bands on their own. The time will come - this violent over-reaction is not necessary - yet.

[-] 1 points by Suley02man (8) 7 years ago

I propose that if, and when, this subversive type of element hijacks a march, rally, etc., we cease all activity- stop, detach and return to base. We must separate ourselves from this element. I suspect they may very well be 'planted.' OWS protestors, should have simply stopped the march and returned to camp. This would have left the rogue bands on their own. The time will come - this violent over-reaction is not necessary - yet.

[-] 1 points by TheScreamingHead (239) 7 years ago

I am testing this link for viability.

[-] 1 points by TheScreamingHead (239) 7 years ago

Don't be so quick to judge. The CIA used to break up movements during the Civil Rights Movement by calling the girlfriends of the leaders and pretend to be another girl.

These violence inciters might be paid infiltrators who were placed specifically to make the movement look bad.


[-] 1 points by TheGiops (3) from Roseville, CA 7 years ago

And don't forget the COINTELPRO, that used ILLEGAL methods in the '60 and '70s in the USA, to crush many libertarian movements. Looks like it's been used again, here!!!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

what now?

[-] 1 points by UPonLocal (309) 7 years ago

Recipe for Violent Revolution set off by Foreign Agent of European Bankers Create a group of radical billboard artists in a secretive conspiratorial tone. Use publications as rally point and financial support mechanism as is SOP. Demand the utmost dedication from volunteers. Teach suspicion of strangers and use harsh discipline. Forced to leave the Group becomes the ultimate discipline. The mission is to Counter if the people look ready to do something when we put the big squeeze on America. We do not want them to vote on an honest system. The Vote must always be rigged. You are our backup plan. You will be the Culture Jammmer if we are threatened by real change. Claim one thing, deliver the other. Confuse popular organization efforts at all costs is your service to us. You will be our modern Trotsky and our Lenin - our revived blending of light and darkness. On orders cue and before other groups with voting intentions and systems rise up, Launch a preemptive protest after maintaining development over years and forming cell networks globally, keep it leaderless when launched on the street, use fuzzy demands and open agenda on things that are obvious issues to ignite the public tempers, when it gains momentum as it will, agent originators exit... and claim no control further in public media and suggest this is peoples uprising....just like we did in Russia, but with a new twist becuase of the internet. In Russia we had the EU Bankers give Lenin funds, and our New York friends bankrolled Trotsky and paid for protesters, in America offer food and homless will come to augment numbers. Ask for donations in America and use their money for our purpose. Make sure to allow some to be stolen as this will set strife and diminish internal organization efforts. Always mainatin element of suspicion of others in the protesters, this will create clicks and we like that...we lost ability to keep them inside borders..but we can make them Snobs so they fence themselves in and others out. Frustration will develop with no clear goal due too not having a voting system, suplant a primal oral voting system as substitute to obstruct a real one from developing as we intend to send them back to the stone age again, co-opt the term Direct Democracy as it theatens us most - unless a real voting system emerges under that banner claim the term, everyone has cell phones and laptops but you must specifically keep them from using technology to vote--or you will lose control, keep it as chatter aimless or at least no clear goals, oral and rolling spins the mind. Eventually people will start getting hurt in confrontation in time and we want and expect that, Claim Peaceful, set conditions for Violence. With no responsibly elected people to replace or organize on ground..... demand consensus as this will sound good and slow collective decision making. Leaving the group is seen as the greatest punishment for those who will not agree readily, so make it a rule. After 28 days sleep deprivation sets in.....instructions coming as shouted chants will have their desired effect of conditioning ground assets..anyone can now confuse attempts at leadership easily....and tip things from getting oraganized... good men and women may try to take a lead but nothing is official ever to support their actions.. no voting system for the masses - it is a simple plan...Chaos from the start....maintained....Fashionable now to be Leaderless is the meme...new magazine editions sell big...elicit violence and activate cells in playful subliminal messaging combined innocently together....an event we have waiting occurs...an anticiapated reaction occurs... long held plans UNfold... a conveniently irresponsible plan gets out of hand naturally....with plausible denial built in from the start. Claim peace and deliver Chaos. The Blending of Light and Darkness. A major Crisis develops, the UN-Elected Interim Government takes over under Military Rule on your success, or failure of government change forcing Martial Law. Either way, with no voting system other than the existing rigged one the people get an UNelected Government Consume and waste the personal energy and resources........ do not let the people Vote Online Openly In Russia they wanted telephones, and we stopped the people that way then from their Mutual Aid efforts. This time, we allow communications and keep them to chat and tweet snippets. If anyone asks you why after years with all the web developers and money around you...why did you not build an online open source voting system..... ....ignore the question or claim to be a simple publisher and ecologist as cover. Keep them occupied with Twitter instead.

[-] 1 points by gt2seeit2 (19) from Dallas, TX 7 years ago

But i saw it on the news, and not all bad guys

[-] 1 points by SirPoeticJustice (628) from New York, NY 7 years ago


[-] 1 points by jimboes (5) from Boston, MA 7 years ago


[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

ruined all hope

that didn't happen

[-] 1 points by madiniowa (3) 7 years ago

tell others to show support by leaving their front porch light on.

[-] 1 points by SFCitizen (18) 7 years ago

The Occupy movement should disown Occupy Oakland.

[-] 1 points by velveeta (230) 7 years ago

Looks like the morning headlines of "peaceful protest turns chaotic" have been replaced with "occupy protesters disavow violence", which is a good thing.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

The BBC only reported that Oakland's ports were shut down

[-] 1 points by Redmist (212) from Yazd, Yazd 7 years ago

Why cant this happen where I live? I have a whole bunch of nice guys just waiting for the chance to cripple some of these bandanna wearing fairies.

[-] 1 points by KenO (9) 7 years ago

come on down! where are you anyway?

[-] 1 points by Redmist (212) from Yazd, Yazd 7 years ago

Chatahm IL West side of golf course, 12.3 acres You cant miss it on Google Earth.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

Protesters shut down operations at Oakland's port on Wednesday in demonstrations against economic inequality and police brutality, which turned tense as the night wore on.

The protest by 5,000 people fell short of paralysing the northern California city that has been at the forefront of anti-Wall Street protests after a former US marine was badly wounded during a march.

But as evening fell, an official said maritime operations at the Oakland port, which handles about $39bn (£24bn) a year in imports and exports, had been "effectively shut down".


[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

what sounds like sabotage ?

the BBC reported the docks closed in Oakland

[-] 1 points by nativepeople (12) 7 years ago

it worked in the 60's!!!!!

[-] 2 points by BreadLandPeace (359) 7 years ago

No, it didn't, at least not in ending the war in Vietnam. I was in a highly disciplined Trotskyist group that banned drugs in its membership, because they would have given the government an opportunity to destroy the movement; and fought to keep the antiwar movement nonviolent and focused on an attainable goal ('Out Now" and "Bring The Troops Home Now!") so that it could appeal to and organize millions of the American people. In contrast, for example, a group that advocated violent tactics, called the Weathermen, even SDS (Students for a Democratic Society), a sprawling youth group that couldn't agree on strategy, could not mobilize the American people because they didn't understand how to organize a mass movement.

[-] 1 points by maxkoda (52) 7 years ago

I agree but I would remove the profanity.

[-] 1 points by KenO (9) 7 years ago

What we in Oakland must do is tackle at least one of these so-called "anarchists" to the ground, ziptie him up and get his ID. Turn him into the managers of whatever store/bank/institution he is vandalizing.

Is it an OPD agent/plant? Could be. Who knows.

What I DO know is that these guys are generally quite fit, which fits the profile of fresh military/ police. I would be surprised but we do not know until we find out and verify.

NEXT TIME: TACKLE THE ANARCHISTS / VANDALS. Hold them down via citizen's arrest. They are ruining things.

Either (A) "actually" anarchists who like to fuck shit up selfishly, adolescently (B) anti-OWS plant of establishment, whatever that is

In either case, two legs bad. Enough is enough!!!

[-] 2 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 7 years ago

I saw videos of them, they are skinny twigs. lol Trust me, they would be no problem to subdue and are not military.

Anyway, i agree with you 100 %. We have to police our self and stop the trouble makers before they cause a real problem.

[-] 1 points by KenO (9) 7 years ago

it also occurs to me thanks to others bringing it up is the lack of clarity and specificity is allowing anyone to "represent" - so OO must issue a statement about what it is about and not be anarchic like OWS-NYC. we have to have standards.

[-] 1 points by tunafish (3) from Harrisburg, PA 7 years ago

I'm glad to see more people agree. The first couple replies weren't as good. If anyone is advocating turning to violence then being surrounded and shamed by a larger crowd makes most people feel uncomfortable enough to stop without violence or being cruel. If that doesn't work then I think your solution is quite fitting. It seems like it could certainly be cops that turned the protests since the visibilty of the cops was oddly low. I think I might be being naive or overly hopeful though.

[-] 0 points by tsizzle (73) from De Pere, WI 7 years ago

in the military? come now...

[-] 1 points by KenO (9) 7 years ago

okay, a quick judgment. they are simply younger and more agile than the majority of milling about protestors...

[-] 1 points by RiotBurner (0) 7 years ago

More fire is needed fucker - this is who we are - do not deny it

BURN in hell capitalists - long live OWS !

[-] 1 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 7 years ago


[-] 2 points by AlternativeSynergy (224) 7 years ago

I agree, right-wing plant.

[-] 1 points by Redmist (212) from Yazd, Yazd 7 years ago

Yeah its always right wingers! You fucking partisan dolt, was it the the right wingers that caused the shitstorm last night. YOUR fucking fenced in twit-like mind is part of the problem.

[-] 1 points by minnesota (5) from St Paul, MN 7 years ago

Nothiing useful to post..troll.

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 7 years ago


[-] 0 points by JohnnyO (119) 7 years ago

Look no further than who has run Oakland. Far left wing America haters.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 7 years ago

I don't understand your criticism. This is an anarchic movement. The goal is to breed chaos, and that is what happened in Oakland. Their plan has been working perfectly.

[-] 0 points by hahaha (-41) 7 years ago

There is no movement. You're delusional. It's a make-believe pretend it's 1968 camporee. Far as the idiots in Oakland go, they should have been clubbed.

[-] 0 points by pinker (586) 7 years ago

Have the cops disclose the addresses of the black bloc arrestees. You can bet your ass they are bored rich kids. The few I looked at without hoods had fresh little haircuts. Most are young so I seriously doubt they are setups. They are kids who like chaos and an excuse to break things. They probably don't even know what they are protesting. Lying down or walking away immediately, as posts above say is the best way to separate yourselves from these little punks.


[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 7 years ago


39% already view the OWS movement unfavorably-with 30% viewing it favorably. 30% don't know enough to make up their minds yet, but this poll was taken BEFORE Oakland blew up. Wait until those numbers come in and tell me that you are winning over the rest of the country to this movement.

[-] 2 points by unlabeled (112) 7 years ago

Something similar to this happened in Egypt. I'm talking about the looting of Egypt's museums. There was some suspicion that the police did it to garner negative publicity. Well, that didn't seem to slow down that movement! :)

[-] 1 points by justhefacts (1275) 7 years ago

This isn't Egypt. And things aren't working out so well for the Egyptians now are they?

[-] 2 points by unlabeled (112) 7 years ago

At least they are aware that things aren't working out for them.

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 7 years ago

I'm sure all that awareness consoles them to no end.

[-] 1 points by unlabeled (112) 7 years ago

Don't worry, we'll learn from their mistakes and make a better world for you:)

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 7 years ago

I'm not sure which is more annoying, your naivete or your arrogance.

[-] 2 points by unlabeled (112) 7 years ago

lol, read more philosophy buddy.

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 7 years ago

Understand more philosophy.

[-] 0 points by OWSisawaste (133) 7 years ago

OWS is creating problems and trying to upset a country founded on capitalism. in every society there are classes no matter what kind of society it is, communist, capitalist, fascist, whatever. There will always be a high, middle, and low class, you cannot change that. There is no way for a country to work the way it should with everyone on the same playing field. it just is not possible. so to all you OWS people out there, your cause might be just in your mind and sound good on paper but in the real world, it is not possible. You are just creating a stage on which you make noise and yell at the government that allows you to protest and try to destroy the country that gave you the rights to try and destroy it. be thankful you live in a country as good as this one, or go to Somalia or Iraq or North Korea and try to protest there about big business and see how it goes.....

[-] 0 points by tsizzle (73) from De Pere, WI 7 years ago

the fact remains this website is encouraging this anarchist behavior...anytime you go to this site, something about violent uprisings in Oakland is first and foremost...even the left media is beginning to bail

[-] 0 points by Redmist (212) from Yazd, Yazd 7 years ago

It is common knowledge, the best place for an anarchist is in a grave.

[-] 0 points by RiotBurner (0) 7 years ago

More fire is needed fucker - this is who we are - do not deny it

BURN in hell capitalists - long live OWS !

[-] -1 points by stevo (314) 7 years ago

However, the union thug members would like to whole hardedly say THANK YOU. We love a good riot. It's our DNA

[-] -1 points by TheREAL99 (120) 7 years ago

"general douchebaggery does nothing" - I disagree.

I think "general douchebaggery" fully expresses what OWS, & Marxism in general, is all about. The more media attention, the better.

[-] -1 points by nativepeople (12) 7 years ago

we all have our way of doing things and unless you've been to oakland then how can you judge

[-] 2 points by BreadLandPeace (359) 7 years ago

because we have the examples of over a century of working class struggles.

[-] -2 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 7 years ago

90% of those violent demonstrators were undercover COPS, infiltrators known as "AGENTS PROVOCATEURS".

[-] 3 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 7 years ago

Not necessarily. It doesn't do us any good to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that there's not a small minority of angry, fucked-up people looking for an excuse to riot.

[-] 1 points by BreadLandPeace (359) 7 years ago

Even well-intentioned protesters (which I don't think for a moment these were) can have completely wrong ideas, which I've mentioned earlier, as described in Lenin's pamphlet, which I'm still reading, "Ultraleftism: An Infantile Disorder."

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 7 years ago

Let's not be naive.... Would you perhaps trust the testimony of a former Italian President, Francesco Cossiga?

"TheGiops" just posted this about "agents provocateurs":

"It's an old strategy. Used last in Rome, on October 15th, where police infiltrated the demonstrators and turned the whole thing violent. Bad bad bad. And, when I think that the strategy is explained in detail by a fromer Italian President, it makes me feel sick."


[-] 1 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 7 years ago

In the end it makes no difference. We need a single tactic to deal with them, be they intelligence agents or manchildren with authority issues.

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 7 years ago

Well, OWS certainly must DISTANCE itself from ANY individual or group advocating violence, as they could easily end up doing great harm to OWS's image and credibility.

BTW, did you read the flyer put out by the "Oakland Liberation Front"? It's all over the Internet and well worth checking out, even though it's a piece of worthless TRASH. Sounds just like something cooked up by a bunch of semi-literate infiltrators ...:)

[-] 1 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 7 years ago

Yes, I've seen it. Sadly, there are actually non-infiltrator people who think that way.

A handful of them was all it took to give protest movements a bad name in the early 70s.

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 7 years ago

Respectfully, I think you may be missing some information.

It's quite true that you will find unwise, even unstable characters in ANY group.... even in a Sunday school gathering. :)

But in the early 70s, we have documented evidence that "agents provocateurs" were in fact HEAVILY involved.

As "BreadLandPeace" wrote yesterday on another post:

"This is exactly what happened 40 years ago in the socialist revolutionary and antiwar movements, attempts to turn the movement violent. These extremists were often FBI and police agents who wanted to destroy the movement. That's why the group I was in continued to fight for for legal, peaceful mobilizations against the war in Vietnam, because millions could join a peaceful movement but wouldn't risk arrest or getting caught in violent confrontations. It was those mass mobilizations along with the heroic Vietnamese struggle that finally ended the war. A successful lawsuit against COINTELPRO, a government covert program against the left and anyone who made a so much as a peep against inequality,forced the government to end lot of the infiltrations, which had gone on for DECADES, although not all. Although some genuine activists then and now, who support the cause of working people, don't understand why we have to involve the majority, the 99%, by calling for violence they'll only succeed in isolating the movement. Also, they'll confuse people about the real cause of violence in our society. Violence is evicting people from their homes; dumping them from their jobs; stealing education and hospital funds through budget cuts; no safe, affordable childcare and eldercare, and all the other inequities we are protesting."

[-] 1 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 7 years ago

Not denying the existence of infiltrators or the need to deal with them. I'm actually on the paranoid end of things.

Infiltrators exist and irresponsible jerkoffs exist. Both will bring us harm.

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 7 years ago


[-] 1 points by Redmist (212) from Yazd, Yazd 7 years ago

TIOUAISE you paranoid fucking fool, use your brain. You have videos and photos, you have the chance to intervene and check their wallet for ID. In this case it is YOU that actually have the power to stop them and kick their asses out of OWS.

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 7 years ago

Either I am a "paranoid fucking fool" as you so quaintly put it, "Redmist", or you are EXTREMELY NAIVE. Would you perhaps trust the testimony of a former Italian President, Francesco Cossiga?

"TheGiops" just posted this about "agents provocateurs":

"It's an old strategy. Used last in Rome, on October 15th, where police infiltrated the demonstrators and turned the whole thing violent. Bad bad bad. And, when I think that the strategy is explained in detail by a fromer Italian President, it makes me feel sick."


[-] 1 points by jay1975 (428) 7 years ago

Tiouaise, you spam every thread with you paranoia about these mythical "agents provocateurs". Why were there none with the TEA Party protests? They certainly were not friendly to the current administration? Oh, I know why, because the lefty protests almost always turn violent, but then they blame everyone else for the inherent irrationality.

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 7 years ago

Either I am "paranoid" as you say, "jay1975", or you are EXTREMELY NAIVE. Would you trusut the testimony of a former Italian President, Francesco Cossiga?

"TheGiops" just posted this about "agents provocateurs":

"It's an old strategy. Used last in Rome, on October 15th, where police infiltrated the demonstrators and turned the whole thing violent. Bad bad bad. And, when I think that the strategy is explained in detail by a fromer Italian President, it makes me feel sick."


[-] -1 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 7 years ago

Then you know NOTHING of the history of these movements. Perhaps you might like to read up on COINTELPRO.

[-] 1 points by BreadLandPeace (359) 7 years ago

Or, look at it this way, even if the 1% didn't already have some violent protestors to send into the crowds, it would certainly be in their interests to create some, in order to discredit the movement. I agree with your citing the government's COINTELPRO program (Counter Intelligence Program), I was in the group that successfully sued in the 1970's to end it. But at this time we don't have access to updated information about current attempts by the government and others to destroy the movement.

[-] -3 points by technoviking (484) 7 years ago

instead of respecting their effort to move occupy forward you trash them.

how nice

[-] 2 points by tunafish (3) from Harrisburg, PA 7 years ago

It's a matter of public perception. It doesn't matter two shits what I say about it or what any one media outlet reports the scene as. It's a matter of the publics' generalized perception. ANY media outlet looks for sensationalism to feed the peoples lizard brains. There is, and will be, every news outlet going from showing pictures of cops cracking a marines head open to people setting their own city ablaze, regardless of anything else that has happend. The media and the public are now gaurenteed to not pay attention that the port was shut down or why or notice the stop of commerce. Now it's lizard brains focus is raging away with: "FIRE! VIOLENCE! FEED ME MOAR!" Rather than noticing 10k people shutting down a port. It doesn't matter if the headline says "Occupy oakland commies riot and rape buildings" or "Occupy oakland freedom fighters liberate port" The image is going to be of fire and violence. The average brain loses any connection and is no longer going to self-identify with the protestors. And if anyone thinks that the general perception to the average schmuck doesn't matter or doesn't affect the strength and potential of the movement then they must be trolling.

[-] 1 points by BreadLandPeace (359) 7 years ago

"Lizard brains" reflects the contempt of the ruling class for the 99%, the working classes, which you've absorbed. We have to not only oppose the actions of the 1%, we also have to counter the poison of class society in all its forms, including ideology.

[-] 2 points by laffingrass (362) from Normal, IL 7 years ago

They moved it backwards actually. Guess what the media reports: violence.

[-] -3 points by technoviking (484) 7 years ago

nothing else is working.

[-] 1 points by KenO (9) 7 years ago

false. who are you anyway and how have you participated in OWS beyond a web forum?

Occupy IS working. It's awakening others. and then people like you screw it up.

Are you an Earth First tree nailer, cornrow burning hooligan, right wingnut or a plant?

your profile includes zero information, just that you joined this website 10/16/11. Hm...

[-] 1 points by technoviking (484) 7 years ago

been around longer than you buddy

[-] 1 points by KenO (9) 7 years ago

so arrogant. and so your list of violent success stories would not only include vietnam's independence and the french revolution but also...

mao's killing of millions of chinese stalin's killing of millions of russians hitler's killing of millions of jews/gypsies/gays/others us's killing of millions of vietnamese/japanese/germans/central americans/arabs

(okay those are govt sponsored, how about these big fails?)

weathermen sds red army aum shinrikyo

these smaller "anarchist" type pro-violence groups achieved... nothing.

so you've been around since before vietnam eh? doubt it.