heterochromatic—One of the major reasons Mr. O did not continue to go along with gutting Social Security was the appearance and sudden notoriety of Occupy Wall Street.  No doubt the consiglieri of the Democratic Party shook their heads and let their masters know that things had gone far enough for the moment.  After all, it’s an election year.  It will be succeeded by a year in which there is no election, and more can be done.

Mr. O does not strike me as weak.  He strikes me as someone who knows exactly what he’s doing and how to do it, at least in a tactical sense.  However, this tactical expertise exists in the overall framework of an incompetent ruling class and the enormous tab it has run up, so it may turn out to be ineffective anyway.

Ana—-Social Security ain’t getting gutted on the O watch. he ain’t all that much of
a president but he’s not quite as hapless a pol as being portrayed.

absolutely loved the comment though

Ozark Michael—I may have been giving you bad advice.  I would not keep reading a blog or web site unless I got something I wanted out of it.

Anarchists and other activists have been arguing about violence, force, etc., for several aeons now.  It’s nice to see Truthdig’s proggies getting involved, but I think it might take them awhile to get caught up.  But it is a good question.  How do we deal with the entrenched violence of the state and the mob?  The answer is not obvious.  Mark E. Smith wrote some nice anarchist comments on this subject in the other Occupy-is-going-bad or ‘Cancer’ discussion that one might ponder usefully.

I think a lot of proggies—social democrat types, more or less—were attracted to Occupy Wall Street because they themselves no longer have any effective political institutions.  Their former hero, Mr. O, took their Ark of the Covenant, Social Security, and put in on the block for sale to the Evil Ones.  So a few hundred radicals, doing their usual thing, instead of being ignored in the usual manner, suddenly attracted thousands of interested proggie adherents—someone was speaking up, even if they were only dirty hippie communists.  Now we have a sort of political tarball rolling along gathering ever more disparate persons, things, ideas.  God knows what’s going to happen.  Maybe nothing, but I wouldn’t bet on it.  I don’t think the political system can leave half to two-thirds of the people functionally unrepresented without becoming pretty unstable.

addendum:

It isnt so much that Hedges is an authority on this subject. Goodness no! What matters here is the reaction of the Occupy supporters. That reaction is a mirror to the soul of Occupy, assuming we can extrapolate the Truthdig reaction towards a rough representation of the Left in the United States. What percentage of posters will admit the problem and how do they want to work it out? What percentage will embrace the problem as if it were the solution? What percentage will blame the whole thing as a provocation bought and paid for by conservatives? and what is their solution to the problem?

Reading and tallying the posts gives me a rough idea of how the Left sees itself, and from that I extrapolate what direction Occupy is likely to go. I know it isnt scientific. I also know my polling method is imperfect but the questions do concern you, Anarcissie.

Maybe you feel threatened by the process? Or maybe you think discussing the problem is disloyalty to Occupy?

Anarcissie,

Once you advised me to aim for some longevity in my involvement in this place called Truthdig. I am not saying that you were right, because I feel that if people cross certain lines we need to withdraw from them.

Hmm, i am having a hard time spitting out what i want to say.

I want you to know that you are not the kind of person that i need to withdraw from. You do me some good. I also think that I might come close to doing you some good. I am trying to say that i hope i dont end up on the same list as Hedges.

However, it is important to see what is going on. I have read the awful things Hedges said about me in the past, so I will also read the awful things he says about you.

I will not summarize what is going on over there at this time or on this thread if you dont want to know.

Ozark Michael—As you may recall, a few weeks ago Hedges was making the Occupy folks out to be the Body of Christ, or something like that, with fairly hysterical rhetoric.  Now he’s discovered that some self-styled anarchists are Not Nice.  Time for more hysteria, only this time the spit is blowing the other way!  This is why I don’t bother with Hedges much any more, and why using his works or his person as proof of one thing or another is a rather dubious move.

But don’t let me be a party-pooper.  Carry on.

I just logged in to read the Hedges article this week, which coincidently is about the confrontation with Occupy.

Two articles at once about a problem that heretofor was routinely dismissed and ignored? I was called a fascist and a 1% just for pointing out the problem a month ago(and two months ago… and three months ago). 

Two articles about a problem that very few Occupiers even acknowledge? about a problem that has been ignored by blaming it on agents provocateur?

The 99% dont yet know or believe there is a problem within Occupy, and now out of nowhere we have two articles about a terrible problem? Hedges is going so far as to call the anarchists a Cancer. Strong stuff.

Where the hell is this coming from? Not the common 99% folks, thats for sure. They think all is cool and the problem is very small.

So it looks like the ‘leaderless’ Occupy movement has someone pretty high up who decided to jettison the anarchists and is coordinating an offensive against their former anarchist allies.

Whoever it is, they are playing for keeps. The attack dog Hedges isnt reflecting or inviting reflection about the problem, instead he is firing live ammo(figuratively speaking), and I wonder how the Truthdiggers will react to that.

I will read all the comments and tally them up.

Truthdig:  For the love of all that’s wholly, please publish an article on “The Confrontation of Confrontation.”  It will plumb the depths of online blogging, from A to B, and include all the “dirty”
insults you can dig out of these sadly crippled vocabularies here, and hurled with such satisfying venom from one empty cyberspace to the next.

Ozarkitekt: I “got it from somewhere.”  You see, there’s this huge dark forest in the back of my mind, full of trolls and genie and antiquities and riff-raff who dictate to me night and day.  I can hardly get any sleep anymore. It’s a disease called Scents of L’Humour, from the French meaning “to die laughing.” It comes in two typological forms:  type A:  pernicious, incurable,  and type B:  over-the-top, silly, non-referential and harmless. One night it’s Type A; the next, Type B. And there’s a rumor going around that a new strain has crept into the human gene pool which “flies in the night, in the wind and rain.” If it ever lands long enough to get it under a microscope, it will be called—but you know already, don’t you?

Maani—the tactic isn’t the essence of the movement.  it’s a decent tactic…up to a
point and it’s a mistake to get caught up with defending the camps rather than
staying on the offensive in publicizing the outrageous concentration of wealth and
power

hetero:

I’m not a lawyer, I just play one on TV.  LOL.  (Actually, I did spend about 14 years in the legal profession.)

Also, on the one hand, you argue against the occupation of “private” property.  Yet you argued equally vehemently when the idea of occupying public property was brought up.  Sorry, Charlie, but you can’t have it both ways.  Unless you are simply against “occupation” of any type - which would make others correct that you claim to support an “occupy” movement, but fail to support the very essence of that movement.

IMax:

Zuccotti Park is NOT a “private” park; it is a public-private partnership: it is under the jurisdiction of the NYC Parks Department, but there is a “management agreement” with the building.  (Like Damrosch Park in Lincoln Center.)

Re Trinity Church, they provided more to the OWS occupiers than any other organization.  They thus felt “betrayed” when OWS “demanded” that they allow the occupation of Duarte Park.  HOWEVER, it is worth noting that Trinity did not exactly fight very hard when OWS did, in fact, “jump the fence” at Duarte; no charges were filed, and the Church barely made a formal complaint.

Peace.

gerard, that was a very creative post. I liked it. Did you get it from somewhere or did you make it up?

hetero:  Frequently, wit and fantasy seem to cause ideologues to strike out because habituated thought patterns are short-circuited.

gerard—-should some crazy horny piece of filth decides to your butt a while
because he doesn’t believe it’s private property, maybe you’ll wish for somebody
with a club to defend what is your own.

Somewhere, way back in history, a guy made a big club by using a sharp stone to chew it out of a tree branch. One day he decided that his neighbors and relatives were all “lazy” and didn’t deserve food, clothing and shelter because they hadn’t “earned” it by making clubs like his club.Consequently, he began using his big club to beat up on some of his family members and neighbors.
  After they “came to” he said:  “Folks, it’s time for regime change here! From now on, I own you because I own this club. I will show you how to make a club if—and only if—you will help me make more clubs.
  Things went on for a time with more and more people acquiring bigger and bigger clubs and hitting other people over the head.
  Gradually it became the rule that those who had the most big clubs got too much to eat and their wives and kids got fat. The rest were constantly fighting the clubbers and each other with their bare hands. They were just barely surviving.
  At last one day, those who had clubs that were too small and those who had no clubs, got together and formed an organization to “occupy” the clubbers. 
  As a result, a great confusion arose as to who really “deserved” to own everything while most of them owned nothing, and what “occupy” really meant, and who “deserved” to occupy places called “public” that were being “protected"by people with clubs from people who had no clubs.
  The people who owned clubs then passed some new laws saying that everything was private property and could only be occupied by non-owners if they bought it, or if clubbers allowed them to use it.  It became illegal for clubless people to make their own clubs, grow their own food or think their own thoughts.
  As a result, the clubbers got even richer, and the clubless got poorer and sicker.  Next they began fighting among themselves, and ... so ... finally (after years and years) some punk kid saw what was happening, stood up and yelled: “Your problem is the idea of private property! Give it a rest!”
  “Oh, my God!  That’s Socialism!” cried the clubbers.  The kid was tried as an adult and sent to that island off Manhattan that begins with an R for 99 years.
  The following year an election was held, and through some fluke in the voting machines, the Socialist Party won by a landslide.

Reflection.

It is that process which allows us to correct ourselves, and align our thoughts and actions with the truth that we believe in. Without reflection a human being cannot be truthful, no matter how rightious their cause and how correct their belief. Reflection never destroys the truth, it actually strengthens the truth, insures it, brings it forward. Is reflection painful? Yes, it can be, but the gains are worth it.

The article title “For OWS A Confrontation Within the Confrontation” really means…

“For OWS, a Moment of Reflection”

At this moment, there are many who resist reflection because they are stout supporters of OWS, but we must consider that resisting reflection means enabling the problems within OWS.

The anarchists who enabled the Bolsheviks eventually suffered a terrible fate. Perhaps at first they merely resisted reflection about little things, little problems, little x’s. Later they resisted reflection about worse things. Its a bad habit, a dangerous habit. History matters.

I was surprised to see this article on Truthdig, where reflection is usually a rare thing. I was also surprised to see some of the posters here engaging with the reflection.

genius sez—- “Occupy Wall Street did not appropriate any properties in New
York. They held a hunger strike in Duarte Square in front of Trinity Church
while Trinity continued to allow members to use the meeting hall, computers
and rest room facilities.”——

some of them really tried to screw their friend the Trinity Church, and DID try to
occupy Trinity’s property…..

it was rather well-known and well-publicized here in NYC.

You and IMax have succeeded in letting each other reduce your arguments into
featuring their weakest elements and most tenuous grasp of fact.

By the way, Bob.  You see that no one else here wants to confront the issue of OWS and its supporters taking control of other’s property for their own gains.  It’s as if the issue is not discussed it doesn’t exist.

Just another “troll”, “agent prevaricator”, or “paid disinformation officer” - or some such hyper-imaginative explanation.

“please feel free to continue to paint the 150+ Occupy groups with your single brush.”

-

Now you’re lashing out like a petulant child, Bob. 

You still believe these Occupy demonstrations to be leaderless.  You appear to be completely unaware of the concerted efforts of these demonstrations.  I find that to be frightening.

So, buildings and property have been appropriated by OWS supporters after-all.  Good to see you opening your eyes a bit wider.  Also, just so you are aware, those are but two examples of several dozen across the country.  So, now, back the question you’re having such a difficult time coming to grips with: 

What, precisely, gives Occupy the right to take control of private structures and property?  I thought I knew and understood the U.S. Constitution.

-

Please, no more silly and unsupported narratives of “escape routes” and “hunger strikes” before you understand what you’re talking about.  Confront the issue head-on.

OzarkMichael, February 5 at 3:30 pm:

‘Yes, one ought to take account of Occupy as a whole, but unfortunately that includes the problems it has.

I will use Anarcissie’s illustration. Are you making a clear eyed and valid evaluation of X if you discount all the x’s running around by calling them agents provocateurs? Can you evaluate the events that X generates if you simply discard the bad events? One cannot ignore so many facts and call that a serious search for truth and reason. ...

Obviously, if you want to judge OWS as a whole, you must take all of it into consideration.  iMax and the some of the media provide us with stories about numerous bad actors and actions—the numerator, one might say—but they don’t tell us what the denominator is.  Suppose 100 OWS participants are verifiably identified with crimes; if the total number of participants is 100,000, then the crime rate of OWS is less than that of most ordinary random collections of people.

I am surprised I have to point this out, but I am aware that missing denominators prevail not only among propagandizing thugs, but widely in the media and in popular discourse as well.   

Maani, February 5 at 5:53 pm:

‘If IMax and hetero are “trolls” of some sort, and it was suggested that I refrain from engaging them, why is everyone else doing so? ...’

I guess they like it.  And I’m not necessarily suggesting that you refrain from engaging anyone, just that, before you get too excited, you take into consideration that the other party may be playing you, or performing a routine job for pay.  Anyway, ‘everyone else’ is not playing with the trolls.

gerard, February 5 at 8:37 pm:

‘Interesting concept—the idea of “mine.”  That is,
what, exactly do I own, what do you own, what does a third party own. ...’

Property is an agreement, usually a broad social convention, between persons about which things which persons can control and manipulate, and how.  If you look into anthropology, you’ll find property varies widely across cultures, geography, and history.  It is almost always associated with force or the threat of force; it is that whose possession may be defended forcefully.  When the state appears, it takes over the function of defining and enforcing property, presumably according to the desires and interests of its ruling class.  In the modern world, the elaboration of the idea of property is highly structured, many-layered and dimensioned, and profoundly complex; people spend their whole working lives studying it.  New kinds of property are being invented even as we speak.

A particular kind of property which is presently being used as a powerful instrument of political and social control, and which the Occupy movements have directly engaged, is real estate, by which I mean not only buildings and lots, but streets and public spaces as well.  This is not new, however.  The concept of private property in real estate was a bastion of Segregation in the pre-Civil Rights South, and the Greensboro sit-in (for example) was an ‘occupation’ which successfully contested it.   

There are some people who think that there is a ‘Natural Law’ which defines some concept of property inherent in the physical universe, or given by the gods, but that approach is a bit religious for my taste and doesn’t seem to correspond with the variety we find.

New York New School occupied by students “inspired by OWS”:
http://nsfreepress.com/node/2314

Cathedral Hill Hotel, “some activists” occupy empty hotel building:
http://tinyurl.com/7c68pb7

Agendas differ, obviously, but please feel free to continue to paint
the 150+ Occupy groups with your single brush.

“Occupy Wall Street did not appropriate any properties in New York. They held a hunger strike in Duarte Square in front of Trinity Church while Trinity continued to allow members to use the meeting hall, computers and rest room facilities.”

“The hotel in San Francisco was used as an escape route by some few persons from an Occupy march that had been proceeding peacefully until they encountered armed and armoured police, at which point there was some mayhem.”

“This is certainly not appropriation by any stretch of the imagination.’

-

You are clueless, Bob.

OWS did break into and enter a new school building on Fifth Ave..  OWS claimed the building was intended as an “Aid Center”.  The plan, according to OWS, was to seize several buildings in the New York metropolitan area.

OccupyWest did break into and enter the Cathedral Hill Hotel.  OccupyWest did attempt to set up a “Food Center” in the hotel.  OccupyWest did report on the events in real-time and, OccupyWest did call on all supporters to show up and support the tactic.  Calling the ‘Occupation’ a “Housewarming Party” OccupyWest pleaded with supporters to “Come prepared!”

Escape routes and hunger strikes.  Where do you get this crap?  Trolling around for excuses and distractions?

Know your facts before you write.

You may be interested in Chris Hedges comments on direct action groups and how they
actually fit in (or don’t) with the Occupy movement, which have just hit the front page.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_cancer_of_occupy_20120206/?ln

You are rapidly approaching troll status in your refusal to admit of the actual facts, while persisting in this tedious fascination with imaginary ‘takings.’ Your anal retentiveness is showing but I will address your concerns one final time.

Occupy Wall Street did not appropriate any properties in New York. They held a hunger strike in Duarte Square in front of Trinity Church while Trinity continued to allow members to use the meeting hall, computers and rest room facilities.

The hotel in San Francisco was used as an escape route by some few persons from an Occupy march that had been proceeding peacefully until they encountered armed and armoured police, at which point there was some mayhem.

This is certainly not appropriation by any stretch of the imagination.

I remain unaware of OWS’ moral position on private property issues, as that has not been a concern, although I do know that arguments were advanced by OWS that Trinity should be considered a sanctuary. The rector disagreed and did not allow OWS on the property, other than as noted. If, however, push comes to shove, an occupation of so-called private property would not bother *me* in the least, other than it is outside of the stated range of approved tactics of Occupy groups of which I am aware. 

Namaste.

“In any event, I don’t speak for New York or Oakland. I speak for myself’

-

And there you have it, hetero.  This individual will defend all things ‘Occupy’ until I ask about the group taking control of other people’s property.  This individual understand all too well how hard it is to defend such tactics.  Particularly in the United States.

Sifting past the endless bluster and sanctimony we see a complete cop-out on the issue of how or why Occupy ‘appropriates’ other’s property for it’s own use.  Our first answer was predictable. ‘Hey, don’t look at me. I’m not a part of that.  Our second answer, while less predictable, is equally telling.  ‘Oh well.  ‘Property is a crime’. 

Thank you, Ghost.  You’re dismissed.

Property is theft. Property is violence. Private property is a product of state violence,
backed by lethal force, which is immoral.

In any event, I don’t speak for New York or Oakland. I speak for myself as a Los
Angeleno. I haven’t a clue what New York thinks the status of property is; you’ll have to
ask them.

I note the use of violence by certain people who fancy themselves direct action types as
a fact of life. I make no judgement about its moral status but pass on this tidbit: Mark
Rudd has already pointed out the futility of violence against potentially lethal state
action as the primary reason that the social movements of 1967 through the early 70s
failed as popular mass uprisings.

Namaste.

Ghost,

It’s difficult not to take note of your belief in this fight to the death using soldiers in engaged in an occupation.

You revel in violence, yes?  Exciting and sexy, is it?

Ghost, - “What private property?’

-

The private property in New York which I wrote of below.  Or the Cathedral Hill Hotel in San Francisco, for example.

What private property? (Not that I personally think there is such a
thing beyond one’s personal shelter, assuming you can crowbar a clear
title from your friendly bankster.) As the plot twists work themselves
out, one must expect some shifting of the foreground.

To correct the distortions of the media, I will say that the YMCA was
an escape route from the marauding police, as eyewitness report. As
for the convention center, that’s under the administration of the
county and hence public property. Unused at the moment. Damage to city
hall? laughable, about a hundred bucks worth and some puzzled city
employees. Shit happens. In any event, it pales in consideration of
the pain inflicted by the police (under the direct supervision of the
good mayor of Oakland), not to mention the near death of a
demonstrator, or (taking a slightly longer view) in the larger course
of the revolution. Oh well.

But this is not where your angst comes from. You object to people not
being polite, not being neat, not having proper obescience to
propriety and authority, not having a PERMIT. You want a nice letter
writing campaign, or perhaps a march on Washington, or a clean
election for an honest politician. I say good luck with any of that.

I’m sixty five years old and have seen and done stuff that would cause
you to heave on the spot. Your arguments are wasted on me and your
regurgitation of corporate media reports are laughable. To me this is
nothing and it’s barely begun. Wait till the cops bring out the big
guns, which they will.

In any event, this is a fight to the death, in case you haven’t
noticed. I’ll probably be long gone before this work is finished,
although I suspect that it never will really end conclusively, and
life has a nasty habit of playing tricks on everyone.

In closing, I note that history really is on the side of the people,
and it’s taking about as long as everyone expected.

Namaste.

Ghost,

The point in my sharing the CNN report is in displaying, yet again, the violence surrounding these ‘Occupations’,  Violence on the part of protesters and violence on the part of local police.

Address the issue head-on.  What, precisely, gives Occupy the right to take control of private structures and property?

Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley has decided to charge
just 12 of the 409 people arrested during an Occupy Oakland protest
last Saturday, her office announced Tuesday…None of the four facing
felony charges is from Oakland, according to information provided by
the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office.
Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/15umt)

As for IMax’s CNN report, I do get a laugh anytime I read that police
“responded” with tear gas, etc. Of course, police never ever shoot
first, even in Oakland, everybody knows that.

The organization styling itself “Occupy Oakland Tactical Action
Committee” is nowhere mentioned on Occupy Oakland’s website news nor in
its committee list: http://occupyoakland.org/getinvolved/

CNN, of course, never ever gets its facts wrong and is surely an unimpeachable source for information on all things Occupy.

Yes, Gerard, a mess indeed. Imagine the plight of poor IMax, who supports the “concept” of Occupy but does not support any actual occupations.

CNN February 5, 2012—Updated 1121 GMT (1921 HKT)

An Occupy Oakland group called for “militant action” against authorities after last week’s violence where protesters threw bottles and tossed pipes at police, who responded with tear gas, smoke grenades and bean bag bullets.

Authorities arrested more than 400 people in that incident.

The Occupy Oakland Tactical Action Committee called last week’s police response “police repression” and vowed to conduct “militant action.”

“If you identify as peaceful and are likely to interfere with the actions of your fellow protesters in any way (including telling them to stop performing a particular action, grappling, assaulting or holding them for arrest), you may not want to attend this march,” the committee warned in a statement on its website.

“It is a militant action. It attracts anti-capitalists, anti-fascists and other comrades of a revolutionary bent. It is not a march intended for people who are not fully comfortable with diversity of tactics.”

But Oakland Police Chief Howard Jordan warned the city would not tolerate a repeat and said officers would arrest anyone “who engages in criminal activity or assaults against officers or community members.”

“This type of destructive and aggressive behavior is not welcome in our city,” Jordan said.

Interesting concept—the idea of “mine.”  That is,
what, exactly do I own, what do you own, what does a third party own. Confusion prevails:
  This is MY life:  I own it because I was born.
  Does it go beyond that?  If so, how far?  If not, why not?
  Even though I “own” it, I could not maintain it without constant help from others, who also “own” their lives, with the qualification that they also must have help from others to maintain it.
  Presumably, I own my thoughts, my ideas, and the actions that spring from that.  But ... I got my ideas entirely from others, who got their ideas from others—so I am dependent on others even for my ideas and thoughts and the actions that spring from them.
  My house?  I own it if I have paid for it completely. Paid for?  How much? All? Some? Too much? Not enough? Those who have not paid “enough” do not own their house, even though they think they do—as we are sadly learning in millions of cases.  The bank owns “my house”? And now many others?
  My food?  If I can pay for it.  Otherwise I can go hungry for all you care?  But that’s cruel, isn’t it?
Well, yes and no.  Yes, if you care about me. No if you don’t. But is that moral?  Right? Legal? Or is it a figment of somebody else’s imagination, merely accepted because of habit or custom?
  I am starving and you have more than you need. Must you give some to me?  Or should you keep it for your future need.  Who, then, owns “my” future?
  What on earth can we conclude from such fuzzy ideas as “ownership”?  How seriously should we really take it?  What if everybody owned everything?
What if nobody owned anything? 
  We fought a long and brutal war to try to prove that nobody can own anybody else, yet ... if I “kill” (abort) “my” baby, it is a crime.  WEll, yes, if it is more than so and so many weeks, days, hours old, but not otherwise? And if I kill my wife for adultery, the sentence is less than if I kill my brother in Pocunk, but nothing if I kill 100 of somebody else’s brothers and sisters in Afghanistan?
  “Take all that thou hast and give to the poor.” All? Some? How much? How little?
  Zucotti Park is owned privately but it’s also owned by the public? Occupy can/can’t be there longer than ??? days or the police (who also “own”  part of it in some sense as “public”) will come in the middle of the night and evict them and destroy their property—that is, property the police do not “own” but Occupier do “own.”  ?????
  Oh, what a tangled web these spiders weave!

Yes, Eli…

It was in the beginning of the NFL season that my son, who had moved to DC
(become a Reskins fan!) and thought that being a semi-important young lefty
Journolista made his opinions on football worth a lot, told me that the Giants had
a pretty good defense but would never win anything until they got a new QB.

Eli!

Shit Max, don’t you freaking WANT them to avoid trying to defend stupidity???????

C’mon…....

Being in NYC and being a fan of the Giants, I’m in a rare good mood.

Help me out here.

hetero,

My questions regarding private property are directed toward boosters of Occupy as a whole.  Questions regarding Occupy’s attempts to take control of other’s private property is a pivotal issue.

Watch how strenuously most here avoid the subject altogether.

Max, If the genius had advocating taking over private property it would be fair
to make him defend it, but I hadn’t noticed that he had, so i think it unfair.

If people want to assert that stuff about all private property being based on
theft and being fair game to seize, then yeah, i’ll argue against that but I’m not
going out of my way to do it.

Do you want ask him to defend protesters shitting in doorways or should we
concentrate on the areas where there’s some kind of reasonable argument on
both sides?

nope. i like OWS’s purpose. It’s the stupidity of taking an initially clever tactic
and clinging to it when it became a liability that I oppose and will continue to
oppose.

Having no generals, OWS got out-generalled and moved from an active protest
against the concentration of wealth and political power and moved into a
defense of increasingly squalid camps and an insistence that the camps where
beyod the law and the public.

It was and is and will be a loser.

You can’t win anything that way.

If the Civil Rights movement sat-in some southern lunch counter and then
threw out all the workers and the customers and slept there for a month with
cleaning up the joint, it would have been as stupid as this is and would have led
to nothing.

And please, spare me from having to define whether city parkland is public
property or not. It is and it always has been…..throughout the history of the
common law (and derives from the practices of the germanic tribes that settled
in England. )
I’ve not bothered with defining Zuccotti Park as private because it’s a hybrid and
I’m most comfortable discussing it as public..
The point remains that there’s no right to take over public land so anything less
than public isn’t worth disputing.

When spring rolls around, I expect that OWS will learn from this failure and
recognize that there’s a hell of a lot of parkland in NYC and will use it to
assemble, protest and then re-assemble somewhere else the next day while
setting up a few small rallying points and better using electronic
communication

hetero,

You spoke out at the time about the Occupation of the building near Wall Street.  You spoke about about the taking of Trinity Church and it’s properties.

Nothing gives you the right to question my good faith.  That plays the same game you are here arguing against.

The “main issue” of this post is whether or not
direct action should be allowed by the various Occupy
movements. Against this is the position by some that
direct action should be tolerated, and then the
question arises of how does one stop bad actors? Is
it even possible? I say, kick the direct-action
anarchists out by whatever means necessary and good
riddance.

A second but very related point is your definition of
whether or not Occupy is a legal movement, given that
its whole thrust is to occupy public spaces until
their grievances are addressed.

You have provided no argument that satisfies what is
or is not a public space and who defines it so (As a
matter of fact, Zucotti Park is a dubiously defined
quasi-private space originally donated to the city
under stipulation that it be maintained as a *public
space* as compensation for the encroachment of the
financial center’s construction).

OWS is devoted to the occupation - as an army
occupies enemy territory - by camping on said
property until they achieve redress of grievances.
This raises several legal points, none of which you
have addressed, and can’t given your lack of
definition as to what constitutes a public space, or
truly just, lawful conduct, for that matter.

You just don’t like OWS’ tactics or purpose.

Tough titty.

IMax, no.  that’s just not a good faith effort to try to make people defend what
they’re not advocating. I’m not with that.

hetero,

I understand you are more concerned with public spaces.  But you cannot insist private property is not very much a part of the ‘Occupy’ tactic.  There is nothing shifty in discussing an obvious issue.

IMax, the taking of private property isn’t really the issue and trying to make the
genius defend that rather than discuss the tking of public property is simply being
as shifty as the genius’ crap.

he’s wrong about public property and let him fail on the main issue.

Manni,

It’s been my observation over the years that argumentative people are
obtuse by habit, but may otherwise be of good will. My brother is a
case in point.

Being half-deaf, he misses the gist of most arguments and gets
resentful when you repeat yourself, to the point that he generally now
refuses all input whatsoever and makes up his mind based on little to
no evidence. This, of course, leads him into error of all sorts. His
obtuseness has become an ingrained habit, and there’s nothing for it.

On the flip side, he’s also a born troll, and has from time to time
trapped me into hair-rending attempts to break through to him.

Regardless, I remain an inveterate optimist. Make of that what you
will

ghost,

You leave out some of the most important and telling aspects of what it is you’re actually supporting.  Is it intentional?

Aside from Zuccotti Park being private property, not public, OccupyWallStreet supported and condoned the “Occupation” of an entire 3-4 story vacant building for the good of the cause.  No one, for any reason, has that right imbued on them by the U.S. Constitution.  There is no right to free assembly on another’s property aginst their will.  It’s wrong when government and special interests do the same.  In doing so Occupy loses its moral authority and any claim to speak for the 99%.  The 99%, quiet rightly, will call for your immediate arrest.  You too, I suspect, would do the same if Patton Boggs or the Koch Brothers were to “Occupy” your apartment or property.

Calling for the “Occupation” of an entire building and its property in New York is but a single example from many across the country. I would be glad to catalog a few more for those who will admit they are currently unaware or unable. 

-

Address the issue head-on.  No ‘intellectually superior’ gamesmanship.  No protestations of denial.  What, precisely, gives Occupy the right to take control of private structures and property in the United States? - I invite everyone to speak to this issue.

Maani where did you attend law school?

If IMax and hetero are “trolls” of some sort, and it was suggested that I refrain from engaging them, why is everyone else doing so?  Why not simply continue our conversation and ignore their posts?  It is so abundantly clear that they either “don’t get it” (both the Occupy movement and the Constitution) or are dliberately being obtuse or argumentative, that this is truly a case of the rest of us casting pearls before swine.  (And I hope our porcine friends will forgive me for comparing them to the likes of hetero and IMax…LOL).

Getting back on point, it is worth noting that, during Gandhi’s years of non-violent civil disobedience, some of those who claimed to follow him engaged in violent acts, including inciting law enforcement.  What was Gandhi’s response?  Not simply to disavow their actions, but, in many cases, to LENGTHEN his own fasting.

As for the ultimate point of the article, whenever a person engages in NVCD, even when they attempt to do so sub rosa (like taking the air out of patrol car tires), they always run the risk of being seen, or “documented” in some way.  This is the nature of NVCD.  In my opinion - as one who is trained in NVCD, has trained others, has engaged in many acts of NVCD, and has been arrested and jailed a number of times for it - if one is not prepared to be arrested and possibly jailed for one’s NVCD act (even if attempted sub rosa), then one should not be engaging in such acts.

Peace.

protest is allowed 24/7 on property that you own….....other than that, genius,
when the regular closing hours for the park comes around you take your rabbit
hole home for the night and return the next day.

try all you want, but that doesn’t change and take your piss bottle home with you
on the way out.

” ...there is no substitute for constant training and dedication, plus constant honest communication between protesters and “authorities” and “the public”

_

Honest communications between protesters and authorities. Very honest communications.

We are OccupyWallStreet.  We are here on private property (Zuccotti Park).  We are here to break established (establishment) law by creating, at the very least, an extreme public nuisance.  You must understand there will be calls for open defiance against you specifically.  We know this will cause a great many dangers for you and the public at large.

In short: After years of oppression by the few it is necessary to “Occupy” this and other spaces to the point of confrontation.  We all expect outbreaks of violence to come.  Good luck.

Protest is only allowed during business hours, 9-5 in Sectors G and D. All
protesters must be home and in bed by curfew.

Journalists are to stand behind the barriers in their assigned place. 

Violators of any of the above will be bludgeoned, water-cannoned, pepper-sprayed
and arrested. In no cases will anyone be read their rights unless requested ,
assuming they are not unconscious or dead.

aw hborseshit genius.  assembly and protest isn’t move into the park space and
keep it for your own personal space day after day.

take your rabbit hole home with you at the end of the day.

Let me see if I understand heterochromatic correctly.

Assume I go to a public park - bringing some signs with me - and hold those signs up. The signs are critical of the federal government, specifically, some piece of legislation - let’s say the Defense Appropriations Act of 2012 - and more particularly the passage where it says that people suspected of being in cahoots with terrorists can be detained by the military.

Now, leaving aside the actual Constitutional arguments for or against the DAA 2012, it would seem that I am on firm Constutional ground here in asserting my right to protest this proposed legislation. SCOTUS agrees with me on this, but heterochromatic holds that the city council can arbitrarily decree that I can only display these signs between certain hours but not sitting down or while standing under a tarp, and certainly no way, Jose if I’m joined by “selected others.”  This of course ignores the part of the Constitution that says “assemble,” which any fool can see means “joined with others,” self-selected or not.

Unless hetero means that only persons selected by the city council or the police chief or some other arbitrary unit gets to say who can join the protest. In case some member of the non-protesting public may be inconvenienced, they’ve found me a nice dry spot out of the public way over there behind that parking lot and behind the barbed wire where I can protest to my heart’s content.At that point, it’s all downhill and screw what the Constitution said because it didn’t really mean what it says it says, and furthermore, as soon as a selected group stands on public property that property is no longer public.

And down the rabbit hole we go.

====

IMax repeats anecdotes of urine and feces tossing. This kind of activity is frowned upon by OWS in general, but not always individually. At some point a bit of rigid discipline must be exhibited by OWS groups, but the fact of the matter is that the various groups do in fact differ about what to do about direct-action type anarchists in their midst, not to mention that the anarchists themselves (disregarding the police provocateurs) differ about tactics, whether they’ve read Buchanin or not.

As far as Gerard’s naivety about being able to access “the authorities,” I would point out that Occupy LA has open meetings every night of the week at City Hall and everyone is invited to show up and participate. Mayor Villagarosa not so much. I assume the same is true of most if not all other Occupy groups and their respective representatives.

However, Occupy isn’t trying to access the authorities. They’re occupying public spaces adjacent to FINANCIAL CENTERS to highlight the crimes of the f**king banksters. Government representatives are a separate issue at this point. Maybe later.

gerard——the authorities have NOT made themselves so hard to reach….. OWS
has no one authorized to speak for them and to maintain contact with the
authorities.

in general just about ANYONE who can demonstrate any backing can get some
time with “the authorities”, at least here in NYC.

Going just a bit farther with something I said previously about non-violent tactics:  ” ...there is no substitute for constant training and dedication, plus constant honest communication between protesters and “authorities” and “the public”.
  At this point the question needs to be asked:
  Why is it that “authorities” (and the 1%) make themselves so unavailable, impossible to reach, so pompous and intimidating that ordinary people cannot reach them even when they are desperately in need of help?  Tried telephoning your Congressperson recently? Or a Social Security Office? How come corpocrats bring their cocktails out on Wall Street balconies to sit and smirk and look down on protesters?
  Why do the media go to so much trouble to keep accurate information out of the news?  Why don’t they ally with “the public” and provide accurate information?  Why are “the public” just “sheeple” in common parlance?  How did they become so ignorant?  What is Wikileaks all about, anyway? 
  And in what ways does this deliberate remoteness of “authority” affect social change?  Make it harder? Easier? Why? Why are “community organizers” suddenly suspect?
  Looking at what we see already, if the people are too lazy to insist upon their right of free speech and assembly, what will happen next?

“and the right for the people to peacefully assemble to address the government with their grievances.”

-

YES, YES, Yes and yes.  The antithesis of closing entire intersections while thousands are simply trying to get to work, breaking into vacant buildings and appropriating other’s private property, throwing urine and feces at men and woman with guns, taking control of private and public spaces while generally denying (closing) the free movement and livelihoods of the 99%.  All things we know will draw immediate and forceful confrontations. Intentional “causes” creating violent responses.

OWS is all about Civil Rights and peaceful assembly?  What a MASSIVE rationalization that is.  There is nothing, whatsoever, impressive in that twisted sense of self-importance. 

Occupy your local School Board if you want to effect change for several generations.  No guns.  No pepper spray.  No petulant idiots rationalizing all the reasons why their particular cause (the cause of a minority) deserves special dispensation against knowingly inciting violence.

-

In these past few months I have become convinced that I am one of the few here who actually supports the original OWS message.  A message of holding corporations and government accountable to the 99%.  It’s the message that’s long since been lost by idiot children and their “revolutionary” boosters.

——“A public place is public property and belongs to ME and cannot by definition
be
“regulated” with curfews…”

no, jack, a public place belongs to the public and does not belong to YOU or to
any other small, self-selected group wishing to usurp it and deny it to the
public….fix your ignorant definition because elected representatives of the public
may most definitely regulate the usage of it in the public interest.

genius.

Yes, one ought to take account of Occupy as a whole, but unfortunately that includes the problems it has.

I will use Anarcissie’s illustration. Are you making a clear eyed and valid evaluation of X if you discount all the x’s running around by calling them agents provocateurs? Can you evaluate the events that X generates if you simply discard the bad events? One cannot ignore so many facts and call that a serious search for truth and reason.

Think of it this way: Occupy is perfectly designed to produce the results that we are seeing. If you want to understand what is happening you need to take into account everything that Occupy generates, including the unpleasant things.

Ignoring the unpleasant things is a very dangerous habit in a political movement. If it succeeds, how far are you willing to take that? How much more will you ignore? Historically, anarchists were willing to ignore an awful lot and then a day came when all the things they ignored turned upin them.

It is a bad habit to brush back critique as ‘hate speech’ and fault discussion for being dangerous because it “stirs up a lot of excited, hostile, aimless talk”.

You might consider the Occupy to be our only hope, and that its evils are much lesser than our current system. Thats ok. But dont ignore the lesser evils. That is one of the thing that makes me nervous about Occupy.

This article brings up a very important problem. Should the anarchists who are doing bad things be tolerated and protected by Occupy? To their credit, some of the Truthdiggers here try to answer the question, but you say they are being ‘trolled’.

I say: If Occupiers face it head on they might actually improve their movement.

@ heterochromatic

Allow me to make myself clear: I don’t give a crap what you think. You have
demonstrated in these pages time and again your ignorant sycophantic toadying to
the elite, their appointed politicians, their “laws” and sensibilities. 

The nation is under siege by the monied elites. Without going into the tedious
process of outlining their all-too-familiar methods and history - which is
Truthdig’s raison d’etre after all - I am here to counter your disinformation and
bullying. I am also here to give heart to those who feel, with me, that laws are
only legal when they are reasonable and conform to the Constitution, which says,
in part, that the rights of the people “shall not be infringed.”

There are no qualifiers to that directive, no hemming or hawing. It is a simple
declarative injunction to the governments - federal, state and municipal - that
NO LAW SHALL BE MADE that INFRINGES on my rights. Period.

A public place is public property and belongs to ME and cannot by definition be
“regulated” with curfews, this guy but not that guy, no sleeping, no standing, no
eating, no speaking, etc, ad nauseum, despite and regardless of your concern for
propriety. We are free persons and will go and speak where we will and what we
will.

Democracy is messy and too freaking bad. It’s that or totalitarianism.

Anarchissie:  Thank you.

great points, ghost…. since Occupy (and yourself) don’t agree with the laws of
the nation and/or the accepted meaning of the First Am,  then why feel any
obligation to accept the encumbrances.

Simply defy the laws because you’re morally superior .......

and pretend that you’ll succeed because the Civil Rights movement
succeeded…..

never mind that that movement had the approval of most of the nation and was
backed by the federal government…...you’ll do just as well without either of
those things.

one can’t help but think very highly of you, genius.

Addendum & correction:

Where I said “To the point Does Occupy utilize
technically illegal tactics, yes, but then Occupy
takes the position that the “technicalities” are
themselves illegal (under the Constitution) in re:
regulating public speech.”

add

“and the right for the people to peacefully assemble
to address the government with their grievances.”

Wow, what a bunch of pseudo-intellectual carping we have here today. (I make no pretense of thinking very highly of most of the lot of you.)

IMax is not a troll; he’s just confused. Observe: Sheer and Truthdig support Occupy Wall Street and its various iterations. IMax supports Occupy but rejects it’s tactics, viz., occupying public spaces as a means of pointing out their Constitutional right to occupy public spaces.

The tactic is the meaning; the medium is the message, as the man said. Occupy says “We can be here even when the Man says we can’t.” IMax rejects the means and thus rejects the message. Ipso facto, he’s confused about the Occupy movement and should refrain from saying he supports it when in fact he doesn’t.

To the point Does Occupy utilize technically illegal tactics, yes, but then Occupy takes the position that the “technicalities” are themselves illegal (under the Constitution) in re: regulating public speech.

They hold that the Constitution admits of NO regulation whatsoever, despite the popular misconception that the Supreme Court said some mumbo-jumbo about yelling “Fire” in crowded places - an observation which itself was overruled by SCOTUS itself later. But that injunction about what amounts to public trolling itself is subject to interpretation of what “free speech” means by any serious person.

IMax would have us believe that blocking the doorway is “violence” or close enough, thereby joining with those who hold that occupying coffee shop stools and refusing to move is also “violence,” thus conjoining Occupy with violent anarchists and others while the actual fact of occupation is in reality pretty non-violent as a protest tactic goes.

On a personal note I will add, who cares what the Supreme Court says about free speech? They’re obviously reading a different Constitution than I am, not to mention that half the time what they rule results from partisan bare majorities, so SCOTUS is not of a single mind on nearly anything. And what does “public” in public park mean? Can a city council or a police chief label a park public and then regulate its use to disallow the public its use? That’s contradictory on its face, and should be looked into by a grand jury. What about police interpretation of public behavior? Most of the time it seems to be arbitrary or political. Etc.

In any case, history has shown (ie, the Civil Rights movement) that occupation (in a non-violent scenario) is the social justice winner. Maybe even virtuous, in the classical meaning of the the word, ie, producing the most just outcome.

But to the point of the article (which is not a troll, by definition, Anarcissie).
As a member of the fourth estate myself, I think that the streamer made a good call, assuming he has taken the position that journalists are there to act as witnesses to history, which in fact seems to be his argument. If he’s there to act as a propagandist, then censor away. From his statements, however, I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt and voting that he’s a responsible non-judgmental historian, which should be the purpose of being a news journalist regardless.

I sincerely wish that other so-called journalists would emulate him.

Anarc,

I’ve watched closely how you use the term ‘Troll’.  You toss that particular term into the discussion when you come across any individual highlighting any polar opposite view apart from ‘acceptable’ extreme left narratives.  You use the term for a single purpose.  To discredit an individual in hopes of persuading others not to engage in dialog. - ‘He/she is a troll.  Please disregard.”

I’m sorry but, in the spirit of openness and transparency, your use of the term is a clear sign of weakness.  Truly unimaginative.

-

OWS Tactics.

The point in using tactics employed by Occupy all over the country is to remain relevant in the eyes of the media.  These tactics, by design, are intended to be confrontational with law enforcement.  A clear byproduct of these types of tactics is in how it attracts real confrontational violence by a number of people, apart from the majority of peaceful protesters, in every place it’s employed. 

Organizers are not stupid.  Occupy organizers understand all to well that these particular tactics, draws for attention via open confrontation, will, in every place it is used, cause violence.  Confrontation with law enforcement (purposefully breaking laws to make a point) causes, well, confrontation - with men and woman holding guns, pepper-spray, and batons.

I do find it difficult to believe that a steadfast student of non-violence, such as gerard, would not have understood this many months ago.

10/04/11
AP

“It’s definitely gotten better,” OWS spokesman, Patrick Bruner, said of the media coverage. “The best PR we ever got was the cops pepper-spraying a white woman.”

The media narrative definitely changed after a video emerged of two apparently non-violent protesters being pepper-sprayed by a senior police officer, said one sympathetic reporter who was covering the protest for a major New York daily but did not want to speak for attribution.

“The key point was conflict, which every media person loves,” he said. “You have a group of gutterpunks and over-educated college students sitting around talking about things–that’s not a story. It’s a story when those people clash with police.”

By ‘troll’, in this case, I mean propagandist, although I read the aim as more game-like sowing of dissension rather than misdirection of a totally ignorant audience.

Here’s the method:  Let’s say you want to defame category X.  You look around for an individual or incident x’ that is or looks bad; then you assert that x’ is representative of all X.  If you can’t find a suitable x’, you make something up.  The particular type of argument is known as the fallacy of composition and is a staple of hate speech purveyors.

In a discursive venue like Truthdig, many of whose participants lionize OWS without apparently participating or, indeed, knowing much about activism generally, it’s easy to stir up a lot of excited, hostile, aimless talk using this method. 

The trolling may as well serve a broader purpose of discouraging any sort of concrete resistance to power and wealth, other than the usual ineffectual whining.

If you want to play rhetorical games with trolls, fine, but keep in mind that the discussion is not a serious search for truth and reason.

It would take weeks to “argue out” this article because, among other things, it raises the key point of “full disclosure”—its methods, implications,and results.  A discussion on this key point would reveal one of the basic principles of nonviolent action—the necessity for dropping all aspects of deceit and being open with information on plans even before actions, with constant maintenance of openness at every level of action from beginning to end.
  Openess is exactly contrary to traditional
“militant” action, and makes the issue of “diversity of tactics” a problem for the goals of non-violent behavior.
  “Diversity” may mean mere difference of tactics that are all nonviolent, or it may mean that some tactics need not be nonviolent—a crucial variation. (Note the Lisa Fithian, the n.v. trainer among OW membership for the last year (according to this article) opposes “diversity tactics.”)
  Further light is shone on the problem in the quote from Professor Tad Hall (whoever he is):  “There’s this militancy being bred by direct a action being
condoned and secretly cultivated by direct action. Further confusion enters in when we read the quote from Prof. Amedi (whoever he is) equating “full disclosure” witg “snitching.”
  Obviously, to those who do not want to be disclosed, disclosure is “snitching.”  But nonviolent principles stand on opennes and lack of secrecy. In fact, they depend heavily on previous intentional disclosoure of plans and tactics in order to be as non-threatening as possible, even in conducting civil disobedience with conscious intent to bring about needed changes.
  Misunderstandings in early efforts among a widely dispersed mass of people is to be expected, and there is no substitute for constant training and dedication, plus constant honest communication between protesters and “authorities” and “the public”.  A huge responsibility, and a world-changing transformation is “in the wings.”

“Kill the police”. “F**k the police.” - Peaceful Occupy Oakland protester Jan. 28, 2012

But, no, these Occupy protests don’t attract violence against middle class, blue collar, Americans.

Unfortunately Anarc, Gerard, and others use the term “troll” so often and in so many ways (largely used incorrectly) so as to render the term meaningless.

Being labeled a troll here is the surest way of knowing you’ve caused the tosser to come up completely bereft of an argument.

-

Back on topic.

”[Occupy] never filed for a permit. Nearly every action that we do, on some level, is illegal” - Occupy Wall Street organizer, Patrick Bruner.

Bruner goes on to complain about the “lack of privacy” when Occupy is knowingly breaking the law.

I said:

Its hard to keep track of the hundreds of agents provocateur who have infiltrated OWS, but I do my best. Who is the agent this time? Is it the anarchist letting the air out of the tire who demands not to be filmed? Or is it the guy who filmed the anarchist?

One of them is a paid agent, working for corporate interests, but I am not sure which one. Maybe both?

Anarcissie has the answer:

You people are sure easily trolled.  I guess the article itself is sort of a troll.

Aha! so the article itself is the agent provocateur! I should have known. Its those little facts that pop up, loose and uncensored like Janet Jackson’s nipple at a Super Bowl, which are the bane of Occupy Wall Street.

At this crucial hour, we all need the “Bra of Censorship” to keep embarrassing little facts about Occupy Wall Street from popping out at us like nipples at half-time. Remember, True Believer, its the factual information itself that works as agents provocateur against the truth!

Anarchissie:  I share your “guess” that the article itself is a troll. I had the feeling at the time.
(As an old friend of mine used to say:  “Two is objective enough!”) Somehow I have to learn to stop “running to the defense of…”  which of course is of no help at all in cases like this.

I guess that anything that shows that a large group of people with little direction,
cohesion and an avowed disinclination toward leadership is going to have
problems from idiots acting stupidly under the movement’s banneris to be
rejected or shrugged off…or stupidly ascribed to some mythical “agents
provacateur”

what spotlight shines so bright it blocks?...
widespread woe when attentions span!...
that painful flame of havoc wreaked!...
by corporate greed upon this land!...

You people are sure easily trolled.  I guess the article itself is sort of a troll.

ardee-full-of-putrid-hatred,

Still smarting over how I used your own words from past posts to highlight your hypocrisy?  Your inconsistency in logic?  Your Bush-like Cherry Picking of information? 

Tough.  Get over it.

Maani, February 4 at 10:31 pm

I applaud your desire to see the truth of your position addressed rather than the stupidities that is IMax’s’ usual fare.

I would urge you, as I do all who continue to think this slime trail leaving, attentions seeking child will debate fairly or even respect fact, to simply ignore Rico/Imax until, once again, he departs this forum.

Maani,

Clearly you’re not taking care in reading. 

I wrote of anti-war protests of the past ten years and you’re here arguing over protests dating back to the early 70’s.  I wrote of supporting the Occupy message but against the tactic of occupying public and private spaces.  Surely you understand how ‘Occupying’ Zuccotti Park is the tactic i disagree with.  Not the message which I support.

Rape, sexual assault, vandalism, feces in doorways and on sidewalks, obstructing intersections when thousands of people attempt to go about their workday, small businesses needing to hire security (which they had no need for before), illicit drug use, broken windows and broken glass doors, breaking and entering a nearby bakery, breaking and entering a nearby pharmacy, tearing-down fences to trespass on church property, rocks-bottles-bricks-pots and pans thrown at law enforcement, riot-gear, tear-gas, mass arrests and hundreds of citations.

All of the above took place in the two months in which Zuccotti Park was ‘Occupied’.

Riot-gear and tear-gas was seldom needed when millions (yes, MILLIONS) protested the Iraq invasion.  Police barricades, batons, and pepper spray was never once employed while the Tea Party protested.  These crowds were tremendously larger than any Occupy gathering to date.  These crowds, while heated and passionate, were almost entirely non-violent.

Agent provocateurs are to blame?  Law enforcement is the real cause of violence?  I think not.

letting air out of the police cars’ tires makes no sense. however, i
expected that some people would do some stupid things and possibly in
order to fragment and discredit OWS.
be it as it may, it is very important OWS behaves in a civilized matter.
and especially towards onepercent’s servant class. thanks

IMax:

“Anti-war protests in the past ten years turned out millions.  The Tea Movement, hundreds of thousands.  During the former seldom was there a need for riot-gear or pepper spray.”

Were you even ALIVE then?  Did you attend the anti-war rallies in the 60s and 70s?  I did.  And the very first protest I attended - in 1970, at 12 years of age - we were tear-gassed when an agent provocateur set fire to an information booth near to where my family was sitting quietly with hundreds of other families.

You only continue to put your foot further down your throat with insupportable comments like that.  Tear-gas was used ay MANY anti-war rallies in the 60s and 70s.  You need to read more.

“I object to the tactics which Occupy has employed.  I object to Occupying parks, intersections, doorways, buildings, churches, small businesses, private homes and entire complexes.  Those tactics you refer to as being civilly disobedient.  This tactic has proven to create a great deal of violence wherever it’s been exercised.”

“Great deal of violence?”  Would you care to define that phrase for me?  In fact, there was very little violence in NYC during the two months in which OWS actually occupied Zuccotti Park.  And (I will try to be conservative here…) at least 50% of that violence was instigated by the NYPD.  Yes, again, there were SOME members of the group (whether agents provocateur or just occupiers who rejected the non-violent message of the group as a whole) who engaged in active violence.  And, again, they were roundly disavowed by the larger group.

How can you claim to “support the original Occupy message,” when you disagree with the initial occupation of Zuccotti Park, which was part and parcel of the message, which was “occupation” and true interactive democracy?  After all, they are an “occupy” movement, so the “occupation” of public spaces is central to the message.

Peace.

There’s an excellent book out by AK Press titled “Revolt And Crisis In Greece” where many key issues relevant to OWS are discussed, including how “anarchists” are so obsessed with operating without any structure or “order” that they end up imploding, which is of course contrary to serious anarchism as promoted by Bakunin and Kropotkin which is the idea of a libertarian, socialist, disciplined force.

some here seem to be equating letting air out of cop
car tires with violence.  if some angry 20 year olds
are willing to risk arrest by committing such
‘violence’, i really don’t see why tim pool should be
aiding the cops in apprehending them.  now if these
same perps isolated a cop and gave him a beating,
that’s another matter.
__________________

IMax…you treat Gerard like she’s the 2nd coming of
squeaky fromm.  from her posts, i’ve gathered she’s a
semi-ambulatory 97 year old woman living in a
senior’s residence.  but i suppose you’ll keep up the
attack on her…being the cyberspace tiger that you
are.

Its hard to keep track of the hundreds of agents provocateur who have infiltrated OWS, but I do my best.

Who is the agent this time? Is it the anarchist letting the air out of the tire who demands not to be filmed?

Or is it the guy who filmed the anarchist?

One of them is a paid agent, working for corporate interests, but I am not sure which one. Maybe both?

Oops.  This should have read as follows: “Anti-war protests in the past ten years turned out millions.  The Tea Movement, hundreds of thousands.  During the former seldom was there a need for riot-gear or pepper spray.  The latter required none of it.  Crowds which dwarf all Occupy protests to date.”

Maani, - “You have every right to disagree with the movement, and to offer alternatives.  What you do NOT have a right to do is “brand” an entire movement based on the actions of a very small minority.”

-

You misunderstand.  I do support the original ‘Occupy’ message.  I support it with terrific passion.

I do not brand all of Occupy like you have seen so many here brand the Tea Movement.  I object to the tactics which Occupy has employed.  I object to Occupying parks, intersections, doorways, buildings, churches, small businesses, private homes and entire complexes.  Those tactics you refer to as being civilly disobedient.  This tactic has proven to create a great deal of violence wherever it’s been exercised.

Anti-war protests in the past ten years turned out millions.  The Tea Movement, hundreds of thousands.  During the former seldom was there a need for riot-gear or pepper spray.  The former required none of it.  Crowds which dwarf all Occupy protests to date.

Choose any large gathering of Occupy, anywhere in the nation, and I’ll show you the violence which has accompanied those gatherings.

IMax:

While your intentions may be noble, you are not being realistic.  Whether agents provocateur or simply young people who are ready to use violence despite OWS’ overall non-violent message, no movement can control every single individual within it, particularly a movement as “amorphous” as OWS.  To broad-brush the entire movement the way you seem to be doing is not simply unfair, but intellectually dishonest.

The OWS movement, on the whole, is a peaceful movement, though it actively engages in actions of non-violent civil disobedience: non-permitted assemblies and marches, sit-ins, work shut-downs, etc.  And when members or groups of members engage in activities that include violence - or incitement of it, including against law enforcement - the movement, through a spokesperson or assembly, makes a statement disavowing that violence, which is the only recourse they have.

You have every right to disagree with the movement, and to offer alternatives.  What you do NOT have a right to do is “brand” an entire movement based on the actions of a very small minority.

Peace.

gerard,

Choose any large gathering of Occupy, anywhere in the nation, and I will show you the violence you attract and incite.

gerard,

I understand your intentions.  I understand the words.

The ‘Occupy’ tactics you so passionately support and applaud is the cause of much violence.  Everyday people are getting hurt.  It is my right to point out that this is not the way to bring about lasting change.

There is a way to bring about real and lasting change.  A much more powerful, potentially generational, way of change.  A way in which nobody is physically injured.  No private property is invaded or damaged.  No doors or intersections are blocked to every-day blue collar workers, policemen, firemen and clergy.  There will be no need for riot gear and pepper spray.  Occupy your School Board.  Occupy the places laws are conceived.  Occupy the Congress.

That, gerard, is how we stand up firm for non-violent and significant change.

IMax:  At this point I am going to ask you to stop attacking me personally with accusatory remarks such as “Look at your handiwork in progress etc. etc.”
I am supporting nonviolence as a possible alternative to violence and trying to describe some of the strategy and tactics of alternatives to violence. I have every right to do so, and am happy if anything I say helps clarify or promote understanding of this much-misunderstood and misconstrued but vitally important field of study and action.  I believe it is the one and only way out of mass murder and offers a sane view of continuing human life.

Let’s see; could this be a case of “agent provocateur”? Maybe just punks catching up on a bit of vandalism? Who knows? Anyway, when the 1% wants its due, it floods the halls of congress with lobbyists in an effort to change the rules of the game while the Armani-clad hooligans steal whatever they wish knowing full well that the powers that be will always “look forward, not back”. Meanwhile, back at OWS and the 99ers, since they can’t get a foot in the door at “city hall” they take to the public thoroughfares where they are ignored until it’s time to flex the muscle of authority. And as is the case with the 1%, the non-Armani-clad hoooligans in this case, go about asserting themselves, unfortunately in a more juvenile and less lucrative manner with no chance of those in charge looking forward and not back! To assault someone recording the troublesome antics of an unruly few is wrong, as much so as the arresting of those documenting police abuse. However, to paint the movement with the large brush of smug moral superiority is totally absurd. Oh, and why isn’t that clown governing Fla. behind bars? FREE BRADLEY MANNING!!!!!

gerard,

Naive, mislead, passionate children attracting petulant, anti-social, extremists and anarchists bent on confronting “the man” no matter the ancillary cause(s).

Look at your handiwork in progress.  Your cause.  Your tactics. Your applause.  Mixed together these things have proven to incites real violence.  As people have done for thousands of years before you, for the good of the many, you steele yourself to look away from lawlessness, vandalism, and violence against every-day, blue-collar people.

Choose any large gathering of Occupy, anywhere in the nation, and I will show you the violence you attract and incite.

Such incidents are probably inevitable with any new and growing social movement. Tens of thousands of young people are involved who have had no previous experience.  They have adopted a code of nonviolence overall, but most of them are completely new to practicing it in action.
  Occupy a potentially powerful movement because of at lealst three factors: Being young, being diverse, and being accurate in its overall analysis of current problems. They chose nonviolence because they know and/or feel that violence will do much more harm than good.
  Naturally, they will have enemies—some intentional, some stupid—who will want to incite
violence and encourage police anger and abuse in order to get publicity, to divide the movement and/or to satisfy their own personal animosities or cater to their own ideology, wise or otherwise.
  Constant work toward broader and broader mutual understanding, ceaseless efforts to apprehend problems before they occur, and heal wounds after they occur is necessary. The very most important aspect of nonviolent resistance is to avoid aggresssive behavior rising out of rage—whether from themelves, from police or from provocateurs.
All this is a huge and endless job, and Occupy has been doing very well so far, considering all these complexities.

Did the excuse of ‘infiltration’ work for anti-war protesters or the Tea Party?

No, it did not.

A cautionary tale - infiltrators into any movement
launched by the people are always a hazard (and
inevitably present), their primary purpose being to
destroy, to weaken the movement by dividing the
participants.

The powers-that-be realize that the people, joined
together, have far greater power than the people in
power. Naturally, therefore, breaking the protesters
apart is of utmost importance to the people in power.