Forum Post: Absolutely Opposed to Violence and Destruction
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 4, 2011, 8:49 p.m. EST by wouldstronglypreferjustice
(35)
from Portland, OR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I am a supporter of the OWS movement. I am a 47-yr old working father of two and a conservative voter. I totally support what I believe the movement is about. But, if OWS becomes violent, if destruction of property becomes common - I will withdraw my support in a minute.
What if the violence is perpetrated on the OWS?
OWS is about taking money out of politics. It has nothing to do with violent protest. Within a short period of time OWS will be nothing more than a sigh in the wind. However, it did ignite a fire storm of rage and that rage will erupt into global revolution. I doubt that it will be peaceful. So you need not worry about OWS violence...not going to happen.
before you withdraw - consider
two brothers own a presidential candidate
grover owns the speaker of the house
a hundred years ago the "owners" launched attacks on union protesters
a vice president of the united states owns a major part of a company that
....made millions from the Iraq war
are you sure that any OWS violence is owned by OWS ?????????
dont be duped by the masters of deception
fair enough I think it would be naive to think that those who want the movement to fail would not create violence in order to discredit
That is the first thing we should all agree on. Civil disobidience means peaceful protest, not violence and destruction of property. This will do more to hurt the movement than anything the media can say about us.
What about passive aggression? Like, say, taking a public park over for your private lodgings?
I totally agree with taking over a park. What I find so funny is that conservatives rail against the OWS movement, yet claim that actions of the founding fathers as their source of legitimacy.
That's an interesting comparison. The founders lived under the rule of a king, whom they were not allowed to criticize. They were right to establish our republic and defend it by whatever means were necessary. The OWS kids live in a free representative democracy, and they can say whatever they please without fear of sanction. If they are rebel against our constitutional system, they're not going to be very popular.
And they are not all "kids, as you claim. Have you been to any OWS site - any? I have been to four cities; DFW, PDX, DC and NY. I have spoken with people there, I have watched the protests. I have seen these sites in action. Yes, there are "kids", although I guess you mean young people in their 20's, but there are also thousands of normal, everyday working people. You must educate yourself if you want to be accurate. And those people - what they want, and I want is JUSTICE. Not a free ride.
No, they aren't ALL kids, but I've been to one major OWS site, and it was like an Urban Outfitters convention.
three words - Martin Luther king
King was a patriotic American who supported our American system but resisted--with fantastic success--a terrible injustice. Please don't ever compare yourselves to King.
"An an justice to one is an injustice to all".
Do you agree with those words? Do you agree that everyday working people should be able to participate equally in the political system? That their voice is equal to a Super PAC. Do you believe that those who perpetrate fraud should be brought to justice?
I can damn well compare myself to anyone I choose - and MLK will do just fine.
OK, then. Let's do the comparison.
MLK: Led the movement to establish civil rights and voting rights for African Americans.
You: Slept in a tent. Posted on a message board. Compared self to a great man.
The only tent I've sleep in is when I take my sons hunting.
I work, I've paid taxes for 30 years - and I vote - every damn time And I'll keep on posting - and talking - and speaking out - and showing up - and calling my representatives - and writing letters- and, apparently unlike you - trying to understand how our great country has become so corrupted.
And why, because I want my sons to grow up in a society where their voice matters - where their voice is equal to the voice of some faceless Super PAC.
And you know, your'e right. Comparing myself to MLK is too much and that's not at all what I meant. I'm just a normal middle-aged man doing my best to provide for my family.
But this struggle - the struggle to remove corruption from our elections - is a worthwhile struggle - and it is also a struggle for civil rights
TO REMOVE CORRUPTION - TO ENSURE YOUR CHILDREN HAVE AN EQUAL VOICE-
We need to pick an issue that is simple - that is popular - how about an issue that 83% of Americans agree on - that 56% of TP agree on - that will cement the people in OWS with the people outside of OWS
Our only goal should be to pass a constitutional amendment to counter Supreme Court decisions Citizens United (2010) & Buckley v. Valeo (1976), that enable unlimited amounts of anonymous money to flood into our political system. It will be as short and concise as possible, a legally constructed “corporations and other organizations are not a persons and have no personhood rights” and “money is not free speech”.
We don’t have to persuade people to accept our position – we have to persuade them to ACT based on their own position. Pursuing this goal will prove to the world that we, at OWS, are a serious realistic Movement, with serious realistic goals. Achieving this goal will make virtually every other goal – from jobs, to taxes, to infrastructure , to Medicare – much easier to achieve – by disarming our greatest enemy – GREED.
THE SUCCESS STORY OF THE AMENDING PROCESS The Prohibition movement started as a disjointed effort by conservative teetotalers who thought the consumption of alcohol was immoral. They ransacked saloons and garnered press coverage here and there for a few years. Then they began to gain support from the liberals because many considered alcohol partially responsible for spousal and child abuse, among other social ills. This odd alliance, after many years of failing to influence change consistently across jurisdictions, decided to concentrate on one issue nationally—a constitutional amendment. They pressured all politicians on every level to sign a pledge to support the amendment. Any who did not, they defeated easily at the ballot box since they controlled a huge number of liberal, and conservative and independent swing votes in every election. By being a single-issue constituency attacking from all sides of the political spectrum, they very quickly amassed enough votes (2/3) to pass the amendment in Congress. And, using the same tactics, within just 17 months they were successful in getting ¾ of the state legislatures to ratify the constitutional amendment into law. (Other amendments were ratified even faster: Eight—the 7th, 12th, 13th, 15th, 17th, 20th, 21st and 26th—took less than a year. The 26th, granting 18-year-olds the right to vote, took just three months and eight days.)
If they could tie the left and right into success -
WHY CAN'T WE??????????
I feel that we should stay with this simple text to overturn CU:
”corporations are not people” and “money is not free speech”
for four simple reasons and one – not so simple:
1
83% of Americans have already opposed CU in the ABC/Washington post poll and the above
IS THEIR POSITION ALREADY.
2
We don’t have to work to convince people on the validity of our position.
3
Simple is almost always better.
4
This simple Amendment is REQUIRED to overturn CU.
And all other electoral reform can be passed through the normal legislative process.
5
OWS and these pages are chock full of ( mostly ) excellent ideas to improve our country. All of them have strong advocates – and some have strong opposition. None of them has been “pre-approved” by 83% of Americans ! Pursuing this goal – without additional specifics is exactly what Americans want. What do we want? Look at that almost endless list of demands – goals - aims.
Tax the rich. End the Fed. Jobs for all, Medicare for all. So easy to state. Can you imagine how hard it would be to formulate a “sales pitch” for any of these to convince your Republican friends to vote for them. 83% of Americans have ALREADY “voted” against CU. 76% of the Rs.
All we have to do ask Americans is to pressure their representatives – by letters - emails – petitions,
Wanna take your family on vacation? Convince the 7 year old and the 10 year old to go to Mt Rushmore. Then try to convince them to go to Disneyland.
Prioritizing this goal will introduce us to the world – not as a bunch of hippie radical anarchist socialist commie rabblerousers – but as a responsible, mature movement that is fighting for what America wants.
I feel that using the tactics of the NRA, the AARP an the TP – who all represent a minority – who have successfully used their voting power to achieve their minority goals plus the Prohibition Amendment tactics – bringing all sides together - is a straight path for us to success that cannot fail to enable us to create and complete one MAJORITY task.
I'm also a middle-aged man doing the best to provide for my family. I also want to get corruption out of politics. It's just that I think the way to do it is to end corporate welfare, get rid of tax loopholes, and stop sending so many trillions of dollars into the Washington black hole.
First off, not keeping its nuts in line is the goddamn problem with the right; moderates in America typically outnumber extremists by a lot and if you let the extremists run the show you drive off the moderates. The only time letting extremists run things doesn't immediately carry a penalty in popular support (assuming you're not a Republican) is when nonviolence is for whatever reason categorically impossible. Nonviolence is quite possible right now, and we just got away with a major nonviolent protest in Oakland. Even better would be throwing Occupiers into HoR primaries over the course of this next election so that we can make a greater impact on what's going on on Capitol Hill.
The problem we have with black bloc is not a matter of squeamishness; it's a matter of not getting ourselves attacked and tear gassed (or getting so much popular support when we do that it becomes a Pyrrhic victory for the LEOs). The role and the goal of OWS is to spread awareness of the continuing growth in income inequality and the continuing atrophy of many sectors of our economy due to corporate profit-chasing, and to mobilize voters to work to combat these problems. If we're running around spraypainting things dressed all in black we become scary to the majority of the people and an easy caricature for any who disagree with us, and we thus lose our ability to influence the national dialogue or get voters to listen to us.
You're right that in cases like India and South Africa nonviolence was only part of the equation and acts of vandalism and violence were a major part of the decision to change things. That only worked because you were talking about a military occupation in which popular support or lack thereof was pretty much either going to be there or not be there and the movements had no risk of losing momentum because of such actions. Prove to me that violence and vandalism are more expedient than nonviolence and political activity in this particular situation and then I'll consider listening to you.
Incidentally, vandalism my not be violence per se but it's a big damn mess to clean up. Cleaning up this mess is probably going to fall on the same minimum wage janitor whose rights and income we're here to protect. See a problem there? Besides, it gives the cops and others a great excuse to point to us as a threat to law and in turn has very little impact on what we do. To recap: violence is unnecessary and generally a very bad idea, and vandalism is free PR for our opponents.
I don't give a damn whether they're police-sponsored troublemakers or our troublemakers; if they get violent or out of hand they need to be forcibly unmasked, photographed, and handed over to the cops, and the photo needs to go in a publicly viewable database of troublemakers banned from marching with us. When people see us either on top of, laying into, or dragging away provocateurs and vandals it will be quite clear to them that OWS does not believe in open lawlessness and that will go a long way with the ordinary guy who doesn't follow us too carefully. If they're black bloc then their first taste of actual violence against them will probably cause them to reconsider their approach. If it's cops, then maybe when the officers come in the next morning looking like they lost a fight with Mike Tyson the station chief will think twice about sending them out there to riot.
that's why I no longer support the actions of a government that drops bombs
I agree and even in our home camp we have told the major and police chief that if violent types take us over, we're out and they can have them.
We have our right to peaceably assemble. But that does mean peaceful. When we insist on doing something that breaks another persons rights, its not peaceful assembly anymore. Like for example, if we block a road and it keeps other people from using it. Then we are violating their rights and the police can take back their rights for them. If we take a park and keep the kids from playing in it on the swings, then we are violating their rights and the police can take back their rights that we took. when we blockade a port and close it and keep people from earning their paycheck, we are stealing their rights and the state can come in and take back their rights for them that we took. Im all for doing this, Im in a local camp, but don't spout hyperbole and that the state is violating our rights. they are not. They are taking back rights for other people that we took with our occupation. Just to be clear. peaceful assembly does not equal forceful occupation. We are forcefully occupying. so far the cities are being really good about working with us so we can get the message out by occupying. But its real fine line we are walking, and when one too many citizens gets pissed they can't use their park that we took, or they can't drive down a road to visit their mom in the hospital, we're going to have to understand that we started this. But Im not going to be part of escalation, no.
Bravo sir! Now post this in every thread on here!
In that case I urge you to help promote a concept of creating accountability where there is none for an infiltration of imposters acting to damage the Occupy image and standing with media. Since Occupy is working to support and defend the constitution, whether or not they know it, the imposters are acting against those defending the constitution against treason.-----
The imposters attempt to create an image of the Occupy movement as lawless insurrection. Post this link . . . lots.-----
http://occupywallst.org/forum/woman-cried-do-to-violence-towards-her-store/#comment-293508
[Removed]
If you claim to represent 99%, you can't pick and choose.
Of course i can choose. I always have a choice to be nonviolent. I can choose to respectfully and nonviolently let my voice be heard. I can choose to support a nonviolent movement or withdraw my support when that movement exhibits behavior that I no longer support. And I 'm not interested in debating you, banker. Your comments in this forum have disqualified you from debate.
EXCERPT FROM AN EMAIL OF NOV. 4 TO OWS LEADERSHIP :
"I note that your own mission statement mentions that OWS "encourages" non-violence. To me, that is a poor choice of words if you are trying to convey the concept of an unequivocal commitment to non-violence. If the American public gets the feeling that OWS is "soft on violence", I fear that your Movement may well self-destruct. And that would be a great TRAGEDY, as you have taken up a Sacred Struggle and have done incredibly well so far. Non-violence is not some "fetish" as the so-called "Comrades from Cairo" claim, it is THE ONLY WAY THIS REVOLUTION CAN SUCCEED in a country where there are an estimated 270 million firearms."
I will only add this : it's very easy to START shooting; the hard part is knowing how to STOP.