Forum Post: [DELETED]
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 24, 2012, 1:56 p.m. EST by anonymous
()
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
[DELETED]
Public Forum
2 comments 2 weeks ago by gsw
1 comments 4 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 1 year ago by agkaiser
6 comments 1 year ago by grapes
15 comments 1 year ago by gsw
12 comments 1 year ago by BrentWeirick81
30 comments 1 year ago by ChicagoCitizen
48 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
16 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
8 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by grapes
6 comments 2 years ago by haightashbury98
51 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
5 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
14 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
6 comments 3 years ago by agkaiser
I am fairly sure that the Black Block will be shown to be a radicalized group of college aged kids who do sympathize with the movement but whose tactics are not those of the Occupy Movement.
During the anti-war and civil rights protests of the 60s there were a number of violent fringe elements - perhaps one day we will discover that some of them were radicalized through processes designed by one or more government programs - MKULTRA or other similar programs.
Perhaps.
In any case, the Occupy Movement remains a non-violent movement, regardless of what sympathetic fringe elements, or radicalized individuals may do.
Failure to hold fraudulent lenders and investment institutions accountable for their behavior, which has resulted in such widespread harm to the public in terms of real property loss, paints a very clear picture of lawlessness.
It is inevitable that there will be those who respond to that very real and accurate perception by means that are outside the law.
This is not to my knowledge OWS policy - our policy is one of nonviolence.
To understand what richard is talking about, you should read my posting on the issue. I'm not making an accusation, I'm asking questions.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/has-ows-changed-their-stance-in-regards-to-the-bla/
Black bloc tactics have been used all over the place. We can go back and see how the media has attempted to use their antics to discredit and dismiss the protests at the WTO several years ago.
The problem is that these people could be aligned with anyone. They could be sent in or they could just be punks taking advantage of the situation. It's entirely too easy for anyone to say that this is professed by OWS for whatever reason that they so choose.
I have never read that OWS supports violence.
I don't ever recall reading that the Black Bloc used a Tea Party rally for 'cover'. Purely speculation on my part, but would guess that's because they knew they would get their butts kicked by the TP.
There were other factions that used Tea Party rallies for cover. They would show up with racist signs. The media used those factions to paint Tea Party folks as racists.
They weren't other factions. They were part of its core. Stormfront and other White Supremacy groups actually hosted and funded quite a number of tea party rallies, especially in the SouthEast. While they may not have comprised anywhere close to a majority, they were a vital part of the Tea Party from its inception.
People will believe what they want to believe,
Just because a white supremacy group hosted some rallies does not mean that the other 12,540 groups are racist. There are thousands of Tea Party groups.
People have seen OWS protesters destroying property, breaking windows, ransacking car dealerships, shitting on a police car, sexually assault a girl in a tent, set fires, vandalized a Whole Foods store, vandalize a veterans memorial, spray painted small businesses store fronts...
While they may not have comprised anywhere close to a majority, they were a vital part of OWS from its inception.
OWS protesters did not break windows: that was Black Bloc. They did not sexually assault anyone. That assault was not carried out by a member, so far as I know. As to vandalizing cop cars, I saw, with my own eyes, video of a cop breaking the windows of a police car. I have no doubt he did not know he was being filmed and hoped to accuse OWS of doing it.
And, I absolutely agree, and have written so on these fora, that the leadership (or GA) must make a public announcement condemning violence and renouncing the vandalism of Black Bloc. It must insist that Black Bloc adhere to non-violence or be banned from future rallies, and insist on a pledge of non-violence from all participants. In that way, even though the overwhelming amount of activity has been entirely peaceful, it can avoid future smears by the right wing media.
That said, one cannot deny that the Tea Party got much of its initial support from White Supremacy groups, nor that much of its mainstream rhetoric isn't fed by racist attitudes. You, personally, may not be a bigot. But there is no denying that, from the very beginning, that influence was there in the movement, and one can't blame media distortion for that perception. Indeed. the media UNDER reported the connections, as it under reported the connections to Dick Armey, who essentially created the (astroturf) movement.
If the Tea party has since moved beyond that, great. But its beginnings were at least as racist as the press reported, and likely more so.
You have it backwards,
The Tea Party started with an email chain that asked folks to "Send a teabag to congress" to protest George W Bush's spending and bailout programs. It was later that supremacy groups, right wingers, and the GOP tried to hijack the movement. They were pretty successful at taking it over.
Because Black Bloc groups where marching with OWS it is easy to say that they were part of the movement. The same holds true for all the rest. Many will do to OWS exactly what you are doing concerning the Tea Party.
The problem is that the media shows us the extremists in both groups. It is not interesting showing a group of people sitting around talking about problems with our system. It is much more interesting to show Nazis, Commies, vandals, and terrorists.
Although I dispute you time-line, I do very much agree that the media on the whole prefers drama over substance. Drama gets ratings, and advertisers pay for ratings and circulation. Since advertising dollars are the life blood of commercial media, the 1% who supply those dollars will always have an advantage in terms of spreading its message with dumbed down "if it bleeds, it leads" journalism.
My timeline is not off because I remember where I was when I head the send about tea bag to congress. It was October 5 2008 a few days after the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was passed.
You can google and you will see there are pages, facebook posts, twitters from 2008,
Most of these people were upset with the bailouts, the national debt, the wars in the middle east, projects like the bridge to nowhere.
http://tinyurl.com/7zkqbyy
They were mostly ordinary Americans.
Why do you not consider the black bloc as part of Occupy? They attend general assemblies and the protests. Do you need a special card to be an "official" protester? A card that they don't have?
They pre-exist OWS by several years. But if they have been incorporated, i agree that they should be expelled if they commit acts of vandalism.
I preexist OWS by several decades. So what?
What's the process for OWS incorporation, and, do you get a plastic OWS card with your name on it if you do incorporate yourself?
Are you always so literal? C'mon, I'm mostly agreeing with you here. By incorporated, i mean in the sense of being folded in, not a legal definition. And i suspect you know that's what I meant.
As a group,Black Bloc has been around for a long time, longer than OWS. They still define themselves, and are referred to, as a separate entity. Are they no longer distinct from OWS?
If not, they should a) drop their name and b) adhere to the non-violence that was agreed to initially by the founders of OWS. If they do not, or OWS no longer adheres to non-violence, they will lose whatever support they have among the population.
Is that at odds with what you are saying?
When windows are broken at OWS protests, it's the news reports that pin those acts on the black bloc. If it's going to be that way, it's pretty easy for OWS to wash their hands of any responsibility. Whenever someone destroys something it's black bloc's fault. A convenient and easy escape route.
First things first, I think OWS should stop supporting the actions of the black bloc. It should return to its non-violent roots.
I certainly agree with your last two sentences. As to your conclusion about Black Bloc being convenient, I'm less sure. A good part of the media here would only be too happy to tar OWS with Black Bloc's actions, (and already has) even if they were entirely separate. And there won't be a thing OWS would be able to do about it. Propaganda, especially if it is broadly disseminated, is very powerful.
Which is why, again, I agree fully with your last remarks.
[Removed]
Black bloc tactics have indeed been used in many various protests. That's not the point. The point is OWS used to clearly and strongly distance itself from the black bloc, but nowadays it isn't doing so anymore. From what the anarchists told me, one of the reasons is the Egyptian protesters have started to welcome violence as a way to fight back.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/has-ows-changed-their-stance-in-regards-to-the-bla/
Thrasy,
I find your fear of Derrick Jensen mind blowing. Even more astounding is that you use a video from 2009. The following is from October 2011. Listen to what he is saying and try to do this without taking things out of context. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l5fY5efB6s
[Deleted]
No. Iv'e never said this. This idea only exists in your fantasy.
Reread my link: http://occupywallst.org/forum/has-ows-changed-their-stance-in-regards-to-the-bla/
I don't think most protesters even know what OWS really is. Most people don't have a good knowledge of history. For example, I'm sure most protesters don't know about the May 68 protests in France which used many of the Occupy tactics. Most protesters just read Occupy posters and come to the marches.
[Deleted]
I made no leap from the Black Bloc to Occupy. You're simply incapable of reading my comments. My assumption is that you're high, drunk, or without your glasses.
Reread what I posted so that you can offer replies which make sense.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/has-ows-changed-their-stance-in-regards-to-the-bla/
Is the corruption and greed of our politicians and bussiness people indicative to the nature of the American people? Do they posses the values and morals we want our children to have? Is our sole function the accumilation of wealth no matter what the cost or harm done to each other and our planet? These are the questions we need to be talking about. Not some stupid right wing narrative about a few numskulls.
I totally agree Horseman we should never discuss or give our time to any troll topics.It seems that the only thing that they have to offer is the same old worn out devicive one percent narrative.Wa need to stop debating these jerks and start to only engage each other on how we can futher the movment of the people by the people and for the people. Let us be aware of our enemys and not let them dictate to us but rather we to them!
I'm not a right winger by a long shot. I'm a socialist. I think America should adopt a model like Canada or Sweden. That being said, if I see something that needs criticizing in Occupy, I criticize. I don't think we should blindly follow any protest.
Nor should you.But the day of there dominance of the conversation,economy and the enviorment are Over.
[Deleted]
Germany's OK. They have the most prostitutes per capita. Something like 4% of German women work as prostitutes. Maybe they could take Occupy's slogan of a general assembly on each street corner and replace it with a brothel on each street corner.
No matter how much OWS condemns an act of violence committed by one of it's members, until they decide to remove that person from the movement then it will always be associated with the movement.
Indeed. If OWS is serious about distancing itself from the Black Bloc, it should film the actions of these violent protesters and provide the evidence to the police. OWS could designate protesters to take care of this.
[Removed]
[Deleted]
Are you high or without glasses? Where in the world did I say that OWS should use violence to counter the black bloc? I said they should film the black bloc and report their actions to the police. This would be similar to OWS filming the police and reporting those actions to the media.
Everything you posted today was due to you misreading and thus misinterpreting my comments. Don't use the forum when you're high. Always wear your glasses. Don't drink and post. Stay clean and sharp so you can offer replies that make sense.
[Deleted]
It was obvious that I would reply that I didn't talk about violence simply because I never did. I talked about filming and reporting the black bloc, not about physically attacking them.
Again, are you high, drunk, or without glasses?
[Deleted]
Well said
What in the world are you talking about?
How long are you going to stalk me for? Just curious.
[Deleted]
They have the power to do what needs to be done within their own movement to remove members that are intent on violence....they choose not to do so. In fact they say they will not.
My post was an observation of what those outside the movement think..... whether you think it is logical or not it is the truth.
[Deleted]
I'm not interested in the overall view of the movement. I'm interested about what decisions are made in general assemblies. I'm sure if we asked most protesters if they wanted to make demands and work within the government structure to change things they would say yes. However, the fact remains that Occupy will never do this. They are run by a small clique of anarchists who make the decisions. The vast majority of protesters on the ground have nothing to do with making decisions like which park to invade next and which port to occupy.
[Deleted]
The fact remains that there is not a single GA which has made demands and that they all promote direct action and general strikes. When a GA makes demands or when a GA prints a publication promoting the idea of making demands, then I'll agree that Occupy is changing. Until then, I consider it a protest much like the May 69 protest in France.
[Deleted]
Sure, but anything that isn't officially accepting by a GA will lose a lot of power. It won't have the same respect has a decision that makes it through the NYCGA which is the main decisional engine of Occupy. Contrastingly, a decision made at the NYCGA has a lot of power. More power than decisions from other GA and more power than decisions from fringe groups. That's why I was wondering if the NYCGA is now supporting the black bloc. Their news articles seem to indicate that they do, and the Egyptian protesters have asked them to do this so it wouldn't surprise me if this is true. I don't know. I'm asking. Hopefully, someone here who's been to the NYCGA knows the answer.
The vast majority of protesters on the ground have nothing to do.
fixed
Lol!
They could film the Black Bloc and report their actions to the police. They could phone the police right then and there while it's happening. This has been done in other protests. Protesters on the look out for violent protesters are usually referred to as stewards. Their mission is to keep the protest on track by reporting and identifying people who do not follow the guidelines.
OWS could also refrain from saying things like "the black block is the sound of revolution" in their news articles. They could also make it a point to always distance themselves by writing against Black Bloc activities in their news reports. They used to do that, but they don't anymore. The last few news articles weren't even neutral in this regard. They were pro Black Bloc.
[Deleted]
Are we in kindergarten? Don't call other users on this forum a piece of shit. That's lame. If you're going to insult somebody, and you really shouldn't unless you're still a teenager, at least be a little creative.
You've stalked me for the past 4 hours, you've created a lame posting in order to create a mob attack against me, and now you're calling me a piece of shit. I guess it's time for the TIOUAISE treatment?
[Deleted]
I never called you a homosexual richard. I asked you if you were gay because you are stalking me. Usually, when guys stalk me it's because they want more than I am willing to give.
You are the one bullying me richard. You've been stalking me for the last 5 hours with your nonsense. You even created a post in an attempt to mount a mob attack against me. That's way lame.
For your information, I also have no tolerance for you kind. That's why I'm going to create a nice little bot to down vote your comments. When you stop stalking me and publicly apologize for doing so, I'll call it off.
Ceph, best to ignore @richardkentgates. He's in no position to give lectures on civility and netiquette. The pompous jerk lately announced on another thread that he presumes to know my identity as one "John," a "nutter" and "troll," with whom he's apparently had regular acquaintance. Major league jackass, with an attitude to boot.
Ya, I know. He's been banned like 20 times.
[Deleted]
I'm going to bed. I'll start an attack on you. Don't worry, as you say, I don't have a bot. Sorry, but I don't like stalkers.
Silence does not indicate endorsement.
True, Black Bloc has used OWS protests to stage their own activities, but those protests are open to anyone, even Nazi skinheads, if they choose to attend, and I believe very few people would accuse OWS of endorsing Nazi views.
Look at the various people that post on this forum. Many of them are openly against OWS, but they still post on this forum, apparently from some deranged hope of ruffling feathers, though most of the time they only display the breadth of America's intellectual wasteland. The point is the forum is open, so anyone can basically post almost any view at any time. That certainly doesn't implicate OWS in every crackpot post and scheme.
OWS is an open society. Critics can make what they want of that, but it equates to real freedom for everyone.
Can the violence of the american political establishment be equated to the conservative mindset? Are the Muppets radicals in puppet clothing?Can Mr ED talk?If Newts third wife becomes sick will she be dumped also?How many stupid questions can we ask ?
Could you stop being a "Dick" for one second "Richard"....OWS is nice..but B-Block is also necessary..
[Deleted]
Who tried to attach the Black Bloc's actions to Occupy? If you're talking about me, I never did this. This comes from your fantasy. I simply asked if Occupy was now supporting the Black Bloc. It's a question. Are you afraid of questions? At least one protester answered. Now, I will ask the direct action group for clarification. We'll see. Don't be afraid of questions richard. You shouldn't just eat what you're spoon fed.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/has-ows-changed-their-stance-in-regards-to-the-bla/#comment-608439
[Deleted]
Fair enough. I haven't seen anyone make this connection, but I haven't read all the comments on the forum either.
The only reason I asked if you were talking about me is because your post title includes my name and invites the idea of a richardkentgates vs Cephalus epic battle. If you read my comment, you'll realize I'm asking if you're talking about me. I'm not actually assuming you are.
I happened to notice a comment from craigtodor on this thread. He claims to have been an organizer in SF and he discusses BlackBloc:
http://occupywallst.org/article/occupysf-boa-peoples-food/
Thanks for sharing this. I hadn't seen this comment since I looked at the post a few days ago. It's interesting.
The way I'm reading this, at least from this organizer's perspective, property destruction is fine when it's "strategic"? There was nothing wrong with the property destruction itself, except the BlackBloc "stole" their thunder and it was not based on "consensus"? Is it just me? Or is this like, wow. Just wow.
I happened to be online when craig posted. I didn't think to send it to you, sorry. I know how interested Cephalus (Thrasy) is in the BlackBloc issue, so I sent it to him.
Yes, it's interesting. I'm not sure what to make of any of it. Maybe you and Cephalus can write to him and get him to clarify. I think he does sound a little angry that it caused people to leave.
yeah, he seemed upset from the standpoint that it caused alot of supporters to leave. Which makes it even stranger that the News Article about it would have been written in a postive tone about the BlackBloc instead of negative. In a way I'm surprised, but in a way not.
Did you happen to see the other post that Thras wrote about this incident. There's a response there from a person from the Direct Action Working group that kind of explains more about OWS principles regarding "diversity of tactics".
http://occupywallst.org/forum/has-ows-changed-their-stance-in-regards-to-the-bla/#comment-608439
Gee. Who's Eric Blair? That is interesting. I really do think this movement is so amorphous and leaderless (at least we don't really know who they are) that it is open for different peoples' interpretations. I wouldn't take him as an official spokesperson.
He's in the Direct Action working group. So, however "official" that is, I don't know. He has more direct knowledge anyway.
He specifically pointed out that there has been no official GA consensus about this movement being non-violent.
So while it's "encouraged" for safety purposes (according to the statement on the News Page here), that is not the same as being completely non-violent I guess. Since according to what Eric pointed out, there is no commitment to it. Which appears to be the case if you read the draft of the "principles of solidarity".
I think, at a minimum, the movement wants to and intends to stay non-violent. I'll check out the "principles of solidarity." I didn't know they existed.
Be careful with the "principles of solidarity", this is a draft and has not gotten consensus. EricBlair states that they operate under a "diversity of tactics", which could include property destruction.
Okay. I just read them. (I'm realizing now that I already did a while back, just forgot.) Yes, it mentions non-violent civil disobedience. The "principles of solidarity" may not be officially approved yet, but that is what it says. I think that is good.
Thanks for the heads up. A friendly tip: post the permalink, it helps find the comment faster. Just click permalink under the comment you want to link to then copy the URL address from your browser's address bar.
http://occupywallst.org/article/occupysf-boa-peoples-food/#comment-607073
Necessary in what way? Do you support their actions? If so, are you a founding member of Occupy, or part of the B-Block?
They are necessary, for leverage....and I was around way before OWS was a gleam in someone's eye..
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50365826/What-is-Nick-Howdy
http://nickhowdy.com All alternative media...
I've been screaming about this system for a long time..
Black block is a Tactic..and is necessary to scare the f*ck out of people...No one really knows if OWS uses the tactic or if there is a separate group using the tactic...
Can the violence of george Bush or O'Bama be equated to the American people?
Can the use of terrorism and torture by the US government infer that all Americans support the use of terrorism and torture?
I do not think so.
It is more than guilt by association. The OWS News Article, the tone and the words, practically condone the BlackBloc action -
"The march continued onward when suddenly the familiar sound of revolution rang through the air as [the Black Bloc] smashed through a luxury car dealerships window"
As if this were a good thing.
Putting this in a postive light, invites more violence. When they just as easily could have said something like - There was an unfortunate incident that involved BlackBloc members smashing windows, which in no way represents what OWS stands for and is not condoned by OWS.
Why didn't they say this? This is the problem.
[Deleted]
Perhaps you are right, but then who or what does set the tone? If we are all leaders, then any of us can set the tone or the direction. This is a problem with the lack of coherent leadership. If you support the construct of "all are leaders" then you support whatever "they all" do. A simple counterexample is not enough if no one is willing to say the violent way is wrong. Nobody has the right to bring violence to this movement and they should be identified and turned in. A lot of innocent blood on both sides will be spilled, otherwise, and you will find yourself the 1% facing the 99%.
I think thats the whole point. The News Article was created independent of the GA. The News page is an important piece of communication that represents the protest. So, who is writing it? Why is it not vetted through a Working Group and by the GA? There is a bloody working group for every God loving thing under the sun. But not one for News Articles that serve to represent the protest on the OWS website, that gets upwards of 40,000 visits/day?? Don't you see this as a little bit of a problem?
Of course I would expect regular protesters to act responsibly, like the video you posted. The problem is the intentions of OWS ptb, which Cephalus described in his post. Their thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and principles. And it's not just this one article. Cephalus's posts describes multiple things that point towards violence.
Why didn't the News Article take the same tone and words of non-violence as it has in the past? Why didn't it clearly disavow and condemn that violent action? Are they testing the waters to see what kind of reaction there would be?? Why would OWS even go there, unless there was the intention of turning more violent?
[Deleted]
I guess it's easy for you to justify this as a single random act by a single person writing that article. That could be read by up to 40,000 or more people, on the News page of an OWS site. That's the problem with a leaderless movement isn't it. There is no leadership so there is no accountability.
And it's more than just that one article, he describes multiple examples that point towards OWS becoming violent. So even if you can write-off one, how about the other examples? Why don't you reply on that post and give your thoughts about the other examples?
I'm not saying that the majority of regular protesters feel this way. It is the thoughts and beliefs of anarchists, the OWS ptb, that's the problem. And how their beliefs are different from the majority of regular protesters.
[Deleted]
The reason people are on the sidelines is because they see this movement for what it is, anarchy. The know effective leadership and organization matters. However valid some of the messages from the movement may be, (ending corruption, financial reforms), it is diminished by the form and methods of the movement. People come, and then they go. Because they get frustrated by the methods of this movement.
This movement is not getting bigger, despite the valid messages that certainly appeal to popular sentiment and cross political lines. To gain popular support, and get really huge, this movement will have to change its methods. Inclusive and diverse are good. But getting huge and growing in size, is just as important, if not more. And there's nothing to say that changing methods would mean the movement would be any less inclusive and diverse.
Individual accountability and lack of leadership is a very good excuse that gives OWS a way to distance itself from bad actions. Yet, with the BlackBloc incident, instead of distancing itself, it practically condoned it. And to think that any individual or so called fringe element actions like this are is not signifcant is wrong. It reflects on the movement as a whole, and this is the kind of thing that the media uses against the movement, and again, will be part of why this movement will not get huge.
At the same time, it's pretty evident that the movement has gotten alot more moderate, if not huge. Remember a few months back when the hardcore anarchists were all over this forum like rabid dogs attacking with their direct democracy arguments and voting websites? Those freaks used to gang up on me 2 and 3 at a time like wild animals and scared me half out of my mind with their crazy anarchist talk because they were so obnoxious and aggresive. At least those types of people are not around anymore. But neither are alot of other moderate people who have left because of the ineffective methods of this movement.
False. News articles on this site come directly from the NYCGA press team. You can find their contact information in this posting. OWS is the hub of Occupy and this press team has existed since the beginning of the protest. What they publish means a lot.
They use many propaganda tactics to demonize the police. If you read some of those news articles this becomes very obvious.
Whether you like it or not, these people represent Occupy more than most other protesters. They are Occupy's media hub.
http://occupywallst.org/article/greetings-ows-pr-lets-clear-air/
[Deleted]
Sure. I can see this. Still, at the moment they have a lot of power because they have a lot of visibility and control many of the more important media outlets for Occupy.
One of the major problems in your analysis is that you think all protesters have the same power and importance. They don't. The NYCGA people like jart have much more power than 100 random protesters combined. They run this website with its news articles, they do the press releases, they print the posters, they decide what port to occupy, when to strike, etc... Whether you like it or not, it's the anarchists who are planning the bulk of the Occupy activities for next summer, not some random protesters.
The people who want to make demands will always be a fringe group. They will never truly represent Occupy even if they try to fit under the umbrella of OWS. Personally, I think they should get together and start their own protest. Occupy has been run by anarchists for half a year and will continue in this vein for a long time. And, as much as you think I'm trolling, I'm very serious when I say that I believe OWS is now supporting the black bloc. Take it or leave it. The only thing I ask is that you keep your eyes open. Iv'e said for months that Occupy is slowly preparing violence. I still believe they do. They want to overthrow the government. Nothing less. That's not going to happen on a nice Sunday drive. If it comes to that, there will be bloodshed.
[Deleted]
Listen to the video in the news article that precedes the news articles which states that the black bloc is "the sound of revolution". It also talks about the black bloc in a favorable way.
http://occupywallst.org/article/uc-riverside-regents-youre-fired/
You fail to understand that the news articles you see on this site are also posted on other sites. Most users on this forum only comment in the news articles. Go and read some and you'll see all kinds of users you never see here. The fact of the matter is these people are reading this news from other sites, and many who come here click on the news button, they don't come in the forum. News articles have much more visibility than regular postings.
If you look closely, you'll see that news articles often have many comments from many different users. In the forum, the postings with many comments don't have that many users. It's mostly a few users commenting and replying to each other. The main traffic is hitting the news articles, not the regular postings.
Exactly!! When I read the ENTIRE article, that was my take away, too.
There is evidence of this all over the place if you read Cephalus's post about it which he linked above.
His original post, which was shadow banned from the forum, was interesting too, because it illustrates how some anarchists actually believe that the entire so called power structure has to be "demolished". So if there are anarchists that believe this, that a literal revolution is necessary, its only natural to wonder if this is the same thought process that the anarchists that founded and are running this movement have.
Of course, I don't think for a second that most protesters want this. But it's important to understand what kind of movement this is. It was started by anarchists, and its based on anarchists principles. By their own words, OWS sees itself as a revolution.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/is-occupy-still-non-violent-or-as-my-prediction-un/
Yeah, I read Thrassy's post before it was removed.
I, too believe that the orginal 'founders' of ows seek revolution and violent revolution would be ok too. They are chaotic anarchists.
However, I also believe that the majority of boots on the ground will not become their useful idiots and this movement will help improve our country, though it disappoints me that MSM has grabbed onto the income inequality theme over the corrupting influence of money in politics.
I agree. But I think it's important people are aware of the anarchists intentions which could be the best way to guard against this movement going the way of their violent agenda. Many people here are not even aware that anarchists started this movement I think.
The MSM issue is just another symptom of the same problem. That this is a leaderless movement run by anarchists. They have no intention of promoting demands coming from the regular protesteters like getting money out of politics. Because this isn't their goal, so they have no interest in promoting that kind of thing.
The problem is the goals of the regular protester are so different than that of the anarchists, so it's difficult to see how anything can really progress. And the MSM problem is such that gaining support from the mainstream will be very difficult to get really big numbers supporting the movement. Because as far as PR goes, OWS is it's own worst enemy.
[Deleted]
Not to mention the corrupting influence on politics the fourth estate enjoys. It sure would be nice if network news just reported the facts. There are plenty of radio and cable venues to hear it with the spin one prefers
[Deleted]
Cephalus can defend himself just fine. He doesn't need me for that.
It's not circumstantial evidence. These are indications of what the anarchists running this movement believe, their thoughts ideas and intentions. And they are valid questions about what direction the movement is heading.
I really don't need a formal Wikipedia definition of Anarchism.
What I'm more interested in are the thoughts and beliefs of the founders and people running this movement are. David Graeber, Noam Chomsky. The people running this movement are their followers. They are people who would end capitalism in favor of anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-communism. And end our form of government in favor of direct democracy. The GA is their example of how the country should be run. They call this a revolution because they probably know their ideas will not be easily implemented.
http://nefac.net/node/2569 http://commonstruggle.org/node/2570 http://www.newcolonist.com/altcap.html
[Deleted]
I know, but what you call the "fringe element" are the type of people who are running the movement. There's a difference when there is sound leadership, known leaders, with sound principles and clearly articlulated goals and strategies. And if there are minority fringe elements outside of that, it probably wouldn't be an issue. But this situation is the opposite. The minority fringe element, anarchists/communists and anarcho-syndicalists are the leaders. The majority of the protesters are subject to their principles that they have put in place, because they got here first and started this thing. Lack of leadership, direct democracy, an ineffective organizational structure, and the stated goal of revolution.
[Deleted]
I told you. We think alike sometimes and usually agree. And no, we are not the same person. We just have similar cointel op pro thinking. lol.
Well said.
TY : )
And another thing. There's also evidence that Otpor is involved with OWS. They're in the business of making revolutions. So if you want to be involved with this movement and don't think these things are important to know, that's fine. But don't confuse legitmate questions and concerns with conspiracy theories. Thras isn't talking about about alien space ships or 9/11. Or what was that really crazy one about black helicopters? He's talking about OWS.
[Deleted]
I forgot about that one! lol. I really didn't pay that much attention really, I would skip on over most of those crazy things. The special agent cointell op pro stuff I would read sometimes because those were so hilarious! Were you ever called a cointel pro op thing-y? You aren't officially initiated an OWS forum user until you've been called that I think! lol. It was like a badge of honor thing for a while, like your not a real person here until you've been accused of being a government agent or something! Sort of like being called a troll, but cointel pro op is more prestigious!
Richard doesn't understand that I was asking legitimate questions. He thinks I was making accusations when I really wasn't. I honestly wanted to know if anybody had information concerning the decisions that had been made in recent general assemblies. I'm not in NYC. I have no idea what's happening with Occupy apart from what I read on the Internet.
I know most protesters on the ground believe in non-violence and aren't about the break windows. My question concerns the anarchist organizers. Do they now agree with the tactics of the black bloc, or do they still feel they should distance themselves from them?
I looked at the Occupy SF site and couldn't find anything there about who wrote the News Article or the BlackBloc. There is a media working group which really didn't have any information. I went to the Wiki page, and looked around there too and couldn't find anything. I've never seen anything on the NYCGA website about News Articles before. Not to say I couldn't have missed it. There's kind of alot of crap out there.
So unless its just not being published, with edits and revisions on the site. And the News Articles are not being approved by the GA, unless its just not making it into the Minutes. I suppose thats possible because even the SF site says the Minutes are partial. So I do not know.
Maybe its aliens landing in black helicopters that are writing the News Articles and conspiring with the BlackBloc! That seems a little implausible. More likely its the leaders behind the scenes that are making these decision.
I dreamt that we were together in a light white room with two joysticks and a big black screen. As we pressed our buttons and swung our joypads in various positions, the protesters mechanically reacted to our controls.
My leftmost button generated a brick throw, while my rightmost button aligned the protesters in a human chain ready for authority confrontation. You refused to use your leftmost button since it generated Bible throws, but you were heavily concentrated with your mid most buttons which affected Richard's actions. He was your puppet, and that really seemed to turn you on.
Suddenly, some anarchist leader came in the room and pressed a panic button. In a chorus, we asked - "What are you doing?". He answered - "We have a crisis. Some protesters are trying to make demands. By pressing the panic button, our super computer should take care of it. Please help by making the protesters throw some bricks. Hopefully, that can distract them.".
We ended the night in some anarchist bar discussing the day's events. We drank fine wine bought with the donations. Jart was there with her boyfriend, some anarchist-communist scholar from Russia called Dimitri. It was a lot of fun.
ok thats the funniest thing ever! You know how to press my buttons. Sadly, I'm thinking, this is kind of how it works. It's either this or the aliens from the black helicoptors. And yours sounds more plausible.
[Removed]
[Removed]
Iv'e already made all my claims for this case in the links you provide. I'm not sure what your post is for? Forum users can simply answer the comments I have written.
It would be better if you just read my original posting on the issue: http://occupywallst.org/forum/has-ows-changed-their-stance-in-regards-to-the-bla/
I ask questions. I don't make a accusations. In a nutshell, I'm curious to know why OWS is not distancing itself from the black bloc like it once did. I'm wondering if anybody knows why. One anarchist replied that it was because Egyptian protesters had promoted the use of violence as a means to fight back in their October 25 letter which asks for OWS support.
Guilt of violence or the valuing of violence as a protest tool. I believe your claim relies on the violence perpetuated by Black Block and that you imply this has become a value of OWS.
I posted this thread so we don't run out of comment room or trash other threads, and because it is deserving of it's own thread. It's a pretty steep accusation you're making.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/has-ows-changed-their-stance-in-regards-to-the-bla/
I'm not making an accusation. I'm asking questions. Read the link I posted in my previous comment.
Is the color purple responsible for insanity?
You cannot discount an issue you raise or it's context by simply adding a question as a caveat. Question or no, you still raise the issue. By adding the question you simply leave open the need for clarification. That is what this thread is for.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/has-ows-changed-their-stance-in-regards-to-the-bla/
I'm not making an accusation. I'm asking questions. Read the link I posted in my previous comment.
So you are uncomfortable explaining further your implication. Because up until the question at the end of your post, the post is clearly making implications of OWS supporting violence based on the actions of Black-Block. If you don't want to clarify or defend that position, I understand. Hard to spend months being a dick about conspiracy theories then be called out for your own conspiracy theory, and still defend it.
If you want to comment on my article, please do so on the article's page. It makes it easier for readers if they can read my article and your comments together in one place. I see absolutely no point in replying to an article in the comments of another article. It just makes things very messy and renders proper discussion near impossible. You've demonstrated this the last time around.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/has-ows-changed-their-stance-in-regards-to-the-bla/