Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Deconstructing Occupy: Is it really non-violent? Help me analyze the imagery.

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 15, 2011, 6:06 a.m. EST by Thrasymaque (-2138)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

What is Occupy? Many theories have been explored, but we still remain largely unsatisfied. Some hold a positive if not utopian view of the movement branding it as a much needed heroic stand of the people for the people, some boldly criticize it and attempt to understand who are the forces behind the curtain often slipping into a conspiracy theory type analysis, and others simply dismiss it as nothing more than a bunch of kids in a park. The protesters themselves seem confused as to the true nature of Occupy.

We all agree there is a major worldwide economic problem and that most Republics have transformed into Ogliarchies. We all agree change won't come from honest politicians, but will somehow have to be forced upon them by the people. We all agree politics and big business need to be decoupled. The agreements seem to stop there.

Occupy has marketed itself as a non-violent protest by the 99% against the 1%. It maintains the protesters have various political affiliations and that none is encouraged over the others. Since they use general assemblies and direct democracy to make decisions, anyone can participate: anarchists, democrats, communists, liberals, republicans, socialists, etc... One need only to come to the general assemblies and propose their ideas.

That being said, we do know Occupy was largely designed by anarchists and that they use anarchist tools like direct democracy and occupations. They aspire to be an horizontal movement without leaders, and do not wish to make demands since that would create an inevitable hierarchic relation between the ones demanding (Occupy) and the ones to who the demands are being made (the government). For more information on the anarchist background of Occupy, I recommend reading this great article from Business Week: David Graeber - The Anti-Leader of Occupy Wall Street (an easier to read version is posted here) Also, you might want to read essays written by David Graeber.

If Occupy is open to various political affinities, we have to wonder why they have so strongly espoused an anarchic-communist look in their promotional material. They have adopted the famous raised fist, the black color or anarchy, the red color of communism, the idea of the heroic worker, the sickle, the hammer, the imperial sun rays, etc...

It also seems strange that a non-violent movement would print posters with such epithets as "US Days of Rage", or "Fight Back", and print pictures of tanks, and blood dripping from handcuffed wrists. We even want to question the use of the word non-violent instead of peaceful. Non-violence assumes violence is the norm and that it must to be countered, struggled against. Peaceful is much nicer, calmer.

Occupy communist style poster

poster

We could argue that Occupy needs a new look that doesn't take inspiration from past movements and regimes. A look not tied to Tienanmen Square, Egypt, or any other movement that had its own political and social problems. We feel a look that represents all the ideologies of the movement would be best, and that this new unique and modern look should be free of violent wordings and images. It should be a look that aims to promote true peace and harmony between all. It should not demonize the police, nor the state, but instead try to invite them into our arms.

223 Comments

223 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 10 points by an0n (764) 2 years ago

More psyops douchebaggery from the psyops douchebag.

[-] -2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I fixed my post for you. I hope it's more appropriate now.

[-] -3 points by badconduct (550) from Ottawa, ON 2 years ago

Everyone's out to get us! It's an inside job! They're spraying Chem trails! They put the fluoride in the water to MAKE US DUMB!

[-] 9 points by an0n (764) 2 years ago

More psyops douchebaggery from the psyops douchebag.

[-] 3 points by Edgewaters (912) 2 years ago

Yep, just a cheap attempt at subversion and not a very convincing one at that.

I've noticed there's a certain frantic desperation to disrupt the links with the popular uprising in Egypt.

Think something touched a nerve there ...

[+] -5 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

More anarcho-communist imagery for the largest "non"-violent protest of our times:

[-] 2 points by an0n (764) 2 years ago

What's that? Couldn't hear you.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Indeed, the classic OWS technique. Shut out all critical views. The problem is the best thinkers are the ones with the best critics.

[-] 1 points by an0n (764) 2 years ago

I might believe that was your intention, if you ever played an intellectual note that wasn't essentially anarchist-baiting, fear-mongering, movement-smearing psyops.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I provided many arguments for and against Occupy. You should read my posts and if you disagree reply with proper counter arguments instead of shutting your ears. Your arguments will get stronger if they survive the challenge of other arguments. They won't if you bury all critical thought. In the end, you are only hurting yourself. There is no way you can shut the critic unless you provide better arguments.

[-] 0 points by an0n (764) 2 years ago

Dude I've watched you fill an entire thread (several actually) with replies where you only debated the arguments superficially while repeating "anarchy" and "anarchist" incessently, brainwash-style. Transparent, to me anyway.

[-] 3 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Great. That's fine. You can either provide arguments to defend yourself, or try to silence me. Silencing me is impossible since I can always repost. Providing arguments could work if they are strong enough. They could also make me change my mind. Suit yourself. If you are unable to formulate strong arguments, you should find a friend that can, since I am only beginning.

I believe in Occupy, but they have to sharpen up if they want to remain active for a while longer. They should start by fixing their image. Using violent imagery does not work with the anti-violent message they preach. They should also call is a peaceful protest, not anti-violent.

[-] 9 points by JonoLith (467) 2 years ago

I tend to agree with the statement that the Occupiers demonize the Police. I do not believe that this is at all setting itself up to become violent. This is the response that they've been trained to have by the very system they are trying to get rid of. The American Government has always demonized it's enemies. It's not shocking that it's Citizens would do the same thing.

On the other hand, what better way to show the Police what they're doing then showing it to them. Through posters, signs and other media, of course.

[-] 4 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

On the other hand, what better way to show the Police what they're doing then showing it to them.

An eye for an eye. No, that doesn't work. It just creates a situation where violence escalates. The cops use tear gas, Occupy portrays them as tanks on their posters, then the cops become worse, then Occupy becomes worse, ad infinitum.

Occupy needs to ditch the communist violent imagery and create a pacific look that can be accepted by the whole population if it wants a chance to survive. It should be a new look without any baggage from past regimes.

[-] 5 points by JonoLith (467) 2 years ago

Hrm... In the end I do tend to agree. I think that, in the end, it will have to become a message of consolidation. There's no way for OWS to continue the demonization of the Police in the long term. No matter how it gets sliced, we need the Police.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Did you notice the increase in violence in the official posters for the big events? In September, we had the dancer on top of the bull. Very innocent. Then the red (communism) and black (anarchy) colors started being cemented in the October posters. In November, violent elements have begun to surface. In the Nov 2 poster for the general strike in Oakland, we see two raised fists tied by handcuffs which cause blood to drip down the arms. In the Nov 17 poster for the subway Occupation, we see the Tienanmen Square setup with the tanks. The violent imagery is increasing, not decreasing. They are creating an image of them as victims/martyrs and the state as the aggressive oppressors. They are widening the gap with every poster. This is very well planned.

Various red and black posters

[-] 2 points by JonoLith (467) 2 years ago

While I'm not going to disagree with your criticism that the imagery is becoming sharper, I definitely disagree with your conclusion, which, as I understand it, is "They are preparing to become violent."

I think it might be more accurate to say "They are preparing for violence to be done against them."

[-] 0 points by Joyce (375) 2 years ago

Oh please.....I'll open a cafe in Mississippi and display a large confederate flag for "historical perspective". Let's see how well that sits.......wake the fuck up!

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I absolutely disagree. They have no reason to increase the violence in their imagery to prepare their protesters for a peaceful resistance to violence. They are preparing the mindset of the protesters for a violent encounter by showing the images of violent encounters. This pumps up the protesters and enrages the police and the government who are being portrayed as tanks. Ghandi would never have used such imagery.

As a performance artist, one of the first things I learned was to visualize what I wanted my future performance to be like. We learned to close our eyes and imagine ourselves on stage performing the way we wanted it to be. This is the same thing. If Occupy truly wanted a peaceful protest, they would be promoting peaceful images of themselves in harmony with the police. Visualization is a powerful thing. You can become what you think you should become.

The imagery they are using is slowly increasing the gap between themselves and the police. The protesters are being portrayed more and more as victims, and the police more and more as the demons oppressors.

If you are right and Occupy truly does not want to become violent, then all I can say is they are doing their posters all wrong. What they should be doing is showing the magical peaceful world they intend to create.

They even chose the word non-violent instead of peaceful. That says a lot. Non-violent has the word violent in it. The mind thinks violence when it reads it. Peaceful is peaceful 100% genuine peaceful.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

"They even chose the word non-violent instead of peaceful. That says a lot. Non-violent has the word violent in it. The mind thinks violence when it reads it. Peaceful is peaceful 100% genuine peaceful."

Oh my god!!

This is the most twisted shit I've ever read.

Because the word "non-violent" has the word "violent" in it, you're saying that it's a VIOLENT word???

Seriously, ARE YOU F**KING KIDDING ME??

Seek a therapist right now because you are just a disgusting brainwashed piece of trash..

Why don't you please take your hate propaganda elsewhere??

[-] 3 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Imagery and words are very powerful and people in media study this down to a T. There is no question "peaceful" is a better choice than "non-violent" if your goal is really to remain peaceful. The hippies would never have chanted "Give non-violence a chance". When you use the expression be "non-violent" it is because you expect that being violent would be normal and you have to struggle against it. It is a negation of the state considered the norm. Peaceful is not a negation, it supposes that it's the norm.

[-] 2 points by Meesa (173) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Oh yes, TLydon. Words are very powerful as marketers, anthropologists, linguists, and others involved in the study of language attest. (I can dig up references if you wish.) It may seem absurd on the face of it -- I agree! -- but the way our minds process the words "non-violent" and "peaceful" does impact how we interpret them, what imagery we associate with them. I can only interpret the litany of violent imagery coming out of OWS as what supporters want -- their end point is not a peaceful world. I've posted this around here before, but compare the imagery gathered by Thrasymaque with the Plenitude Economy video here; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR-YrD_KB0M

It is an entirely different point of access to very similar themes talked about by OWS…

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

"At the center of non-violence stands the principle of love."

~Martin Luther King, Jr.

"We who in engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive."

~Martin Luther King, Jr.

"Anger is the enemy of non-violence and pride is a monster that swallows it up"

~Mohandas Gandhi

"We may never be strong enough to be entirely nonviolent in thought, word and deed. But we must keep nonviolence as our goal and make strong progress towards it."

~Mohandas Gandhi

"Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages."

~Thomas Edison

So you sincerely advocate the notion that these men were preaching "nonviolence" to strike fear into others because it has the word "violence" in it???

You find that more plausible than the notion that Thrasymaque is a troll that uses several user names he took from Plato's Republic to imply he's intelligent and spreads conspiracies he rips off of conservative hate radio??

Well then, that's just a pathetic lack of judgement on your part.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

These people do indeed use the word non-violent for a very good reason. They were being physically oppressed on a daily basis. Black people were being killed in America, and England was stationed in India. This was the case before their protests started. In the case of Occupy, the situation is different. They did not start in a situation where they were being oppressed by the police, only by corrupted politicians and bankers. Occupy chose to create a tension between the police and itself, while Ghandi and King were already in a tense situation. They used the term non-violence because they had to counter what was the norm: violence. When Occupy started the norm was peace. Similarly, this is why the hippies did not claim to be non-violent. No one was attacking them, so they were peaceful. Occupy could have been peaceful too.

I don't listen to conservative hate radio. I hate conservatives. I have always voted NDP. I'm far left. A musician if you must know.

How do you like the black city at the bottom of the arm in the new Philly poster. It's pretty sweet when viewed from afar. It doubles as dripping blood.

[-] 0 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

"These people do indeed use the word non-violent for a very good reason. They were being physically oppressed on a daily basis."

Your willful ignorance of protesters being shot with pepper spray, CS gas canisters, and beaten with batons has proven the extent to which you'll go to troll this forum with nonsense.

I am not interested in your perverted worldview whereby nonviolence is a call to violence while real violence against protesters is ignored. Everyone has grown tired of your nonsense.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

You are too funny. Ghandi and the African American were getting beat up and killed before they started protesting. Occupy started protesting without a problem. Their first GA on September 17th was peaceful, The protesters decided to use direct action themselves to create tension with the police. Comparing this situation with Ghandi and the African Americans doesn't make sense and belittles those movements.

The police were brutal. There's no question about that. I'm simply questioning the propaganda tactics being used by Occupy. The Nov 2nd poster with the handcuffed wrists and dripping blood came before the violence in Oakland and the problems with pepper spray, not after.

If you're tired of my nonsense why are you reviving a post more than a week old? Let it die, post about something else. There are tons of threads. You can also go play outside. Walk your dog. A lot of people agree with me here: http://occupywallst.org/article/occupy-philly-facing-eviction-today/#comments Go spend some in that posting and use your ad hominem over there. Call them trolls. Call me a troll. Nobody cares. We're all going to be posting tomorrow.

[-] 0 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

"Occupy started protesting without a problem."

Again, your ignorance is beyond comprehension.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

With a problem with the police. Read in context. There was no tension between authorities and the Occupy protesters at the beginning for the protests like there was with Ghandi and the African Americans. African American were getting hung by the KKK. You don't remember that? There were problems in the economy and with corruption, but no tension with the authorities. There was no police in site at the first meeting. That is something Occupy worked to achieve by doing things like occupying. When you decide to take over a public park indefinitely, you know the police will come one day. Then you print posters with blood before Oakland, and when the black bloc cause some violence you say they are a minority, a bunch of bad apples, but when a cop makes a mistake all police become the enemy. Then you associate the police with the military in Egypt via news articles... Etc... Now a beautiful fed fist with a tiny black city that creates the image of dripping blood. Very nice. http://occupywallst.org/article/occupy-philly-facing-eviction-today/

One of the reasons this movement died is because protesters did not criticize the movement themselves. Someone who truly cares about being non-violent should not approve of these posters. Period.

Sorry, but it diminishes the struggles of Ghandi and the African Americans to compare Occupy's struggles with them. It's an entirely different matter. Occupy faces problems, but they are not the same.

[-] 0 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

That isn't a bleeding fist, you jackass.

That's the city landscape.

The fist always has always represented solidarity.

You know what?? Twist everything however you want. It just proves how pathetic your arguments against OWS are.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

The city landscape creates the illusion of a bleeding arm when viewed from afar.

An important advice: The imagery is turning off many people who would have otherwise followed the movement. Why take the risk and not simply turn to a calmer less stringent imagery? This Bleeding Fist poster and the Tinanmen Tanks poster are very problematic indeed. Very problematic. Indeed.

A thread with many comments of people turned of by the imagery: http://occupywallst.org/article/occupy-philly-facing-eviction-today/#comments

Help us make Occupy more peaceful. Ask for absolutely non-violent imagery in your next GA.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

That video was fun!

[-] 1 points by JonoLith (467) 2 years ago

I don't believe they consciously are making their posters more violent. I agree with you that the posters have become more violent, but I disagree that it is motivated by a conscious effort to create a gap.

I believe, quite strongly, that what we are seeing is a completely reactive Movement, at this moment. It's first poster is peaceful and beautiful, because the idea of the movement is beautiful and peaceful. All these people suddenly gather and suddenly all of these individuals became a movement! What an incredible unexpected magical moment! Their first poster reflects this.

Then you start getting incidents of violence. A police officer pepper sprays a group of penned in women. Arrests using a needless level of force. Small groups of people get taken away. The Movement releases statements calling for justice that fall on deaf ears. Now the fight is on. The poster reflects this.

The Clearing of Occupy Oakland happens. A two time Iraq war vet gets hospitalized. Tear gas. Blatant disregard for human life. The Oakland occupiers rise back up. More reports are coming in of Occupy sites being cleared out. Occupy Wall Street itself, the original Occupier, gets cleared out.

It's a War.

The Poster Reflects That.

I believe there is a mind behind the designs, but it isn't conscious. It's just reflecting what's going on.

The Movement needs to start becoming self aware. Right now it's just a visceral organism, lashing out at whatever threatens it. It's pure survival mode right now. Once it grows up and sees itself it will be truly unstoppable.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

You are very giving. AdBusters made the first poster and have helped OWS since day one. They are masters of design. They always know what they are doing. They calculate everything. It's 100% conscious and has been done in history many times before. OWS was born from a culture of design.

[-] 1 points by Meesa (173) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Good point, Thrasymaque, but I also see validity in this analysis. JonoLith, I think your point is well taken as far as how supporters are responding to the graphics. This inflammatory imagery would not be well-received maybe two months ago, but with the police episodes and camp raids, everything is coming together for a perfect storm.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Perhaps JonoLith is right. I tend to disagree, but I won't say I have solid proof. The Nov 2nd poster for Oakland with the handcuffed fists and dripping blood came before the veteran got shot and the black bloc was violent. If I remember correctly, the tension between the police and the protesters really started in Oakland after the poster came out. Who knows.

How do you like the new poster for Philly? I added it to my collection. It's the last one with the red fists. I like the touch of the black city at the bottom of the arm. From afar, it looks like dripping blood. The harsh red makes it look almost satanic.

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 2 years ago

I agree that the movement seems to be becoming more pro-communist in appearance, more simply anarchist in its protests that trample the rights of others. As a result, it will start polarizing people to take sides against it because they cannot agree with its tactics nor its apparent pro-communist, pro-violent leanings. So far, i still hear a number of voices against violence and even some against occupying streets and blocking traffic, but the more radical voices seem to be winning out. I hope those who are more rational and peaceable will make it clear this is THEIR movement, too.

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-now-unoccupied-but-stronger

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

"Then the red (communism) and black (anarchy) colors started being cemented in the October posters."

So your impressions of a poster recreating the Tianenman Square protestor is..

PRO-COMMUNIST??

You know what?

You people are so warped it's not even funny anymore.

I can already tell you're just another spastic McCarthyist with backwards ass views. You probably supported the Iraq War also and joined onto the Tea Party Bandwagon and now you've isolated yourself to the conservative news bubble where I found the exact same images you posted with the same god damn file names.

Do you ever feel like you're an unpatriotic disgrace?? Or do you convince yourself that being such a low-level corporate crony makes you a good person?? I'm just curious.

[-] 2 points by an0n (764) 2 years ago

psy.ops.

\/

[-] -2 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

Occupy is pro-communist.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21785) 1 year ago

That's it? That's what you drug up a thread that goes back over a year to say?

Nah...........it really is you. You are 39?

[-] -2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

No. I'm Canadian. I hate conservatives. I hate Stephen Harper. I'm an artist and always voted left. Pretty far left too. I believe in free health-care, no death penalty, welfare for all, no guns, free university, I believe religion should be illegal, I believe state and money should be separated, etc... I like the Canadian system and would never trade it for the American one. Instead, I would like to see it even more socialized.

My beef is only with the violent imagery of Occupy. If you cannot see how their imagery is based around anarcho-communism, then what can I say? Some of their posters are exact replicas of early Russian communist propaganda. Look at my pictures below in another post.

And yes, I believe this poster with Tienanmen Square espouses communism. It is a re-reading of an important communist event. It re-intepretes the event in today's Occupy context putting the little man against the big machine. Communism is always advertised like that, it's always about the common man being heroic and taking over. That's normal everyday communist propaganda. Furthermore, communists know they will not easily be accepted by Americans, so alluding to a situation that was against communism plays well the mind of people like you who can't see deeply enough.

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

This post makes me so sad. Because these pictures are scary and disturbing. I'm glad you talked about these pictures. You said things that needed to be said. You are so smart!

I dislike these pictures so much! They do not represent at all the way I feel. But yet, they represent the movement. It makes me sad.

Side note: make religion illegal? That would be blasphemy! I went to Catholic school most of my life. Yes, I have been deeply indoctrinated! You might be able to take the girl out of Church, but you can't take the Church out of the girl! Particularly considering I only make it to Mass about once a month lately - when it doesn't interfere with hockey. Priorities, ya know!

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I'm am anti-religious, but making religion illegal would most likely be impossible and would certainly not respect the freedom of people to share and think around similar beliefs. My main problem with religion is how it is taught to children. More often than not, it is somewhat forced upon them and there is no explanation that it is not science, not proven, and that other people in the world have other beliefs which are just as justified. I guess It would be fine with me if it came with a big disclaimer:

"This is a religious class children. We will be learning about X religion, and you must understand that nothing we teach here is proven to be the truth. What we teach is a belief that many of us share through our common faith. It is not science, and many people in the world have other faiths that are just as realistic as ours. You are learning this particular faith because it is the one your parents and community have chosen to follow. Once you are older, you are free to have the beliefs you want and should always respect the beliefs of others. If you have children one day, you must respect them if they choose a different belief system than you own. Now then, let's proceed to learn about X religious."

I think there is nothing more dangerous for a child's mind that what you see in the film Jesus Camp. I have rarely seen religion being taught in an honest way. It always tries to pass itself off as the one truth about the others.

[-] 3 points by nichole (525) 2 years ago

How many troll personas do you own?

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I'm only one person. Why? Is it because I have a complex personality? You're confused?

[-] 0 points by nichole (525) 2 years ago

For the betterment of manmind ...

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Exactly.

[-] 2 points by nichole (525) 2 years ago

So, it's not exactly trolling?
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable, I sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world." --Walt Whitman, "Song of Myself"

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I don't see how posting arguments to further a discussion can be considered trolling. Unless you consider anyone who disagrees with you a troll? I don't.

[-] 1 points by badconduct (550) from Ottawa, ON 2 years ago

I'm a Canadian. I don't "hate" conservatives, but I certainly don't agree with many of their views. I don't agree with Harper on many of his views, especially when it comes to the environment. I'm an artist, and I normally don't bother to vote. I'm a right winger, very far right winger too. I am more of an anarchist, but I have no interest in organized anarchy or violence; I just do what I want and stand up for what I believe in. I believe in free health care, no death penalty (except for terrorism), welfare for all, pro-guns, lowering tuition (or forgiving loans if a student graduates with high marks). I believe religion should be accepted, but not forced into government (including marriage) or education by law. I believe money should be fully controlled by the state, and banks should be watched like a hawk. I like the Canadian system as well, but I wouldn't be quick to complain about the US one.

And I agree, the posters are taking a violent stance. They want to see violence, and so does the media.

They are purposely drawing a communist era light in order to justify a violent revolution. Which isn't going to happen. What they are doing is creating an enemy that does not exist. I blame the right-wing media just as much, especially the New World Order crap.

There's a serious problem with society, that is undeniable. The first is the amount of people who could be suffering from schizophrenia. People are making comments and suggesting that "trolls" on these forums are agents working some organization or another, and posting comments to dislodge or discredit the movement. People also think these red and black posters, which are easily created in Photoshop by anybody, are part of some master plan as well.

The second is the violent and abusive culture we have created. Between movies, video games and music, all we hear and see is violence. I don't think violent video games necessarily cause violence, but when people go from a world of anarchy, freedom and violence into the real world, where they are expected to behave a certain way, it gives people a reason to wish for a social breakdown.

This whole movement is based on misinformation and paranoia, it's fuelled by a money-hungry media (entertainment and news), and drug culture.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

You should post this directly to start a new thread. It's buried now and no one will see it.

[-] 3 points by badconduct (550) from Ottawa, ON 2 years ago

Forget it. I'm just talking to you.

I tried to support Occupy Ottawa a month back. It was to infected with drug-culture; people were trying to drink gasoline, using heroine, chain smoking... Even this forum bugs me now. It's heavily censored, and picks away at anything that's anti-occupy, or right wing. I've even been attacked in here because, as a Canadian, I don't get any say or opinion in the Occupy movement. Go figure.

They had topics on occupyottawa.org about drinking, everyone just denied it and said it never happened. I disputed that, and no one commented afterwords.

Crawling around on the streets like rodents, begging for handouts won't change anything. Maybe I am just talking directly to you. Don't waste your time. You can give these people thousands of dollars a month, and they will still complain. They want the police to hit them, they want their camps to be destroyed. That's what they are expecting, and that's what they came out to do. Especially when people start to work less or care less about their day-to-day jobs because they believe they are being controlled by the Overlord of the Illuminati, it makes their lives even more difficult.

There's 3 groups of people; Young people, part of the "me" generation who some how expected that 99% of them would end up in the top 1% after working for a few months. They just want to push the Baby Boomers off the cliff and get their money. Older people; part of the baby boomers that didn't make millions, didn't save for retirement, didn't diversify their savings, bought more on credit than they could afford, and lived day-by-day. And finally; economists, marketers and intelligent people who want nothing more than to take advantage of the whole scene and plan on profiting off of it.

[-] 0 points by pinker (586) 2 years ago

I just noticed that the guy has shopping bags in his hand. Is it an army of consumers behind him? I too find this image to be ridiculous (no offence to the graphic designer). But really, to compare America/this iconic image of Tiananmen Square and their struggles is extremely distasteful. When OWS becomes a cause worth dying for, let us know.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

The shopping bags are probably because in the images from Tinanmen Square the protester had bags in his hand. The poster also ways "reclaim the economy".

[-] 1 points by joe100 (306) 2 years ago

Eye for an eye is by FAR the BEST laws! Steal - and then get three times your stuff stolen. Hit someone - get hit back with the same force plus a little more. Slander - get slandered and humiliated back. The answer for all punishment is NOT prison. Prison just makes money for the private companies that own the prison.

Some people have this idea that eye for an eye means if someone steals their hand gets cut off. This is total BS - you only get your hand cut off, if your crime is cutting someone's hand off!

Eye for an eye completely LOWERS violence. Prison completely ESCALATES violence.

The brainwash about eye for eye is everywhere.

[-] 0 points by nichole (525) 2 years ago

Agreed. I am not going to put any faith into a regime that was destroyed by fascists in another time and place.

[-] 7 points by TheScreamingHead (239) 2 years ago

America looks like a third world country. This is wrong and it is violent because of the COPS, not the people. Dude, you'll see when your taxes go up and the Fed stops holding town interest rates artificially. Then you'll know exactly what people are out there for.

http://www.stopblackfriday.com/

[+] -4 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Logical Fallacies:

  1. Two wrongs don't make a right (cops are bad, so Occupy can too.)
  2. Red Herring (change of topic.)

I already know why the people are protesting. There is a major problem in our system. I am not denying this. I think protests are important. This post is about the violent anarchic-communist imagery being used. I believe Occupy should use more peaceful imagery and rhetoric since it claims to be a peaceful movement.

[-] 1 points by TheScreamingHead (239) 2 years ago

Logical fallacies:

  1. Morality has nothing to do with logic
  2. Red herring (you don't know what logic is)

LOLOL

http://stopblackfriday.com

[Deleted]

[-] 5 points by powertothepeople (1264) 2 years ago

I'm a woman and that was sexist but I lol'd anyway.

Hey, I bang Glenn Beck with my strap on all the time, too, is it wrong if I call him a butt slutt on the World Wide Web?

[-] -1 points by nichole (525) 2 years ago

Leftist Misogyny, and you bash the ladies claiming they don't want you simply because you don't got the $$$

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

It was sexist and I regret it. I do have money, though, so you might not want to jeopardize the conservative narrative of liberal elitism by assuming otherwise.

[+] -4 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I didn't know this site existed, but thanks. You can look at my arguments and make of them what you will. There is definitely a link to communism imagery, and the images are getting more violent. There is no doubting this and if more than one person separately come up with this idea it is normal. People are not blind. I have no idea who Tiffanay Gabbay is. I'm not American and seldom watch TV.

[-] 7 points by ZenDog (20601) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

You are not entirely off the mark - you simply miss the reality of the depth of dissatisfaction felt among the general population, the magnanimity of the American people, or their actual strength in numbers.

We will grow, and as we do we will use our speech to maintain an air of peace and non-violence among our gatherings. We will watch for disinformation arising from those among us, and it will not long be tolerated - it will not long be tolerated simply because it is a fundamental tactic that has been used to generate so much of the dissatisfaction we all feel.

No one wants to be branded a liar, or a provocateur, or a government stooge bent on our destruction. Maintaining control over radicalized elements that exist within our ranks will be easier than you suppose.

They want to belong to something. All they need is an avenue to express their frustration, one that they can see produces results.

Encourage them to Tweet for example. I'll be posting an essay in the next few days outlining the advantages of Twitter, and what to look for as signposts of direct and measurable success.

In the meantime, consider this:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/targeted-interdiction-what-is-it/

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Oh, I understand exactly why the movement is gaining so much traction. It is clear there is a major problem affecting governments all around the world and that most people are unhappy about that. No doubt.

I simply think Occupy is not transparent and that its theory is not in tune with its practice. If Occupy is truly the non-violent ideology you claim, all I can say is that it is doing it all wrong.

[-] 1 points by Meesa (173) from New York, NY 2 years ago

T, we need to lead a counter-movement. :D

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20601) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

In some areas of the country it may. In some groups within groups this will happen at the outset.

The movement is chaotic at the moment. As long as we continue to express our dissatisfaction, others will recognize that within themselves, and be drawn to us.

We are simply a universe in formation. Keep up with your message - network, and in time we will coalesce into something much larger.

Provide strategies that produce measurable results. Think small, whisper.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I don't think the Occupy is disorganized at all. To the contrary, I think it is highly organized.

For one, you have a very well established anarchic-communist look and feel even though you claim to represent the many various ideologies that shape the movement. It is not easy to maintain such a particular imagery if anyone from the other ideologies can vote against it in the general assembly. There must be an element in the movement that favors anarcho-communist over the other types of thinkers. This is not by accident.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20601) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

They were simply there at the outset. We embrace them. They embrace us. We will embrace each other. Accept each other - we must. Alone beneath our individual banners we cannot prevail.

Together we will succeed.

so, um - you said you - not we.

Are You With Us?

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

Zen, do you think the movement have a life of its own, willing to work with and through government to affect change? Or is it being used as a means to someone elses end? Or maybe you don't believe in working with government?

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20601) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

What you are generally asking is what do I believe about organizations. Organizations are composed of people, within them there is a diversity of opinion, belief, cultural experience and commitment.

What I have seen of OWS is that it operates on the basis of consensus. I do not care who started it or why - nor do I care what their agenda may have been.

By consensus it will become what we make of it.

By consensus we will work with everyone who supports us.

By consensus we will destroy those who do not.

This is the essence of democracy.

I, personally, possess a desire to make such a mockery of the repelican party that it simply ceases to exist. This comes from a place of both sorrow and of rage, some of which is in fact misplaced - or if you prefer, misdirected.

I am a pragmatist. Utter destruction of the repelican party may, in an of itself, not serve the People of the United States very well, I don't know. While such considerations are extremely important, they lie outside of my current focus.

There are those among us within the OWS movement who are adamant about not working with the current establishment in any way, shape, or form. They would break it all.

There is in my mind no question what so ever - something will indeed break. What and how much remains to be seen.

Upon this there is I believe, consensus.

It is time for change.

It is time to be audacious.

.

.

I refuse to operate on the basis of fear.

[-] 2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago
  1. By consensus it will become what we make of it.
  2. By consensus we will work with everyone who supports us.
  3. By consensus we will destroy those who do not.

There are so many contradictions between these sentences.

If you are destroying those who do not support you, and only working with those who do, how can the movement change?

Shouldn't you all be working together in the consensus, why the use of the dichotomy we/those who don't support us? Who are those who don't support you if they are part of the movement and also voting in the assemblies? Do you mean those who do not support the majority which you are part of and this majority will never let itself become the minority?

What if April and I went to the general assemblies, would we be the enemy that must be repelled at all cost? What if there were more like us and we voted against your ideas? Would that make you the new enemy of Occupy?

If Occupy can be whatever the people in the consensus decide, then how can it have supporters and non-supporters. Couldn't there only be supporters and non-supporters for each motion that is being tabled?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20601) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

In my personal view if you or April attend an assembly and espouse un-American values, values that contradict principles of freedom, equality, democratic rule - then yes. you would be the enemy.

You would be

Un-American.

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

I saw my name here - so I'm jumping in! Hope you don't mind!

I'm not intending on espousing any un-American values. But I could make an argument (?) that OWS is. With the anarchist/communist images that they project. It is more than not inclusive, it seems like a guiding force. How can this be "infiltration", as you say in your earlier comment? A communist minority group (not that there's anything wrong with that! communists are people too! They have tongues : ) ) - infiltrates the OWS forum and "plants" communist images? I would say the "organizers" are very consciously advocating anarchism and communism. Subtle in the beginning, and increasingly more overtly. Again, of all the images they could possibly choose from, why this? Does this really represent the majority of the protesters, do you think? If not, why all the anarchism/communism imagery? Just for the sake of argument, totally hypothetically speaking! IF there is an agenda that OWS organizers have, and their agenda is the promotion of anarchism/communism - THEN, this would seem to make some sense.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20601) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

well join a group, add your voice. Articulate your concerns, just as you have here.

You are one of the ninety-nine.

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

Are you bored with this topic? Or just me? Thats ok, maybe I just didn't say anything very interesting.
I did read through your subversion post. I liked it. I'm thinking on it! My mind isn't as elastic as yours, I'm sure!

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20601) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Think of it this way - we did survive the '60s. It was ugly, but the protesters then were - mostly - correct.

We will survive this too.

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

I feel oh so much better now : )

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20601) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Kay - obviously when I say kids I'm underestimating them - they aren't exactly kids but I'm an old guy, ya know?

I'm sure they can articulate their vision with clarity and intelligence. And maybe at some point in the future the world will look a lot more like their utopia than what we have now. We should hope so.

In the meantime, here is where we are. They are a force for change. I know people in the movement who are not communists. I'm not.

As long as we remain all inclusive, we'll be fine.

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

Sorry, this is a bit garbled. I don't have a reply option below.

I see what you are saying and agree - this is a force for change, here is where we are - because this is the only game in town right now to affect any sort of change. And maybe that is what has me bothered. Because while I agree with the issues that the movement has bubbled up, I don't like the direction its taking. I'm not so sure about "their utopia" either. I don't believe in utopia except in Heaven. I wish I could be as confident as you - that we'll be fine.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20601) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Neither - it just isn't high on my radar - and I've answered it a couple of times elsewhere, I think.

The movement is young. I think the posters you refer too are simply the reaction of young people in the process of rejecting the status quo and they are going for the shock value.

I see they are succeeding.

That does not change the validity of the basic message.

Try this:

http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779

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

You're right. You probably have answered this already! Sometimes you just have to hit me over the head with it though. I'm a little slow sometimes! Or, maybe I just thought if I said it a different way, you might see what I see. No matter. We always have the Repelicans to agree about!

But I do believe in the basic message as you do too. I just don't like the direction the organizers are taking.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20601) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

That's ok, you don't have to. What's interesting is that any national group will have local groups that have a flavor all their own.

And it's all related - take the issue of unions. Repelicans desperately want to take away collective bargaining rights. They don't have the right to do that. They don't because we love our neighbor. This means we have an obligation to our neighbor - as much as to ourselves - injustice in the workplace demands redress. Collective bargaining provides a vehicle for that.

And communists are hell on wheels when it comes to workers rights.

[-] 1 points by tulcak (698) from Prague, Prague 2 years ago

This from the Occupy Together site from their FAQs section:

What is your agenda? Are you anarchists/democrats/republicans/independents/etc.?

We have no agenda other than to provide people with information about the events and actions happening in their area in solidarity and support of those that currently Occupy Wall St. Our political and social beliefs will remain neutral for this cause; this is not about us, this is about the movement. The only thing we will promote openly is peaceful demonstrations.

Seems pretty clear to me.

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

We agree on one thing I think, maybe two! We both want change and neither of us are fond of Repelicans! Lets start with that.

No, I really was not talking about organizations. I was talking about how to affect positive change. By working with and through government (with a protest, perhaps!) or otherwise? You say there are those who are adamant about "not working with the current establishment". This is what I am having trouble with.

You say this movement will work by consensus. What does the consensus say about working with and through government? Because there might be some protesters who would give that a twinkle fingers up.

I think it is important to know who started this and what the agenda is. So far, its saying everything, which is the equivalent of saying nothing. But it has been quite effective at gathering support because it seems to be taking advantage of peoples legitimate issues. While at the same time using controversial (I would say disturbing) images. And since there is no "official" message, these images are all the more important. Of all the choices for imaging - why anarchist/communist? That doesn't say inclusive to me.

I have to agree with Thrasymaque. The images are becoming bolder and more overt. And maybe its just me, but a few weeks ago, there was hardly any discussion about anarchists. Now the anarchist connection is practically common knowledge and it seems that alot of people are pretty accepting of that. Not that there's anything wrong with that!! But I wonder - a few weeks from now - is there going to be a communism connection? And are people going to be accepting of that too? I'm just sayin'.

And just for the record - I don't want to destroy anyone. Not even the Repelicans. Can't we be audacious without destroying things?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20601) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

We agree that our system is broken - I say we must break those things that did the breaking, and do so in a way that is . . . educational . . . but that's just my opinion.

As far as the possibility of "communist infiltration" - I wouldn't be surprised if it became an issue - not because of the weight of numbers but rather because of an attempt to discredit the movement. As a demographic, I doubt that communists exist in sufficient number to represent a credible concern.

By accepting their right to free speech among us, we would be empowering them - we would also be standing firm upon American principles of freedom and democracy.

They have a fundamental right to believe what they do. We have a fundamental obligation to ensure their rights and the recognition of their status as equals among the mass of citizens that make up this country.

Is it my thing? Nope. But supporting their rights isn't some back door opening to invasion by Russia or China. On the other hand, my understanding is that certain aspects of our trade policy may in fact be just that.

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I would be if Occupy represented the 99%, but I do not believe they do. I believe they represent a very precisely defined anarcho-communist agenda and that's why their marketing is how it is. I believe it is being controlled by a few, and that they are planning to use violence in the future. If Occupy changes its rhetoric, than perhaps I will support them. At this time I can't.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20601) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

You are limited by your own system of belief and the commitments that system produces. That's alright. Don't worry about that.

Many different banners flew during the anti-war and civil rights movements. These were twins, working in concert, and together they produced a given end.

Certain ideals of the anarchist movement will serve OWS, and by extension the public, very well. With a horizontal structure as opposed to a top down regimentation we become far more flexible - in terms of diversity, ideology and even tactics.

We cannot become all things to all people - but we can become many things acting in unison.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

You are limited by your own system of belief and the commitments that system produces

Who isn't? Your point? Somehow you have no limits? Is that a lame ad hominem you're trying to throw? For what?

I agree the horizontal setup is useful and the tool of direct democracy can have merit if used well. That's not my gripe. I'm wondering why Occupy is using such divisive imagery if it want to unify.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20601) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

No, that was not meant as an attack. It was simply an observation.

yes, I too have limits. Somewhere. I hope not to find them.

The imagery you refer to is a single banner - in Scotland c1200 clans came together under many banners to demand freedom.

We are all Americans. We all agree there is dire need of change.

I have been waiting for this day for a long, long time. You will see - many different banners will arise. There will be a wide diversity of opinion - and of iconography - we will work in unison, and we will affect change.

You are nervous, I can tell. Just take a deep breath.

And hang on!

; D

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

The imagery I refer to is not on one single banner. I gave TWO examples, but there are many more. Some posters are even direct copies of communist Russia propaganda. For example:

Look at this page which has many Occupy posters and see how the red (communism) and black (anarchy) are important colors: http://www.occupytogether.org/downloadable-posters/

Look at the latest posters like the one with the tanks and this one which shows handcuffs, blood dripping from the handcuffs, two raised fists, the money chain. These are related in look and feel, both hare red and black also. This new November look is increasing in violence. The posters from October did not have tanks and blood.

Take a look at the Occupy Oakland poster with the gasmask:

My point is the imagery could be a lot less violent for a so called peaceful group. It could also portray other ideologies that the black and red anarcho-communism.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20601) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I'm not saying I disagree - and if you were to say that such iconography may in turn slow the growth of this movement, you might be correct.

at the same time such imagery does capitalize on the investment of instability that has been made by powerful interests. Repelicans are masters at the art of brinkmanship. This iconography at the outset of the movement will help in a couple of ways -

Those who oppose us will tend to write us off as lacking support of the people.

As the movement grows the opposition will become confused, unsure of how much they have risked. This will make them shrill, and prone to error.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I'm not against iconography. A look is very important and can lead a movement. It's paramount, and that's why I am questioning it.

The look began to increase in violence in November. The Nov 2nd poster has raised fists with cuffs and blood, while the Nov 17 poster has the tanks. The October posters did not depict violence, only the black (anarchy) and red (communist) colors.

Here are my questions. I hope you can answer them as directly as possible:

  1. Why not use an imagery that has no links to the past? Why is it important to link the movement to communist Russia, Tienanmen Square, or Egypt?

  2. Why not create a look that does not espouse a particular ideology like anarcho-communism when the movement claims it accepts any ideology?

  3. Why are the posters increasing in violence?

  4. Why does Occupy not adopt a new modern pacific look for anarchy?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20601) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I'm in Vermont, not in New York. I wasn't in on the committee process that produced the art, so I really have no useful input on your questions.

All I can say is that the movement is in its infancy, and once it understands that success is already assured, it will mold itself to meet that promise.

[-] 0 points by Leynna1 (28) 2 years ago

Because the oligarchs want to relive their gory....oops...I mean glory days!

[-] 0 points by Leynna1 (28) 2 years ago

Uh ohhhhh...this is sounding a little conspriatorial! ;-)

[-] 7 points by flip (4973) 2 years ago

posting graeber is the best thing you have done - i think in your life - you should quit now while you are ahead - thanks

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Nah, I'm just getting started.

[-] 2 points by flip (4973) 2 years ago

i was afraid of that - i hope you will be more helpful in the future!

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I'm being as helpful as I can. Help comes in many different ways. Sometimes the best help is criticism. How else can your arguments become strong and invulnerable if they are never challenged? Every great thinker had great critics. Some like René Descartes were so smart that they invited criticism and then published it in their own works. They were not afraid of the ideas of others, they embraced them for they knew it could only make them stronger.

[-] 2 points by flip (4973) 2 years ago

you are correct - now i would suggest that you use your off the charts iq to be very smart and helpful in your criticism - this movement is very fragile and may be the last best hope for meaningful change. are you really socrates reborn? In an encounter with the interlocutor Callicles, Socrates literally and uncharacteristically, yells something like the following: “Tell me Callicles, who of the politicians of Athens has ever benefitted the lives of Athenians, who has educated them and helped them to flourish?” Socrates answers his own question, “None, not even your Pericles.” Many have interpreted this passage as consistent with Plato’s criticism of Athenian democracy, more fully presented in The Republic; but it is also, and perhaps mainly, an integral part of the larger problematic of political leadership raised by Plato in his dialogues

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I agree the politicians, particularly the ones we have now, are not educating us. I agree there is a big problem and most of the world's Republics have become corrupted Ogliarchies. US has.

However, I do fear Occupy because it is full of contradictions. To deny this is to be blind. I do not believe it is the solution, certainly not in its current form. That is why I am offering not only criticism, but solutions to the problem.

There is a vast gap between Occupy's theory and its practice. If it wants to succeed it must fix this problem as soon as possible. Believe me, I truly hope it does succeed.

[-] 3 points by flip (4973) 2 years ago

i agree with most of what you say but do you have a better idea? have you seen a better chance to change the dialogue? not sure about your theory and practice thought but i am old enough to have seen lots of bad shit by those in charge and i am trying to help anyone who seems to be moving things in the right direction. which side are you on is the first question and the next is are you helping or hurting the side you are on. anarchism is, to me anyway, real radical democracy but the general population views it (wrongly) as chaos and bomb throwing. we need to start slowly and keep moving in the right direction. howard zinn said that if you live to see your goals achieved then your goals were too small. so, again, which side are you on? to coin a phrase!

[-] 2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I do have better ideas. I would keep the current setup of general assemblies through direct democracy, but that's about it.

  1. Like you say, the population in general sees anarchy as chaos and bomb throwing. One of the major problems with Occupy is that they have done nothing to counter this, all to the contrary. They have adopted the known imagery of the anarcho-communists of the past. Just like anarchy, communism is not widely accepted in US, nor many other western nations. I understand the worker metaphor from communism they want to employ, but we have to remember that when the communist used these images, they were new and did not have a history weighing them down. The current imagery of Occupy ties it to the past, and revives the fears of the failed communist regimes. Anarchy created a new image for itself during the punk era. Occupy should do the same. They should create a calm and peaceful image of anarchy. An image that ties with modern times. Non-violence should be symbolized through figures such as Ghandi, and not the tank confrontation of Tienanmen Square. Images of weaponry should never be used. The idea of the oppressed against the oppressor should be dropped. Instead it should show the oppressed working together with the oppressor in full harmony. It should convey a message of humans interacting and creating a better world together. Not faced against one another.

  2. The way the police is being dealt with is totally wrong. When a few of Occupy's protesters created damage, Occupy blamed the black bloc and said they didn't represent them as a whole. When a video of a stupid cop shooting a rubber bullet at a protester in an uncalled for manner is released Occupy jumps on it to demonize all cops. This is a major contradiction. Instead, Occupy should extend its hands to the cops. The police have not been demons like Occupy pretends they have. There are a few bad apples that have overreacted, just like the black bloc. Using tanks to depict the oppression, the police, etc... is all wrong. The oppression should not be made to be evil. We already know it is. Again, we need to portray Occupy working with the police. We have to show the police we want them to be part of Occupy, not demonize them.

  3. Roadblocks stopping ordinary citizens that have nothing to do with the 1% should not happen. Occupying the subway at a time when many kids come home from school is a very bad idea. Occupy needs to stop interfering with the public in a forced manner.

  4. Occupy must be fully transparent 100%. They have not been. They should explain to everyone they are based on anarchy and that is why their marketing materials have been based on a anarcho-communist look and feel, and not a feel that represents the 99%. They should not claim that every ideology is accepted in the movement if they are not going to market it that way.

  5. They should not compare themselves with Egypt, or Tienanman, which have totally different social political realities. These types of comparisons only harm understanding.

I don't think Occupy really wants to be the non-violent 99% that it claims. I believe it is highly planned to be the way it is. And, I believe, unfortunately, that it plans to turn to violence in the near future.

I have more ideas, and I'll be posting them in a few days. I have to think through all the information I have and organize in a proper post. Not write quickly like I did here ;-)

[-] 2 points by flip (4973) 2 years ago

great - get back to me when you are up and running and i will help out in any way - until that happens i am on board with these guys - that is not to say they are perfect - more later - i got grand kids to take care off - you have too much time on your hands - student maybe?

[-] 2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I have plenty of time because I live in Indonesia. My cost of living is about 3000$ per year. I usually work around 1 or 2 months a year doing freelance computer programming contracts for US companies, then I spend the rest of the year reading, writing, playing music (I have a master's in music), going to the beach, etc... I work as little as I possibly can so that I can do what I really want to do in life. I always preferred time over money. In a BIG way.

I have to say I'm disappointed protesters seldom want to engage in discussion.

[-] 1 points by flip (4973) 2 years ago

well you don't always get off on the right foot you know. i agree with the lifestyle - you have not been to the park in nyc - and you may never get the chanc. i went there 6 or 7 times.it was always very interesting. lots of discussions on all sorts of topics. you could wander around and pick the one you liked. this forum is not great - not sure why but too much nonsense. too bad- are you making it better? not sure if i am

[-] 2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I think I'm making it better. I'm deconstructing Occupy's imagery which seems to be getting more and more violent. That helps to better understand the movement. Some will agree, some won't, and some might just provide arguments which will kill my idea, or make it stronger. We will see.

[-] 2 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

The imagery is very war like. Gandhi would not print this stuff. I don't see how anyone could argue with that!

[-] 2 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Bingo.

Gandhi would be disgusted. Same for MLK.

[-] 1 points by flip (4973) 2 years ago

you are making judgements from afar don't you think - get down here and see what you think. to me it seems that those who sit on their couch should not throw stones at those with their bodies in front of the police. i have not seen a better movement in a long time - if you have, point me to it - if not then come on and show them how to make it better instead of just talking

[-] 2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I don't want to destroy your movement. I want to make it better.

Do you like the power of words? Why not take 2 seconds and read this very short post: http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-is-a-peaceful-protest-being-advertised-as-a-no/

[-] 1 points by flip (4973) 2 years ago

i read it - don't really disagree but you don't think you are nit picking and being distracting - not so sure here - i am tired - grandchildren all day - it is rough out there. anyway, it feels (and i use that word, not think) like you could be more sharp and more to the heart of the problem here. what is the problem - good question - getting more people on board, i think - what about you. to me, non violence is a tactic not a principle but having said that it is crucial to this movement - so i am going to make dinner but i guess i do not disagree with much of what you say - keep trying - do it better - how about that!

[-] 2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I'm making judgements on posters at the moment. I can see them quite well from here. It's a big movement, but it could be much better. There is always room for improvement and you shouldn't shut your ears to criticism.

[-] 1 points by flip (4973) 2 years ago

can't argue with not shutting your ears but what i said stands - easy to sit back and criticize - whether it is sport or this. you have not seen anyone do anything better in your short lifetime so, if you are wise - tread gently - these people have done something special. it is also very different to be on the ground and to voice criticism when only those involved can hear - it is another thing to have your voice used by those who would destroy this movement - and those in power would love to destroy this - it has already accomplished more in 6 weeks than anything i have seen - how about you - have you seen someone do it better? there it is - that is the question - have you seen someone create more change in 6 weeks - not even a president, so as i said - it would be smart to be more careful in what you say. you are a bit like the little boy who watches sports on tv - never plays but has a lot to say about the people who do. my violinist friend - enrico - would say - "show me!"

[-] 1 points by Meesa (173) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Glad you found discussions. I went to Zuccotti twice in its hey day and didn't find anyone to speak with -- no way to find "a group" discussing things, I just wandered around and spoke to about 7 people … only one of them really wanted to hear my POV and was articulate about the movement (the guy with the money taped to his mouth whose photo is in all the papers).

[-] 1 points by flip (4973) 2 years ago

that is too bad - i had the opposite experience - lots of interesting discussions - some were joined by others - some just 2 or 3 people. i did start a number of pointless debates but left those quickly - most of the time i was on the outside of the park talking to people. i stopped there this past friday - very few people there - i approached a group of 4 people - the girl was holding a sign that said "think tank" - i asked what they were thinking about and she said "we don't know yet!" - i left. so what is your point of view - hard to get a real discussion on this forum, seems to me - i had much more luck at the park itself

[-] 5 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

How many weeks have you been trolling this site now? Thank You so much to the admins who limit how many posts you can put up in an hour. I'm so tired of reading your crap trying to defame this movement.

[+] -4 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I'm helping the movement, not defaming it. I believe Occupy could be great if it sharpened up. The first step is to drop the non-violent rhetoric and replace it with peaceful. The next step is to create peaceful imagery instead of using the communist propaganda from the past. Occupy needs its own image because it is a new idea, a new movement. It has great potential if the protesters don't let it get co-opted by the communist ideologies. They need to create a new ideology that they can all support.

I'm also working on an ignore feature, so when that's done you'll be able to ignore any poster like me.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Are you in New York?

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

No, that's why I'm criticizing the aspects of Occupy which I can see from my vantage point. I don't need to be in NY to see your posters, nor read your rhetoric. If you think my understanding of what is going on the ground is way off, it's most likely because you are advertising yourself all wrong.

Great movements are backed by great thinkers, and great thinkers are lifted up high by great critics. The last part of that last sentence only works if you are willing to challenge the arguments that come your way. If you simply try to silence the critic, your arguments will never get stronger and you will eventually wither away.

I post for the betterment of manmind.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

So where are you getting this anarchy communism stuff? Yes a FEW people do hand out pamphlets on the topics. But you say it like it's EVERYONE or a majority. And that is why I don't like your posts or your comments. You make too many assumptions and often spin the truth. You're misguided on some issues, sorry I guess calling you a troll is a little harsh. I will stop doing that. but it drives me crazy to see you posting stuff like that all the time. i've mentioned before that your comments and posts have improved but you still spin the truth pretty often.

If you want OWS to do something different, TAKE the initiative.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

The posters I am criticizing have been the ones put out for the big events. These are the more official posters of the protest. The bull poster from AdBusters, the Oakland strike poster with the raised bleeding fists, the cuffs, and the blood drips on the arm. The tank poster for Occupy the subway. Almost all Occupy posters have the anarchic-communist look. I don't see how one can argue that.

I am taking the initiative. The first step to change is to discuss ideas which I am doing here. It seems most Occupy protesters do not agree the posters are violent and linked to communist propaganda. If I spend time creating a new look, it would be wasted since no one would adopt it. First, I have to see if the problem is felt by others. I don't have a say in general assemblies, since I'm not even there. This is my only means to communicate with the movement's protesters and critics.

I have yet to hear arguments for the anarchic-communist look, and why it is being so widely used if Occupy is open to all ideologies. Once I understand the arguments of those who make these posters, then I will be in a position to either agree with them if their arguments are strong, or offer counter-arguments of my own. The only thing I have seen so far is an attempt to silence my critique. This goes hand in hand with communist ideologies, so I fear I am being proven right. That's sad, because I did imagine Occupy could be a movement for all. Now, I'm wondering.

[Removed]

[-] 4 points by yoss33 (269) 2 years ago

That's the beauty of Occupy. No one quite knows what it is yet. I don't think Occupy is setting itself up to be violent, but i do see how other elements could make the overall situation violent. As far as i understand it, at base, it is a non-violent movement. Some may want to get violent, but i personally think it will lose it's effectiveness if it does.

And i don't think it's fair to excuse cops for violence on peaceful protesters. I've seen some brutal abuse from cops, i haven't seen any of protesters on police.

[-] -3 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Do you think it should be branded as a peaceful protest or a non-violent one? Does that matter?

[-] 1 points by yoss33 (269) 2 years ago

I wasn't talking about what it is branded. From what i understand and what is stated on most occupy websites is that it is a peaceful movement. And yes, that matters. Gandhi for example practiced militant non-violence, and managed to free India from Britain rule, so it has been proven effective. I believe real, and major results can be achieved if there are enough people with enough resolve.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I think branding it as a peaceful protest would be closer to Ghandi than branding is as non-violent. Words are important. Non-violent is closer to violent because it assumes a struggle against violence. Peaceful is just sweet. It's nicer.

[-] 1 points by yoss33 (269) 2 years ago

Yes, good point. I agree.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Too bad you're the only one and your message has been silenced.

[-] 1 points by yoss33 (269) 2 years ago

that's just not true.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Isn't it? All the criticism in this thread has been silenced. Not one counter argument was provided.

[-] 1 points by yoss33 (269) 2 years ago

It is one thread of many. On one website of many. 'What you resist, persists.'

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

You are right. I shall post this elsewhere also. Thanks for the idea.

[-] 4 points by Shule (1531) 2 years ago

Remember Kent State; four dead in Ohio....

[-] 3 points by InsanityVyce (14) 2 years ago

I agree that Occupy needs a new outlook. One that does not take from past rebellions that held and still commonly hold a negative connotation. For what people seem to want from OWS (at least where I live), we need peace. The American people, as well as the people of the world, do not need to fight unless completely, 100% necessary. Many of the people involved are young, with their whole lives ahead of them to fight the system from the inside out. That is my approach, but until I am old enough to do so, I will protest PEACEFULLY. We need to get people on our side, not fight against them. That, and violence, will cause the downfall of OWS.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Sadly, you wise comment is quickly being voted down and will soon be buried away. OWS cannot and will not be criticized.

[-] -3 points by fredastaire (203) 2 years ago

they may try :)

[+] -5 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Ah! Suddenly, the voice seems to carry much further than before. I like the new echo in this room. ;-)

[-] 2 points by badconduct (550) from Ottawa, ON 2 years ago

"We feel a look that represents all the ideologies of the movement would be best, and that this new unique and modern look should be free of violent wordings and images."

There's a very large and obvious group of people that are just waiting for violence as an excuse for anarchy. People are sitting around, hoping the world is going to come to an end so they can run around without any law.

There is a reason why India, China and Mexico are taking the jobs away. They want to work, and they don't ask for very much in return. Americans demand so much in exchange for their labour, that America has become a bad investment.

The wealthiest nation on earth is protesting that it doesn't have enough. The US economy is a massive, sweeping giant. It makes giant leaps in progress and finance, and does very little to focus on the small problems. Find a job, find something you can improve on and improve it. That's how things will get better. That's how you work.

Leave the anarchists and doomsdayers in the street. They aren't contributing to anything but their selfishness. Every time something goes wrong, Alex Jones just spews "I told you so!", and every time something goes right, it's some kind of agenda with a grand-scheme of killing everybody.

Stop making assumptions about everything. If you really want to know the truth, sign up for a political party and earn a place at the top. Once you are sitting there, you might start to realize how ridiculous some of these arguments sound.

[-] 2 points by roscoesdad27 (106) from Aberdeen, MD 2 years ago

One day we may evolve to the point where non violence is the answer because I believe ultimately that's the best way but it just isn't practical on this yet savage planet. MLK and Gandhi are both my heroes but they was far ahead of their time. The French and American revolutions, thou not ideal, are a much better guide line to follow if we want real change as opposed to what MLK and Gandhi supposedly did politically....but what they did spiritually was beyond beautiful and will be the guideline future generations use for rebellion BUT not yet my brothers, like it or not a fight is brewing.

[-] 1 points by yoss33 (269) 2 years ago

violence is not the way to go. And what kind of argument is that? We are somehow not civilized enough to do it the right way?

I don't buy it for a minute. See how far throwing rocks at police gets you.

[-] 2 points by roscoesdad27 (106) from Aberdeen, MD 2 years ago

Were no where near civilized enough to do it the idealistic way, even the Prince of peace himself would agree.

These temple money-changers not only conducted a regular banking business for profit in the exchange of more than twenty sorts of money which the visiting pilgrims would periodically bring to Jerusalem, but they also engaged in all other kinds of transactions pertaining to the banking business. Both the temple treasury and the temple rulers profited tremendously from these commercial activities. It was not uncommon for the temple treasury to hold upwards of ten million dollars while the common people languished in poverty and continued to pay these unjust levies.....Urantia book 173:1.4

To the amazement of his apostles, standing near at hand, who refrained from participation in what so soon followed, Jesus stepped down from the teaching platform and, going over to the lad who was driving the cattle through the court, took from him his whip of cords and swiftly drove the animals from the temple. But that was not all; he strode majestically before the wondering gaze of the thousands assembled in the temple court to the farthest cattle pen and proceeded to open the gates of every stall and to drive out the imprisoned animals. By this time the assembled pilgrims were electrified, and with uproarious shouting they moved toward the bazaars and began to overturn the tables of the money-changers. In less than five minutes all commerce had been swept from the temple. By the time the near-by Roman guards had appeared on the scene, all was quiet, and the crowds had become orderly; Jesus, returning to the speaker's stand, spoke to the multitude: "You have this day witnessed that which is written in the Scriptures: `My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations, but you have made it a den of robbers.'"...Urantia book 173:1.7

This cleansing of the temple discloses the Master's attitude toward commercializing the practices of religion as well as his detestation of all forms of unfairness and profiteering at the expense of the poor and the unlearned. This episode also demonstrates that Jesus did not look with approval upon the refusal to employ force to protect the majority of any given human group against the unfair and enslaving practices of unjust minorities who may be able to entrench themselves behind political, financial, or ecclesiastical power. Shrewd, wicked, and designing men are not to be permitted to organize themselves for the exploitation and oppression of those who, because of their idealism, are not disposed to resort to force for self-protection or for the furtherance of their laudable life projects....Urantia book 173:1.11

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

You are not paying attention, offering your opinion when you acted as if you were seeking information, godwin back at ya. I have read through your posts and they appear to me as if you are simply try to provoke a response instead of actually seeking information.

The public presence of the movement are groups of individuals camping out in cities across the US and other countries.

The recognized problem in the US is the influence corporations have on the electoral and legislative process which is the causal factor for a great many of the problems here in the US.

The solutions vary from rioting to a Constitutional Amendment.

http://www.nycga.net/groups/political-and-electoral-reform/docs/amendment-28-to-the-constitution-of-the-united-states-of-america

Which adds this amendment to our Constitution: Amendment 28 - Electoral and Legislative Process Contributions

  1. A "person" is defined by the Constitution, specifically by Article 1, Sections 2, 3 and 9 Article 2, Section 1, Article 3 Section 3, Amendment 5, Amendment 12, Amendment 14 Sections 1, 2 and 3, Amendment 20 Sections 3 and 4 and Amendment 22 Section 1.

  2. Only a "person" may participate in the Legislative and/or the Electoral Processes.

  3. Only a "person" may contribute financially, monetary or other gifts, to a candidate running for and/or currently holding any elected and/or appointed public office.

  4. Only a "person" may contribute to the input and/or the creation, and/or advertising to and/or against any piece of legislation.

The historical facts that I continually cite for the Constitutional Amendment are:

The FOUNDING FATHERS made their meaning clear when they drafted the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES and the AMENDMENTS.

Thomas Jefferson - "I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Thomas Jefferson - "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

"Thomas Jefferson - "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies."

John Adams - "Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or will ever do good."

John Adams - "Liberty can not be preserved without a general knowledge among the people.  Let us dare to read, think, speak and write."

James Madison - "History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it’s issuance."

How about Einstein?

Albert Einstein - "The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure.”

Albert Einstein - "The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it."

Albert Einstein - "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I don't understand how your point ties in with my post.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

It is not responsibility to correct your misinformation. You made statements about your opinion when you asked questions.

Your subject: Is it really non-violent? Help me analyze. Your views?

Followed by: "My belief is that Occupy is setting itself up to become violent. I believe their imagery is designed to demonize the state as much as possible and portray themselves as victims, almost martyrs. Once Occupy gets bigger, it will be easier for them to promote the idea of violence if it has been carefully prepared in this way."

You have already came to a mis-informed conclusion so why should any engage you and offer their views? Then you didn't bother put what I posted into context.

Not my problem.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

You have already came to a mis-informed conclusion so why should any engage you and offer their views?

I have come to a conclusion using the information I have and the arguments I was able to make. My view can always change if new information or new arguments are presented. This is a forum with many bright people, so I assume many know things I do not. My hope is that they wish to share their viewpoints with me so that I can learn something new.

I read your post, but I still don't understand what it has to do with mine. It doesn't seem your arguments are on topic. If I misunderstand, please correct me. If you feel it is not your problem, that is OK too. You need not reply.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

The effort of the OWS is not just what you see on the streets. In the last month or so, 650,000 people move 4.5Billion from banks to credit unions Christian Science Monitor,

You also have a massive online presence that does not support violence but instead chooses boycotts and strikes to shut this country down until the problem of Corporations and big money influencing our political process has been corrected.

The violence is from a very small minority that will remain the small minority until they just disappear and of course the police. That is the violence you seek to claim is representative of the entire movement. The City Counsel for Seattle Washington just passed a resolution to possibly move their funds from a bank to possibly a credit union and for those out here that think violence is the way, read the minutes, I posted a link to it in another thread.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I just realized you were copy/pasting messages all over the forum. Sorry, but I don't want to waste my time with trolls. Your arguments have nothing to do with what I posted. I'm not talking about the violence in the street from the black-bloc, I'm talking about the imagery of violence in the posters. I never attempted to say that protesters were violent at the moment.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Troll, really. How many ways can you quote three of the Founding Fathers and three former presidents of the United States?

Imagery, symbolism are some of the last great vestiges of idiots and morons. The Fist pump is a pump of unity. Everybody brings their own ideas to the table. A lot of people are angry. This doesn't mean their anger will win out in the end.

You post to usenet a lot, i.e. the godwin rule. Grow a thicker skin and read a little deeper and perhaps get involved with one of the occupy movements around where you reside.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I don't see how quoting the founding fathers on an Internet forum can prove anything. Everyone has access to Google these days. I don't reside anywhere near an Occupy movement, and I don't understand your reference to Godwin's rule. Is there a nazi around here?

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Access and use are two different things. Have of getting what you want is figuring out what it is you want. The other half is figuring out the how to find and/or get what it is you seem to want.

Who here knows US History or what the Founding Fathers said? The quotes make it clear that Big Money was never meant to have a plate at the political table yet they have reset the table to their own design.

You invoked Godwin:

"[-] Idaltu 1 points 6 hours ago LOL,,,,Dr. Joseph Goebbels would have really appreciated your methods. ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink [-] Thrasymaque (Saint-Laurent, QC) -3 points 6 hours ago Godwin's law... So quick too. After only a few posts. ;-)"

"Dr. Joseph Goebbels" is kind of a Nazi isn't he and you did invoke the Godwin rule didn't you? Why do I need to even respond to that?

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Yes, I invoked Godwin's Law because Idaltu posted about Dr. Joseph Goebbels. I was wondering why you invoked it? Was it simply to say that I had?

You're still way off topic. This thread is about the imagery used by Occupy.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

If your core beliefs arise from "imagery" then your beliefs are based on images other project in order to provoke a response. This thread means nothing and your questions and accusation are of the same value.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/15/occupy-wall-street-you-cant-evict?newsfeed=true

Facts are what they are, a sound cannon, LRAD in NY and Oakland, Tear gas, flash bang grenades and all while ordering the news out.

Anything else you are trying to figure out or are you just trolling?

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

OK. You really are unimportant. You can't even write a proper sentence. Bye.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Wow, a grammar troll.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

You haven't addressed any of the concerns I raised in the main post of this thread. You do realize that right? Yes, I'm a grammar troll. I hate people who believe I should take the time to read what they write, but don't believe in taking the time to write what I read.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Because you are not making any sense and you never expressed any concerns; you made claims. You are claiming this effort will be made into a violent action where people are killing or attacking other people. You claim you think this because of signs you have seen from the OWS.

The facts contradict your claims. The Police are almost the only ones using force. The morons that are using violence within the OWS are quickly ejected because they do not belong there. The movement is non-violent. It has always been non-violent.

If I am protesting and a cop hits me, he/she might get the smacked back. A cop is an officer of the Court here in the US. As an officer of the Court they cannot commit and unlawful and/or illegal act while in the performance of their duties. If they do commit an unlawful or illegal act they have no immunity from civil action or criminal actions. Much to the dismay of readers, a Judge loses his immunity as well.

Oakland, New York and any other city that deprived the citizens of shelter they brought to fend off the elements during this protest violated the Civil Rights of each citizen and will most likely be facing litigation in the form of a possible class action.

This isn't some game. This is an important movement to fix this country. Violence is not necessary.

Boycott Christmas and see if they don't come running.

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

LOL,,,,Dr. Joseph Goebbels would have really appreciated your methods.

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Godwin's law... So quick too. After only a few posts. ;-)

[-] 1 points by duronimo (1) 2 years ago

The occupy movement is embarrassing.... They put those of us LIVING in protest at risk. They (milktoast romantics, oportunistic rednecks and weekend anarchists) have caused a tightening of restrictions on camping and alternative living. . . (IE)... The Apache fucking HATED Geronimo.... FUCK OCCUPY

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20601) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

You are obviously a bright guy, and what you say has merit. Yet I would take issue with a couple of points at the outset:

  1. We all agree change won't come from honest politicians, but will somehow have to be forced upon them by the people.
  2. they use anarchist tools like direct democracy and occupations.

I don't believe it is accurate to say change will not come from honest politicians - I think that is the only place change will come from - they just need our help, our screaming voices to push back against the resistance to that set of changes we all realize are so vitally necessary.

And as for the anarchist tools, while I am sure the anarchists would love to lay claim to them they are in fact a part of the heritage of the uniquely American struggle to actually attain that measure of equality that our Constitution binds us to by contract.

As for the imagery, well. It could perhaps use a bit of sprucing up. But do not mistake us for doves waiting to be scattered at the mere tossing of bread crumbs.

We are Americans.

Once our vision apprehends our aspiration we will not let go. If violence comes to us, we will embrace it. It has always been so in this uniquely American struggle.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago
  1. I wrote that for effect. What is important is what Occupy as adopted as a strategy. Read the website's first page: "This #ows movement empowers real people to create real change from the bottom up. We want to see a general assembly in every backyard, on every street corner because we don't need Wall Street and we don't need politicians to build a better society." I agree with you, but Occupy doesn't.

  2. In a way you are right. But these are common tools for anarchist. Whether or not they are used by others is not so important. I don't believe the imagery is violent necessarily because it's lead by anarchists. Movements led by other types of political vision have also been violent. In any case, OWS is supposed to represent all ideologies, so all their supporters are to blame for these posters.

"As for the imagery, well. It could perhaps use a bit of sprucing up. "

Quite the understatement.

[-] 1 points by nuclearradio (227) 2 years ago

Revolution, Baby!

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

have to add the newest official slogan, from the main page

'The Only Solution is World Revolution' found on the bottom of the right hand column)

I dont know how to add it as a screenshot.

Revolution has always been bloody, violent and murderous.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I checked. It's not an image, but formatted text. Sorry, no can do, unless you find me an image on Google.

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

I did a screenshot of it to convert it to an image. just dont know what to do with it now.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

You need to put it on a server somewhere. An image gallery or a blog where we can access the URL.

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

Thrasy, you and I part company on some points and issues. But I have to agree you've opened my eyes to this. I had to take a very objective look at it.
The new slogan on the main page of this site is 'The only solution is worldrevolution'.
Little by little, the marketing of violence to Occupy by its unseen and unknown leaders making these official images and official messages is taking place.

[-] 1 points by joe100 (306) 2 years ago

Diplomacy only happens when each side is "packing" the same weapons. If a police officer wants to arrest a US citizen, and the US citizen didn't to anything wrong, the police officer WILL NEVER be diplomatic if the US Citizen isn't packing anything. But if the US Citizen is packing force, there may be diplomacy, then the police may talk about it. Same with countries. If a country doesn't have the weapons, and the US gives an order, if the other country doesn't follow the order, the US may deploy weapons and force the country to do what it wants. But if the little country gets nuclear weapons, then the two countries may be diplomatic and talk things out.

Same with Occupy. Though Occupy is not packing firearms like the police, Occupy is packing a real strong force, the force of many unified people. This is how the people in Oakland pushed back on the police horses to prevent them from separating the protestors. The only way, usually, people will be diplomatic, is if the other side is packing an equal or similar force.

So for many Americans, a "call for US citizens to bear arms" is not a call for violence, its a call for diplomacy. People are much more diplomatic when real force must be reckoned with...

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 2 years ago

My friend travels to other countries and people there are only seeing the protest movement in the U.S. and they think America is in complete turmoil of the verge of collapse. While here in America, the media is doing its best not to focus too much attention on the protest so Americans stay ignorant.

[-] 1 points by joe100 (306) 2 years ago

See my recent post about the word "violence"... Forum Post: The Trickery of the Word "Violence" - How US Law Enforcement and Courts replaces "abuse" and "injury" with legal terms like "violence" and "assault" to be able to put anyone in prison they want.

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

The news for philly eviction FIRST carried just a poster with just a liberty bell and behind it, the sunrays. After an hour, it was changed out for this more militant version.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Nice. I like how the black city at the bottom of the arm gives a dripping blood effect from far away.

[-] 1 points by takeTsquare (77) 2 years ago

http://youtu.be/BRtc-k6dhgs that is all I have to say :)

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

love the tent staking

[-] 1 points by Occupyfailed (12) 2 years ago

Occupy failed because it went against the #1 rule...you can't fight city hall. They should have made every attempt to work with the mayor, the city and the police when they started. While you might be able to fight city hall in other countries, you can't fight it here.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 2 years ago

Could it be that some of these skull and black cat graphics were used for Halloween posters?

They did have some sort of Halloween/costume celebration at Liberty Plaza.

I was cool with the criticism of the tanks in the new poster, but methinks you're overdramatizing at this point.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

You're probably right. Still, the use of epithets like "Us days of Rage", "Fight Back", the constant use of black and red colors, the blood dripping from the hands in handcuffs, etc... (Black is the color of anarchy, it has been used since the beginning and still is now. It wasn't just around Halloween.) One could argue that they should have stayed away from dark Halloween imagery. I wonder if Ghandi would have used it?

Do you think Occupy's marketing has been able to aptly portray a peaceful protest of unity for all citizens of all ideologies who want a new wonderful world? Or do you believe it looks more like anarchic-communist propaganda used by prior regimes? I'll be posting Occupy posters later tonight that are direct copies of Russian communist posters of the 20's. Maybe that will help clarify matters a little bit.

Until then, why don't you post some peaceful Occupy posters that show how wrong I am?

[-] 4 points by powertothepeople (1264) 2 years ago

You use the word marketing. I don't think they're marketing at all, in terms of trying to control their image or present a unified image or do "damage control" as is typical with conventional political organizations.

I think they've just been letting things happen and not really thinking about how this "style" of not controlling things can be bad for the movement as a whole.

I guess that comes from being "leaderless" and not having committees of people dedicated to thinking about, talking about and putting forth unified messaging, image, etc.

Having said all that, in the beginning of the Zucotti Park occupation I was down at the park several times and friends & I participated in two marches.

The times we were there, there was definitely a message of peaceful protest, and of reaching out to the police. It was stressed over and over "This is a peaceful protest" and "The cops are the 99%, too"

Everything I read online and saw at Zucotti Park did contribute to that message.

In the early days of the protest in NY, there was violence against protestors by NYPD but no retaliation by protestors at all.

NYC was nothing at all like Oakland and I'd say it still isn't, even though I haven't been there in a while.

Look at the eviction last night. The campers stood there and watched their possession destroyed/thrown in dumpsters. That could EASILY have turned into a riot, but it didn't. Yes, some people were arrested for "resisting" the eviction, but going limp or standing your ground is not violence.

As for the words FIGHT BACK and DISOBEY that I see in those posters - well, it isn't a resistance if you aren't fighting and disobeying.

Fighting isn't necessarily physically violent.

People "fight" in court all the time.

Being good consumers and going to vote every four years hasn't worked for us, we are going to have to go against the grain a little bit to get our voices heard. And we certainly ARE being heard now. A conversation has started.

With all that said, we could use some more unique, updated graphics and get rid of the ones that are based on early to mid 20th century propaganda posters.

If the goal is really to embrace the 99% and attract as many people as possible, your point of view is actually the correct one.

What does the movement have to offer after the struggle is over?

After the revolution, what then?

1-2-3 what are we fighting for?

[-] 3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

the fact that the message is not being controlled, is a breath of fresh air. wouldn't you think?

[-] 2 points by powertothepeople (1264) 2 years ago

In a way, it is. But if you look deeper - the lack of strategizing is either terribly naive or perhaps it is calculated to keep deeper motives obscured.

I'm generally supportive of this movement but I also have reservations.

I remain a bit skeptical - I don't assume anything that is not explicitly spelled out and there is much here that is not being spelled out to my satisfaction.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

spell it out yourself. If you use other people's words to spell it out, the euphemism may bind your mind.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

If it's a fluke and not planned, it's one hell of a luck for the anarcho-communists who have their look dominate over all others. Even this website is red and black.

Repeat this mantra to disengage from your state of trans:

  • We build, not occupy. Build, not Occupy.
  • Together we build, we don't occupy.
  • If we occupy we get evicted.
  • But when we build, we come together.
  • Together we build, we don't occupy.

  • Together means 100%, not 99%.

  • We don't fight, we build together.
  • Not 99%, but 100%.
  • Together we build, we don't fight.

  • We're not non-violent, we're peaceful.

  • We don't negate our violence, because it never existed
  • There is no violence, only peace
  • We're peaceful, not non-violent

  • Together as 100%, we build with peace

  • We don't fight the 1% with non-violence
  • We build with peace, together as 100%

  • Our world is green, not black and red

  • Red is blood, black is darkness
  • Green is ecology, peace, and modernity
  • Our world is green, not black and red
  • Green is the color of our world

  • Together as 100% we build a greener world with peace

  • We don't occupy against the 1% with black and red non-violence
  • Together as 100%, we build a greener world with peace
  • With peace, we build together as 100%, a new world

  • There are no days of rage, only days of peace and building

  • We don't occupy with rage, we build with peace
  • Together as 100%, we build a greener world with peace

  • Not Occupy, Build

  • Not 99%, 100%
  • Not non-violent, peaceful
  • Not rage, peaceful
  • Not black and red, green

Build, 100%, Peaceful, Green

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

One of your links is an HTML page, not an image so I couldn't put it up. Message me privately and I'll tell you what you did wrong with the code.

These posters are less violent, but they still use red and black coloring and the imperial sun rays. And, I don't like the idea of defending. It promotes the idea of war. But, they are better. I just wish for a brand new look that doesn't link to the past.

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

I have yet to find one official notice/poster promoting peace or using peaceful imagery. The hippies adopted the peace sign to show that they were peaceful (not just non-violent.) OWS has dripping blood.

The official 12/12 call to action is what caused my local occupy to shut itself down, so as not to be associated with a violent action like this. A forcible take over/invasion that results in a blockading of the ports on this scale is a forceful take over, even if it is just by force of numbers, and is not a peaceful action. It may not be calling for bloodshed, but it is calling for a provocative and violent action that is not protected under the Constitution by any stretch of the imagination. Oakland should not let unions lead them down this road to violence, and should take their cue from the truly peaceful (non disruptive non blockading/non invading) camps elsewhere in the country. Toronto has been a model of peaceful even during their eviction this week and could give Oakland major advice. Use as another cue, Westboro Baptist Church, who are well-schooled in freedom of speech under the Constitution and whose lawyers work with it constantly and they do not block anything while still receiving huge news coverage. But the 12/12. Such a large invasion on American lands will draw a defense. There will be the blood that OWS seeks and portrays in its official messages and images.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Westboro Baptist Church is a good example indeed. I despise what they stand for, but I can't stay they are not using free speech in a peaceful way. It might not be tolerated in Canada because of hate speech laws, but US doesn't have those so they are entitled to their right to peacefully spread their message of hate and they don't do stuff that's against the law.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 2 years ago

You must have been editing while I was typing.

I thought it was a discussion, I didn't know it was a competition to "prove you wrong".

If you'd like me to post images, PM me the code to do so, I don't know how to do it.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Sometimes I edit my comments after having saved. Typing in the little box is not always easy, and after it's posted I sometimes realize I could have written it better. It's not mean to trick you in any way. I usually do this right after my initial posting.

You can post images using the following code:

![image_text](image_link)

The image_text is not very important, you can skip it and do.

![](image_link)
[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 2 years ago

Thank you. And no, I didn't think you were trying to "trick" me by editing. Just that my reply didn't really correspond to your change in tone.

Again, thanks for the code.

[-] 1 points by nichole (525) 2 years ago

Spot on. The images circulating, particularly those featured on fliers calling for the Thanksgiving Day shutdown, are disturbing in that their historical use on American soil has only ever delivered death (martyrdom?) unto those who chose to create visual representations that draw from this social realist aesthetic. There are too many good-old-boys ready to take law into their own hands (like the American Legion did with IWW Wobblies) when they view red or black working-class symbols (despite being working class themselves). I'd go with green if we were to create a new look.

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

November 19, 2010


Behold the U.S.’s new counterinsurgency tool in Afghanistan: the M1 Abrams tank, your ultimate in 30-year old precision firepower.

Increasingly distant are the days when Defense Secretary Robert Gates worried aloud about replicating the Soviet Union’s failed heavy footprint in Afghanistan. Under the command of General David Petraeus, the military’s leading advocate of counterinsurgency, an unconventional war is looking surprisingly conventional.

NATO planes are dropping more bombs than at any time since the 2001 invasion. Special Forces have been operating on a tear since the summer, to the point where Afghanistan’s president is saying enough is enough. The coalition is using massive surface-to-surface missiles to clear the Taliban out of Kandahar. And now the tanks are rolling in.


http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11/new-u-s-plan-in-afghanistan-awe-and-shock/

[-] 1 points by tcaud (23) from Cedar Bluff, VA 2 years ago

Oh yes, this is in truth a communist state. It is controlled by Wall Street, which does not differentiate by party. It sees only one party, the government, which can be controlled with electoral donations. If the rulers see a communist state, then a communist state is what this is. And in essence, that's what we have. The oligarchy rules, and the government is just a means of protecting the oligarchs from each other and the people. Not much different from Soviet Russia, and life, quite frankly, isn't much better here than it is there for most people, nor has it ever been except in the times of dictatorship. Granted protests aren't met by tanks, but my goodness: look at the video. Substantial demonstrations are quelled with violent force, and the social conservatives look the other way.

I think what the movement needs is vision. Educate the people, then they will move to a common vision of maximal adaptation. Then you can point to ethical norms as restraints on the path there. That will cool down some of the hotter, louder voices, as it were.

Bloomberg has given us a brilliant opportunity. We can deal body blows against the Republican establishment with it, including Bloomberg himself. Stuff like this wasn't supposed to happen in America... wait for the visceral reaction in... 3 hours. Biggest outrage since Katrina.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I'm not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. The government scares me, but Occupy propaganda scares me also. I think it's time someone really look deep into their marketing. It is really promoting non-violence?

[-] 1 points by tcaud (23) from Cedar Bluff, VA 2 years ago

There is a lot of cynicism. A lot of people want to be prepared in case something radically unexp-- well, look at the casualties of this conflict already. I think this is a war, just a war fought with non-violence as a weapon. Gadhafi saw it happening in his own country and that's why he tried to kill the protestors... it's emotional warfare instead of physical warfare. The demonstrations have tested hypotheses harped on democraticunderground and prisonplanet for years. Granted I don't think it was always the case... it's a new phenomenon created by technological unemployment, where all of a sudden workers have very little power. Plus the credit tightening has reduced competition and disrupted markets equilibrium. And behind all of it is Wall Street. And we know also that if the economy does improve, there will be another bubble on the horizon courtesy of the banksters. It's the sense of powerless against people who mean to exploit them that is driving many people to hatred of Wall Street and distrust of elected officials.

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

The movement is taking advantage of peoples legitimate issues with government. And using it to push their own agenda. The common themes are anarchy/direct democracy, sustainable communities, alternative money and exchange systems. It's worldwide, and seems to revolve around money. This movement also uses the Anonymous mask logo. Along with the anarchist/communist stuff. Who or what is driving these themes? Is it the anarchists? Or something else?

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I agree there is a problem and that Occupy has an important role to play. I just wished they used peaceful material instead of violent imagery. There is no reason to demonize the cops by showing tanks before the tanks really come out. That is extremely problematic for me, and extremely strange. I wish they took a whole different marketing approach.

[-] 1 points by tcaud (23) from Cedar Bluff, VA 2 years ago

Was it OccupyTogether or a fringe group?

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I believe it's a fringe group. That's why their marketing approach represents the ideas of one group and not of many. The anarchic-communist. They control Occupy from behind the curtain.

[-] 0 points by letsallspeaktruth (24) 2 years ago

Occupy says it all...and throughout History those who OCCUPY will have to face the people...I dont want to be Occupied...and I dont want to demonize the other to make my point..

you can not succeed because you will rot from the core...

[-] 0 points by WolfThom (90) 2 years ago

49 Since the year 2000, we have lost approximately 10% of our middle class jobs. In the year 2000 there were about 72 million middle class jobs in the United States but today there are only about 65 million middle class jobs.

48 In 1980, 52 percent of all jobs in the United States were middle income jobs. Today, only 42 percent of all jobs are middle income jobs.

47 Back in 1980, less than 30% of all jobs in the United States were low income jobs. Today, more than 40% of all jobs in the United States are low income jobs.

46 According to Paul Osterman, a professor of economics at MIT, approximately 20 percent of all employed Americans are making $10.65 an hour or less.

45 Half of all American workers now earn $505 or less per week.

44 Since December 2007, median household income in the United States has declined by a total of 6.8% once you account for inflation.

43 New home sales in the United States are now down 80% from the peak in July 2005.

42 The all-time record for fewest number of new homes sold in the United States was broken in 2009. Then it was broken again in 2010. It is on pace to be broken once again in 2011.

41 At one point this year, U.S. home prices had fallen a whopping 33% from where they were at during the peak of the housing bubble.

40 U.S. home values have fallen approximately 6 trillion dollars since the housing crisis first began.

39 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 18 percent of all homes in the state of Florida are sitting vacant. That figure is 63 percent larger than it was just ten years ago.

38 Historically, the percentage of residential mortgages in foreclosure in the United States has tended to hover between 1 and 1.5 percent. Today, it is up around 4.5 percent.

37 According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, at least 8 million Americans are currently at least one month behind on their mortgage payments.

36 According to a Harris Interactive survey taken near the end of last year, 77 percent of all Americans are now living paycheck to paycheck. In 2007, the same survey found that only 43 percent of Americans were living paycheck to paycheck.

35 Starting on January 1st, 2011 the Baby Boomers began to hit retirement age. From now on, every single day more than 10,000 Baby Boomers will reach the age of 65. That is going to keep happening every single day for the next 19 years.

34 According to a new poll by Americans for Secure Retirement, 88 percent of all Americans are worried about "maintaining a comfortable standard of living in retirement". Last year, that figure was at 73 percent.

33 One out of every six elderly Americans now lives below the federal poverty line.

32 In 1950, each retiree's Social Security benefit was paid for by 16 U.S. workers. According to new data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are now only 1.75 full-time private sector workers for each person that is receiving Social Security benefits in the United States.

31 According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Social Security system paid out more in benefits than it received in payroll taxes in 2010. That was not supposed to happen until at least 2016.

[-] 0 points by WolfThom (90) 2 years ago

30 The U.S. government now says that the Medicare trust fund will run out five years faster than they were projecting just last year.

29 According to one study, the 50 U.S. state governments are collectively 3.2 trillion dollars short of what they need to meet their pension obligations.

28 A different study has shown that individual Americans are $6.6 trillion short of what they need to retire comfortably.

27 Between 1991 and 2007 the number of Americans between the ages of 65 and 74 that filed for bankruptcy rose by a staggering 178 percent.

26 According to a shocking AARP survey of Baby Boomers that are still in the workforce, 40 percent of them plan to work "until they drop".

25 Last year, 2.6 million more Americans dropped into poverty. That was the largest increase that we have seen since the U.S. government began keeping statistics on this back in 1959.

24 Back in the year 2000, 11.3% of all Americans were living in poverty. Today, 15.1% of all Americans are living in poverty.

23 More than 50 million Americans are now on Medicaid. Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid. Today, approximately one out of every 6 Americans is on Medicaid.

22 More than 45 million Americans are now on food stamps.

21 The number of Americans on food stamps has increased 74% since 2007.

20 Approximately one-third of the entire population of the state of Alabama is now on food stamps.

19 Right now, one out of every four American children is on food stamps.

18 It is being projected that approximately 50 percent of all U.S. children will be on food stamps at some point in their lives before they reach the age of 18.

17 The poverty rate for children living in the United States increased to 22% in 2010.

16 There are 314 counties in the United States where at least 30% of the children are facing food insecurity.

15 In Washington D.C., the "child food insecurity rate" is 32.3%.

14 More than 20 million U.S. children rely on school meal programs to keep from going hungry.

13 It is estimated that up to half a million children may currently be homeless in the United States.

12 The number of Americans that are going to food pantries and soup kitchens has increased by 46% since 2006.

11 According to a recent report from the AFL-CIO, the average CEO made 343 times more money than the average American did last year.

10 The wealthiest 1% of all Americans now own more than a third of all the wealth in the United States.

9 The poorest 50% of all Americans collectively own just 2.5% of all the wealth in the United States.

8 The percentage of millionaires in Congress is more than 50 times higher than the percentage of millionaires in the general population.

7 According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 16.6 million Americans were self-employed back in December 2006. Today, that number has shrunk to 14.5 million.

6 According to one recent poll, 90 percent of the American people believe that economic conditions in the United States are "poor". To put this in perspective, only 11 percent of Americans rated economic conditions in the U.S. as "poor" back in January of 1999.

5 According to another recent poll, 80 percent of the American people believe that we are actually in a recession right now.

4 Our dollar is being systematically destroyed by the Federal Reserve. An item that cost $20.00 in 1970 will cost you $116.78 today. An item that cost $20.00 in 1913 will cost you $457.67 today.

3 The Federal Reserve made $16.1 trillion in secret loans to their friends during the last financial crisis.

2 The Federal Reserve is a perpetual debt machine. Today, the U.S. national debt is more than 4700 times larger than it was when the Federal Reserve was created back in 1913.

1 According to a new CNN/ORC International Poll, 27 percent of all Americans have never even heard of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

http://www.china-intern.de/

http://www.china-intern.de/page/wirtschaft-hintergrund/1318019478.html

[-] 0 points by WolfThom (90) 2 years ago

79 In 2010, the average college graduate had accumulated approximately $25,000 in student loan debt by graduation day.

78 The total amount of student loan debt in the United States now exceeds the total amount of credit card debt in the United States.

77 One-third of all college graduates end up taking jobs that don't even require college degrees.

76 In the United States today, there are more than 100,000 janitors that have college degrees.

75 In the United States today, 317,000 waiters and waitresses have college degrees.

74 In the United States today, approximately 365,000 cashiers have college degrees.

73 It is being projected that for the first time ever, the OPEC nations are going to bring in over a trillion dollars from exporting oil this year. Their biggest customer is the United States.

72 U.S. oil companies will bring in about $200 billion in pre-tax profits this year. They will also receive about $4.4 billion in specialized tax breaks from the U.S. government.

71 The United States has had a negative trade balance every single year since 1976, and since that time the United States has run a total trade deficit of more than 7.5 trillion dollars with the rest of the world.

70 The United States has lost an average of 50,000 manufacturing jobs per month since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.

69 The U.S. trade deficit with China is now 27 times larger than it was back in 1990.

68 Today, the United States spends more than 4 dollars on goods and services from China for every one dollar that China spends on goods and services from the United States.

67 China has surpassed the United States and is now the largest PC market in the entire world.

66 In 2002, the United States had a trade deficit in "advanced technology products" of $16 billion with the rest of the world. In 2010, that number skyrocketed to $82 billion.

65 In 2010, the number one U.S. export to China was "scrap and trash".

64 Do you remember when the United States was the dominant manufacturer of automobiles and trucks on the globe? Well, in 2010 the U.S. ran a trade deficit in automobiles, trucks and parts of $110 billion.

63 The United States has lost a staggering 32 percent of its manufacturing jobs since the year 2000.

62 If you can believe it, more than 42,000 manufacturing facilities in the United States have been closed down since 2001.

61 Between December 2000 and December 2010, 38 percent of the manufacturing jobs in Ohio were lost, 42 percent of the manufacturing jobs in North Carolina were lost and 48 percent of the manufacturing jobs in Michigan were lost.

60 Back in 1970, 25 percent of all jobs in the United States were manufacturing jobs. Today, only 9 percent of the jobs in the United States are manufacturing jobs.

59 According to Professor Alan Blinder of Princeton University, 40 million more U.S. jobs could be sent offshore over the next two decades.

58 If you gathered together all of the workers that are "officially" unemployed in the United States today, they would constitute the 68th largest country in the world.

57 There are fewer payroll jobs in the United States right now than there were back in 2000 even though we have added 30 million extra people to the population since then.

56 Back in 1969, 95 percent of all men between the ages of 25 and 54 had a job. In July, only 81.2 percent of men in that age group had a job.

55 Only 55.3% of all Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 were employed last year. That was the lowest level that we have seen since World War II.

54 Today, there are 5.9 million Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 that are living with their parents.

53 The economic downturn has been particularly tough on men. According to Census data, men are twice as likely to live with their parents as women are.

52 According to one recent survey, only 14 percent of all Americans that are 28 or 29 years old are optimistic about their financial futures.

51 Incredibly, less than 30 percent of all U.S. teens had a job this summer.

50 According to one study, between 1969 and 2009 the median wages earned by American men between the ages of 30 and 50 dropped by 27 percent after you account for inflation.

[-] 0 points by WolfThom (90) 2 years ago

100 Mal Niedergang [07.10.2011] 100 Zahlen und Fakten über den Niedergang der US-Ökonomie.

China kommt natürlich auch darin vor, unter Nr. 65, 67, 68 und 69.

100 A staggering 48.5% of all Americans live in a household that receives some form of government benefits. Back in 1983, that number was below 30 percent.

99 During the Obama administration, the U.S. government has accumulated more debt than it did from the time that George Washington took office to the time that Bill Clinton took office.

98 Since Barack Obama was sworn in, the share of the national debt per household has increased by $35,835.

97 The U.S. national debt has been increasing by an average of more than 4 billion dollars per day since the beginning of the Obama administration.

96 It is being projected that the U.S. national debt will hit 344% of GDP by the year 2050 if we continue on our current course.

95 The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that U.S. government debt held by the public will reach a staggering 716 percent of GDP by the year 2080.

94 In 2010, the U.S. government paid $413 billion in interest on the national debt. That is projected to at least double over the next decade.

93 According to one new survey, one out of every three Americans would not be able to make a mortgage or rent payment next month if they suddenly lost their current job.

92 State and local government debt has reached an all-time high of 22 percent of U.S. GDP.

91 In 1980, government transfer payments accounted for just 11.7% of all income. Today, government transfer payments account for 18.4% of all income.

90 U.S. households are now receiving more income from the U.S. government than they are paying to the government in taxes.

89 According to a new study conducted by the BlackRock Investment Institute, the ratio of household debt to personal income in the United States is now 154 percent.

88 If you can believe it, one out of every seven Americans has at least 10 credit cards.

87 According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, health care costs accounted for just 9.5% of all personal consumption back in 1980. Today they account for approximately 16.3%.

86 The cost of a health insurance policy for the average American family rose by a whopping 9 percent last year, and according to a report put out by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust, the average family health insurance policy now costs over $15,000 a year.

85 One study found that approximately 41 percent of working age Americans either have medical bill problems or are currently paying off medical debt.

84 An all-time record 49.9 million Americans do not have any health insurance at all at this point, and the percentage of Americans covered by employer-based health plans has fallen for 11 years in a row.

83 According to a report published in The American Journal of Medicine, medical bills are a major factor in more than 60 percent of the personal bankruptcies in the United States. Of those bankruptcies that were caused by medical bills, approximately 75 percent of them involved individuals that actually did have health insurance.

82 Average yearly tuition at U.S. private universities is now up to $27,293.

81 The cost of college tuition in the United States has gone up by over 900 percent since 1978.

80 In America today, approximately two-thirds of all college students graduate with student loans.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 2 years ago

First, OWS rarely plays well with other established organizations. Other than putting out a bare palm for money, early on, OWS has proved inept so far at leveraging existing tools.

Second, the specific area of non-violence shows this clearly.

There are two major Black organizations and a major pacifist church:

-- The King Center

-- Southern Christian Leadership Conference

-- American Friends Service Committee, the Quakers

Contacts were made. A liaison at SCLC was established, as well as several contacts with AFSC and an immediate positive repsonse from TKC.

OWS sat on its collective ass. No one in any even vaporous position of trust responded to set up cooperation. No response came to offers of training. No response came to efforts to provide a public connection to the main American centers for non-violence.

Karl Rove could not have designed a less effective OWS program for non-violence.

Btw: blunders can be expensive. OWS NYC's inaction made it easier for the provocateurs -- the fake-"anarchists" -- to burn all or parts of 40 buildings in Oakland. Those thugs arrived at 11 PM (after a day of general strike) armed with nunchukas to break windows and incendiaries to start fires.

Since Occupy had no visible, organizational commitment to non-violence, their sabotage grabbed the following day's headlines.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Jimboiam (812) 2 years ago

In total agreement with you and have said that all along.

[-] -1 points by Joyce (375) 2 years ago

Spot on! Wait....I hear college kids whining.....

[-] -1 points by MayorBloomberg (1) 2 years ago

Where you guys at?

[-] -1 points by w9illiam (97) 2 years ago

One sad thing about this movement is they have put themselves in a position to really bring meaningful change to this country. Unfortunately they have unwittingly chosen a path that is leading them in the same direction as Russia. Often time’s people who claim to be Anarchist are really just not happy with the government they got so they use anarchy as a way to change things. Lenin used almost identical tactics during the Russian Revolution. He demonized security forces blamed the rich and avoided proposing any actual demands until the government was ousted. This in the end brought anarchy to Russia and anybody that knows history knows that dictators always rise from anarchy. Now we got these people going to Egypt seeking advice and from people over there. I don’t mean to sound negative, but what do people in Egypt know about America. How can they possibly give any advice on how to lead Americans to a better future? It is also worth noting that Egypt is on the verge of transforming from a dictatorship into a fundamentalist government. Yes they might have ousted their dictator, but now they got the Muslim brotherhood moving in trying to centralize power and we got OWS going over there seeking council on how to better Americas movement. No offence but, I don’t like the Idea of Foreigners being involved in the construction of my future. I don’t think the people who started this really understand what it is they are doing. I believe they have good intentions but there strategy is actually going to make our beautiful nation worse than it is now. I agree thing are messed up and we need massive reform in our country, but this reform should be done by Americans with American Ideas for Americans without foreigners putting there filthy hand in our process and derailing our country with there radical Islamic Fundamentalist Ideology. Most of these people don’t even recognize the very real threat from Islamic terrorist or Mexican Drug Lords. The are naive. Like I said I agree with a lot of their complaints but there strategy is flaud. As far as this being a direct democracy were everyone’s voice is heard and important, go to the general assembly in any city across America and try to tell them the dangers of their actions, they actually reject any idea that tell them they are doing the wrong thing. They call you a troll or some other silly name. I am very concerned with the direction this country is going in and even more concerned with the direction OWS is going in. I think if I had to choose between keeping things the same or OWS Ideas I would choose to keep things the same. At least the Republic will still stand and I will still have freedom. I hope they realize they are in for an armed resistance if they dare continue on this Fascist road. They call themselves the 99%. Well they are probably more like the 10-15% Most American supports them in the polls but that is only because they can either choose Tea Party or OWS. They need to put the brakes on their little operation and start directing people back towards our real American Values not so Foreign Egyptian Fundamentalist concepts. Then Maybe I would support them Again

[-] 3 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

After coming to the boards, I began to feel the 99% wasn't truly represented. I began to question a direct democracy as productive. A lot of people I agree with support this movement but they themselves were not educated by this movement. Their beliefs were the same three months ago. Its glaringly obvious there is no press left in this country beyond Link or Free Speech TV. I feel that not all the people who have been voting republican are in support of the policies that support the 1%, I feel many just trudge along with it to have an outlet to vote their conscious on other issues. When I even suggested backing off on issues like gun control, I could see many OWSers were wishing to hold on to liberal beliefs in favor of appealing to and serving more people. I have a high school education, but I think I could sit down and negotiate with my republican neighbors in a better way. You give me abortions, I'll give you guns etc and we'll just vote on the details state by state. Hey, you own a small business, do people have more money to spend with you because of food stamps? Would it be harder to make money if people had less money to spend with you, etc. I personally think your average republican is not gonna support the 1% if its not a package deal. And it doesn't have to be, republicans are Americans too. OWS has the potential to serve a lot of Americans if it doesn't run them off with pitchforks.

[-] 1 points by nichole (525) 2 years ago

Is Occupy a Canadian conspiracy? Are the American people, protestors included, being culturejammed? Please don't tell me that there is some lame reality TV show in the works.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

This is a must read and well written post. You bring up many crucial points. You should add paragraphs and repost it in a thread of your own so that more people can see it.

[-] 0 points by w9illiam (97) 2 years ago

Thanks! It was more of a disorganized rant though.

[-] -1 points by MayorBloomberg (1) 2 years ago

Yeop

[-] -1 points by MayorBloomberg (1) 2 years ago

Good post

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

There is absolutely no doubt that the Occupy forces are representative of the Graeber prototype in both structure and paradigm; in fact, his voice emanates continuously through the postings here.

What is Occupy? It is the light that draws attention to the flame. And as such Occupy represents a major coup for David Graeber. He has won; and so, a polite bow, and a Hail to the King.

Because this is neither an economic nor social movement; why do we not agree? It is a socioeconomic movement and the issues are very real. The corrupt occupy all seats of power, rule of law is meaningless, and the selfishness of the power minority serves to rob the life-breath of our Nation's majority.

Are such theories feasible in an America comprised of so many varied interests? Is Anarchy not the rule of a majority? If so, who speaks for the minority voice? What of our prejudice; was not our Nation's Constitution intended as the arbiter of our plurality?

The force of law; what is law? What of the militaristic force of Federal law? What of our Civil War, is this not the militaristic force of Federal law? And what are we fighting for, if not this single premise that "All men are created equal."

Tell Graeber we shall meet him on the common ground.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Is Graeber also behing the anarchic-communist marketing campaign? Do you think Occupy will soon switch to promoting violence?

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Graeber is not a communist. What he wants is very limited government and more direct action by the people. We can apply the economic phraseology - such things as "market fundamentalism" and "neoliberalism" on a global scale - but that's it in a nutshell.

The core of the Graeber movement will not move towards violence. My fear has been of the dysfunctional sociopath who lives at the fringes; there is plenty of angst out there and we do not need to empower these people while simultaneously hanging a target on others.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Who do you think is behind the anarchic-communist imagery, and why is this imagery getting more violent? If only a minority of Occupy are communists, why has their imagery taken over?

[-] -2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

It's beautiful to see how OWS shuts down all critic of their movement. It's sad they don't realize the best thinkers are those with the best critics. Instead of fortifying their position by countering their opposition with strong arguments, they try to cover their ears. Ignorance is bliss. The problem is strong critical arguments only disappear if they are challenged by better arguments. Shutting your ears is the first sign of your imminent fall.

[+] -4 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

More anarcho-communist imagery for the largest "non"-violent protest of our times:

[+] -6 points by RexDiamond (585) from Idabel, OK 2 years ago

Very good points. Anarchists will need to realize that they are fighting a losing battle in the United States. It really doesn't matter if the media wants to report on the roots of the movement. Americans can see what is wrong. It is engrained in our psyche to reject such political activism.

[+] -7 points by RexDiamond (585) from Idabel, OK 2 years ago

One other observation I made is that the imagery eerily resembles the Attach Watch site that got laughed out of town.