Forum Post: Here comes the turn to propoganda and inciting of violence
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 19, 2011, 10:09 a.m. EST by jamesthom101
(0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I have noticed that that the majority of images and press releases I am seeing are really angled towards stirring up violent reaction. Focus on your position and not propogandizing the duty of very HARD WORKING police officers that are part of the "99%" you supposedly represent. You have the right to "protest" whatever the hell you think you need to "protest" but when you infringe on the rights of other citizens to go about their public business and violate ordinance and requlation of your protest (which is done to protect the rights of other citizens that may not share your point of view), you will be arrested. Surprised? Think you might have me arrested if I stood at the end of your driveway tonight with a bullhorn and repeatedly yelled out my views on how you manage your finances? Stop trying to turn this into a "poor us" situation - you will loose support and focus on your real position. You have a good point but are heading in the wrong direction with the "marketing" and "branding" of your cause. I love the interview with the 23 year old female student who says she is there for her kid's future. What does she go to school for anyway? What is her major? How is it paid for? Are her parents part of the 1% and that is why she has the time and privilege to go to college and spend her spare moments protesting rather than working? Hypocracy is rearing its ugly head within your ranks!
The "movement" lost true legitimacy for me, even though i am squarely in the middle of the 99% when people start talking about capping income amd getting rid of money, and redistributing wealth, i wish there was a clear message of what the OWS majority stand for. Because i gotta tell you, some of these people are just talking crazy, reality is we ALL live in a world where you need to have money to pay for everything. Unless you are wealthy you probly need to work, and unless you are real talented or educated you may not get paid much, and when things are slow people dont hire or they cut back so unless you have your own business you could loose your job!
What were are advocating, and protesting is dangerous enough in the long run. What is being advocated is a fundamental shift in how the economy of not only the US functions, but in time, the entire world. We need the support of the police, not their antagonism, because they are truly in this with us, over the long haul.If we win, so does almost everyone. If we lose.... In my book, the stakes are too high to continue baiting the police, so long as we can get along with them in a mutually respectful relationship.
From G. William Domhoff: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_nonviolence.html
"However, the strategic nonviolence I am talking about is far more than that. It is a strategy for winning in conflicts where there are real differences between the adversaries, including class antagonisms. As a form of conflict, nonviolent direct action is best understood in terms of the same basic concepts that are used to understand violent (military) conflicts, because the underlying reality in both cases is the engagement in conflict over opposing perspectives and interests. Thus the phrase "strategic nonviolence," which is in fact what trade union organizers practice through strikes and what civil rights leaders employed through sit-ins, freedom rides, and boycotts. It is a form of struggle that is focused on prevailing despite the fact that the opponents -- usually a government or power elite -- have superior resources and are likely to use one or another form of violence if they think it can succeed. ...
For current-day egalitarians, a commitment to the freedoms and democratic procedures won by past egalitarians can provide the primary foundation for the practice of nonviolence, although some of them also draw upon their religious values as well. This democratic commitment has the added virtue of narrowing the gap between egalitarians and mainstream liberals. In addition, a nonviolence orientation can be sustained by the knowledge that it helps to keep the egalitarian movement itself more democratic; it ensures that violence-prone dominators will not take over the movement and subvert its democratic aims. As many historical cases suggest, the most violent people soon rise to the top once the possibility of violence is introduced, and they often use their loyal followers to intimidate or kill rivals. ...
Violence-prone activists sometimes like to claim they are merely retaliating against violence by the police, which they think people will understand and even applaud as justifiable self-protection. Some activists also believe that standing up to the police will inspire others to join them because they have shown they are serious about challenging the system. However, as polls taken after such incidents show, most people do not accept these rationales. They do not like to hear of extreme reactions by the police, but they tend to blame the demonstrators, even when the police are the primary instigators. Thus, it is not a matter of who is right and who is wrong, or about which side started it. It is a matter of whether physical confrontations are effective in gaining adherents, and it seems clear that they are not.
To be effective, nonviolence must be maintained in the face of great provocations, even beatings and murders by the opponents. If there is no retaliation, the perpetrators may be prosecuted, or public sentiment may switch to the side of the challengers. This is in fact in part what happened when police and vigilantes attacked civil rights demonstrators in the 1960s. Those unprovoked actions swung whites outside the South against police violence despite their continuing feelings of racial superiority, and forced the president and leaders in Congress to condemn elected officials and law enforcement personnel in the South.
Once nonviolence is taken seriously as the only and ideal strategy for egalitarians in a democratic society, it quickly leads to new ways of thinking about issues of social change. Although advocates of strategic nonviolence have published catalogues of successful tactics, they stress that each movement invents new methods within the context of their situation. Since outsiders do not know this context, they cannot offer many suggestions or make predictions in advance of what will work.
The successful tactics of the Civil Rights Movement are well known through dozens of books and stunning documentaries like Eyes on the Prize, but they are always worth recalling as evidence for what strategic nonviolence can accomplish in the hands of a value-based movement with clear objectives. ..."
Also, from the end there: "This commitment should include the principles put forth by advocates of strategic nonviolence for dealing with pro-violence groups. Nonviolent groups should distance themselves from violent groups and strongly condemn their philosophies and actions. Only groups that specifically state that they are completely committed to strategic nonviolence should be allowed to be co-sponsors of marches and participate in their planning."
Actually, I kind of agree with this. I have seen youtube videos where people were attempting to point out police brutality. Yet what I always saw first were the people pushing out where they weren't supposed to be and the cops telling them to follow the line and to get back. Often the people did not go back and kept pushing. In some videos, it really looks near the point of rioting.
I've also seen videos that show violence from a cop, but it conveniently cuts off anything that happened right before it. So I have to wonder about what led up to that point. There are a lot of emotions running rampant at the protests, as expected, and conditions can easily get volatile.
Now, if a cop actually does hit someone who is still following procedure and without a reason, then yeah I'm going to agree that it's police brutality.
I'm not going to say that all cops are angels. I'm not going to say that all protestors are either. Some people honestly just make bad choices and neither are exempt.
If this movement is truly successful, it will represent a major change in the economic and political systems of the US.
One major factor in keeping the population under control are the artificial class and race barriers that have been erected by the ruling class. (Howard Zinn's A Peoples History of the US has the best explanation of this.) By the way, I include union leadership in the 1% ruling class.
OWS tries to be a classless, raceless movement. This frightens the ruling class to no end.
Thus, one of their major social control mechanisms has failed.
To counter this in the short term, they have encouraged hatemongers to post on this forum, and to express sympathy with OWS. The racist right has been insistent on denying Obama any cooperation. These forces of hate have felt threatened since his election, anyway, and they sense the power of this movement. Without an artificial racial and economic divide, these groups would have no reason to exist.
Many poor whites make up the bulk of these hate groups, but others, specifically recent immigrants (East Indians, Russians, etc.), belong, too. The poor whites have been more negatively impacted by the financial crisis than most, so the risk to the ruling class is two fold:
Hatemongers might just wake up and realize they have been played by the 1%, and actually join the movement. This would be a nightmare for the ruling class.
Many of the exploited poor white folks who are hate group members or sympathizers are also members of unions and the police/armed forces. Without a reason to protect the 1%, the 1% would suddenly become quite vulnerable physically.
If the ruling class can paint this movement as racist and antisemitic, they can lower the attractiveness of OWS to the bulk of Americans, who believe in fair play above all else.
I suggest occupiers remain peaceful and positive.
TROLL
Pot , Kettle, Kettle , hypocrite