Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: On the Issue of Violence

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 7, 2012, 12:39 a.m. EST by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I am an individual of contradictions - I accept that - but it makes discussion of such a topic a bit of a challenge.

Much has been made of late regarding violence and the Occupy Movement. Some insist that we must not accept violence at all. Others insist that while they are committed to nonviolence, they never the less, sympathize with and will not criticize others who feel there is no other recourse. Some use language that blurs the lines between what is violence and what is not, what is or what should be Occupy Policy and what should not.

I approach the issue of tactics, as I do the issue of violence, from a purely utilitarian perspective.

What is violence? When is it useful? Is it inevitable?

These questions must be understood in depth, before one can contemplate on a basis of reason this issue at hand.

At the encampment at City Hall Park in Burlington, Vermont, Josh Pfenning took his own life. He did so with a handgun, in a tent. This act of violence had consequences that rippled throughout the community, far beyond the site of his death. It turned the local business community away from support of the Movement, when before the support was so widespread it was almost universal. It terrified those who heard the shot from their place of employment, across the street from where this act of violence took place. It gave the police department the obligation to take control of the scene, this was their obligation to the community that funds their services, to take control, to gather evidence, to make a determination on cause of death. That is among their various duties to the community. Once they had taken control of the park, the park Occupation was finished.

This was the result of a single act of violence, one that was turned inward.

This occurred during a few days span that saw other acts of violence at two other encampments where death resulted. It occurred when the talk in the media as it pertained to the Occupy Movement included information about the potential health affects on Occupy Protesters in their winter encampments, including the possibility of the spread of communicable disease.

I cannot say that the death of Josh Pfenning was the result of human engineering. But human engineering - getting people to behave in ways they otherwise might not - is a subject I am familiar with - and what I can say is that the technology does exist. It is possible, that this act of self slaughter was the result of careful planning. I should think that the most difficult part of any such planning revolves around the identification of that stimulus that will induce cognitive dissonance. Once identified, induction is simply a matter of replication and exposure. Timing in such cases is everything.

The federal government has resources. Many of these resources lie in the private sector, and are available to it, used by it, whether for their own benefit or to the benefit of the government while providing a layer of complete deniability.

This movement will be divided. It will be divided on the premise that it is best if it is kept small. If it is kept small it will remain controllable. So long as its policy around the issue of violence remains ambiguous, it will most certainly remain small.

If this movement chooses to accept the inevitable, to preempt that which cannot be avoided, it becomes possible to grow beyond the measure of their capacity to control, to manipulate, or to harness to their own ends.

As two groups, instead of a single entity, there is no end of the theater this upheaval of discontent might produce.

As an individual I cannot say, for I cannot predict, what I might, at some point in the future, be driven to by the extremity of circumstance. The future is, to me, unknown.

There can be no question - death is inevitable. It will come to us all one day.

As a current member of the Occupy Movement, I must repeat that opinion that I have held from the beginning:


Those who staunchly advocate violence,

and who will not be tamed by either reason,

love of their own neighbor,

or caution on behalf of the Movement,

must be ostracized and disavowed.




Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Group dynamics can be quite difficult. All groups have at least one person that doesn't want to pull their own weight and one or two who are nothing but ego. Very few groups have enough discipline, that can be acquired through experience, to stay on the same page through out.

My best friend lives in a little town outside of London. I am not going to go through the history of the riots because that information is elsewhere. There had been massive problems with the police in certain areas and protests that had already occurred but had received little to no media attention. Dismissed.

At any rate, interviews were done with the dumbest individuals and the ones that were done with the brightest were done in such a way as to castigate them as the ones initiating the violence. Pictures were shown of those that had stolen and, even more importantly, those who were standing out on the street not doing anything. BBC painted all actions, leading up to and afterwards, as thuggery. There were no pictures of parents stealing diapers. They did. The picture of a girl that had stolen a bag of rice was ridiculed for not breaking in the right store. The world, of course, laughed like hell for obvious reasons. Not one book store was harmed and rather than taken as a matter of respect for the written word it was played on the ignorance of the riots.

Now we know that much of the theft was planned by groups and that where the rioting initiated was started by people that were from a different location. If you watched this in action, you should have known exactly what the media response would be. Meanwhile, the austerity measures and the poverty and the original police brutality and stop and frisk did not get the attention that it needed. There are more homeless in England now so the reports show.

Now, my friend is an activist but in no way, shape or form partook in any of the riots. The big stores had no problem replacing windows and things. The smaller businesses didn't know if they were going to survive. Those in the lower classes had their homes burned to the ground. When it was over she went outside into her neighborhood and helped start cleaning it up and doing what she could. The people harmed were those that did not have the money to begin with.

There can be no revolution in some of these tactics. There will only be suicide by cop. What is the point of an ultimatum if you have already shown your cards? A different type of martyr? No. A body bag and setting actual change for issues that is already in progress on the back burner.

Now, this whole demand for people to speak out for nonviolence has become almost petty and is now nothing more than an attempt to get people to focus on it rather than on the issues and I feel has become nothing more than a divisive element. You cannot control another individual. We have work to do.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8655) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Well said. The obstacles involved in getting information out do seem to be organized. I have a small example, I think it was in 2004 President Bush came to Phoenix to speak at a union hall, outside there were at least 600 of us with signs protesting various policies. There were of course several local news crews around. I had been carrying my sign, “Conservatives defend inherited wealth and power. Liberals defend equal opportunity.” So I TiVo’d all the channels, we have 5 English at least one Spanish, none of the English channels covered the protests, instead they showed about 20 people gathered in some dirt lot, only the Spanish channel carried the larger protest. I realize this is in no way on scale with your friends’ experience, but I think it would be nice if we could start to bring these stories together.

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I think that it is a great big example and speaks volumes considering that this occurred in Arizona. They have no desire to present but every reason to ignore any dissent.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8655) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Thank you Firday...together WE spread the word.


[-] 1 points by timirninja (263) 2 years ago

So many people become to understand about misinformation and its effect on our will. People who in charge in the east doesnt have their one intelligent agencies and they unable to manipulate "terrorism" in the way they could be fight about with. lets return to Josh Pfenning. he took his gun and was being punished. But those action doesnt affect others to bring their weapons, but exactly the opposite, - good feed from the media and City Hall Park clean now, and open for public. In Canada during the massive protests and clashes with police, the forces give up one of their police vehicle. Protesters burn it down. And right after this police became more frisky, more meticulous, more suspicious to protesters. It gave them lawful foundation to do it. Similar process would be implemented in UK http://rt.com/news/london-police-riot-media-621/ Violent or nonviolent it should be balanced. here is why. People love actions and for long period of time protesters may remain nonviolent using different approaches. But psychologically it much easier to use violent elements application to get media attention. and one more thing. to discuss violence in macro level we have: nonviolent movement and violent occupation and oppression regimes overseas. other way around violent movement = gives more attention of the government to problems inside the country =) this is conspiracy, please dont ban me

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

No clothes No violence lots of corporate media.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

There you go. Making sense again. I also agree with much (but not all) of learnthis below. Even if half of the 99% agreed upon 20 of 100 policy issues, they wouldn't agree on the priorities of those 20. This would likely result in some number of groups that did agree on some number of them that they could focus on. I think that is constructive. We know that the movement is not monolithic.

And just when you are comfortable in your 6, or 10, or 13, or some number of somewhat overlapping groups, somebody brings up tactics.

Immediately every group breaks into 3 or 5, or 15 groups based on their favorite tactics. some benign and some pretty ugly, with pieces of chain and other improvised implements of limited destruction. So now there are 6, or 15, or 50 smaller groups and then they notice that they all don't live withing a half day of NY or Oakland.

You can see where this is inevitable going. I don't think this is bad or even totally ineffective. The challenge will be to maintain some degree of communication or coordination. If you don't do that, I believe the effectivity is significantly reduced. I believe the folks who are opposed to us that matter, know who we are. So, maintaining the fiction of anonymity is I believe, just that.

Real person to person communication provides one important benefit among others. You can coordinate the activity of people who demonstrate they are trustworthy. And you can simply leave out those who don't play nice with their group. I believe this is consistent with the policy that you closed with. Maybe we are in the same group?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Maybe we are in the same group?

quite possibly

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

as long as with "ostracized and disavowed" there still exists 3 heads of government and balance of power. Dictatorship will not be tolerated.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

I strongly agree zendog. Non-violence is the only way. Violence will destroy the credibility of the movement in the public eye. We also must make every effort to suppress infiltrators who are intentionally bent on starting violence via themselves or agitating members to violence or both.

I would not put anything beyond opposition forces bent on destroying this movement.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

don't sweat it

If I choose to snap, it will be a conscious, deliberate decision, not one made in haste.

As a member of the Occupy Movement I repeat:

Those who staunchly advocate violence,

and who will not be tamed by either reason,

love of their own neighbor,

or caution on behalf of the Movement,

must be ostracized and disavowed.

As a private citizen, I retain all rights to autonomous decision making and behavior . . . .

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

Hackers are most violent, and I do support them. Dumb kids with pipe bombs, no ... they're only defeating the cause.

[-] 1 points by zymergy (236) 2 years ago

Thank you ZenDog. Good post.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

violence really does suck, doesn't it?

Of course it does . . . .

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8655) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

OK I just scanned the comments, what's up ZenDog you got haters or something some of them don't seem on point. Anyway, I think your underlying point is a good one and well supported by your example. Non-violence has often been shown to be a highly effective method for achieving long term change, i.e. India, Civil Rights (though I concede there were a variety of tactics taken), I do as a matter of practicality believe that the only reasonable path to success in convincing large numbers of Americans to act in their own interest is through non-violence. As far as to do harm to another in defense of ones self I have not yet had to face it, on those rare times when others sought to do me harm certain training has so far given me other choices (knock wood).

[-] 6 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

A strict commitment to nonviolence is the only way we will draw large numbers of Americans to the protest.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8655) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Simple and correct.

[-] 1 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

That is the god's own truth.


[-] 5 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

First, I whole heartedly support the movement

Second, I'm not entirely on board with the whole anarchy thing

I am only one voice, I recognize that, and I am perfectly content with the way the GAs function. I think its great. I have yet to be sold the idea that it can work as a method of organizing a government.

You cannot punish large corporations by breaking their windows.

That makes them stronger.

The only way to punish large corporations is to do a tremendous amount of research, identify the weaknesses within their corporate structure and exploit them, identify their strengths within the corporate structure and eliminate them.

I presume that none among the blackblock are in favor of killing the decision makers, anywhere. Nor are they in position to engineer a hostile takeover using market principles and economics.

All that leaves is public opinion. If you want to punish a corporation you must harness public opinion. You cannot harness public opinion in your favor with violence.


[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

since you joined today I will make the rash assumption that you are here to mimic the stereotype you wish to present as being emblematic of the movement as a whole.

Regardless of what other activists within the movement might advocate, my own position is that the case has not yet been made that the government as a whole, or our Constitution, must be tossed in their entirety - on the contrary.

This is a position that the right wing policy makers and shapers wish us to adopt, thus enabling our discredit, as we go about the process of undermining support for candidates who ideologically oppose the right wing party platform.


[-] 4 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

there has been a lot of bullshit in the forum since well before Christmas, so you will perhaps forgive me if I don't automatically take you at your word.

This is who I am

My pic, my poetry, my advocacy. It's a lot to digest in one sitting. suffice it to say I've been protesting issues surrounding this since 1997.

It is my opinion that the anarchist movement suffers some challenges -

  • a lack of understanding what anarchy is

  • what the anarchy movement advocates

  • the acceptance of tactics of violence as a part of the anarchist movement

The acceptance of violent tactics will help ensure the general public turns a deaf ear to the rest of what the movement is about.

At that point it won't matter if the movement is about rectifying economic, social, and environmental injustice or not. Once the deaf ear is turned there is nothing you may say that will penetrate.

I personally am not convinced on the principle of anarchy as a method of organizing a national government. I am content that it seems to work reasonably well at the local GA.

I have seen and read about a number of direct actions that were highly effective. None of them employed violence.

In my opinion, black block tactics have no place in the Occupy Movement.

There are other methods that can be much more effective, such as this


[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

the least you could do is accept us anarchists who started OWS for you.

I do - and in fact what I am telling you will help you get your anarchist message to a sympathetic public. If you choose to listen.

there are many protesters from the old days that I have met who are or who would be part of the movement - who are staunchly anti-war. You can't sell them the idea of vandalism as a tactic. They may sympathize with it, but even if they do, they will recognize, as I do, and I am no pacifist, that you cannot attract the general public with acts of vandalism.

It's a general turnoff.

Middle class, law abiding citizens don't want to be associated with violence.

I'll bet Hansen - NASA - Scientist - Arrested won't want to be associated with it.

What do people like Chris Hedges, Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky say about the issue of violence?


[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Normal use of the park results in the same kind of damage that the Occupy Movement was accused of - as it pertains in the Burlington City Hall case.

The damage was estimated at about $800 to the grass - damage that could easily be rectified by the protesters themselves.

Windows are a different matter - and terrible iconography.

This is the whole point-

  • Image


[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I support your freedom to vandalize public parks, so please support my freedom to break a few corporate windows.

I do support your freedom to do as you choose. I do not support the association of these tactics with the Occupy Movement.

There are certain advantages to what I propose that you are perhaps not considering.

This forum is not the appropriate place for such discussion.

The potential growth of the movement - in two directions - becomes magnified by preempting the inevitable.

The Movement will tend to grow all on its own as the political attack ads gain momentum and wind up the public.

Individuals subjected to this program will be vulnerable, admission of their numbers among us will place both themselves and the movement at risk.


[-] 3 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I will not wear black as a part of the Occupy Movement

I ask that you begin to think strategically


[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

to here

I prefer green or gray, thanks


[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

1st: property destruction is indeed violence. No way to get around it, it is embedded it's very definition.

2nd: Property destruction is a tool that will destroy the movement as sure as it destroys the property.

3rd: OWS may have started as a small anarchist movement. But CONGRATULATIONS! It has been successful enough to grow beyond its beginnings. The anarchist methodology of open direct democracy was not about preserving anarchist aims in amber. It was about attracting greater participation and open dialogue.

That participation now includes liberals as well. Instead of dismissing that, pat yourself on the back for a job well done. You represent one faction of OWS, not its entirely. And if you want to stay viable as an entity, dismissing the liberal branches as irrelevant , alienating them from the movement, is not the way to go.


[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Taking over an abandoned building is not for the purpose of damaging it. It is for the purpose of demonstrating the wastefulness of the 1% and it callous disregard for those in need, for whom that property can be used. The building, in the process of being occupied, is improved, not damaged.

To be sure, occupying a park causes damage. But if I remember correctly, OWS requested Porta-potties and dumpsters at Zucotti, which were denied by Bloomberg. So much of the responsibility for the damage there rests at his feet, not OWS's.

Finally, I was schooled for 7 years in an anarchist school created entirely along anarchist principles back in the late Sixties through the middle '70s. And I can tell you this much: we cleaned up after ourselves every single day, and made sure to add as many improvements to our location as we could think of. Damage was the last thing we would have done.


[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You're right. I haven't been in an anarchist squat. But, as a one-time anarchist, I don't understand the destruction. Anarchism for me always meant taking personal responsibility, as well as working for the collective. Why is it so difficult to avoid doing damage at one of these squats? Anarchism never meant destruction, nor did it mean chaos. It meant acting from one's one conscience instead of from outside authority. And it meant making the entire group, the whole collective, better.


[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

OK, thanks. I didn't understand the logistics of it. But do you try to avoid or minimize doing damage while you're there? Are people asked to clean up after themselves as you go along?

No one is suggesting you paint the place. (And hyperbole and sarcasm is really uncalled for; I'm talking to you in good faith.) Only that damage that can be avoided is avoided in good conscience. Is that, in your experience, being done?


[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I understand full well about having to break in, build a fire, etc. I do NOT understand stealing. Not believing in authority does not mean abandonment of civility. Break the law as much as you need, but not as much as you want.

As to letting you in my house to test your theory: if I had one, no way, brother. (Just teasing. I would if I could.) It's moot anyway. Due to the economic collapse, combined with the shameful fee-for-service health care system, I find myself without my health, without my job, and without a home. I am being put up in an extra room at a friend's house, waiting for my otherwise treatable disease to cripple and possibly kill me. Typing alone is very painful. Hosting a party of anarchists is out of the question, though in truth, I would love to.


[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I would also inquire:

What is the position of people like Chris Hedges, Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky on the issue of violence as a tactic?

[-] -1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

"Property destruction" may not be violence.

However, those who are the owners of said property have the Constitutional right to protect it, and therein comes the possibility for violence.

One side wants to destroy it, the other side seeks to protect it.


[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

there is a huge difference between civil disobedience and vandalism.


[-] 5 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

you are confusing civil disobedience with vandalism

What we do in life ripples out around us, like a stone tossed into a pond.

Unless you have very sophisticated demographic analytical tools, you cannot hope to predict all of the various consequences of a single act of violence, even one that is turned inward, as demonstrated by the incident related in the forum post.

Vandalism where it is associated with the Occupy Movement will turn off the general public.

There are few exceptions - one of them are the images of Occupy supporters, arms linked, preventing a group of others from breaking a large plate glass window.

The incident took place in California, and the images were shown

  • on national television news

It was a great piece of unscripted, positive iconography drawing support of the Occupy Movement from around the country, including those in positions of influence.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

Yes. We need to do more of this sort of thing to stop black bloc. Wear white to protests. Carry spray bottles to put out fires on flags. Surround them to prevent their mayhem.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I think the courts have determined that flag burning is protected free speech. I wouldn't trample someone's right to speech - I would suggest that if flag burning is going to take place it should be by consensus, and great care must be taken to ensure fires don't spread out of control.

Generally I think flag burning is premature as an attention getting device, insufficient numbers of citizens are at this point behind us. 16 months from now it may become more effective.

[-] 0 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

Flag burning is free speech. So is putting out the fire. Would you trample on my right to free speech?

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

If the group consensus is that a flag or flags will be burned, and then flags are burned, you have the option not to participate.

YOur right to free speech does not include the right to curb that right exercised by others.


[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

reply to this

I am not attacking the movement. I am stating what I believe is true, and necessary.

The conservative agenda of deregulating the financial sector was not instituted overnight - it will take a great deal of pressure to cut it out of our political and educational system.

I do support the movement - absolutely.

We must have overwhelming support of the public to achieve meaningful reform.

That will not happen with violence as a part of the movement at this stage of the process.


[-] 4 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Yes I have - my own GA has had observers at the discussions taking place in Vermont on the health care issue.

This is not Syria, Egypt, or Libya. This is the United States. Different tactics are in order.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

You won't overthrow the government.


[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Let me make myself very clear to you. I call bullshit. I have heard smarter arguments from far more intelligent anarchists.

The issues at stake are huge. They don't revolve around you. You either give a damn about what is at stake or you do not. Further, by alienating the public you have to realize that you won't have a whole lot of people backing you up. This translates into suicide by cop and nobody is going to look back at you in history. There goes your revolution.

So, the question is not for me, but for you, Why are you here? Do you give a damn about the issues or do you not?


[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I have an opinion regarding tactics.

Do we not operate on the basis of consensus? If we operate on the basis of consensus then I am entitled to my opinion and to express it.

I doubt you will find a more


radical anywhere.


[-] 0 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

So are you okay with the KKK marching with us in their hoods and burning crosses, so long as we have consensus?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I'm one voice - it has to be ok with me.

I then have the option - to participate or not

I would of course choose not.

I would seek other venues to advocate for change

[-] 0 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

I guess I'm just kind of surprised to see your attitude about the flag burning because I thought I had seen you comment elsewhere about the importance of not alienating large numbers of people or something to that effect. Flag burning will keep many people from joining us and lead others to flat out hate us. It seems a highly counter-productive action IMO.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

It may be at this stage of the game

Yet there is a distinction between free speech and vandalism

I have seen the flag represented on a handkerchief and casually used as a snot rag - a use I find more reprehensible than burning it as a matter of protest.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

I agree. There is a distinction between free speech and vandalism. I guess the two meet when you burn someone else's flag.


[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

you probably do not know that

As a matter of fact I did hear that complaint re: Burlington City Hall campin.

you haven't been to an occupied park have you?

Did I camp? No. Did I violate curfew in the park? Yes, on several occasions.

Have I participated in marches in Burlington?


I think there is even video from the Occupy Burlington group showing me in a march or two. Not sure.

it always makes me laugh when peace promoters try to take over an anarchist non-violent protest

Not very sophisticated in messaging are ya

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

"Civil Disobedience" is often times not "illegal", at least not in the criminal sense of the word.

"Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power. Civil disobedience is commonly, though not always, defined as being nonviolent resistance. It is one form of civil resistance. In one view (in India, known as ahimsa or satyagraha) it could be said that it is compassion in the form of respectful disagreement."

[ from Wikipedia ]


[-] 1 points by learnthis (120) 2 years ago

The very best thing this movement could do right now is to turn this into a Saturday (either weekly or monthly) 10 AM to 10 PM only event for a number of reasons

  1. You will have a much better turnout. Your numbers dwindle...
  2. People are losing sympthay and respect for this movement. Why? Because this movement has cost taxpayers TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. Who do you think pays for police for these Occupy protests? The people who own property in that city pay. When the city sends out tax bills this year there will be a little something extra on it that each taxpayer in the city has to pay to cover the Occupy police and cleanup. Right now I would put a conservative estimate that this OWS/DC/Oakland etc. has most likely hit the $30-40 million dollar mark. Continuing this protest on a daily basis is selfish of the movement.
  3. People would rather their tax dollars be spent to educate their children, pave their streets and fund their programs-things they get something back from- than cleaning up and controlling protestors. Once a month would be best, once a week if you have to ...but these encampments need to stop.
  4. When the protestors engage in battle with the police you are fighting with someones husband, brother father, cousin, uncle and so on. This is not a robo cop people are throwing crap at . It is a human being that is worried that he is going to end up getting hurt and won't be able to feed his family. 99% of the police are not thrilled with having to have ANY physical contact with anyone. The more the police have to deal with violence the quicker the community is going to hate the protestors. Once you turn the communities against you it is over. Every tax payer will be screaming for your removal. And then you will be removed.
  5. Your message is lost when you use words like corrupt instead present your message in a positive fashion. "taking money out of politics would be good for everyone involved. if campaign funds were limited to donations by individuals and the amount did not exceed $5000 (any number you pick) the politicans would go back to catering to the people they are elected by. If corporations wanted tax deductions the money could be well spent on contrbutions to charities.
  6. Your message has been muddled from the start due to name calling. Many of the 1% are respected in their communities. They are the ones who dontate money to build that new wing at the hospital. The are the ones that donate scholarships to the high schools and universities and most importantly they are the employeers of the tax payers that are being pissed off. Lay off the 1%. If it is your intention to make the 1% or the top 5% (that already pay over 50% of the tax revenue taken in by the fed) feel bad it is not going to happen. Instaed you look jealous that you don't have their weath. Any working man or woman will sympathized with the weathy because most of them know the wealthy worked to get it.
  7. Learn to get your points across using clear concise language that does not offend others. The muddle Vancouver language just is not working. Lose the terms corrupt, evil, corrupt because they are just words. Instead ask for things such as, "we would like to see campaign rules changed. we believe that corporations should not be allowed to contribute to campaigns and donations by individuals should be limited to $5000. 99.9% of the politicans can't be bought for $5000, so limit contributions to that amount. (of course they will still tell their kids to donate, the wife, the aunt that is in a coma etc. ) but that is called bundling and that is already illegal.

Protesting is everyone's right and it should be used. However you do not need to be in the street to do it. Organize letter writing campaigns. Make phone calls to your politicans (and don't fucking twitter or tweet or whatever it is so that 500 people make stupid calls all in one day because the message will go down the toilet. AND GET INVOLVED in a concrete way.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

(and don't fucking twitter or tweet

really? Don't you know what culture jam is?

Even I know what culture jam is.

Culture jam is that guy in the crowd who hollers out - Emperor - do you know you are butt fuking neked?

And we all know public opinion monitors all have twitter trending software . . .


[-] -1 points by learnthis (120) 2 years ago

You need to wake up and lose your macho ego. No one is going to have a hell of a lot of sympathy for a bunch of self-centered middle class hippy kids (who spend $3000 to make Halloween puppets) whose antics have added to their tax bill and caused disruption to their life. By turning the protest into a once a week event you will have more protestors coming in from out of town. Continue the way you are now and by August you will be standing alone in 105 degree heat asking yourself why no one is with you. (well maybe a few other people will be around but you will not be able to get that close to each other because you will stink badly- why do you think Kalle set the date for September? If he had picked July or August you all would have bailed after a few days. Anyway I am organizing a summer road trip called “Camping at Kalle’s Farm”. Since, he has a farm this could possibly be a Woodstock kind of thing but in Vancouver..so save your money because you are going to want to be in Vancouver this summer!!

[-] 2 points by Listof40 (233) 2 years ago

Knock it off with the supposed 'kindly advice' bit.. this is just a tactic to dwindle support... if you don't like the movement for bringing important issues to awareness, then change your attitude, and try to do something helpful...

This is not about 'tents', it never was... but u want to make it about the difficult situations protesters have had to endure from a callous and confused society, tricked into apathy, to not standing up for each other... to squabble for a piece of each other...it's a shame...

Who are u to discourage those who are looking for a better way though the confusion of modern society - because of the betrayal of the public by those who wear the false clothing that 'they care about the peopke' - when they don't...

[-] -2 points by amerman (26) 2 years ago

Real tough guy!! zendog = burned out stinky hippie

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

What is this? Props?

Credentialization to support my position beginning here?

IF so, you should probably stop now. I don't like the deceit - and who knows what the fuck I might pull tomorrow.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

----> Because this movement has cost taxpayers TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. ... Who do you think pays for police for these Occupy protests? ...

that's their choice, the local gov's choice to waste that expense ... there is zero legitiment reason for police action at the Occupy movements ...

[-] 0 points by learnthis (120) 2 years ago

Brad...your "that's their choice" attitude is what will do in your movement. The police are there ensure not only your safety (did you ever think that some real red necks might enjoy beating the shit out of a few of you for fun) and well as for the safety of the public. Because really when you block the roads ambulances and fire trucks can not get where they need to go. When you block the sidewalk people are forced to step into the street to walk around you. Brad do you ever take a look around and think are we creating any kind of hazard here? Or are you just so wrapped up in your own needs and wants that you can't see anything else. Do you think about the businesses you are ruining that are around your occupations. About the people that worked their whole life to build those businesses and now their customers can not even get to their front door? Did the protestor in Oakland have any respect for the construction equipment they ruined? Is it ok to break into City Hall? How would you like it if someone broke into your house? The lack of respect and consideration towards others that all of these OCCUPY movements have is piss poor. Do you know what GENME is? You fit the bill perfectly. People are losing respect for this movement and that my friend will not help your cause one bit.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

well ...Most of us are real Red Necks, too ,,, just itching to release some of this frustration...

[-] 1 points by learnthis (120) 2 years ago

you don't look like red necks you look like middle class kids wearing hippy wannabe halloween costumes . complete with the dirt and grease.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

and I bet you look like middle class, sharp clean cut kids wearing wannabe 1%er halloween costumes . ...

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

well .... I guess you ain't been on the street much

[-] 0 points by learnthis (120) 2 years ago

how do you feel being Kalle Lasn's puppet boy? He starts this shit then hides behind "there are no leaders" shit. Can't wait for him to get the bill. And BradB do you have any idea where all the money went that was donated to your movement because in New York they have only shown accounting for 108,000 out of 700,000 dollars. Follow the money Brad wake up and go home you have been sold a crappy bill of goods.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

700,000 dollars. ain't money ... Trillions is money ... you follow the money

[-] 0 points by learnthis (120) 2 years ago

you follow the money puppet.

[-] -3 points by owsrebel1984 (-1) 2 years ago

"give peace a chance"

"save the whales"

"Think Green"

"Take money $$$ out of wash dc"

These are all what they are hollow meaningless words, ... that are designed to piss off nobody, and get nothing done.

You say you want a "REVOLUTION"?

This time it has to be different.

[-] 2 points by learnthis (120) 2 years ago

they are not hollow meaningless words they are things that are working. NOTHING AND I MEAN NOTHING happens overnight so forget about that. The more revolutionary and violet you become the quicker this movement will end. promise you that.

[-] -2 points by owsrebel1984 (-1) 2 years ago

"We are the 99%" is the most stupid fucking slogan that was ever fucking made.

First of all for any slogan to be credible there has to be an element of truth.

I read an article in Salon a couple months ago about how Kalle-Lasn created CANVAS and how they use all these short and meaningless slogans to attract as many fools as possible and offend nobody.

This is all great if your only goal is making a quick buck, ... but its NEVER going to bring change.

[-] 1 points by learnthis (120) 2 years ago

don't be really shocked if you someday find out that this whole thing was about someone making a quick buck. you seem like a real person who cares about the world. I am pissed because I see all of these young people who are finally trying to participate in something who are going to get nothing but disapointment in the end. This world need to change...no doubt about it from Heath Care to Taxes to Campaign Contributions. And it will change if people start to work within the system instead of thing to throwing pebbles at the big machine. We are the 99% is absurd and again that is another thing that pisses off people...they look at the misfits pissing in the park and go...nope not one of the 99%. It should have been played we are the bottom 1% and we need change because we are ready willing and able to participate in employment, politics and life but we can't get past the barriers to do it!

Anyway cheerup the road trip I am planning this summer is going to be great....If Kalle will not come to the protest I say let's bring the protest to Kalle. (he has a farm..it will be fun). Camping at Kalle's. Something on the scale of Woodstock but maybe for July and August since it is way too hot in the city then anyway! VANCOUVER 2012!!! oh it is going to be fun!!!

[-] -1 points by owsrebel1984 (-1) 2 years ago

Well at least the above was written by a human, but farms north and east of Vancouver are hotter than hell in July/August, .. besides that Pot harvest time, your likely to get raped, if you go off in the woods alone carrying signs,....

I care about the world, and pretty much write what I learned the past 50 years studying this shit, but I bailed a long time ago,... when the civil-war comes to the USA, its the last place you want to be, if you come up here to Canada, maybe you ought be more open for a refuge?

[-] 2 points by learnthis (120) 2 years ago

there will not be a civil war in the United States. There will be jails full of people who tried to start one. But just in case. House in Canada: check Passport:Check Canadian Dollars: Check

[-] 1 points by shooz (17816) 2 years ago

(R)epelican'ts are DONE!!

I like the sound of it...............................:)

[-] -1 points by owsrebel1984 (-1) 2 years ago

This is an example of meaningless rhetoric. Done how? Like Rush Limbaugh's Ruth Chris 'raw' steak?

One has to be careful about slogan's. One must real Mein Kampf and other good books by the US sponsor's like Goebbels to understand what slogans are real, and what are bullshit.

"Republicans are ASSHOLES"

Now that is a truth.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17816) 2 years ago

Fuck Goebel, he was an amateur.

He had to read a book, to get anywhere.

We have been, always were and still are #1 in propaganda.

So we fight fire with fire.

I don't see the problem.

That shit works.

[-] -1 points by owsrebel1984 (-1) 2 years ago

Yep, never read a book and ignore history, just watch YOUTUBE 24/7....

Yep, ... move along,

Fucking stupid Bots, ... Stupid fucking Bot's, ... Yeah hell yeah a BOT can't read a book, but can a BOT watch you tube?? Or only advocate watching the BOOB-TUBE? ( The old term for TV watching morons )

[-] 1 points by shooz (17816) 2 years ago

What's with this fucking bot obsession?

Are you on meth?


[-] 2 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

turns out the only ones real here are owsrebel and owsleader, according to owsrebel, and owsleader. convieniant for them.

[-] 0 points by owsrebel1984 (-1) 2 years ago

Anybody that has been around these Bulletin-Boards for many years knows that as a rule-of-thumb, if there's 50 posters, only 2-4 are real people,

[-] 1 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

every word you say in to disrupt, confuse, incite and threaten. you are shit.

[-] 0 points by owsrebel1984 (-1) 2 years ago

disrupt, confuse, incite and threaten.

Where did you find Thrassy's CIA mission statement?

[-] 1 points by shooz (17816) 2 years ago

Maybe jart is tressy.

Maybe we're all bots!!!!!!

That other 1984 guy turned out to be.... fleshy the safe sex wonder bot!!!!!

He liked to babble about condoms.

Acted for all the World like a crankhead.

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

"public healtrhcare is not possible in America"

"Freedom isn't free"

[-] -1 points by owsrebel1984 (-1) 2 years ago

Nope, freedom isn't free. That's fact.

"Think Green", ... is bullshit, can't be measured and offends nobody, but the above is an assertion of truth.

"Public Helathcare is not possible is USA" is a fact the Medical system enjoys $3Trillion USD a year going its way, we call this a vested interest, ... no fucking way in HELL, that the powers of K-Street will allow anybody to kill their golden-goose.

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




[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

you are insane

and you probably don't have permission from Kalles, rather are intent on distracting the movement

[-] 0 points by CampingatKalles (0) 2 years ago

no all these movements should get together and have one big event this summer. something like farm aide or we are the world. Don't you understand Kalle started the movement why would he object to people camping up there in Vancouver? Kalle founded the movement we should have the rally there in honor of him. People from New York could get on AMtrack in New York. Then it stops in DC and we can pick up occupy dc and then to chicago and so on until we get to Vancouver. The cities are too hot in the summer. this will be a change of pace and energize everyone for the fall. BUT This must be PEACEFUL.


[-] -1 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

If all of this comes to violence, on a national scale, it will be Civil War II.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Both the Civil War and the Revolutionary War were necessary, given the grip that conservatives had on the levers of power at the time.

They will not relinquish their grip willingly.

I don't believe widespread violence is either necessary today, nor is it advisable, today. It only serves the interest of the .01 percent, at this point in time. It is possible that may change - but if we do this right I don't believe it will.

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

So conservatives are evil now?

[-] 2 points by shooz (17816) 2 years ago

Not necessarily evil, just pathologically incorrect.

They still think (R)epelican'ts are for small government.

[-] 1 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

Well stating that they are incorrect is an opinion and is easily debatable. There are benefits to both sides (liberal/democrat and conservative/republican) which is why I consider myself an slightly conservative leaning independent.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17816) 2 years ago

(R)epelican't philosophy has outlived it's usefulness.

It is stagnating the country. It has become damaging.

Note how you ignored the true statement I made.

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

Which was what? I stated that your position is debatable. And it is. Do you have empirical evidence to back this up?

[-] 1 points by shooz (17816) 2 years ago

If looking around you, you still can't see that the country is trying to dig out of hole that's 8 years deep, and we're only 3 years into digging out. Then I can only say this.

These thing take time, and new directions in policy.

I realize, there's blame on both sides, that contributes to our predicament. Some of it has roots deeper than either one of us could imagine. ( We bark at each other all day about those roots.)

The "right", wants to continue down the road that got us here, and I'd prefer not to.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

This actually began shortly after ww2 but the economist that set this in motion didn't get traction till the 50s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Fisher he produced failed economic platforms and formulas but continues to be a source of logic to those who make their money out of thin air because he provided the only math that supports such absurdity.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17816) 2 years ago

Think about GATT, being started in '47' I think. In '95' it was revisited and the WTO was created.

Banks and trade organizations are in this up to their necks, and NO economist is taken seriously, unless the banks accept him.

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

You still haven't provided empirical evidence.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17816) 2 years ago

I see you really don't want to discuss this.

I've taken it down to bare facts, as blameless as I can.

If you just want to bark, go elsewhere.


[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

now? I didn't realize that it was something all that new . . . .

Inside Job makes it clear that conservatives have had an economic agenda they have pursued doggedly over the course of several decades, and part of that agenda including the installation of conservative activist judges -

and as soon as they got in position conservatives began screaming about liberal activist judges to distract from their own agenda

clever bastards

[-] -2 points by owsrebel1984 (-1) 2 years ago

No thrassy, your not a contradiction, your only an asshole.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

you just got here today? well - yesterday -


As the issue of your identity has been thoroughly discussed both above and below the above link, I think it best to simply let the matter lie . . .

  • you pink pantied penis poser you