Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The Evil Spawn of Occupy....BLACK Bloc..

Posted 2 years ago on June 4, 2012, 3:38 a.m. EST by Zensmad (5)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

You must see this video,if most of OWS align and support THIS kind of behavior than all is lost for OWS. This kind of BLACK Bloc video is gaining steam and everyday people are watching this and the only people who will ever gain the majority of public support will be the ones that denounce and repudiate this kind of total destruction. OWS players should be out there kicking these POS OWS rebels ass until they finally get the hint.

THIS is WRONG!!!!!! http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/05/31/MUST-WATCH-On-The-Ground-Coverage-Of-A-Black-Bloc

69 Comments

69 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

You probably need to find another movement beside OWS.

Black bloc tactics started long before any of us were ever born. They usually involve illegal, sometimes destructive goals, which is the purpose of the anonymity that the uniform clothing allows.

Protestors of all varieties, not just anarchists, have used bloc tactics including many in the green movement. Sometimes waving banners, holding hands, and chanting protest songs don't quite do the trick. While I do not advocate violence as a tactic, I understand the frustration and reasoning behind it.

Do not assume that the public automatically reacts negatively to bloc tactics. Sometimes the average American appreciates other people acting for him or her to overcome the inertia of corporate and political "leaders."

[-] -2 points by DJdoodles (-56) 2 years ago

Do not assume that the public automatically reacts negatively to bloc tactics. Sometimes the average American appreciates other people acting for him or her to overcome the inertia of corporate and political "leaders."

Nah, the average American does not like the idea of the black bloc going down their neighborhood and breaking stuff.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26479) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Blackbloc the spawn of suppression and oppression the spawn of tyranny.

Do I like vandalism? - NO

Do I support vandalism? - NO

Can I prevent vandalism? - NO

Can the Government stop vandalism? - YOU BET!!!!!!!!!!!!

How?

Work for the people and not the Corporations!!!!

This is not the Corporate States of America - not yet.

But as it is seen that the Government is just giving lip service to the people and real service to the corporations - No Doubt Violence Will Spread.

Right now it is small groups and also agent provocateurs.

If government - State and Federal continue down this road of service to the Corporations?

As more people lose their jobs or their ability to pay their bills - well even a child can see what lies down that road.


Ask your self this question as well.

Why was this group of vandals - 4 or 5 (?) actually doing the damage (?) - why were they not stopped and arrested? Why was this allowed to continue for what appears to be blocks? For the video coverage?

The number of people doing the damage was very few - the actual whole group was not very large. Where were the police? Getting coffee and doughnuts?

[+] -4 points by DJnoodles (-136) 2 years ago

Why was this group of vandals - 4 or 5 (?) actually doing the damage (?) - why were they not stopped and arrested? Why was this allowed to continue for what appears to be blocks? For the video coverage?

There were many more than 4 or 5 vandals. Watch the video again.

My guess is that they were waiting for the riot squad, and they also wanted to film the action in order to discredit OWS.

But really, we can't blame the police. We can only blame ourselves. When we have this problem and we start a disobedience school instead of being formally against property destruction, then we are the only ones to blame.

[+] -4 points by DJnoodles (-136) 2 years ago

Can I prevent vandalism? - NO

You can't directly prevent it, but you can ask that OWS be explicitly against it. OWS never took that stance. Some people tabled the idea at a GA, but it was voted down. You could always try again.

As it stands, property destruction is accepted as one of the official OWS tactics.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26479) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Hey limp dick - you say you have lost your noodles?

[-] -3 points by DJnoodles (-136) 2 years ago

As usual ad hominem. Oh! How I wish people here would learn the art of proper discourse. The arguments, not the proposer!

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26479) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yes you are quite the pro Poser.

At least you are transparent. Your poser buddies - the other attackers of this forum must find you quite the embarrassment. Kind of like how Mr. Mittens must feel when the Donald speaks up for him.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Trashy-Scum : Re. "As it stands, property destruction is accepted as one of the official OWS tactics." - Go on then, you lying sack of shit ... prove that ... don't simply '(x)ert' it ... but actually lay down some empirical proof ... or withdraw it !!!

cave - anguis in herba ...

[-] -3 points by DJnoodles (-136) 2 years ago

It's easy to prove. You can look at the document which defines OWS and which was passed in a GA. Or, just ask jart if vandalism is part of the OWS strategy and tactics manual, and she'll be glad to say yes to you. Don't take my word, just check it up.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Paste the link then and put up your proofs ... or shut your lying mouth, Trashy-Scum-Bot !!!

You claim to know 'jart' but have defamed that person, this site and OWS, so if she does know you ... she should give us your personal details and if she's listening - I open the bidding at $100 !!

"Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the dogs of war" !

verum ex absurdo ...

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

post history data should have a clear link on the members page

http://occupywallst.org/users/MattLHolck/

[-] -3 points by DJnoodles (-136) 2 years ago

When and where have I defamed jart? Are you nuts?

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

By claiming a relationship with her.

I can't think of anything more defaming.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Beautifully succinct !!! After which only Bill Shakey will do :

"Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the dogs of war ;

That this foul deed shall smell above the earth

With carrion men, groaning for burial."

(From 'Julius Caesar' Act 3)

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Funnier still was his reaction.

Truly a thrashing mind.

[-] -3 points by DJnoodles (-136) 2 years ago

Who claimed a relationship! Wow! You're starting to be delusion like the resident conspiracy theorists.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Not delusional at all.

Are you assuming a sexual relationship?

I wasn't.

You are the conspiracy theory. \ You are a tyrant.

[-] -3 points by DJnoodles (-136) 2 years ago

Was I supposed to assume a forum relationship? We have one of those (you and me ... and, many others here). That's nothing special.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Playing naive yet again?

Am I supposed to think you've somehow become an innocent waif?

That you aren't the tyrant you've proven yourself to be?

You're just tied up in your own deceptions.

You are the conspiracy theory you claim to fight against.

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

cars speed past us every day and there is no panic

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You're such a name dropper, noodle doodle.

You've still proven, not a one of your statements.

You still think OWS has a leader, or was it two?

[-] 2 points by tallscott (11) 2 years ago

Black Blocs have been around since the late 80s, Occupy since last September. Black Bloc is not the "spawn" of Occupy.

[-] -1 points by DJnoodles (-136) 2 years ago

That's true.

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

Scheeeeesh ...... Isn't anyone here going to step up and be the martyr ... hehehehe ;)

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

"Black-bloc's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

Destroy your local neighborhoods! Terrorize your neighbors!

Freedom! Liberty!... wait a sec.... :\

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Lol

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Did you not see all the Guy Fawkes masks at the beginning?

Or were you asleep at the wheel as usual?

[-] 1 points by TomTommorow (78) from Hardyston, NJ 2 years ago

It's rather obvious Black bloc is nothing but agent provocatuers sent in to disrupt protest and make protesters look bad. It's an old, tired, failed tactic that several governments around the world use against protesters and everyone can see through it as it has been exposed for several years.

[-] 1 points by DJdoodles (-56) 2 years ago

That's why it's so important to be against vandalism, officially and practically. The reason this police technique works is because we do nothing about it. If we decided in a GA that vandalism would no longer be tolerated, and if we pointed the finger at the cops who do it during our protests, then they would have to stop.

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

use cameras

[Removed]

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

noted

haven't had any trouble myself

[-] -1 points by DJdoodles (-56) 2 years ago

I hope you won't have any.

[-] 1 points by PR1 (120) 2 years ago

My goodness, the police are few and far between here, and they just let these guy throw stuff at them without jumping out and beating them to a pulp, or anything. How friendly of them, when they beat peaceful protesters senseless as a matter of routine.

My, my, what do you make of that?.

[-] -2 points by DJnoodles (-136) 2 years ago

This is exactly the behavior that the police want to see, and that's why they don't stop the protesters right away. Their hope is that the TV cameras pick this up. If popular opinion is against OWS, then the police have already done their job.

Here's what you can do to help:

  1. Learn about black bloc tactics at the new OWS Disobedience School: http://occupywallst.org/article/ows-summer-disobedience-school-starts-today
  2. Wear black and show solidarity for the black block: http://occupywallst.org/article/solidarity-sunday/
  3. Learn about the black bloc directly from jart, one of the anarchists/organizers of OWS: http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-are-people-so-afraid-of-black-blocs/

BTW - The black bloc blew up some police cars in Toronto a few years back. They mean business when they get excited.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Sure, you get enough people in their teens and early twenties together, get them riled enough enough (ideally, a little drunk), and you can expect this result almost every time. The inaction by police isn't all that surprising (they are after all the muscle of the 1%, and from a PR perspective, this makes OWS look bad, and deflects attention away from our economic grievances).

But gratuitous violence does nothing to help our cause, unless the intention is to incite large scale riots (like Watts 1965). The question is, do we have the same sort of moral imperative? And even if we can make an argument that we do, how likely is it that we can persuade the public to agree with us?

Anyway, it may be time to say, diversity of tactics does not include gratuitous violence (including indiscriminate property destruction). I don't think this would convince all black block members to stop the violence, but it would at least put a little distance between the main movement and this small but high profile part of the movement (although the black block movement predates OWS).

In the 1960's the weather underground was the militant part of the movement, responsible for several bombings (and arson's), primarily in the 1969/1970 time frame. Then, in May 1970, we see the Kent State shootings (where the National Guard shot and killed 4 student protesters). The thing is, our grievances are in many respects much different than those of 60's protesters. We're looking for economic change, and much of that will require culture change. This isn't a matter of causing so much disruption that eventually the system must respond to our demands, the sort of grievances we have implicate everything from consumer behavior, a new approach to economics and business, banking, etc. (much different than civil rights or get out of Vietnam). While there may be some overlap, the main distinction is ... we're trying to inspire profound, systemic, and cultural change (which ultimately can only be done by winning public support).

[-] -3 points by DJdoodles (-56) 2 years ago

The black bloc is a tactic, not a movement

I agree with everything you said, but I would add that I firmly believe OWS wants to start riots and that this was the plan from the beginning. This is why they concentrate so much energy on police confrontation, much more than on talks about the economy. This is also why they started the Disobedience School - which is basically black bloc training. This is why they always compare themselves to the Arab Spring protests. They get a big hard on when they think of the possibility to overthrow the US government.

The major problem with OWS is that the anarchists know what they want and stand by it, but the other types of protesters are extremely non-chalant about it. The anarchists say - "I want this. I want that Not that. etc..." - while the other protesters say - "OWS is inclusive so we must accept anything."

To succeed, OWS would need to official state that it is against vandalism. However, this would need to be tabled in a GA, and it would never reach consensus since the anarchists in favor of vandalism would simply block.

[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

OWS does not want to start riots ... that's ridiculous. I've been to enough demonstrations, talked to enough people, where I'm confident enough to say that this is just not true. In fact, the black block stuff like walking down a street and breaking everything in sight, is more of a west coast thing. It's the battle of Seattle crowd, and they've been at this for years (this did not just pop up along with OWS).

Yes, there's a lot of sentiment for anarchist philosophy among occupiers, I like anarchist philosophy, but guys like Proudhon and Bakunin didn't spend much time talking about things like walking down the street and breaking windows.

[-] -3 points by DJdoodles (-56) 2 years ago

Fair enough.

In that case, I believe OWS should take a firm and official stance against vandalism for it has no other purpose than to start riots. A decision should be passed in a GA and committed to paper.

When vandalism occurs under the banner of OWS, or under the banner of anarchy, OWS should put out a statement stating that it firmly disagrees with these tactics. It should not remain non-chalant or ambivalent about the matter. It matters little if we are talking about undercover police inciting vandalism, or non-OWS anarchists, or OWS anarchists, or anybody else. When a march occurs like in the video above. OWS must speak out against it.

The idea of the Disobedience School is also problematic. It should be clearly stated that disobedience taught in that school will does involve vandalism of any kind.

Our adversaries use these vandalism acts against us, and if they serve no purpose since we don't want to start riots, then we must put our foot down and thoroughly position ourselves against this tactic.

As you know, the average American equates anarchy with violence and destructions. It's thus the responsibility of OWS to clearly state what it's about without any possible confusion. We can't simply defend these acts by saying they were committed by some undercover police. That's not enough. We must stand in solidarity against them, even if that means pointing out a few hard core anarchists who are for these measures. Perhaps we must kick them out of our ranks. Yes, we will lose some members, but like you said, riots are not the ultimate goal so vandalism only works against us.

OWS has been firm about not making any demands, it should also be firm about not accepting vandalism of any kind.

Why do you think it hasn't been?

[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

The disobedience school is just teaching protesting techniques (it's really a benign thing, but there are important things to know about protesting). Protesting is (by definition) defiance, but one needs to know how to keep their cool when getting hassled by cops, and make sure that if they're arrested, it's only for protesting (which usually gets dismissed or at worse maybe a fine), but you don't want it to escalate beyond that (and it's very easy for tempers to flare).

So I think OWS is doing the responsible thing by teaching people how to protest. The west coast vandalism is a different issue, and I agree with those who say it's just not productive, it's not helping the 99%, and even though I empathize with the people doing it, we tend to agree on the issues, gratuitous destruction is not a good idea.

But there's different levels of support for black block tactics within occupy, and honestly, it's not the sort of thing that would dissuade me from participation with the larger movement, but I don't agree with the tactic, and the best I or anyone can do, is voice our disagreement (and hope people will listen).

[-] -2 points by DJdoodles (-56) 2 years ago

The disobedience school is just teaching protesting techniques

If you are right, then the problem is much worst than I thought and OWS should change the name of the school immediately.

The whole point we are trying to make in Montreal at the moment by going against Bill 78 is that protesting is an inherent part of any democratic system and that it is not civil disobedience because it should not be illegal at all. If OWS considers protesting as being a form of civil disobedience, then they essentially agree with the governments who consider this illegal or want to make it illegal. However, it must be noted that most protesters who were arrested last year got acquitted. Hence, the courts did not deem it to be illegal.

I believe we should promote the idea that protesting and getting arrested for it is not normal since it really isn't civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is doing stuff that is illegal like vandalism.

But there's different levels of support for black block tactics within occupy, and honestly, it's not the sort of thing that would dissuade me from participation with the larger movement

The problem is not that it might dissuade you, someone who already agrees with OWS in whole. The problem is that it gives a bad image to OWS. It's bad PR. We have to think of our adversaries that already don't like OWS and those that are undecided. Why give them an extra reason to be against the movement?

Also, my problem is not with black bloc tactics as a whole, but only with the vandalism aspect. As you stated, vandalism is only useful when you want to start riots. And, as you stated, this is not the goal of OWS.

but I don't agree with the tactic, and the best I or anyone can do, is voice our disagreement (and hope people will listen).

No, that's not the best we can do. The best we can do is voice our disagreement and make that voice official. We must push to make OWS officially against vandalism, just like it is officially against making demands. This must be on paper. We also must voice our concerns each time OWS anarchists ask us to stand in solidarity with black bloc members who use vandalism as a tactic. We must act against this. We must report it, not just say it's wrong.

We must ask people in strong OWS positions like jart, or the anarchists who get important media interviews to speak against this black bloc tactic.

It must be stated in black and white that those who commit acts of vandalism are not considered as being part of OWS, and they are not considered as such because we decided in a GA that acts of vandalism would have zero tolerance from us. (We haven't decided this in a GA, but we really should.)

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Um, jarts not here man.

You said so yourself.

Last time I heard, she didn't think too much of you and your antics in here.

She seems like the forgiving sort though, so why don't you write her a letter and explain your position.

We're just dogs barking at each other in argument and/or solidarity.

Hey.....I know! You could buy the CDs!

That would help.

[-] -2 points by DJdoodles (-56) 2 years ago

I bought some of those CDs a few days ago. They're really good, and I recommend them to all who want to support the protest.

Jart reads this website once in awhile, but she very rarely posts here. She uses the reedit channels instead. That's where most OWS organizers and ground protesters exchange ideas. She said herself that she finds this site is disconnected from the protest. Most users here never made it to a GA or protested on the street for whatever reason.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

There you go.

Head on over to reedit, or wherever.

She's correct. This site could never be connected. Far too many trolls.

Far too many spammers , bots and sock puppets too , in the early days.

Still happens from time to time.

It's too bad what folks like you did to the site in those days.

You, plus all the trolls, paul bots, libe(R)tarians and teabaggers

All the bot activity always gets them flying out the door.

You should have been down in the trenches with the rest of us, instead of playing your high, fast games.

Don't wonder why some of our attitudes have hardened a bit.

You helped harden them.

[-] -3 points by DJdoodles (-56) 2 years ago

You give me too much power. I only attacked a few conspiracy theorists. I really didn't use bots all that much, and when I did it was for OWS. I only attacked spammers.

The fact is, the net is full of bots and viruses, and they'll infect a forum unless the programmers do something about it. You're like an apologist who blames viruses instead of Microsoft for security problems. If the programmers spent a bit of time, they could make this site much more secure. A simple Captcha on login would hamper most bots. This would take 20 minutes!

The problem is, programming was abandoned on this site ages ago. Look at the github account, there were almost no fixes in 2012. Jart is working on other projects now, and no other OWS member as volunteered programming time for this site.

In a nutshell, even if I wasn't here, the site would still be attacked. I'm a tiny drop in the bucket. The big attacks came from others.


And, really, if we look in the now who's spamming this forum? I'm not using bots anymore to attack anyone. I'm just commenting on certain issues I find are important for OWS. It's you who's constantly bringing up stuff that happened 5 months ago. How is that not spam? Is it useful for other posters? What about shadz66 who's always using foul language to call me names? Isn't that spam? And GypsyKing as well.

On top of that, you guys up vote all your attacks on me so they appear in the Best Comments. Well, that means the best comments are all attacks on me. I don't care, but I find this a form of spam. The other users on this forum don't care about that nonsense. They want to discuss issues just like I want to.

I'm not the one destroying the site nowadays, you guys are.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You still want to be king of OWS.

You are still in complete denial of the effects of your behavior.

You attacked more than just your perceived conspiracy theorists.

So there's that lie again. It's still a lie.

Such attacks always cause blowback among users that just see it happening.

Another case of your denial of the effects of your aberrant behavior

You ARE the one that posted your personal bot.

All pissed off because you were banned.

Yes YOU did that!!

You still pick and choose what conspiracies you don't like, lending credence to those you do like.

Personally? I would like to see the language cleaned up.

But you pick and choose there too.

You need to stop being such a tyrant, and admit to the damage you've done and continue doing.

How in the World do you draw the conclusion, that I'm destroying this site?

This site to which you've already done irreparable damage.

Along with all the truths I've given you that you never responded to.

Plus I'm still trying to figure out how in the hell you reconcile personal bot attacks with peaceful anarchism.

A behavior that is best described as a behavior of the 1 %.

You have long ago become what you claim to hate.

So where's that apology you owe us?

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

I'm not sure how much we should get caught up in the semantics of terminology. I guess the term disobedience has certain implications, and I suppose (in a sense) calling it disobedience can either be construed as conceding the point (that protesting is disobedience), or it can be viewed as just a catch phrase, without any intended philosophical meaning.

Anyway, I have a simple test for deciding whether or not to support ideas or groups. Do they want approximately what I want? Do they share my values (at least mostly)? If the answer is yes and yes, then I guess I'm more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. Maybe there's some benefit to a certain tactic, which I may not agree with (on its face) ... that hasn't occurred to me. So in general I think we should try to avoid nit picking too much.

Among occupiers I see people who are eager for change, who fight for justice and just plain decency. I see people who are open to new ideas, who like sharing their ideas, and who in general, are willing to go through all sorts of hardships to try and turn things around. I don't expect perfection out of anyone, when I see things that don't seem right, I presume the intentions are good (because people who are willing to struggle to help others, are noble people, and therefore merit the benefit of the doubt), but maybe the underlying reasoning behind a certain idea wasn't well thought out (so I put in my two cents, for whatever it's worth).

Honestly, I think this thing will just work itself out. But in the mean time, I just don't want to see any of these folks wind up in prison (we need people who care about other people participating in society, not locked up in a cage). I also think that it's possible violent acts (even if just property damage) could provide authorities with a pretext to crack down much harder on our movement (and of course they'll do it indiscriminately, because they really just want an excuse to suppress our freedom of speech). So I would simply implore anyone considering a controversial tactic (that could be construed as violent) to think about a few things beforehand. How will it affect the overall movement? Will it enhance or diminish our probability of success? Could they wind up in prison? Are they really prepared to go to prison (do they have any idea what prison is like)? For me, prison is sort of like heroin, not the sort of thing I'd want to try, not even once :)

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

So Police are allowing for the destruction of property.... that's your assertion and you feel that in doing so they have 'done their job'?

Their job isn't to serve and protect, as written on the sides of police cars, both people and property?

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 2 years ago

Yeah right. If the policeman's job was to protect and serve, they wouldn't be breaking up protests against a harmful system. Instead they'd be right along side us, and not up in our faces trying to incite violence.

Their job is to do what the 1% tell them to do.

[-] 0 points by DJnoodles (-136) 2 years ago

It's not exactly so simple. Look at the video again. There aren't many policemen. They can't just attack when they are four people. They most likely called the riot squad, but it hadn't arrived yet. The black bloc operate quickly and they change paths quickly. They gather beforehand, then suddenly start to march. Until the riot squad arrives, the few policemen there follow the crowd and film it.

They are there to serve and protect, but you can't do much against 100+ protesters when you are 4 cops. Man, in Toronto some of the police cars were blown up. Anarchists can be dangerous.

Sure, some will say these are paid cops. But, I don't buy it. Not that many. The fact is, OWS supports the black bloc. They have even called for those tactics to be used in marches. I provided you with some links above.

[-] 4 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

In Quebec the government has admitted that many of the Black Bloc activists were police themselves. Some have been taped carrying rocks, starting violence in nonviolent protests. The news reports from CBC are on this YT video.... Blowing up cars isn't out of the realm to discredit protests....

CBC news report:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAfzUOx53Rg

[-] -2 points by DJnoodles (-136) 2 years ago

In Quebec the government has admitted that many of the Black Bloc activists were police themselves.

In one protest only. Not all the time. But yes, there are some police that go undercover and pretend to be black bloc. So what? Sometimes the real black bloc just do the violent thing themselves.

Are you saying that all the people wearing black in the video of this posting are policemen? That sounds ludicrous. When we saw infiltration like in Quebec we are talking about 1, 2, 3 cops. In the above video there are many people throwing rocks.

In any case, your defense doesn't make much sense. How do you explain OWS DIsobedience School which teaches black bloc tactics? The cops started that? What about jart defending the black bloc? What about the many anarchist intellectuals defending property destruction and saying it is not violence because no one gets hurt.

Your nonchalance with this matter is what will destroy OWS. You shouldn't be defending property destruction, you should be outing it.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Black Bloc tactics allow for the escape of individuals who do perform civil disobedience.... you're make the assumption that destruction of property is the goal of OWS Disobedience School.

No one is defending property destruction. Police in other cities including in the US have used provocateurs to their advantage. This isn't new. In your video, great there are 3 cops filming an anarchist attack. There are many more videos and experiences where there were no anarchists at all, but the Bloc was set up to fail by cops.

[-] -3 points by DJnoodles (-136) 2 years ago

In your video, great there are 3 cops filming an anarchist attack.

Not my video.

No one is defending property destruction.

Actually, this is not true. I read many anarchist speakers who spoke at OWS events who do support property destruction as a tactic. They do not consider it violence since they only consider physical violence as being violence.

Furthermore, the fact that OWS GA never took a firm stand to be against property destruction means they support it. If OWS was really against property destruction, they would have passed it in their motions by now. They don't mention it because they are nonchalant about it.

Look if you don't believe in property destruction, then it doesn't matter if it's cops that infiltrated the black bloc who do it or OWS protesters themselves, you should speak against it in either case.

Do we care about OWS? Yes? Do we agree that property destruction is not a positive tactic? Yes?

Then let's speak against it right now. Let's ask the GA and the anarchists to speak against it. Let's make a new rule that every time there is property destruction we speak against it and point the fingers towards those who commit it.

No solidarity for property destructors. Do you agree?

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

I read many anarchist speakers who spoke at OWS events who do support property destruction as a tactic.

There is your answer. Anarchists are the ones doing this, that doesn't speak for the whole movement, much in the way that the gun toting Tea Partiers didn't speak for their whole movement either.

Look if you don't believe in property destruction, then it doesn't matter if it's cops that infiltrated the black bloc who do it or OWS protesters themselves, you should speak against it in either case.

I don't believe that the police should be infiltrating anything. I do believe that they instigate much of the violence. Personally I don't believe in property destruction, you are mixing two different issues here.

Do we care about OWS?

I do, I really don't believe that you do.

[-] 4 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

You have it in a nutshell right there ! DJNoodle, doodle & oodle aka DJnamaste aka Trashy-Scum-Bot is The Uber-Troll - sans pareil - on this forum and is an Anti-OWS Shill to the core - and who is to say that along with at least ~40 other monikers (I can list!), that this 'Zensmad' is not another one ?!! Consider, that he is quoting 'Breitbart.com', ffs !!!

ad iudicium ...

[-] -3 points by DJnoodles (-136) 2 years ago

There is your answer. Anarchists are the ones doing this, that doesn't speak for the whole movement, much in the way that the gun toting Tea Partiers didn't speak for their whole movement either.

Yet:

  1. The anarchists decided that OWS was going to be a protest using direct democracy and that it would make no demands.
  2. The anarchists turned down the idea of making demands even if the majority of OWS protesters wanted to.
  3. The anarchists turned down the idea of being explicitly against property destruction even though the majority of protesters wanted to.
  4. This website's forum is programmed and moderated by anarchists, so as most other OWS websites.
  5. The news writers for the news section of this site are anarchists.
  6. The anarchists are the ones who are interviewed by important media outlets.
  7. etc...

The anarchists seem to have a pretty tight gripe on OWS. I would even say they have pretty much full control.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

So you believe that all anarchists are for destroying property? Is this your stance?

[+] -4 points by DJdoodles (-56) 2 years ago

No, only a certain number of them believe in this tactic. However, out of solidarity they all support it and that's why OWS never took the stance to be officially against it.

[-] -3 points by DJnoodles (-136) 2 years ago

The movement is essentially defined by what is passed in a GA, and the anarchists essentially decide what that will be. And, as of now, OWS has not decided through consensus that it should be against property destruction. The motion was tabled, but it was voted down as some people feel that property destruction is a useful tactic.

Personally I don't believe in property destruction, you are mixing two different issues here.

I also don't believe the police should infiltrate anything, but that is not the point. First off, we have no proof they infiltrated the protest in the video posted on this thread. Secondly, that is really beside the point.

OWS has affirmed it is a non-violent protest, but it has failed to affirm that this non-violence includes property destruction. The motion was tabled, but it failed to pass.

I think we should stand against all property destruction committed in OWS protest. It doesn't matter who breaks stuff (OWS protesters, police infiltrators, etc...), let's just point the finger at it and say that it's wrong.


The fact is, you don't seem to be able to clearly affirm that OWS should be against property destruction. Instead of simply stating that, you seem to excuse the actions by whatever mean you can come up with.

Just say it if you mean it:

WE DO NOT TOLERATE PROPERTY DESTRUCTION HAS A TACTIC

[-] 6 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Re. "The movement is essentially defined by what is passed in a GA, and the anarchists essentially decide what that will be." - no it isn't, you're lying .... and WhoTF is this "WE" ?!

You are a known duplicitous, mendacious, manipulative, steaming sack of shit !!

Now lets's discuss that, you rancid little turd !!!

tramas putidas ...

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

If you understand OWS at all, one person does not speak for others.

I can state that I don't tolerate the destruction of property. Thats as far as it goes.... and I already have stated that.

[+] -4 points by DJdoodles (-56) 2 years ago

No, you can go further. You can ask that this becomes an official OWS stance.

If you say you don't tolerate something, but don't actually do anything about it, then, in fact, you are tolerating that thing. For example, if I say that I don't tolerate racism, but don't speak up loudly when I witness it, then I am tolerating it.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Spare me your judgments. Go bring it up at the next GA if you feel that strongly about it. There are bigger fish to fry than the Black Bloc activities.

[-] -1 points by DJdoodles (-56) 2 years ago

I believe this is a huge fish. It's the biggest threat to OWS PR, and that's why I'm talking about it here. I'm not passing a judgement, I'm just telling you what you can do to help preserve the image of OWS has a non-violent protest. If that's not important to you for whatever reason, that's fine.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-evil-spawn-of-occupyblack-bloc/#comment-754215

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by DJnoodles (-136) 2 years ago

The ultimate goal of anarchy is to overthrow the government, and that goal can only be accomplished with the use of violence. Don't ever forget that.

We all agree with the OWS assessment that governments are corrupted and that capitalism stinks bad nowadays, we agree with the problems. But, we must voice our concerns as to the solutions offered by the anarchists and the black bloc. If OWS wants to overthrow the government, not only will OWS become violent and lose public support, it will have zero chance of succeeding. There's just no way to overthrow the US government unless millions and millions of people use black bloc tactics and that's not going to happen any time soon.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

The ultimate goal of anarchy is not to overthrow the government, but to displace it. That doesn't necessarily mean the violent overthrow of the current government, it can be displaced in other ways including, but not limited to, the ballot box.

Violence of some sort has been a routine part of large protest movements. Look back at the civil-rights movement, in which the violence was mostly blamed on the Black Panthers; the Vietnam War protests, in which the violence was blamed on the Weatherman; even as far back as Gandhi's struggle for Indian independence, in which the violence was normally blamed on militants, especially in the latter part of the struggle on the followers of Subhas Chandra Bose.

OWS clearly states it's goal and proposed solution on the home page of this site: "The only solution is world revolution."

Apparently, you're not quite ready for that solution.

[-] -2 points by DJnoodles (-136) 2 years ago

Iv'e been pointing to this major problem since the begin of OWS. Here are two of my posts concerning the issue.

The problem is, for the most part, OWS supporters actually support the black bloc. If you read the second link I posted above, you'll see that Occupy is indeed promoting the black bloc tactics in the "Solidarity Sunday" protest.

Unfortunately, people will call you a troll for bringing this up just like they did to me. They will say these people are actually paid policemen and not OWS protesters, and they'll say this even though they know OWS anarchists (the ones who founded Occupy) support black bloc tactics and even call for them (like in the "Solidarity Sunday" protest).

And, of course, the creator of this site and one of the main OWS organizers from the beginning, jart, defended the black bloc just a few weeks ago:

And, of course, OWS is currently teaching black bloc tactics in its new summer program: Disobedience School (how to do unlawful stuff)

[Removed]