Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Troll Tactic For Today: Violence Slander

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 24, 2012, 3:10 a.m. EST by GypsyKing (9780)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

It appears that having failed in their other efforts to discredit us, the opposition is going to go back to the "Tar OWS with the accusation of violence" tactic. Be on your guard, and ready to counter this slander with truth. The truth is that the violence has been done by the very people paid to protect the citizens - law enforcement.

291 Comments

291 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Oh, there has been those that have committed, and wish to commit acts of violence in a misguided belief that this will further the movement.

But, in fact, this would destroy OWS. In every social movement, these voices always try to be heard, but if what we seek is a more equal and civil society, then these voices must be ignored.

Dr King had the same problems with these types in the 1960's, and with faith, and much prayer, he prevailed over them. Then he prevailed over the inequality of the system.

Dr King was able to appeal to america's sense of fair play, and he was able to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the preamble of the constitution and declaration of independence transposed upon jim crow laws.

This is how he won, and he transformed america into what it always wanted to be, and by highlighting this again, we can make america what it once was.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Spot on!

[-] -1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Hopefully, we can keep prayer out of OWS.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

if that happened, and only people like you were left(which would happen) then this would merely be a separation of church and stupid : P

[-] -2 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Church should never be mixed with politics, including OWS. We should strive to eliminate all pseudosciences as they are divisive and do not set the stage for a healthy multicultural protest. God talk is also very boring and always leads to dead ends.

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

Talk to any Black civil right activist of the 60s and you will hear of his or her own religious faith providing strength in the most desperate moments. King was a church leader, as were most of the leaders of that movement.

Whatever one finds one's strength in for the sake of positive change is good, and I don't care if it's a secular code or snake worship. The issue is the change, not the personal belief of those who make it happen.

Lincoln was a dyed in the wool racist. But he felt God wanted him to free the slaves. I don't care about either set of his beliefs, but I'm damned sure happy that slavery ended.

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

slavery was abolished in the USA in 1865 with the 13th ammendment. It still exists around the world. In the Sudan for example , arab muslims own black Christian slaves.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

There's no problem if protesters are religious as long as they keep it to themselves. I don't want to see Christians trying to convert others at the protests or OWS organizing trips to the confessional.

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

Absolutely. Proselytizing is a big no-no in my book, too. But I don't mind public display. A person's faith, whatever it is (and as I said, I don't care what flavor) is, if authentic, a big part of him, and need not be hidden.

Ghandi made no secret of his Hinduism, nor did King hide his Christianity. That didn't prevent either one from embracing Muslims, Jews, agnostics and atheists, or vise verse.

But again, proselytizing is totally inappropriate.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Does that mean it's OK for me to display my atheist-ignostic and anti-religious stance. I believe religious are dangerous and should be illegal. Would you mind if I had big signs at OWS protesters to pass off this message?

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

That falls into the category of proselytizing, so no.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

But I don't mind public display. A person's faith, whatever it is (and as I said, I don't care what flavor) is, if authentic, a big part of him, and need not be hidden.

In your opinion, what would be an acceptable public display of one's faith at a OWS protest?

A t-shirt that reads "I love God"? A cross around one's neck? Carrying the Bible in one hand? Pray-ins? Confessional chambers beside the portal temporary toilets?

If a Christian doesn't have to hide his Christianity, why should I have to hide my anti-religious stance? Can't I also wear a t-shirt that reads "Were they real, I would hate Gods. Religions are an affront to logic."?

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

Before I try to answer, I'm curious: what set you off on this tack? Did something happen at an occupy event that made you wary of this as an issue?

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

debndan's comments and your replies worry me. I don't think religion should be mixed with OWS in any way. Personally, I would never wear a t-shirt or any other ornaments expressing my anti-religious beliefs at an Occupy protest because I think that would be off-topic and would disturb the serious discussion about government corruption. It's only divisive. Keeping the discussions on topic is already hard enough, throwing in religious speech only makes matters worse. I think we should stick to talking about the problem of corruption in government. My opinion is that debndan's comments in this thread are nothing but spam. He's like the conspiracy theorists. He brings postings off-topic. It's disruptive, disturbing, and a waste of everyone's time. This post was about troll tactics, not God. Serious protesters should concentrate their efforts on what matters. They should remain on topic if they care about OWS. They can pray to their Buddha statues when they get home.

Note: your previous reply is a logical fallacy: appeal to motive. It doesn't matter why I asked my question and posed my argument. You should deal with my argument straight on, not try to poison the well by using a form of red herring.

So, I repeat, what do you think is an acceptable display of one's religious beliefs?

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

My appeal to motive was motivated by curiosity, not argument; you seemed to have a strong reaction to something I clearly missed.

In terms of what I think is acceptable. It's really hard to say. I myself am religious, but never display it in public at all. It's nobody's business what i believe but my own, and I certainly don't feel "inspired" enough to display anything. But for others, their faith is a second skin, Again, ML King and Ghandi come to mind. Indeed, it was their spiritual beliefs that motivated them and made many followers feel comfortable with them. King in particular held meeting and gave speeches inside churches, and benedictions were not uncommon. His great "I have a dream" speech was filled with references to God. I don't find that objectionable at all, even though I am not Christian.

I guess the only ananlogy i can come up with is the annual gay pride parade in New York, which I saw a few times. Some people openly expressed their affection for each other. I though that was OK. Great, in fact.. Some dressed in drag. That was fine, too, and represented a portion of that community. But some used the parade as an excuse to prance around in public, in front of kids, wearing nothing but a G-string as a way of celebrating their pride. Others engaged in simulated sex. I frankly found that offensive.

Similarly, i don't think I could tell you beforehand what I think would cross the line for me. I think Jews should be able to wear Yalmakas, Muslim women Hijabs, Christians crosses around their necks, without giving it a second thought. Are prayer circles OK? As long as they are discreet and not doing so to call attention to themselves, but rather sharing an act of faith among like-minded people. I see no reason to object. But when it becomes ostentatious and begins to resemble a bible-meeting, I think I would object. If it was a few people meditating before a march, OK, but if they started singing Hare Krishna on top of their lungs, not so much.

But even then, I'm not absolute. "We Shall Overcome" was sung loud and proud during the marches I remember, and it was a song with deep Christian meaning, and I have no problem with that.

So, I don't really have an answer. In terms of what I think is acceptable, it's kinda like "I'll know it when I see it". And by "it" I mean something positive and community building, as opposed to divisive or destructive. For me, it is a question of feeling it moment to moment rather than deciding anything a priori.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Ghandi's India was prominently Hindu by a large margin. King's audience was prominently Christian by a large margin. Occupy comes from New-York, a multicultural city. It shouldn't favor any religions over the others. It should remain absolutely and utterly irreligious. It should be about corruption in government, not about magical sky daddy talk. debndan and his friends should pray at home and leave their crosses in their drawers.

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Wow, what a string of falsehoods, how do I disentangle the gordian knot of misinformation

your statement : Church should never be mixed with politics, including OWS.

My reply: 'church' is part and parcel to politics, the 'church' or any religion are both the physical manifestation, and abstract collection of commonly held beliefs

Now to say that you need to check your beliefs at the door, before entering the world of politics is illogical, for it is the deeply held beliefs that people seek to know, and to where all politics hinges

so here you are in obvious error

But you continue with :We should strive to eliminate all pseudosciences as they are divisive and do not set the stage for a healthy multicultural protest.

My reply is: the Idea that you want to eliminate religion, in and of itself necessitates a political response, yet you would have that discourse shut down already? and not set stage for multiculteral discourse? it is religious differences that provides for a diversity of culture, yet you would cellebrate diversity by sameness?

Your illogicalness is blatent

Then you state that God talk is boring? That's just too stupid a statement to even answer

so therefore, logically, your a dumbass : D

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

Debndan, I find myself agreeing with a lot of what you say, but I'm totally in disagreement with your assessment here. First of all, I believe anyone who uses religious calculus to choose a political representative sets them self up for disappointment, being religion is the easiest thing to fake. Also, In a nation of three hundred million, who is to say I want your religious dogma shoved down my throat. Also, just like interpreting the Constitution, the Bible is just as ambiguous, and all the different denominations of churches is my proof to that claim.

[-] 4 points by Coyote1983 (61) 2 years ago

As for all this "keep Christians out of this" and "keep the Atheists out of that" and all the "keep the Buddhists out of the other thing".. I'm a Christian and I will respect your beliefs if you respect mine. If you believe there is no God, that God is a woman, that God hates people with freckles, or whatever.... well, I believe you are wrong, but you have a right to believe what you want.

So why be hostile towards each other about it? Why?

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

I agree whole heartedly + God does hate those with freckles

My response was to cephalus's statements advocating removing religion and keeping prayer out of OWS, when in fact many people draw strength from prayer.

And, alas, as far as being hostile toward one another, cephalus is just one sockpuppet that is controlled by a troll with many aliases, he/she spreads falsehoods, gets debunked, then creates another identity. I don't suffer fools lightly, especially when they advocate things that would endanger OWS, it's goals, or innocent bystanders.

[-] -2 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

keeping prayer out of OWS, when in fact many people draw strength from prayer.

Prayer should be kept out of OWS. Religious people can pray at home. OWS protests are for protesting against government corruption, not for creating religious rallies where people hold hands and pray to a magical sky daddy for help. OWS should search for solutions founded by logical thought, not the pseudoscience of religions.

Today you want group prayers at OWS, tomorrow you'll want transportable confession chambers beside the transportable toilets.

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

WOW, this is the first time I've read anyone warn about the 'slippery slope' of prayer.

hehehe, you are really really overly sensitive to any exersize of religion aren't ya : D

Might I suggest that if you want to be a true anarchist, maybe you should stop being such a pussy : P

[-] -1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

I'm not an anarchist.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

ok then, just stop being a pussy

[-] -1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

OK. Would a full blown attack against your forum character prove to you that I'm not a pussy?

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

ahhh, thankyou for the attack, I believe that this will be enough for Jart or any other mods to impose a global ban on you.

Thank-you

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

No problem. I'll be glad to attack you any day of the week.

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

no, it'd just prove you are one

anyone whom cannot stand up to criticism or is found out that resorts to suppression of speech just demonstrates the weakness of his Ideas.

A non-pussy would be confident to withstand any and all opposing views

Just as a non-pussy would be unafraid of the effects of someone doing something subversive like praying

An attack on my forum character would just serve to demonstrate your cowardice to opposing Ideas, and is a standard tactic by the mentally weak.

Just as your use of multiple identities does as well, thrace

So, do as you do, you will anyhow, then skip along to your next identity because this one is blown

[-] -1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Are you homophobic or a misogynist? What do you think is so bad about a pussy? Are you afraid of vaginas? You're still a virgin?

[-] -3 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

All my forum characters were created a long time ago.

I repeat, religious talk should be left out of OWS. Occupy should focus on political issues, not religious clap-trap. It's off topic. If you want to go to church, pray, and confess your many sins, then do so on your own free time. Don't bring your magical sky daddy stories to OWS.

I'm sure most users here agree with me. If you don't think so, post a poll to find out.

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

I don't care what you believe. I am hostile towards religious cliques when people want their book's morals to be my nation's rules. But believe what you want I would never try and stop you. Christians who use the federal government to regulate morality go against American values.

[-] 1 points by Coyote1983 (61) 2 years ago

They go against Christian values as well. Jesus never preached that you should force Christianity on anyone.

What was it He said? "If anyone hears my words and believes them not, I condemn him not" I think it was.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

I guess to explain it better would be that most of the time it's a person's religious beliefs that underpin his morality. Not that I'm saying that an atheist is necessarily immoral, when in fact many many are even more moral than many religious types.

It's just that a person's religion cannot be checked at the door if it is what underpins said morality. It's part of who and what that person is.

I understand that this can be faked by charlatans, and often is. But this cannot stand in the way of people of faith from participating at all in the political realm. And when we do participate, then yes, if I draw strength from prayer, and things get tough, I will pray.

This has been understood and practiced throughout history. And if someone else has deeply held beliefs in politics, that is pertinent information for the public to know as well.

This is a far cry from the separation of church and state.

I would never advocate, nor stand for, a state sponsored church, or to be told how to worship, nor tell others they must as well.

And the obverse of this is often ignored, which is, that the state has no right to tell me whether I can or cannot worship, or believe, and when I participate in the political process, those same rights are not to be infringed.

And therein lies cephalus's error, and my response. He was advocating the total removal of a persons right to freedom of religion, when participating in the political realm.

This would be tantamount to calling for a journalist to give up their freedom of the press, whenever participating, or maybe your right to free speech.

And in fact he advocated the total removal of religion altogether with his statement:

We should strive to eliminate all pseudosciences as they are divisive

which is why I got so terse with him/her

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

What you say here makes sense and eliminating economics does seem like a good idea. lol. Do what makes you happy and whole, no matter what the critics say. :)

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Nobody asked to check the religion of protesters and to weed out the religious. We're just asking that you keep your religion at home. OWS is about politics. Nobody is interested in hearing your magical sky daddy stories at OWS protests. It's off topic.

I repeat, religion is a pseudoscience. A fake epistemology. You are free to practice that at home, but please do not bring it on the OWS protest grounds.

We shouldn't even be talking about religion on this forum. It's absolutely beside the point. OWS is about fighting corruption in politics, not about fighting off an imaginary devil.

[-] -2 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

In America, Church and State are supposed to be separated.

It's "you're a dumbass", not "your a dumbass". :D

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

well in america, it's separation of church and STATE, not church and POLITICS

Ahh, after correcting you several times on substance, it's good you were able to correct me on syntax

I stand corrected, YOU'RE a dumbass, thank-you for the correction. : P

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Why to do you feel the need to cast childish insults? Is this something you learned in church? When someone has a point of view that varies from yours you spite on him like a 5 year old girl?

Church and State = Church and Government = Church and Politics

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

Don't worry, OWS doesn't have a prayer.

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

Today's troll tactic, is for those that have spoken like junior high put down artist's, to pretend they own prospering businesses and claim they have all the insider poop.

Beware.....................they don't.

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Good afternoon, Shooz. You are right on the money with this one.

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

This will soon become an important thread for defining and identifying the troll marketing trends.

Could we apply for an IPO?

These clowns will buy anything, as long as it's BS.

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Buy or sell? :D

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

Log and compile the info for sale to the highest bidder.

Do you know any programers with the chops to write the app?

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

This is yesterdays tactic.

Today I believe it will be an attack on all press and media, that doesn't follow the FLAKESnews formula, of bashing everything not backed by the Heritage Foundation.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Interesting. That is quite possible.

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

The most violent among us believe themselves to be innocent victims. They simply have others doing their bidding, while they go on with their lives believing themselves to be innocent as lambs. America, the land of fairy tales.

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

The American Legion. Do we really want to bring our troops home?

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

We Americans have been asleep but are slowly awakening. As a result of this awakening, the era of the 1% appropriating the American dream will most certainly come to an end. After all, "Truth crushed to earth rises up" as MLK Jr.said so eloquently.

However, we must bear in mind that ,as our nonviolent movement rises and the reign of the 1% ends, those that represent the interests of the 1% will begin to flail and it won't be pretty. This will manifest itself in all sorts of ways: flat out violence and heavy-handedness by police (encouraged by 1%), agent provocateurs creating the illusion of violence etc. anything to discredit the movement.

Yes, we've been asleep for too long. But read the second half of the Occupy DC response to the Stste of the Union address below. It's always darkest before the dawn. Here comes the sun my friend. Here comes the sun.

(please see below)

When our courts tell us corporations have more right to speak than we the people do That’s not democracy.

When pepper spray and midnight raids make a joke of the 1st Amendment right to assemble. That’s not democracy.

When defrauding clients, blowing up our economy, forging thousands of documents and seizing people’s homes illegally is not a crime but protesting all that is a crime

That’s not democracy. Our America is not a democracy, not yet.

We all know why: Wall street owns Washington. Bribery is legal, and the laws we live by are for sale to the highest bidder

That is why our government serves the very rich and powerful at the expense of the rest of us

It protects the bonuses of bankers and Wall Street executives, while failing to keep hard-working families in their homes;

It shields offshore tax havens for the very wealthy, while letting our bridges, schools, and infrastructure fall apart;

There have been dark periods in our nation’s history, when corruption became the norm when grave injustices stood in the way of America living up to its best ideals.

But time and time again, Americans stepped up to take back their government and correct our course. Today Occupy Wall Street and the 99% movement step into this proud American tradition.

But fear not, one percent! We are not here just to help the 99% at your expense.

We are here to help you too. For when you’ve begun to think rigging the game is fair game

When you regard hard-working Americans as undeserving of a middle-class life and unworthy of the profit their own work creates

When you treat the people who build your buildings and serve your food and raise your children and patrol your streets without respect

You have not only lost touch with our humanity You have lost touch with your own humanity

You need to find it again, for everyone’s sake Real democracy will do you good

We are the 99% We are here to create the democracy we have all been promised.

We are the 99%. Our finances are weak, but our spirit is strong.

We are the 99%. Our spring is coming.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Wonderful to read all your posts. Keep up your spirits! "We have not yet begun to fight!"

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

We've only just begun. I really enjoy reading your posts. Keep up the great work!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Those who say this forum is a waste of time are not, in my opinion, to be trusted. You're input regarding non-violence and the necessity of keeping our own values at the highest moral level is much needed and appreciated.

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

YES!

And to all Occupiers, keep the cameras rolling.

When the world sees the the truth, the unwarranted violent assaults and violations, this behavior and the policies behind it will be corrected.

Truth, Justice and the American Way!!!

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Let us carry with humility the flag of our forefathers into non-violent battle with the forces that oppress us, and oppress others in our name! Let us remember the millions of Americans who have fought and died for liberty, and once again win the battle so we deserve to carry that flag in pride!

I will not give up on the American Dream of humanity in liberation! I will shun the false dream of ecomomic royalism! I will honor the flag of my forefathers, who fought in the Revolutionary War! I will not let their dream die!

If that dream dies, I will die with it!

[-] 1 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

A similar tactic was employed on the tea party, only it was the racist line. The major network news outlets ran with it, although several offers of large cash rewards for proof were left unfilled.

[-] 5 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Every movement that has countered the established order, that I am aware of, has been subjected to these smear tactics. It is the goddamned established practice!

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

can anyony please give kirby a hankie to dry his eyes

[-] -2 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

That's okay. I expect leftist propaganda from the leftist media. Don't you?

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

The American Media, leftist? Ha, ha, ha! That was a good one!

[-] 2 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 2 years ago

How do they do that? Folks on the right call the media 'liberal'. Folks on the left find that ridiculous. Both sides firmly believe the complete opposite. That's what makes the media so dangerous. As I said in a previous post...I wish they could just report the facts since there are so many radio and cable shows that pander to your favorite spin (if that's how you prefer your news). Pretty scary.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Good point! A little unbiased journalism would be refreshing. But those who say the media has a left-wing bias should observe that the only way left-wing views have been allowed to enter the media discourse if through comedy. Left-wing ideas have to guise themselves as comedy in order to go uncensored in this country!

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

Almost everything in the press is based on press releases, and wire services.

It's already pre-spun, for the most part.

There's little in the way of journalism involved.

Even less in the way investigative journalism.

The press is failing us.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Utterly. The media has been completely monopolized and denuttered by corporations. It is a total tool of the 1%; nothing but a propoganda machine. There is no real investigative journalism. Most American newspapers have almost no local reporters anymore, and as you say just pick stories off the wire. Where I live, local protests simply aren't reported in the paper, period. That is probably true in most American cities.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

As I have implied in another column, Bill Moyers is a breath of fresh air and the only one I can think of on television. Check out his interview with a former Cigna executive that another poster told me about. That wasn't you was it?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

No, it wasn't. Thanks for the info.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

You are welcome. Bill Moyer has a show on every Monday night on PBS that is well worth watching. There have only been two so far and I only caught the second one, and it was excellent. All the shows will be on Bill Moyers.com and I plan on catching up. Also check out my post to Kirby where I was trying to act as a peace-maker between you two. I'm taking this post down after you acknowledge it.

[-] 1 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 2 years ago

And divisive. Seems nightly news stories begin "in a major win for the white house today" or "Republicans on the hill scored a big win...". Never "in a victory for American citizens ...". No wonder bipartisanship is a dirty word. Neither side wants to hear the media's spin on anything they compromise on. There is no compromise. It's either a dem or rep win/loiss. Hence, gridlock.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Divide and conquer.

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

It's more profitable that way.

Besides.....................................................................................................

With the wonders of the Patriot act, Daniel Ellsberg would be disappeared, before a peep was heard.

It's all legal now.

Welcome to the Plutocracy.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

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

  • Thomas Jefferson
[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I know, and corporations weren't citizens yet, and had a limited life span.

I do wonder sometimes about the roots of his statement.

Who exactly was he talking about, and what had they done.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

A corporation is simply a group of individuals that are given the right under law, to act as a single individual. The first true corporation was probably the British East India Company, along with other British colonial concerns, and thus Thomas Jefferson, in his anti-colonial stance would have seen them as antithetical to human freedom.

Alexander Hamilton was, I believe, the first post colonial American to advocate for the formation of corporations in this country, and he was successful in doing so, something that Jefferson saw, I believe correctly, as an immediate challange to liberty. Jefferson thought that only individuals should be granted rights under a democracy, and that the granting of individual rights to groups united by vested interest posed a threay to liberty and democracy.

I am no historian, but this is my understanding of the conditions at that time.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

It's important to add historical context when using such quotes. Thomas Jefferson wasn't talking about the same problems we are facing today. In his time, the laws were very different as were the impacts corporations had on the government. Bringing up quotes from the past to explain the current situation just confuses matters more unless you clearly explain the historical context of said quotes.

What was Jefferson talking about exactly? Do you know? How were monied corporations challenging the government of his time? Are there parallels that we can draw with our current situation? If so, what are they?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

There are many things regarding human society that remain essentially constant throughout time. Many of the problems we are dealing with were problems that plagued Ancient Rome. They even had corporations, and their effects on that society were similar to their effects on ours.

It seems to me that in general you are more interested in splitting hairs than in actually putting forward potential answers. It is easy to critisize - much harder to reach for solutions and build coalitions. I have encountered you here a hundred times, at least, under a dozen different guises and yet I still have no idea what you stand for, if anything at all.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

The questions I posed were honest and of utmost importance. Depth of thought is reached when we care to analyze the particulars of various systems throughout history. Brushing off an in depth analysis of the problems Jefferson's government faced with corporations by saying these problems were the same faced by the Romans and ourselves breeds shallow thinking. There are similarities, but these are like leaves floating at the top of the pond. What's interesting lies underneath the surface. You shouldn't be afraid to dive in and figure out exactly what Jefferson was talking about.

Did you study at the university level? Do you have a masters or a PH.D? My assumption is that you don't. If you did, you would know that most thesis have very precise titles which lead to in depth research. The Roman empire lasted some 400 years. An example of a PH.D. thesis which would deal with their government problems would read something like - An Analysis of corruption in Ancient Roman politics between 100 and 50 B.C.

You could say that Mozart and Hadyn both used tonal harmony. Heck, you could say that Perotin, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, and Stravinsky all used tonal harmony. However, what's really interesting and what leads to understanding is studying how these composers used harmony in particular ways. Usually, Beethoven's use of tonal harmony is divided in 3 periods. For example, a lot has been writing about the harmony contained in his last string quartets. That's diving in the details. That's interesting.

I don't consider that I'm splitting hair. I studied at the graduate level and got used to diving deep into subjects. I don't think we can properly answer questions unless we do this. And, honestly, I do believe it's extremely problematic to use old quotes like the one you did to explain what's currently going on in America. The proper historical context of Jefferson's quote must be assessed to properly understand what he meant.

I was asking if you knew more about Jefferson's time. I was assuming you did since you brought up the quote. I was hoping you would like to go a little deeper. I guess you prefer to simply scratch the surface. Unfortunately, many people think like you. They believe they can reach solutions without taking the proper time to study the interesting and intricate details of a system. I guess that's normal. After all, deep analysis takes time and is tiring. It's much easier to talk in a cursory manner.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

You make a valid point, in a way (and now we are getting pretty far afield from the point of this post ) but there is an equally valid counter point. To study one area, of history, for example, in depth or at the graduate level, as you suggest, takes a lot of time. There is nothing wrong with that of course, but when taken to extremes, as it is today in most universities and in society in general, it leads to a situation in which more and more know more and more about less and less.

A population comprised entirely of specialists is like the blind men studying the elephant. One feels the nose and gets one opinion, while one studying the tail gets another. There is something to be said for a broader liberal arts education, that enables a person to synthicize knowledge from a wider number of fields in order to draw conclusions.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I'm going to reply here to the below post by Cephalust, because there is no reply link below it:

You simply contradict youself here. You say we should have broad views but only comment on subjects in which we have , as you said on another comment, a graduate level of knowledge. This is a political movement, not a graduate seminar. If everyone here restricted themselves to commenting on topics in which they had a graduate school level of knowledge or more, than this would be a sparce and pretty rediculous forum.

Finally, I don't see you presenting any evidence that my conclusions are wrong, which would be more to the point.

[-] -1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

I never said we shouldn't strive to have a broad view as well. My only point is that there are times when details are important and I think it is one of those times when you bring up a quote from the past to explain a situation we have today.

If you don't wish to analyze in detail, then I suggest you stick with modern quotes. Bringing up a quote that is decades old without properly explaining how it relates to OWS only leads to more confusion. It is a futile exercise.

The best thinkers are those who are not scared of details, yet keep a broad perspective. You seem only interested in the shallow. I find that sad, lazy, and worthless.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Instead of using direct action to block ports and to take over parks, why doesn't OWS create an anarcho-syndicalist start up to print newspapers which are not controlled by the 1%. A newspaper for the 99%. This could provide jobs for some protesters. Investigative journalists would be needed. This would also provide a way to demonstrate that anarcho-syndicalist companies can function well.

America has always been the country where necessity is the mother of invention. If something is needed, some American will create it. I think good newspapers are needed and it's Occupy's job to create one.

Protesting, complaining, and trying to disrupt governmental and business activities is nice and dandy, but actively improving the world by building what is needed is also pretty cool.

Isn't it time the 99% create their own New-York Times?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I agree with you basically about the ideal of collective business, but I can speak from many years expirence in managing a cooperative business that the cooperative structure is cumbersome, and prone to divissiveness. Furthermore, it has a difficult time competing economically with businesses who make profit their only business.

I think in this the "free market" advocates have a real point. Business and politics (social justice issues, etc.,) should remain essentially separate, so that business can function efficiently, and Planned economies can't compete with private enterprize.

The problem is that we simply do not have a free market. Just try to set up a curbside business, the kind that's tollerated in many third world countries, in America, if you think we do and see how free our market really is.

This is the biggest lie going, this idea that we have a free market. What we have is an almost completely monopolized economic system, in which private business is regulated to mostly marginal enterprizes. Any privately owned business which grows beyond a certain point is either bought out, or targeted by monopolized competition, or with excessive regulation by paid for politicians.

So my take on this, is that what we need is genuine free enterprize, the real thing - enterprize unsubject to monopolistic competition and untargeted by monoploy owned politicians in the form of killer regulations. What we have now is all about deregulation for major corporations and intollerable regulation for small businesses. This must change!

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

I also believe in the free market. I think the best governmental setup is social democracies like Canada and Sweden.

Why do you support OWS if you don't believe a revolution is needed? You don't seem to be into destroying the government by using direct action, so I'm wondering why you so eagerly support all OWS efforts without leaving even the tiniest room for criticism?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Well, I'm glad to finally hear what you believe. Do you think the best way to achieve a social democracy is revolution through direct action? I believe in direct action to force a restoration of our democracy, because I think the corruption of government is such that we can't restore democracy through the democratic process alone, but must be willing to apply pressure through action, or the threat of direct action in the streets. But I think Revolution, in the sense of armed insurrection, will neither work, or be anything but added horror to a world already filled with horror. Finally, I just don't think it's necessary.

Criticism, on a personal level, just doesn't matter that much to me. I just want to dialogue with people so that we can hopefully, together, arrive at truth. The truth is what enables us to go forward effectivly.

I would add that if you are a Canadian living on Bali then it seems to me that is a pretty blith position from which to advocate vilolent revolution in the United States, if that is what you are advocating. Once again you don't seem to make yourself clear on this point, but that seems to be what you are implying.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Do you think the best way to achieve a social democracy is revolution through direct action?

No. I think it's one of the worst ways. I believe direct action is the best way to mount tension with police forces in the hopes of creating a civil war which in turn would possibly create an overthrown of the government. That's why the anarchists are using direct action, and why it was used in many movements throughout history.

I would add that if you are a Canadian living on Bali then it seems to me that is a pretty blith position from which to advocate vilolent revolution in the United States, if that is what you are advocating.

When in the world did I advocate this? All my postings are against a violent revolution. This is one of the main reasons I am so critical of OWS. They want a revolution, not I.

My comments as of late have been about Occupy's recent embrace of the black bloc. I think this is horrible, however it's in line with the prediction I made months ago. Back then, I criticized the violent imagery used by Occupy and I suggested they use something much more pacific, without blood, handcuffs, and police portrayed as Tiananmen Tanks.

Have you read my posts? If you did, were you sober at the time? If so, did you have your glasses? I'm honestly curious because all my posts are about criticizing the violent elements in Occupy, not about advocating them.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

This is an interesting question. It may have to do with your approach to others. You seem to take an approach of hostile scepticism towards every poster here, rather than simply come out and say what you think. Now that you are doing this, at least to some degree, I find what you are actually advocating makes a lot of sense. Why do you take this condescending, patronizing approach? You can see that it hasn't won you many friends here.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

I'm always saying exactly what I think.

I'm not here for high fives. I'm here for discussion. I have friends in real life.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

The name Cephalus means husband who killed procris in Greece. The history of Cephalus originates from a Greek background.

Might be one of Thrasy's extras?

[-] 1 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 2 years ago

Also Adeitmas or something like that. He has all the characters from Plato's Republic for screen names. He changes screen names to match the approach of any given post (I guess). Hell, I googled the Republic and couldn't even get thru the wiki cliff notes! Philosophy has never interested me.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Cephalus is Thrasy, alias this that and the other. I wondered if Cephalus also reffered to Alexander's horse. In any case, it seems to me that his main intention is to discredit people on this forum. I might be wrong. He remains enigmatic to me, which seems strange, because we have had numerous exchanges here.

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

Yes, "Cephalus" is indeed Thrasy. I thought Thrasy had simply misspelled "Syphilis"... LOL

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

Left wing ideas ARE comedy, unless they start getting implemented. Then they are destructive.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Like the depression ending, WWII winning debacle of the Roosevelt administration? He was our last left-wing leader.

Well, in any case, we need to transcend the old, world-weary divisions of left-wing and right-wing, and aspire to something greater.

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

Then why are the comedy routines, about the right wing?

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

Who untied you this time, shooz? Nice ta see ya!

Umm, because they are liberals with a liberal audience?

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

I can't help it You have no sense of humor.

But then I guess there really isn't much material for the ......um......right wing comedian.

Is there more than one of them?

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

Not that many. We conservatives get all of our laughs listening to liberals when they are being serious. Why do you think I visit this site? It's WAY funnier than Comedy Central. I gotta hand it to the OWS crowd, they really know how to post jokes!

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

Your pretty funny yourself, in an evil clown kind of way.

By the way, you're really a (R)epelican, there is currently no (C) on any known ballot..

Really, there isn't.

That's what's so funny about (R)epelicans, they don't know what they are.

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

I can only vote for who is running, just like you. Were you even old enough to vote in '08?

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

I voted for Mr. P in 88', does that count?

He wasn't admitting to being an (R) then..........................Did you vote for Bush in 88'?

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

Oops, had you mixed up with my other liberal OWS buddy who is much younger than you. I didn't vote for Mr. P since he got pretty wacky near the end.

[-] 0 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

I detect sarcasm. I hope.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

No, I do not believe the American Media has a left-wing bias; just the opposite. If you don't believe this just look at the way this movement has been portrayed by in the media. They consistantly present us as a buch of crazy juvenile delinquents who exist in such insignificant numbers that we have no hope of changing anything, and this is a complete fabrication! You would think every person under thirty in America, every college student, every war veteran, was a crazed, drug addicted offense to public decency!

They did the same thing in the sixties! It's called slander! And the sad thing is, even though these are often the best and brightest of Americ's youth, a huge number of people buy into this slander!

No, I don't believe that at all! I think the corporate owned media has the opposite of a left-wing bias! What in God's name makes you think they would support the left-wing?

[-] 0 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

The media loves Boss Obama. That is proof enough. They never have vetted him and won't in the upcoming election either.

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

of course the won't ( haven't vetted ) him, he's their boy. they will cover for him and continue to hide the truth about him.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

What short memories some have: already forgotten the Bush Administration? That was what got us here.

[-] 1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

no dear, the MSm did everything they could to discredit bush. remeber the drunk driving story? ( known as the october surprise)the national guard story ( curtesy of dan rather) which was proven to be false. what got us here is 0bama and his owners.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

This is downright humor. He pre-selected all reporters and even hand-picked the citizens he would speak before. He was the most insular and totalitarian president this country has ever had, and I HATE historical revisionism!

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

pre selected reporters and the people he would speak before?insular and totalitarian? you must be talking about 0bama.

[+] -7 points by DKAtoday (26023) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

No lie!!!

Lets all forget who was responsible.

Then lets blame the guy who inherited the mess, and also blame him for a non-functioning/sabotaged Congress.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

It's Alice in Wonderland, my friend!

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26023) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

No it is convenient amnesia ( were innocent because that was then and this is now ) and lay the blame on the guy who might like to make a difference and was caught having to try to clean-up someone elses toxic mess. Just another mud slinging tactic. Only this time people are rebutting this bullshit instead of shrugging and saying politics as usual.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

You are, of course, absolutely right.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (26023) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

LOL. Stop that. I might start believing it.

But seriously we need to stand up to revisionist history - story tellers.

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

It's not slander if it's true. YouTube search OWS.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

"Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.

-Benjamin Franklin

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

Yeah, I know.

But I notice the extreme right wing propaganda that permeates everything else.

You revel in it.

[-] -1 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

Well I guess we agree on something.

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

On you being permeated with right wing propaganda, and loving it?

Because you don't realize it's propaganda.

This we agree on.

[-] 0 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

You're funny schmooz.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

I hate to admit it Kirb, but to a degree I think you are right. I believe the media walks a fine line. On social issues like abortion, gays in the military, guns etc., the media is left leaning. However on issues concerning corrupt financial institutions, corporate domination over our lives, and not being able to connect the dots to our corrupt political system, the media is unequivocally aligned with the hard right. Synopsis-anything that has to deal with money=right leaning..... anything that deals with issues that divert our attention away from money=left leaning. So you and GK are both right, to a degree of course.

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

Yo Kirby rush is on dry your weepy eyes and give your fat boy a call

[-] 0 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

He's off the air dude. You're probably listening to his reruns. You call him, maybe he'll sell you some oxy.

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

You call him maybe he will give you that fat cigar he has in his mouth,Monica style.

[-] -2 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

No thank you, I don't smoke. It sounds more like something a liberal would prefer.

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

No you rotate in your A##

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

But the difference is that violence IS part of the OWS movement. The proof is everywhere and new incidents occur with almost every protest.

[-] 1 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 2 years ago

Violence isn't part of the OWS movement any more than it is part of the body. Both require a certain amount in order to protect the integrity of the whole, without which the principles in which it fights for are imperiled.

One of those principles, I'd argue, is the right to live.

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

So breaking windows, raping fellow protesters, stealing from churches, and throwing bibles is necessary to further your cause?

[-] 1 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 2 years ago

None of those things is part of the official non-violent stance of OWS. But when there's a mob, people sometimes use the opportunity to enact violence.

But don't be stupid. You are already part of a violent system. It's called USA. And it enacts violence every day in your name for economic and purely political purposes. How do you reconcile that as a citizen?

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

With pride!

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Indeed. In any case, it doesn't matter. If protesters don't acknowledge this problem and keep sweeping it under the rug by saying OWS violence is the result of a minority group which is the black bloc, then things will just get worse for OWS. Similarly, the police also have to acknowledge that they have used forceful violence at times.

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 2 years ago

Law enforcement acts only with the same impunity that bankers and politicians act with. The reason for that impunity is very simple and easy to understand. Need help?

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I'm sorry, once again you seem to be leading by inuendo. My thing is truth, because I think truth, real unflinching honesty, is the only way out of this mess for everyone concerned, even for the 1%.

And therefore, so as long as our democracy is still the esablished power structure, I will not engage in whispers and innuendo but rather say what I believe straightforwardly in the light of day. Nothing that I believe needs to be hidden, and neither does anything Occupy advocates.

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 2 years ago

Law enforcement does what it wants because it is not scrutinized or held accountable. It is able to do that because the people who they are to be accountable to are powerless. Is that straightforward enough?

Regaining control of the democratic process is what is at hand.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Here we are in complete agreement! Regaining control of the democratic process is at hand! I think the way to do this is simply to perservere relentlessly, and never give our adversaries any legitimate excuse to use the enormous taxpayer purchased firepower and power of incarseration in this nation against the taxpayers.

The only way to achieve this goal is through what Ghandi called "truthforce," that is, through the power of persuasion that results through truth and justice being on our side, and with the simple unwillingness to give up . . . ever.

There is a strange energy in this "truthforce." It is somewhat mysterious and tied in some way to the workings of the universe itself. The fact is that it is a constant - it is real - you can never escape it, this force of truth. Evil and injustice never win in the end, and so if we tie ourseves to truth, absolute and unflinching, and to justice, and we do so with an unflagging will, we will prevail. It is that simple. That is my belief.

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 2 years ago

A larger and more disenfranchised, powerless mob is still a powerless mob.

Gandhi did not have the internet. We do. Why should we revert to a primitive "faith based" ideology when we have the actual facts at hand. There is no "mysteriousness", there is no need for faith. There is a factual and brutal reality that cannot be ignored any longer.

To eschew violence is to remove the option from the table. Remember the people who have wronged us all have no need for morality. Their very actions show it.

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

The only people rioting are the cops.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Exactly! We've been driven from peaceful protest by state violence, and now they are accusing US of violence. These people are just lower than a snakes belly! There is nothing they won't stoop to; no lie too low for them!

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21444) 2 years ago

The amorphous nature of this movement leaves it vulnerable to this type of thing, however the lack of structure is important for it's ability to grow and change.

I, personally, think OWS should remain non-violent and denounce all violent acts.

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

The BlackBloc actions at Occupy SF a few days ago weren't denounced. They were played up in the News Article as if it were something good. As if the sound of violence and smashing windows was a good thing.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21444) 2 years ago

It did say something about how it caused a rift in the march. I don't know who wrote that piece, but maybe they thought that was enough.

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

True. But if OWS ptb really intends to be non-violent it would have been just as easy to say nothing of the BlackBloc actions instead of playing it up. Or they could have stated that there was an unfortunate incident that occured by BlackBloc members that does not in any way reflect the principles of non-violence by OWS.

So many choices, yet they choose to play it up with a positive tone? As if we should welcome the sounds of windows being smashed. I think this is really disturbing.

And you're right. I have no idea who is writing these articles. I can't find anything on the NYCGA about News Articles being published and if they are being approved by the GA. And I also looked on the OSF site after this article and couldn't find anything there either.

I think it would be a good idea for the News items to be reviewed and approved by the GA or something, since many many people come to this website and read the News Articles to get information about the movement. And this kind of wording and tone isn't right for a movement that is supposed to be non-violent.

If this kind of thing isn't denounced in the News Articles, where is the denouncement of this?? This could be interpreted that OWS ptb welcomes this kind of action by the BlackBloc.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21444) 2 years ago

I think your idea for the wording of the articles to be reviewed and approved by the GA is a great idea.

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

I think somewhere people are writing these things and it is being reviewed and approved at some non-GA level. Some behind the scenes type of thing. It's kind of unbelievable to think one single random person is doing it all on his own.

I'm afraid if it were left to a working group within OWS and subject to GA approval, nothing would ever get published because decisions there go round in endless circles of confusion with all of the redundancy and overlapping working groups that the right hand doesn't know the left and its like a big spaghetti bowl mess. If anything substantive is to get done there, there needs to be a total overhaul of the organization structure, which is really ineffective as it is now.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21444) 2 years ago

Could be that they are so busy that there isn't much review at times, I don't know. But, everything you say is true.

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

So busy- could be. I think News Articles and communication is a pretty important thing to let slide. I think the Working Groups and the GA format is just really ineffective. Leadership and a better organizational structure for decision making would get better results.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21444) 2 years ago

I don't know enough about GA's to really have a strong opinion. You did see the misspelling of the word "Capitol" the other day. I took that as something that had been done in a hurry.

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

yeah - a little spell check would be good. But it happens. : )

Speaking in a positive tone about a violent actions shouldn't.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

The news articles are planned that way. They are used as propaganda. Listen to the video in the news article just prior to the one with the "sound of revolution" bit. It also talks about the black bloc.

The same thing happened with the Pepper Spray Cop. Just after using that news article to demonize the police, they published news articles that compared the US police to the military forces in Egypt.

Take a moment to read the news articles one after the other. Read carefully the wording that's being used. You'll see how they all nicely lead to the same ideas.

[-] 1 points by Budcm (208) 2 years ago

Ahh! We agree once again!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I think it is absolutely essential that we remain non-violent and denounce violent acts.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21444) 2 years ago

Me too.

[-] 1 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

Agree wholeheartedly with you both.

[-] -1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Do you think OWS should refrain from inviting speakers like Derrick Jensen who promote the use of black bloc like tactics? If so, why do you think they are inviting such guest speakers? Simply because he is an anarcho-primitivist?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21444) 2 years ago

I don't know who he is.

[-] -1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

He's an anarcho-primitivist who is one of the important intellectuals behind OWS, like David Graeber. Derrick Jensen has spoken to Occupy protesters on several occasions. He favors black bloc like tactics or tactics in the style of Bharat Singh, over non-violent tactics like Ghandi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Jensen

Here is a video where he explains his view concerning the use of "violent" tactics. Note: I use violent between apostrophe's because Jensen, like many other anarchists, do not consider the destruction of property as being violent. For example, they don't believe that the black bloc breaking windows is a violent act. When these people say non-violent what they mean is no physical violence. They don't mean no destruction of property like happened during the May 1968 protests in France which serve as an inspiration for Occupy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1968_in_France

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e75I4ysssoA


His views are in line with the message send to OWS protesters by the Tahrir Square protesters on October 25th. This is important, because we know OWS is highly inspired by the Arab Spring protests and they have a very strong connection with them to this day.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/25/occupy-movement-tahrir-square-cairo

excerpt - "It is not our desire to participate in violence, but it is even less our desire to lose. If we do not resist, actively, when they come to take what we have won back, then we will surely lose. Do not confuse the tactics that we used when we shouted "peaceful" with fetishising nonviolence; if the state had given up immediately we would have been overjoyed, but as they sought to abuse us, beat us, kill us, we knew that there was no other option than to fight back. Had we laid down and allowed ourselves to be arrested, tortured and martyred to "make a point", we would be no less bloodied, beaten and dead. Be prepared to defend these things you have occupied, that you are building, because, after everything else has been taken from us, these reclaimed spaces are so very precious."

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21444) 2 years ago

The wiki piece on the 1968 French protests seems to support GypsyKing's thesis that the violence begins with the police. So does the Arab Spring article.

But, that said, getting to Derrick Jensen. First of all, he seems like a pretty interesting guy on paper, but listening to him I didn't find that interesting. His theory, that violence is ubiquitous in our society, has merit, but I think it is too bad that he can't see the benefits of rising above that violence. I really don't know the context of his invite to OWS. What did he talk about? What other speakers were there? He does have added value in his explications of anarcho-primitivism. My guess is that that is why they invited him.

[-] 1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

The wiki piece on the 1968 French protests seems to support GypsyKing's thesis that the violence begins with the police. So does the Arab Spring article.

I don't care who uses violence first. I just want to know if OWS will use Ghandi's tactics or not. Ghandi did not believe in retaliating with violence no matter what the adversary did. Is OWS non-violent Ghandi style, or are they non-violent until the police opens fire?

Those are two very different things. If it's just a question of being non-violent until the police draw first blood, then there's a definite chance for civil war. OWS occupies parks and ports all over America. This causes tensions with the cops. They just have to wait until one messes up and shoots a rubber bullet, and voilà! We can use violence legitimately now because the police drew first blood. Is that what OWS means by being non-violent?

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21444) 2 years ago

I don't know, I'm not a spokesperson for OWS. My vision of OWS would be the same as yours, I think. Remaining non-violent in the face of violence.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

My vision of OWS would not include direct actions like occupying parks and ports which are only designed to create tensions with the police. I would also stay away from false dichotomies like the 99% vs the 1%. My goal wouldn't be to start a civil war in order to achieve a political revolution and have general assemblies on each street corner.

My goal would be to fix up the republic, not to destroy it.

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

Why are you on another thread talking about using black bloc's tactics then?

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

[-] 0 points by BannedForTruth (55) from Christiana, TN 1 hour ago

What does it do to turn violent? It turns non OWSers against OWS and in effect will be used to justify the crack down. ↥like ↧dislike reply edit delete permalink

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (89) 1 hour ago

Not necessarily. It depends how much support is achieved before turning to violence. In Egypt, the violence is accepted. In previous protests around the world violence was also accepted. Bharat Singh is considered a hero in india even though he assassinated a person and bombed the parliament.

The tactic is to use direct action to create tension with the authorities. By invading parks and ports and holding their position ad infinitum, occupiers are inviting police to come in and disperse them. This is inevitable and they know it. When the police come in and do their job,....

http://occupywallst.org/forum/google-black-bloc-government/

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Talking about Black Bloc tactics does not equate advocating Black Bloc tactics. I talk about Christianity in another thread, but I'm an atheist. Go figure.

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

You were advocating it as a good tacit and now you are not?

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

When did I advocate it as a good tactic? Can you provide a permalink? I honestly do not recall doing so. I explained the tactic, but that's not the same as advocating it.

[-] 0 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

link is below

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Can you quote the particular passage where I advocate this tactic? I know I explain it, but I don't see where I advocate it.

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

apparently a misunderstanding.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21444) 2 years ago

That's fine. I was just addressing the violence issue.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

The reason some are turning to blaming OWS for violence is BLACK BLOC. OWS does not support black bloc, black bloc are provocateurs. The people claiming OWS supports black bloc are trying to destroy it..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IszZLaBqR_0


Copwatch@Occupy Oakland: Beware of Police Infiltrators and Provocateurs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrvMzqopHH0


Occupy #Anonymous Warning to #BlackBloc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD8UohyYPWA


watch the people hate black block http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPLNnjPxSo4


I would provide the video of cop watching black bloc vandalize while going after people trying to stop them but it appears to have been removed from youtube.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

OWS should simply make non-violence an essential tenet of the movement, and therefore anyone commiting violence, other than out of self-defense, will automatically not belong to this movement.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

If OWS does not support the black bloc, why are they saying the black bloc bring "the sound of revolution", and why are they inviting speakers like Derrick Jensen who promote tactics like those the black bloc is using? I'm honestly curious.

[-] 2 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

It is this site saying that and a small group associated with Soros. The truth is the General Assembly's and this site do not represent the majority of OWS. Once "they" noticed that they started trying to discredit and destroy it.

[-] -1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

I'm not interested in who represents the majority of OWS, but in who makes the decisions and media captions for OWS. These are the people in control. I don't want to give donations to OWS if they are going to table ideas using violence in general assemblies, or if they are going to support the black bloc in their news articles or other media publications.

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

As you should not give money to them or any group you disagree with. You really think i would suggest donation after what i just said? Those are the people that get that money.

[-] -1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Do you think it's time the majority of protesters who are honest and want to remain non-violent form their own movement? If so, how should they go about organizing this?

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

The internet just like 'adbusters' i don't know how to make a webpage though. It would be best to have clear goals and a philosophy to make it easy to understand, one that can unite all people. i have suggested this in a way before here... http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-to-unite-the-people/

The philosophy of liberty: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

[+] -5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Take note, Thrasy, that the solution is Ron Paul/Libertarianism in Banned's response.

[-] 0 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

If organizing around liberty is is libertarianism, then will you never work with anyone for freedom? I mean SOPA, PIPA and NDAA2012. They don't have you worried about liberty one bit? Its noon and your still sleeping please wake up.

[+] -5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Try again, Banned.

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

What kinda response is that, cognitive dissonance?

[+] -5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

The kind that recognized that you are complete and utter douche bag for posting a bunch of crap but that crap would stop if everybody just joined up with Libertarianism.

[-] -2 points by trailerParkTim (-13) 2 years ago

So you want us all to become socialist psychopaths like the only 1% of the population is now??

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I want you to man up and stop acting like a dipshit.

[-] 0 points by trailerParkTim (-13) 2 years ago

I ditched all the other id's and If I get out of line then let me know and I am gone

[-] -1 points by trailerParkTim (-13) 2 years ago

Ok from this point on, I will be on my best behavior

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

Would that be under all of your IDs or just this one? You aren't here for actual discussion. How the hell are you going to pull that off?

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Thanks for that info. I'm not into Ron Paul at all. I'm far left on the political scale.

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

wow see my response to girlfriday above or just keep on sleeping.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

I was just agreeing with GirlFriday to get her off my tail. She likes to troll other users with her crappy comments. I'd rather avoid her by agreeing with her, or simply ignore her.

[+] -5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

You like to troll other users.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

How so? I'm not the one going around the forum insulting others.

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

You understand perfectly.

[-] 1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

How is that acting like a douche. That reply was to a comment where you were gratuitously attacking BannedForTruth. He provided me with his links, if he's a Ron Paul supporter I'll be able to find out by myself. I don't need you to come around and tell me who you think are trolls and good posters. I can read.

It was true. I posted that because I wanted to avoid a discussion with you. I do think your comments are mostly crappy and didn't want to have anything to do with them. That's my opinion. It's not trolling. Just an opinion.

[+] -5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I usually try to avoid discussion with you because I think your head is firmly planted up your ass. You responded to my comment. If you didn't want any shit then don't start shit.

Take your self serving bullshit for all you have done and stuff it right up your ass if there is any room left.

[-] 1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

FUCK YOU!!! Not once have you ever gone up against those users that do nothing more but troll ows supporters.

Conspiracy theorists are the most dangerous trolls around here. They destroy logical thought.

And, for your information, I helped jart and the moderators fight off the TV spammers which were a major pain in the butt and were sent to destroy this site.

As for those who come here to post obvious trolling anti-OWS posts, I'd rather not bump their postings. They usually create new characters anyhow. And, personally, if someone posts something critical of OWS it does not bother me. I am not afraid of criticism. I'm bother by spam, name calling attacks, stalking, etc.. Not by criticism.

Please, don't swear. I don't, and I don't call people names. You should remain proper. I don't enjoy people getting angry and using slanderous name calling.

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

[-] 1 points by Cephalus (89) 58 minutes ago I was just agreeing with GirlFriday to get her off my tail. She likes to troll other users with her crappy comments. I'd rather avoid her by agreeing with her, or simply ignore her.


I'll stop fucking swearing when you stop fucking acting like a douche.

[-] 1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

No, I don't think I'm trolling anybody except the conspiracy theorists. Apart from that, I post constructive criticism. For your information, I'm a far left socialist. I believe in free health care, welfare, free university education, etc... I believe Occupy is fighting against real and serious problems, I just don't agree with a lot of their tactics. I don't believe a revolution is required. I think a republic democracy is preferable to anarchism. We just need to fix the loopholes which make corruption possible.

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

[-] 1 points by Cephalus (89) 49 minutes ago I was just agreeing with GirlFriday to get her off my tail. She likes to troll other users with her crappy comments. I'd rather avoid her by agreeing with her, or simply ignore her. ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink


FUCK YOU!!! Not once have you ever gone up against those users that do nothing more but troll ows supporters.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

I usually try to avoid discussion with you because I think your head is firmly planted up your ass. You responded to my comment. If you didn't want any shit then don't start shit.

Take your self serving bullshit for all you have done and stuff it right up your ass if there is any room left.

Swear one more time at my person, use one more slanderous ad hominem, and I will take all your comments down into the land of the collapsed.

I'm here for serious discussion. Not childish insults. You've been warned. Start acting like an adult.

[+] -5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Grow up!

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

I'll stop fucking swearing when you stop fucking acting like a douche.

How am I acting like a douche?

If you keep swearing at me and attacking me with slanderous comments, I will fight back with everything Iv'e got. Be nice, and I'll be nice. If you're not nice, well, think of TIOUAISE.

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

[-] 1 points by Cephalus (89) 1 hour ago I was just agreeing with GirlFriday to get her off my tail. She likes to troll other users with her crappy comments. I'd rather avoid her by agreeing with her, or simply ignore her. ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink Any other questions?

If you think that your best activity is to treat me like you do Tiquase, then do so. Don't threaten me.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

talking to yourself again?

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

Don't you have a culling to prepare for, killer?

[+] -7 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

as a matter of fact I do . . . . and since a member of my extended family

  • just dropped dead

I can't see any reason not to get started immediately.

So where's your house . . . . I'll be right over . . . .

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

I am right outside of Chicago (in Indiana) ill meet you somewhere if you like. I won't give you my address as a coward like you would try to kill me and my family in their sleep. As a warning i have a concealed carry permit and will shoot you dead at any attempt to harm me or my family. Also note you have a written history of wanting to kill a majority of Americans justifying it by call them replicans.

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

Come on Zen you got to be a FED how are you not in jail? I guess we will find out i am filing a report with the FBI.

[+] -8 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

and by the way . . .

I don't need a permit . . .

[+] -8 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Umm, actually, repelicans are not a majority . . .

should we google?

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

No, I was replying to BannedForTruth.

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

You are going to need to be on your job search.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Why? I'm not sure I understand your comment.

[-] 1 points by MaryS (678) 2 years ago

I have to say I agree with Cephalus here and I have supported OWS since the beginning. There ARE those out there that will exaggerate and misreport the violence and use any means to discredit OWS, but bricks through windows, what does that say to the average onlooker. I hope that supporting OWS doesn't mean you defend everything that those who go rogue (lol can't say that word without thinking of Sara P) are inevitably going to do... Yet another reason to let spokespersons and leaders get out there and continually educate would-be OWS participants about what behaviors are acceptable. My guess is the brick throwing guys aren't coming to many GA's. I have only been to a few local GA's but maybe if it isn't being done, every GA needs to begin with a reiteration of OWS basic beliefs and their stance on non-violence.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I absolutly agree with you here. I think that if OWS has not already done so, that we need to make non-violence a tenet of this movement, and that therefore anyone who engages in violence, for any reason other than self-defence, should automatically be excluded from this movement.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Would you look at that! We agree on something!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Miracles do happen.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26023) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

It is all inside.

http://t.co/rQfMZp6Q

In case you missed it it is located towards the beginning of the post and restated towards the end of the post:

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

[-] 1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

I don't know. Derrick Jensen, an anarcho-primitivist, was invited to give talks to Occupy protesters. He favors the use of violence as opposed to the non-violent strategies of Ghandi.

There's also the message from Egyptian protesters who asked that OWS protesters show their solidarity for their cause. These Egyptian protesters talk about the use of violence in that same letter. I know Occupy looks up to these people as some of them helped at the beginning to train in organizational tactics.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26023) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

It is all inside.

http://t.co/rQfMZp6Q

In case you missed it it is located towards the beginning of the post and restated towards the end of the post:

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Do you know when they are going to start generating solutions?

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26023) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

We got a hint last night 01/24/2012 if you watched the State of the Union address ( if you did not you can on You Tube ). The president all but said the 99% in acknowledging that the system of government was broken. So keep watching and keep working because we are making progress.

[-] -1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

I'm not interested in the president's words, I'm interested in what OWS protesters will do to generate solutions. Presidents say all kinds of stuff. It doesn't mean much.

Is OWS planning to offer solutions next summer, or is it going to be more direct action and protests?

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26023) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Well if you don't have the intelligence to see cause and effect, if you have not taken the time to familiarize yourself with protester or site post talking points or to check into the petitions being circulated. Then I don't see how we can help you.

If your serious take the time to educate yourself. What is happening ( and has happened ) in Occupy & 99% activities will continue. Does that help?

[-] -1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Iv'e taken the time to educate myself. I keep up to date on anarchist message boards where the directors of Occupy hang out. I read the general assembly minutes. Still, I haven't seen any proposals for solutions. All I see is more direct action being planned.

Are there some protesters who wish for demands to be made, or are all you guys in line with the OWS anarchist plan of overthrowing the government?

What port are you going to occupy tomorrow and do you consider this a solution? Do you plan on blocking any traffic?

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26023) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Go back to bed. I can not help you.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

So, you don't know if OWS is planning on making demands to the government during the upcoming elections? It's cool. I know OWS is geared towards overthrowing the government and making demands would be antithetical in regards to anarchism. I don't know, I guess I was hoping there were some new plans on the horizon. Something like building anarcho-syndicalist companies or making demands to the government. Ah well, I guess I'll watch the port occupations videos next summer.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26023) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I did not say that. I can not help your ignorance, if you can't understand a simple statement that Occupy & 99% will continue with business as usual. If you choose to misinterpret that or spin it your own way, that is up to you, and is "clearly transparent" ( see what happened there? Clearly and Transparent? )

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

There's no misinterpretation. Occupy's business as usual means doing more direct action and protests. Like I said, I was hoping there might be a change in the cards like generating solutions. It's cool if there isn't, I was just wondering. Like I said, I'll keep looking at port occupation videos on youtube. Who knows, maybe in 2 years OWS will turn to making demands, working within the government, and creating examples of anarcho-syndicalist businesses. In the meantime, I have no problem with Occupy remaining a tension creator instead of a problem solver. I was just curious.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26023) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Keep spinning your spin. It is fun and provides many with much laughter.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

There's no spin. You said Occupy will continue business as usual. To me that means direct action and protests. What else do you include in business as usual? I'm honestly interested. If you think they have offered solutions, please let me know what they are. It could very well be the case that I'm missing something.

I'm here to better understand Occupy. Not to create spin. Why should I care about that? I'm not a US citizen, nor am I living anywhere near US.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26023) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Go occupy yourself. Maybe you will have better luck in understanding your own principles. You certainly are having a tuff time understanding Occupy & 99% principles.

Chase your tail where you will be more comfortable and perhaps familiar with the surroundings.

1 points by Cephalus (146) 1 minute ago

I understand that you think that the people who take part are the movement, but the reality is otherwise. The decisions made by Occupy are from a minority of people who constantly attend the general assemblies. They are the ones deciding what will happen and planning events like the Oakland strike or port occupations. I'm interested to know if they are going to change their plans because this would affect everything in Occupy. If Occupy leaders decided to make demands, then that would be organized very quickly. If they don't, then it will always be fringe groups on the side who are not officially representing Occupy who will bring up these side ideas. ↥like ↧dislike permalink

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26023) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Again quit chasing your tail. What is there not to understand?

Cephalus,

Apparently you have a basic misconception or fundamental misunderstanding of Occupy & 99% movements. They are leaderless as they do not require leaders. The people who take part "are" the movements. So when you disregard input of individuals then you are disregarding the input of Occupy & 99%.

There now. Wasn't that easy? In answer to your tail chasing question ( already answered ):

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 45 minutes ago

I know about the petitions, but those aren't officially endorsed by OWS.

Believe me, Iv'e done a lot of exploring. Probably more than 99% of users here. Half my time is spent discussing issues with OWS organizers on the anarchist forums.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

I understand that you think that the people who take part are the movement, but the reality is otherwise. The decisions made by Occupy are from a minority of people who constantly attend the general assemblies. They are the ones deciding what will happen and planning events like the Oakland strike or port occupations. I'm interested to know if they are going to change their plans because this would affect everything in Occupy. If Occupy leaders decided to make demands, then that would be organized very quickly. If they don't, then it will always be fringe groups on the side who are not officially representing Occupy who will bring up these side ideas.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26023) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Cephalus,

Let's start with an easy one then shall we? How about all of the posts and a couple of petitions for reinstating Glass Stegall? This is one prime example that if you can recognize it will clue you in to others that are just as obvious. Then you can stop chasing my tail ( excuse me your tail ) and do your own follow-up, instead of blaming someone else for your lack of effort or due diligence.

0 points by Cephalus (146) 9 minutes ago

I'm wondering what solutions were offered if any? Do you have an answer to that question, or are you going to turn around in circles all day?

I'm asking because I'm part of the movement, and I haven't yet seen a proposed solution to any of the identified problems.

Please, stop using red herrings. If you don't know of a solution, just say so. ↥like ↧dislike permalink

[-] -1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

I'm talking about actions which are officially supported by OWS. I don't believe petitions or demands have been officially made by OWS. Am I wrong?

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26023) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Cephalus,

Apparently you have a basic misconception or fundamental misunderstanding of Occupy & 99% movements. They are leaderless as they do not require leaders. The people who take part "are" the movements. So when you disregard input of individuals then you are disregarding the input of Occupy & 99%.

There now. Wasn't that easy?

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

I'm wondering what solutions were offered if any? Do you have an answer to that question, or are you going to turn around in circles all day?

I'm asking because I'm part of the movement, and I haven't yet seen a proposed solution to any of the identified problems.

Please, stop using red herrings. If you don't know of a solution, just say so.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26023) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You may want to explore petitions. Get some exercise go exploring.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

I know about the petitions, but those aren't officially endorsed by OWS.

Believe me, Iv'e done a lot of exploring. Probably more than 99% of users here. Half my time is spent discussing issues with OWS organizers on the anarchist forums.

[-] 0 points by jbob (74) 2 years ago

you cant say you are even close to being as calm as the tea partiers. just look at the facts. tea partiers dont urinate in public, rape girls, or disrespect the police.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

No political movement, or ideology has ever been able to control all of it's members as well as all those who would act against it. If that had ever been true than none of us would need to be here. All our problems would already be solved.

This is particularly true, of course, in a democratic movement without leaders, because we have no way of enforcing ethical standards through force and coersion. This fact leaves us very open to provocaturs, who would do these things for the very objective of making people like you think what you think.

[-] 2 points by jbob (74) 2 years ago

well the tea partiers arent making fools of themselves. doesnt that show that maybe they are a little more mature and in turn smarter than you people? because they know that they truly believe in the movement and wouldnt do anything to jeopardize the integrity of the group.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

The tea party is irrelevant because they are fundered by the 1%, and they will be bent to the will of the 1% in the end. Everybody knows that, execpt, apparently, them.

[-] 2 points by jbob (74) 2 years ago

funded how? funded for what?

[-] -1 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

Yeah right, gypsyking, Look at the last San Francisco riot, the occupiers broke windows and took over a hotel. The police if anything are being too gentle on the occupiers. :>

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Today????

It would actually appear to be trollbot voting on the forum.

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

It's funny YOU would accuse others of that.

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

hOw so?

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

well im so tired of idiot people, that if those ows protesters are blocking streets, instead of allowing people to pass peacefully, i wouldnt object to them being shot and killed, just to try and weed them out. There needs to be balance in all things. If you protest do it peacefully, if your going to block other people, taking away their freedom, you might as well start shooting too, what the hell is the difference. I dont buy into the propaganda.

Obviously my response is extreme, and unrealistic, but sometimes you need to in order to make your point across and to be understood.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

You would kill other people rather than be incovienenced?

I wonder if you ever even have been inconvienenced, or if you are just giving vent to your hatred?

[-] -1 points by pullmyfinger (-6) 2 years ago

Yea...those police keep sticking their faces in front of the brick you are throwing.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Other way around. This is a classic example of attempting to create a false narrative. It has been OWS that had been the victim of state violence.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

GypsyKing, OWS uses direct action to create situations that breed tensions with the police. It's entirely normal that the police is brought in when people occupy a park or a port ad infinitum. OWS knows this. If OWS wanted to assemble and protest without worrying about the cops, they could easily to so without occupying spaces 24/7. The truth is, this protest is geared towards creating tensions with authorities. That's the goal, just like it was in other direct action protests throughout history.

Do you think OWS is occupying ports for fun, or because the solution to government corruption is hidden there? Of course not, OWS occupies ports so that it can generate showdowns with the police.

[-] -1 points by pullmyfinger (-6) 2 years ago

Yep...Tea Party gatherings always have that same problem. Arrests, tear gassing, bricks throwing, tasering.....

OH NO ...wait...that's the OWS assholes.

[-] -1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

I criticize OWS for its use of violence, but that's because I want OWS to become better, to really be non-violent. I don't believe in following blindly and that we must take a black or white stance, i.e. either 100% for Occupy, or 100% against Occupy. I believe we can believe in Occupy, but still criticize it when we see faults. I believe this is of utmost importance.

The fact of the matter is OWS does not discredit the BlackBloc like it once did and has invited people like Derrick Jensen to give speeches which promote the use of violence.

Another thing to note is that the Egyptian protesters who are a great influence on OWS have said that violence is useful and needed in certain circumstances, much like Derrick Jensen.

Essentially, OWS is slowly changing from the Gandhi approach to the Bharat Singh approach.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I don't agree that OWS has given up on the Ghandi approach. Ghandi didn't accomplish what he did over night, and neither will we. If we give up on the Ghandi approach, we will simply be crushed by the vastly superior firepower and prison facilities of the power structure. Moral transformation - an appeal to the higher nature of mankind - is what this movement is, and must remain about.

[-] 1 points by Courtney (111) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I don't think so. I think Occupy remains nonviolent, but many of us just don't necessarily have a huge problem with other activists damaging property. The way I feel about it is, I care more about the people out there who support us and who might be interested in joining us, and don't want to see them scared away.

Firing a tear gas canister into a peaceful protester's head vs. smashing a Starbucks window, what we see the police doing all the time is way more harmful to human beings than what the black bloc does.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

I would like to ask why exactly that makes sense to you. I can't come to your house and break shit just because of what your grandpappy did to my grandpappy.

[-] 1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

You illustrate my point very well.

First, you use a logical fallacy: two wrongs don't make a right. A police officer firing a tear gas canister at a protester is not a de facto excuse for breaking Starbucks' windows. This is an excuse that you choose to create.

Second, you use another logical fallacy: correlation without a cause. Starbucks has nothing to do with a police officer firing a canister at a protester.

Third, you use another logical fallacy of correlation without a cause. The fired canister you are talking about happened a few months back in Oakland, therefore it shouldn't be used as an excuse to break windows in current protests.

Fourth, you use yet another logical fallacy: using particulars to generalize. There was one report of a canister fired at a protester. This is not a generalized act by the police. What you are doing is demonizing the whole police force by bringing up this singular act over and over again. It would be like me using the example of throwing Bibles off a building to describe all OWS protests.


This new nonchalance towards the black bloc is not what really bothers me. I just wish OWS would have been more up front about this. They really should be transparent because they are accepting donations.

If the new deal is to say "Hey, breaking Starbucks windows is OK because we are getting attacked by the police.", then OWS should make a clear statement about it. That's all I ask.

I personally favor Ghandi style protests as opposed to Bharat Singh style ones. I know Egyptian protesters have changed the game plan and are now accepting violence, but I don't think this means OWS should automatically follow. Personally, I'm not a fan of Derrick Jensen style approaches.

[-] 1 points by Courtney (111) from New York, NY 2 years ago

No, that's not what I meant. I was making a comparison. Some people don't consider property damage violence. There is a difference between harm to a human being and harm to a window. I'm saying I personally don't care about the window. But I do think that OWS should take a firm stance on nonviolence, because we want to build an inclusive movement, and there is a lot of support for that. There have been a few documents approved by the NYCGA, the statement of autonomy and the principles of solidarity that state that we are nonviolent, however, people are still choosing to interpret this as "we might not be nonviolent." In NYC, the bail fund cannot be used by anyone who is violent. We have asked people to leave our meetings for being violent. I also don't necessarily trust the black bloc, because could so easily be cops. All they'd have to do is dress in black and instigate.

[+] -4 points by trailerParkTim (-13) 2 years ago

This is one thing that has turned me away from OWS is the violence and filth. The latest is the theft from the Manhattan church and this is totally unacceptable. The church was kind enough to let them stay there and the stealing was wrong

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Well, that is understandable, but you must realize that in a movement like this nobody can completely control the actions of others, and that furthermore, although OWS supporters may have done these things, or some of them, there also actually are people out there doing things like this with the conscious intent of discrediting us.

[+] -5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Actually, you never supported OWS. None of your multiple IDs has ever supported OWS, so cut the fucking shit and admit you are simply a douche bag. You are paid to be here.

[+] -4 points by trailerParkTim (-13) 2 years ago

I bet your tampon is just like Nancy Piglosi's "dry"

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

Admit it, Cupcake. Your entire reason for being here is to troll. You are here to disrupt.

[-] -1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Do you know who's paying people like trailerParkTime? Iv'e been accused of being a paid troll many times because I criticize certain aspects of Occupy. However, I have never received a pay check.

If there's someone out there paying for Occupy criticism, please contact me. I would like a piece of the pie.

I will support my criticism with evidence and strong arguments. I do not favor logical fallacies like the use of ad hominem, i.e. calling someone a paid troll. I believe protesting against the current system is a must, but I don't follow any protest or protester blindly. If I see things in Occupy that I think could be improved, I will criticize them. I can accept payments in a number of different ways. Please contact me by private message for more information. Thank you.

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

Thrasy, I'm not interested in how you view this. Not one bit. You have been accused of being a troll here many times for all kinds of shit and by all kinds of people. I'm not interested in your little guidelines of how you react only to those who promote "conspiracy theories". I don't care how this fits into your little world view. It isn't my problem.

If I see things that are not actual criticism but a collection of threads or comments that are specifically there to incite or to degrade, I will call them out for that. You may stick your head in the sand as much as you want. I refuse to do so. Given the comments and the threads, they are probably funded by the Koch heads as there is a pattern of this over the internet.

[-] 3 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Amen, and the only thing to add is that even those that are not paid, but wish to incite violence, only serve to paint this movement as a fringe movement.

Once OWS embraces anarchistic methods, it delegitimizes the movement as a call to a return to civility and community here in the USA.

For this is the problem and solution of our country, it's the use of violence, whether overt or covert, to destroy the sense & substance of our communities.

Because of the criminality of the banking industry, our system has been corrupted, and if we embrace criminality to counter it, then it just becomes a contest between two groups of criminals.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Once OWS embraces anarchistic methods...

Occupy was started by anarchists. It never was without anarchist methods.

For your information, anarchism does not necessarily equate violence.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

an·ar·chism (nr-kzm) n. 1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished. 2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists. 3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority

as far as anarchistic methods, I refer obviously to meaning 2

as far as occupy being started by anarchists, there are those that advocated OWS in ad buster that believe in anarchism as a form of political structure

these are not the same things, but, alas, it goes back to the plight of our failing schools that this is misunderstood...

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

OWS was created by anarchism which falls under the third definition: Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority.

Read David Graeber and how Occupy got started. It's based on anarcho-syndicalism from 1930's Spain, and other anarchic protests which use non-violent direct action.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

and again, that is not the same as definition 2: active resistance and terrorism against the state that you advocate, then turn around and critique

sniff sniff I smell troll

[-] 1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

The point is OWS has begun to change. At the beginning, it was non-violent in the style of Ghandi and strongly and clearly distanced itself from the black bloc. Egyptian protesters changed their tactics and sent a letter on October 25 to OWS protesters. In it, they mention the use of violence as a legitimate means to fight back. Occupy seems to now be following in that trend. They have stopped distancing themselves from the black bloc and have even gone as far as to support their actions in their latest news articles. They also invite anarchists like Derrick Jensen who favor tactics like those of Bharat Singh over those of Ghandi.

I'm simply wondering what's going on. That's all. I think it's important to keep our heads up. It's lame to follow Occupy 100% like blind men. When something's up, there's nothing wrong with criticism and asking questions.

I think this idea of calling everyone who criticizes Occupy a troll is extremely dangerous. Critical thought must always be accompanied by criticism. Occupy is not a cult like Christianity where you must follow with blind faith. It's OK to doubt certain decisions coming from the GA and to question certain actions committed by the protesters. That's positive in my opinion.

[-] 1 points by flip (7123) 2 years ago

is that the same thrasy conspiracy guy - what an asshole he is - thinks he is very smart - will tell you his iq as if that means something - calls himself socrates reborn! keep slapping him around - maybe he will go away

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Hmmm... Iv'e never talked about my IQ. I don't even know what it is. IQ tests have no meaning.

Can you back up your claim with evidence? Post a permalink? No, I didn't think so. Just a lame lie.

[-] 2 points by flip (7123) 2 years ago

wasn't talking to you (possibly about you!) -i was talking to the girl - she is very sharp - don't mess with her!

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

The fact remains that you told her a lie. Iv'e never done a test to calculate my IQ, and never posted an IQ on this site.

I don't think GirlFriday is very sharp. We all have our opinions I guess.

[-] 2 points by flip (7123) 2 years ago

well do not have your reading skills tested - this is how i started - "is that the same thrasy conspiracy guy" - i did not say you talked about your iq i said socretes reborn did - are you thrasy the conspiracy obsessed guy? she seems to think you are and as i said she is a wick smart girl - don't you like that phrase - it is from "body heat"

[-] -1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

You said - "will tell you his iq as if that means something". That is a lie. I never told my IQ to anyone on this site. I don't even know what my IQ is, and, frankly, I don't think IQ tests are meaningful in any way.

Yes, I am Thrasymaque. GirlFriday knows because Iv'e said this a zillion times. It's not hidden information. I have all the characters from Plato's Republic. If I wanted to hide behind sock puppets, I wouldn't use character names which are all related to each other.

I usually only post with Thrasymaque, but since he's being stalked by TIOUAISE, Iv'e temporarily switched to Cephalus.

[-] 1 points by flip (7123) 2 years ago

you told it to someone else - i read it - go away or answer the conspiracy questions i asked you and you could not answer - weasel

[-] 1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

I never wrote such a thing. You're a liar. Provide some evidence for your claims. Show us the permalink. Use Google or this site's search engine. Hint: I know what link you're talking about, but it's from another user.

I could make up all kinds of stuff about you if I wanted. It's pretty easy if I am not asked to provide evidence. What about your comment in which you state that your a 14 year old staying in your mom's basement and that your main hobby is reading Alex Jones and David Icke.

[-] 0 points by flip (7123) 2 years ago

i am for sure not going to spend the time for the likes of you - did you do what i asked - now answer that question - go ahead it is a yes or no question. then maybe we can start a new relationship but you will have a few more questions to answer but we both know you can't without busting up your silly little position. ok, busted - i do live with my mom and i am 14 but my arguments are better than yours so too bad for you - no? my mom is hot too if you want to come over - she drinks a lot - she is fun when she drinks though - are you. leave the girl alone and what was the iq again?

[-] 1 points by Budcm (208) 2 years ago

"IQ tests have no meaning?" hmmmmmmmm. Interesting viewpoint. Right up there with "There's a lot of smart kids who cannot take a test. Therefore we do away with tests"

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

some entertainment, watch as he attempts to squirm out of his own conspiracy theory of the relationship between black-block and OWS on this thread.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

You're too funny richard. I do hope people read that exchange. It looks like you're high. Extrapolating and connecting comments with magical threads.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago
[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

That's all I wanted to know, thanks. I'll contact the Koch heads and see if I can somehow get a piece of the pie. People have called me a paid troll for criticizing OWS, but I haven't yet received one single paycheck.

BTW - You shouldn't worry about who calls who a troll, etc... The only that thing matters are the comments. Anything else is just logical fallacy. You can either counter-argue comments you think are worthwhile, or ignore them.

The people who have accused me of being a troll are conspiracy theorists. They also accused me of being capable of mind infiltration. They spend their days reading David Icke. You shouldn't worry too much about what they have to say. I can't control your mind.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

perhaps you should get a lawyer and see about suing your employer to get those checks, dude!

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Hardly, all I've seen from you is misinformation and half-truths.

Then when you are called to task, you cry logical fallacy, when none exists.

Which I have pointed out logically that you sir, are a dumb ass

this is not an ad hominem , but the conclusion of my argument : D

[+] -5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

You can do better than that. I provided you with this information prior to. It's called astroturf. You should be able to run a search and locate those organizations devoted to "social media content".

BTW-you know how you are only comfortable in the US only in Manhattan? Something in the air? Well, this is the air. You may very well be able to maneuver your entire life without having to breathe it. Those of us here have to.

Thanks.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

Thanks. I'll try to see if I can't find someone willing to pay me for the types of post I publish. I criticize things I like and find important like Occupy in an effort to make them better. If I can get paid at the same time, that's killing two birds with one stone.