Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Violence is as American as apple pie.

Posted 9 years ago on Nov. 6, 2011, 4:09 a.m. EST by alouis (1511) from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I don't advocate that OWS be violent. Not at this time in this place. It's a question of strategy and tactics though and not one of principle. I have a problem with people who would oppose all violence in all circumstances. Violence is, as one man once said, as American as apple pie. Let's not forget our country ws born in violence, and preserved itself and ended slavery through a terribly violent civil war. George Washington was violent. Abraham Lincoln was violent. We have named streets and schools for Malcolm X and what did he say? "By any means necessary."

167 Comments

167 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 8 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 9 years ago

Sorry but our country isn't in bad enough shape to justify anything with violence. This post is misguided, in my opinion.

The only way to win at global nuclear war is to never start.

Peace prevails.

[-] 2 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

A global nuclear war? No one would win.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 9 years ago

exactly. the only way to win is to never start the nuclear war. Everyone loses in global nuclear war.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

I certainly don't want to see the USA use nuclear weapons again, especially against defenseless civilians- again.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 7 years ago

Disobediance prevails. Peace and freedom are byproducts of intelligence.

[-] 4 points by KnaveDave (357) 9 years ago

You are intentionally planting the seeds of violence. Violence is a fire that usually spreads far beyond its intended bounds when released into the public. There is no form of government people should feel more than anarchy. It is worse than most oppressive tyrant. At least, with a tyrant, you know in what direction to watch for trouble. With anarchy, it comes from all directions ... any direction at any time ... for there is no government to serve and protect ... only endless small individuals vying to fill the power vacuum that government left behind.

There is no greater tyranny than anarchy, and civil disobedience is the first step toward anarchy. That is why so many people dislike movements that practice it. The U.S. is founded on principles of peaceful demonstration. You have your right to speak. You NEVER have a right to be violent, and ever person in this movement should speak out as strongly against any signs of anarchy they see within their ranks as they do about the abuses of Wall Street, for I assure you that you will never know a greater tyrant or live under greater terror than what you'll have if government collapses and anarchy rules the day.

The voice above is intentionally tilling the soil to receive the seeds of violence.

--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog

[-] 3 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

The English were in Ireland for 800 years. They finally got violent and got their country back.

[-] 2 points by KnaveDave (357) 9 years ago

So, then both of you ARE advocating war. Glad to have flushed you out.

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

[-] 2 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

We are in a war. We have an active class war going on right now. The 1% have already made clear that they are willing to be as violent as they need to be to maintain control. This is reality whether or not one "advocates" violence.

[-] 3 points by KnaveDave (357) 9 years ago

But you ARE advocating violence, just to be clear. So, don't hide behind the 1% you claim are making war, for you are advocating war yourself. They make good cover for your own desires for violence.

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

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

Advocating? I don't know if I would go that far; however, I do believe it to be inevitable. The 1% like things the way they are. They are not going to roll over without a fight. Read this regarding Ghandi and you may understand what I mean.


Nonviolent action does not mean passive. There is nothing passive about Gandhian nonviolent action. Gandhi’s nonviolent action was not an evasive strategy nor a defensive one. Gandhi was always on the offensive. He believed in confronting his opponents aggressively, in such a way that they could not avoid dealing with him.

Gandhi steadfastly avoided violence toward his opponents. He did not avoid violence toward himself or his followers. Gandhi said that the nonviolent activist, like any soldier, had to be ready to die for the cause. And in fact, during India’s struggle for independence, hundreds of Indians were killed by the British. The difference was that the nonviolent activist, while willing to die, was never willing to kill.

Gandhi pointed out three possible responses to oppression and injustice. One he described as the coward’s way: to accept the wrong or run away from it. The second option was to stand and fight by force of arms. Gandhi said this was better than acceptance or running away. But the third way, he said, was best of all and required the most courage: to stand and fight solely by nonviolent means. (Mark Shepard wrote this and I edited it.)

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 7 years ago

Gandhi's only fault was maybe that he Was willing to die for his cause.

I believe that any cause you are willing to die for is one you are not willing to live for.

[-] 0 points by brettdecker (68) 9 years ago

"We have an active class war going on right now." Obama has taught you well grasshopper. You are the fruits of more then 3yrs of Chairman MAObama ginning up people with a class warfare mantra.

[-] 3 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Ever hear of this little thing they called "The Revolutionary War?" you must have slept through sixth grade history class.

[-] 2 points by Idaltu (662) 9 years ago

I will make this simple for you: You are full of shit.

[-] 3 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

I think I agree, about strategy/tactics v principle. I think violence should always be used as a very last resort, or last strategy, in any circumstance. With the hope that it will never have to be used.

As a matter of principle this movement should strive to be peaceful. When this movement says it is "non-violent", this pre-supposes violence. This movement uses violent imagery (self fulfilling prophecy?). This is different than being peaceful.

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 9 years ago

I Liked your comment b/c it notches up the discussion. Yes, the Lady doth protest too much when OWS has to go about constantly proclaiming its non-violent stance. it's an interesting condition. add to that constant proclaimation the very clear Violence of police, especially in Oakland. Why are they resorting to violence when they could peacefully make arrests??

perhaps the protestors are not "going peacefully"...? should they? seems like if they are serious about non-violence, they should. or WE should as i count myself among them and I'm ready to be arrested when the time comes. but if a cop starts assaulting me for no reason other than he wants to shoo me off my "post", well... he really is testing my belief in non-violence, as well as my self-control!

[-] 2 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

Nonviolent action does not mean passive. Ghandi for example. There is nothing passive about Gandhian nonviolent action. Gandhi’s nonviolent action was not an evasive strategy nor a defensive one. Gandhi was always on the offensive. He believed in confronting his opponents aggressively, in such a way that they could not avoid dealing with him.

Gandhi steadfastly avoided violence toward his opponents. He did not avoid violence toward himself or his followers. Gandhi said that the nonviolent activist, like any soldier, had to be ready to die for the cause. And in fact, during India’s struggle for independence, hundreds of Indians were killed by the British. The difference was that the nonviolent activist, while willing to die, was never willing to kill.

Gandhi pointed out three possible responses to oppression and injustice. One he described as the coward’s way: to accept the wrong or run away from it. The second option was to stand and fight by force of arms. Gandhi said this was better than acceptance or running away. But the third way, he said, was best of all and required the most courage: to stand and fight solely by nonviolent means. (Mark Shepard wrote this and I edited it.)

[-] 2 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 9 years ago

so submit to arrest or not? again I say Civil Disobedience requires a willingness to accept arrest. then you fight in court and really you also try to win by sheer numbers, overwhelming the system.

but at least you take away the police's desperate tactics to bully us off the streets.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

Civil disobedience requires getting in someone or some organization's face and taking the consequences. Here in America is may be arrest or pepper spray. In other countries like Egypt or India, it may involve broken bones, tear gassing and possibly death.

Going to court may result in First Amendment rulings in the favor of the protestors depending on the issue. I was at the Bloomberg protest and there was a "frozen zone" around the Mayor's residence -- both sides of the street were closed to pedestrians -- no 1st Amendment Right Zones.

The police will follow orders no matter what those orders are.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

hopefully not "no matter what those orders are"!? (I'm trying to keep in mind the humanity of the police too-- they too are the famous 99% and we better find a way to talk to them).

Police are hired and trained to beat up people. Yes, they do have other duties and some of them go through their entire careers without beating anyone up. But they are selected for a willingness to beat someone up when ordered to do it -- no questions asked. They are trained in the art of beating people with billy clubs -- where to hit to take someone out without permanently maiming or killing them for examplt.

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 9 years ago

hopefully not "no matter what those orders are"!? (I'm trying to keep in mind the humanity of the police too-- they too are the famous 99% and we better find a way to talk to them).

I agree CD requires taking the consequences. But I INSIST that the consequence for breaking a law is getting arrested and going to court! I don't accept being pepper-sprayed (or beaten) as a "consequence" of breaking a law. Unless I am also resisting arrest, and the police really do have to use force to get me into custody.

Which is why I keep hoping and asking and encouraging OWS folks to cooperate and submit to arrest WILLINGLY. We have to face our own Laws if we expect to inspire society to change them. Civil Rights protestors went to the diner and sat down and ordered coffee. They didn't expect Not to be arrested! And if they had fought back (as they were being spit on and having food dumped on them, or indeed when they were arrested) the moral value of their Civil Disobedience might have been lost in the confusion.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

Ghandi was not passive. He was anti-violence. He believed in putting himself in the face of his oppressors and subjecting himself to their violence. No fighting back and no killing. But plenty of violence on the part of the oppressors.

The 1% are not going to simply roll over. They are going to fight for what they believe is rightfully theirs.

[-] 2 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 9 years ago

Did I use the word "passive" or even imply a "passive" approach? I don't think so.

So I'm not sure how to respond to your post. Except to say, sure, I agree.

Fight this System actively and with determination. Including actively insisting that things change and actively occupying public space to assert that demand and actively disobeying police orders to disperse. But I don't see either the strategic value or the moral weight of actively resisting arrest.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

I understand how your beliefs and self control could be tested! Acts of aggression speak volumes about the nature of the aggressor. And the peaceful self control of the aggressee will speak even louder than that. Which brings to mind self defense. That's where I think the situation could become very dangerous.

[-] 2 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

Nonviolent action does not mean passive. There is nothing passive about nonviolent action. Nonviolent action is not an evasive strategy nor a defensive one. Ghandi was always on the offensive. He believed in confronting his opponents aggressively, in such a way that they could not avoid dealing with him.

Gandhi steadfastly avoided violence toward his opponents. He did not avoid violence toward himself or his followers. Gandhi said that the nonviolent activist, like any soldier, had to be ready to die for the cause. And in fact, during India’s struggle for independence, hundreds of Indians were killed by the British. The difference was that the nonviolent activist, while willing to die, was never willing to kill.

Gandhi pointed out three possible responses to oppression and injustice. One he described as the coward’s way: to accept the wrong or run away from it. The second option was to stand and fight by force of arms. Gandhi said this was better than acceptance or running away. But the third way, he said, was best of all and required the most courage: to stand and fight solely by nonviolent means. (Mark Shepard wrote this and I edited it.)

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

perhaps constructive

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

Perhaps you'd be interested in this, if you haven't seen already.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/deconstructing-occupy-a-message-within-a-message/#comment-357421

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

I can't post pictures

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

You don't have to post pictures. You can read the post and look at the pictures. : )

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

more direct action than violence

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

Personally, I think shackles, dripping blood and tanks is violent. I would prefer to see peaceful protest images.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

peace shows a strength outside of repression

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

Eye of the beholder. These images do not "say" peace to me.

[-] 1 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence. Mahatma Gandhi

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 7 years ago

like glenn beck.

you cant support guns rights and the military and at the same time claim to be non-violent.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence. Mahatma Gandhi

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

Gandhi said "if" there is violence in our hearts. I don't have violence in my heart. Do you believe OWS has violence in it's heart?

[-] 1 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

OW is an organization so it doesn't have a heart. Also I don't agree with what Gandhi seems to mean there. He seems to be saying that in a circumstance when the other side can wipe you out and in military terms one is impotent, that's the time to be violent if it's in one's heart. I think that's wrong. Do I have violence in my heart? When I see people sitting down trying to make a political statement that tuition is too damned high and they get sprayed with a dangerous chemical, I get very angry, and if I could, I'd exact a measure of justice but i can't.

[-] 0 points by KnaveDave (357) 9 years ago

You have violence in your heart while protesting the violence of others. But the ones you protest are the law-enforcers because they get in the way of people with violent hearts by telling them the can't act out every violent intention they feel.

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

[-] 2 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

You've seen the vids of cops zapping helpless and passive people with noxious chemicals and whacking them with clubs and fists. If it doesn't make you angry, you have no heart.

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 9 years ago

I did not see the clubs and fists. I did see the pepper spray of people who were very strongly resisting arrest (not violently, but strongly resisting all the same), and I wondered if it was really the police's burden to have to wrestle strenuously to pry them apart in order to do their job arrest them for breaking the law or if it was fair to warn them that, IF they continued to resist, they'd be pepper sprayed. Of course, the video did not show anything that came before, such as the police warning them not to resist or they'd be sprayed. That's why it needs to be investigated before judgments are made.

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 9 years ago

Interesting. Thanks. I found the MSNBC reporter particularly interesting if his take on the overall incident is right. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meT8CJgEBQw ) I cannot tell anything from that particular video they included in the report because it is bouncing all over the place, but ACCORDING TO THE REPORTER (if he's being honest and IF he's being accurate) no one in the crowd had broken any law. The reporter (actually commentator) claims that the police were taking a man down solely because he was video taping them. If so, then it is indeed police brutality, and the police were outside the law, and THEY should be arrested and thrown in jail as thugs. Only problem is that I had only the reporter's word to take for it, as the video is really too rough to show any context for what is happening. So, I looked for better footage of the same incident. The footage I found included the full context of many of the individual shots shown in the links you provide:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU9Dx0x9h4A&feature=related

In this longer and less erratic video with better angles, you can see that the guy with the video camera who was thrown against the car was NOT likely thrown for having a camera, as the commentator in the other video CLAIMED. It was because the police had been for, at least, ten minutes trying to get the crowd out of the intersection. The police had pushed a net barrier out from the center of the intersection to the sidewalks and had been telling people to get outside the barrier. Some did; some refused. Once the barrier was in place around the intersection, the police began arresting everyone who was breaking the law by refusing to go outside of the barrier (because they were blocking the intersection). The guy with the video camera was thrown to the ground because he was still INSIDE the barrier. There were several OTHER people WITHOUT video cameras thrown to the ground at the same time. So, it had nothing to do with his video cameral. The commentator is full of bunk.

One of those taken to the ground at the same time is a girl who screams "I wasn't doing anything!" Yes, she was: she was standing inside of a police barrier, which anyone can see was being put up to open up the intersection so the police could get traffic flowing again.

Once a police barrier is up that says "Police barrier. Do not cross," you're breaking the law if you remain inside that legally established perimeter. (It is legally established because it is enforcing the law that you cannot obstruct intersections and cannot jaywalk.)

So, the police took as many people inside of the perimeter down as they could for refusing to vacate the intersection. Even then, however, it looks like they were too harsh, as I did not see them try to cuff the girl first without taking her down.

Another woman who gets dragged INTO the perimter, is made out in some of the videos you posted as being an innocent bystander who gets pulled inside the perimeter just so the police can arrest her. I thought that was ridiculous. The police have enough to do trying to get the crowd back into abiding by the law without picking fights with innocent bystanders. So, I played the video one frame at a time, watching for parts of this one woman I could identify in each frame. That tells a different story:

Watching one frame at a time, you can see the woman is pushing against the net barrier from the outside, as the police are trying to spread the net wider so that pedestrians are only in the sidewalks and not in the streets. You can see her wrist pushing directly into a policeman's hand who is holding the net with that hand, AND see the net moves several FEET toward the policeman as she and others in the crowd push. The effort to grab some on the outside, is an effort to take down some who are resisting the police's RIGHT and OBLIGATION to spread the net to keep people from blocking the street. So, one of the officers grabs her and pulls her inside the perimeter to arrest her for trying to obstruct the police as they establish a barrier.

When the MOB is this aggressive (and it was VERY aggressive -- even hostile in word -- toward the police), the police have to be aggressive, too. The result is they get worked up just like the mob and sometimes overreact because they are thinking very fast in multiple directions for their own protection. IF the mob had been peaceably assembled in the first place and not blocking an intersection, NONE of the so-called "brutality" would have happened. The brutal actions result from the difficulty of getting a mob that is clearly breaking the law by blocking streets back OUT of the street and under control.

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

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Cops attack cameras all the time. Non protesters get attacked and arrested. I mean people who emerge from a restaurant, a subway station find themselves at the scene of a demonstration and arrested. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dHFFdAjLq8 go to 4:32, 4:56, 5:03,5:15, 5:29, and on, and on...

http://www.thevillager.com/villager_82/classactionsuitfiled.html You can see Deputy Inspector Bologna (who is also named in the above referenced lawsuit) pepper spray a young woman who is inside a police netting doing nothing, and after Bologna does this he sashays away. It was so raw and seen by so many people all over the world that NYPD had to dissavow his action and penalize him, though he deserved a criminal charge and didn't get that.

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 9 years ago

The camera guy deserved what he got for PHYSICALLY harassing the police. It doesn't show in the edited versions that are most prevalent, but can be seen in the background of a long recording where he is trying to push or hit at the cops from behind them, apparently to get through their line into the area zoned off.

I watched the woman who got pepper sprayed through the police netting many times and could not see any justification for the police spraying her. May very well be a case of a cop needing to be brought to justice.

--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

The cops were acting unlawfully and violently. This needed to be documented and made public knowledge and it was, thank God!

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 9 years ago

There are pragmatists among us. Let us preserve our commitment to non-violent strategy and tactics, and not be divided by what has been in the past or what may be in some future.

Here is where we are.

Our eyes are open.

We are not afraid.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

I actually agree with you. my post here has taken on a life span I would not have expected. I'm tempted to take it down myself.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 9 years ago

I would leave it be - those not given to emotion see what you have written.

It is true.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

I do not want to distract from the great and historical actions OW is engaging in today.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 9 years ago

it is just one small piece in the overall dialog. Who can say what good may result from the simple acknowledgment that pragmatism does indeed exist within our ranks?

[-] 1 points by ediblescape (235) 9 years ago

Washington and Abraham lived in a industrial time. It is information time now. The best weapon is computer. WANK worm make politics wanked.

You talk of times of peace for all, and then prepare for war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WANK_%28computer_worm%29

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

I wouldn't click a link from you if you paid me.

[-] 1 points by FalseFlag (121) 9 years ago

Right, we need leaders as well.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

I believe there are leaders in OW. Just they don't call themselves that and aren't pushed as such in the MSM. This might be good or bad, depending on whether the leaders turn out to be good or bad. I pretty much endorse most of what they have done. I don't really understand the decision to send a delegation to Egypt,

[-] 1 points by 5HYDROXYTRYPTAMINE (6) from Beloit, WI 9 years ago

nonviolence protects teh state

it also protects protestors and movements

oh wait it doesn't, we've been getting hammered for months.... hmmm....

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

It should not be the responsibility of protesters that there be no violence. The state has a monopoly on legitimate violence and pretty damned near a monopoly on illegitimate violence too. My original intent in posting wqas to oppose the notion that violence by the oppressed can not be legitimate and is always wrong, not that we go out and commit suicide by cop.

[-] 1 points by 5HYDROXYTRYPTAMINE (6) from Beloit, WI 9 years ago

im just saying that at this point the game is up, its not like our mainstream press can get any worse and its not like the state oppression wont get worse if we just advance our tactics in a civil disobedience fashion,

so lets hack and or break some tv stations & start doing illegal shit we can get away with, instead of doing legal shit we can't get away with

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

I didn't tell anyone to hack or break into anything.

[-] 1 points by 5HYDROXYTRYPTAMINE (6) from Beloit, WI 9 years ago

i did :)

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 9 years ago

One perhaps uses rightly violence when they have a government that does not let them speak out or change the government by any other means; but we do not have such a government in America. You and I are speaking out right here. We are free to do it out in public spaces, too, so long as we do not break laws that were created for reasons having nothing to do with limiting speech or assembly (such as requiring permits for events to make sure the events to do not interfere with the rights of others when such laws were made without people even having in mind political events).

You can change the government in this country by changing the minds of the majority. If you cannot change the minds of the majority, you have no right to violence as a means of getting what you want.

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

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

That's not how things work in the real world. We can speak here, but if anyone or any organization actually becomes effective in changing the political climate they'll be attacked, even murdered. They absolutely had to eradicate the OW encampment. OW was and still is shifting the debate to inequality and jobs, something the PTB are not pleased with.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 9 years ago

Have you been watching your Michael Moore films lately?

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 9 years ago

by the way, you are out of your mind if you think the Civil War ended slavery....

what happened afterwards to many immigrants, especially Irish and Chinese, made slavery look grand, at least slave owners had motivation to keep their slaves healthy and safe

and also the Civil War, whose cost per living citizen afterwards, was some 1850 money 330 million, set the stage for the two huge bankruptcies of which enslaved all as WE ARE THE COLLATERAL for those bankruptcies!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFXdCH--Gjo

YOU ARE THE COLLATERAL, SLAVE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd-SLRyuRq0&feature=relmfu

The "money" sold abroad is YOU!

http://occupywallst.org/forum/interesting-read-about-the-constitution-and-corpor/#comment-437755

WAKE UP!

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

"by the way, you are out of your mind if you think the Civil War ended slavery...."

Individuals do not own other individuals any more. Children and parents are not sold away from each other any more. Things are still pretty terrible for lots of people. No argument there.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 9 years ago

right, but, study history, what happened to previously owned slave families and then immigrants, was far worse than slavery, in many cases

if you had the wrong look or accent, you could literally be worked to death; man, woman or child for the profit of today's banksters predecessors

horrible working conditions and jobs with were often nothing more than certain suicide missions

no matter what happened, you or yours had no rights or recourse

just as most all people on planet earth being collateral for notes which can never be paid with real money, is far more insidious and evil than knowingly being outright owned

again, slavery and being owned, in many cases, was a far better deal as somebody had a vested interest and unless they had the money to burn the price of a new car today, they couldn't and wouldn't neglect their property

and Abraham Lincoln was one of the most evil presidents to ever hold the office

http://www.libertyforlife.com/eye-openers/lincoln-enslaved-world.html

it's very well documented

a war of which cost more than the entire worth of the whole planet at the time

hard to top that

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

It's the way things are still. Visit any NYC fleet taxi garage...

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 9 years ago

If attacked by cops, fighting them is one thing.

Do not attack innocent citizens or destroy their property.

If there are collateral damages, leaders go and seek out those damaged and explain it wasn't the Movement responsible and try to make things right, if possible.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 9 years ago

Violence is inevitable in the path we are heading right now but it is not necessary right now in this movement. The movement might be called something else in the future when this is necessary as a means of survival. We are not living in that kind of reality right now.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Violence is already happening, for the most part perpetrated by the PTB. The argument becomes over whether, ever, if, when, how, why that violence gets a like response from the oppressed.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 9 years ago

It is human nature to fight back but right now this movement effectiveness is to remain peaceful at all costs. What will become clear by doing this is the excessive brutality of the police which most people are unaware that this is occuring daily in every state.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

I agree.

[-] 1 points by usernameah (36) 9 years ago

Gandhi and King supported non-violence protests * accompanied by acts of civil disobedience and calls for disobeying the law. *

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

most certainly

[-] 1 points by pumpkin (43) 9 years ago

one can not overcome a superior force - with the use of violence- why is that so hard to understand?

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 9 years ago

People thought the red coats were a superior force too.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

I don't want to drag this out too far, but Fidel Castro started with 82 fighters and ended up defeting the army and police forces of the dictator Batista. The Vietnamese, after along drawn out struggle defeated the much more powerful USA.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 9 years ago

You sound like Mitt Romney or Ronald Reagan and their peace through strength ideology. We need better politics than that. Remember, we have a Department of Defense, not a Department of War. War should only be pursued if there is clear and present danger. There is no clear and present threat to warrant posting a thread stating - well, not right now, but at some point, I might have to put my boot where the sun don't shine.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Those guys always would advocate that protest (if it must be at all) be non-violent, no matter what violence and provocation it confronts.

"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence." Mahatma Gandhi

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 9 years ago

No, Mitt Romney would get us into a war with Iran and has said put military options on the table right up front. He's already on record doing that.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

http://occupywallst.org/forum/mitt-romneys-magic-mormon-underwear/

I'm not going to defend Romney, but these guys are all full of crap and their words don't necessarily mean much.

[-] 1 points by MBJ (96) 9 years ago

Sure glad you prefaced the original comment with "I don't advocate that OWS be violent." Otherwise, I might have misunderstood your point.

[-] 2 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

I notice something odd. I posted this on November 6. How does this post get several comments today when it must have been so far down the list as to be invisible?

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

If finds its way back to the top by:

--B responds to a post by A. --A signs off and signs back on a week later. --A sees B's response to the post made a week earlier (in the lower left hand corner of the screen.) --A resonds to B's post thus causing the thread to move to the top of the food chain.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

Sometimes I bookmark posts that I think are interesting and come back to them later. And sometimes the mods like a post and bump them up I think.

[-] 1 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Ok, and I thought maybe someone wanted to make me into a Jose Pimentel. Bloomberg not too happy he could not link that guy to OW.

[-] 1 points by abusalman (47) 9 years ago

see US soldiers waterboarding detainees from over 100 years ago http://terrorismbreedsterrorism.wordpress.com/

[-] 1 points by Chupacabra (55) from Houston, TX 9 years ago

I don't always advocate violence...

But when I do, I misuse historical figures to justify it

[-] 1 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

then stop doing that! I notice something odd. I posted this on November 6. How does this post get several comments today when it must have been so far down the list as to be invisible?

It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence. Mahatma Gandhi

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

I believe the post becomes visible again days later when someone responds to a post, bu the person doesn't sign on for a few days and then they do sign on and post an answer. Get it?

[-] 1 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

wrong, because I have logged onto OWS.ORG virtually every day since I posted this post. It is odd to me that after two weeks it's such a hot item. I'll say it again. My name is not Jose Pimentel.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

Only logging in won't do it. This is how it works.

You make a post and no one responds. You log out and in over a period of days or weeks.

I log in and see your post days or a week after you have meade it. I respond to your post. The topic now moves to the top of the food chain.

[-] 1 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

It was odd though how I got several responses weeks after posting. My post had to be at the very bottom for days on end. Odd, that's all.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

I am trying to figure out how this works, myself. There are lots of good threads buried under junk. There really should be some sort of topic sub-sort or way to mark the threads one wants to get back to.

[-] 1 points by stuartchase (861) 9 years ago

And here's the perfect place to take out your aggression:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/make-a-stand-join-the-clan/

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence. Mahatma Gandhi

I notice something odd. I posted this on November 6. How does this post get several comments today when it must have been so far down the list as to be invisible?

[-] 1 points by stuartchase (861) 9 years ago

I don't know. Anyways,

The Revolution has a theme song!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGaRtqrlGy8&feature=related

http://occupywallst.org/forum/make-a-stand-join-the-clan/

The Revolution starts here! No one can silence the Revolution!

[-] 1 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 9 years ago

This thread makes me want to go re-read "Blood Meridian"

"If war is not holy, then man is nothing but antic clay"

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

The US has the only national anthem about war

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

you sure of that?

http://www.inside-mexico.com/anthem.htm

Mexicanos, al grito de guerra El acero aprestad y el bridón; y retiemble en sus centros la tierra Al sonoro rugir del cañón.

Mexicans, at the cry of war, prepare the steel and the steed, and may the earth shake at its core to the resounding roar of the cannon.

Ciña oh patria! tus sienes de oliva De la Paz el arcángel divino, Que en el cielo tu eterno destino Por el dedo de Dios se escribió.

Gird, oh country, your brow with olive the divine archangel of peace, for your eternal destiny was written in the heavens by the hand of God.

Más si osare un extraño enemigo Profanar con su planta tu suelo, Piensa, oh patria querida ,que el cielo Un soldado en cada hijo te dio.

But if some strange enemy should dare to profane your ground with his step, think, oh beloved country, that heaven has given you a soldier in every son.

Guerra, guerra sin tregua al que intente De la patria manchar los blasones!

Guerra, guerra! Los patrios pendones En las olas de sangre empapad.

Guerra, guerra! En el monte, en el valle Los cañones horrísonos truenen

Y los ecos sonoros resuenen Con las voces de Unión! Libertad!

War, war without truce to any who dare to tarnish the country's coat-of-arms!

War, war! Take the national pennants and soak them in waves of blood.

War, war! In the mountain, in the valley, the cannons thunder in horrid unison

and the resonant echoes cry out Union, Liberty!

Antes, patria, que inermes tus hijos

Bajo el yugo su cuello dobleguen,

Tus campiñas con sangre se rieguen, Sobre sangre se estampe su pie.

Y tus templos, palacios y torres Se derrumben con hórrido estruendo, Y sus ruinas existan diciendo: De mil héroes la patria aquí fue. Coro

Patria! patria! Tus hijos te juran Exhalar en tus aras su aliento, Si el clarín con su bélico acento Los convoca a lidiar con valor.

Para ti las guirnaldas de oliva!

Un recuerdo para ellos de gloria!

Un laurel para ti de victoria!

Un sepulcro para ellos de honor!

Oh country, 'ere your children

defenseless bend their neck to the yoke,

May your fields be watered with blood, may they trod upon blood.

And may your temples, palaces and towers collapse with horrid clamor, and their ruins live on to say: This land belonged to a thousand heroes.

Oh, country, country, your children swear to breathe their last in your honor, if the trumpet with warlike accent should call them to fight with courage.

For you the olive branches!

A reminder for them of glory!

A laurel of victory for you!

For them a tomb with honor!

Mexicanos, al grito de guerra El acero aprestad y el bridón; y retiemble en sus centros la tierra Al sonoro rugir del cañón.

Mexicans, at the cry of war, prepare the steel and the steed, and may the earth shake at its core to the resounding roar of the cannon.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

someone morbid wrote that

reminds me of time I found out Rome didn't actually salt Carthage's fields

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

No, read your own post.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

present it

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

okay, not post, comment. maybe we aren't understanding each other, maybe I don't understand you.

[-] 0 points by jay1975 (428) 9 years ago

Maybe you should do a bit of research before you say something easily dis-proven. Why not search for the literal lyrics to France's La Marseillaise for starters, then you can look up Vietnam's Tiến Quân Ca for some inspirational lyrics. My personal favorite from the Vietnamese is "The distant rumbling of the guns mingles with our marching song. The path to glory is built by the bodies of our foes." There are several others that are about war and violence and it is all at your fingertips.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

I stand corrected

Mexican National Anthem

The search for the Mexican National Anthem began in 1821 and many versions were cast aside before the final words and melody were installed on September 15, 1854. On November 14, 1853, an official request was published asking poets and composers to submit their work for consideration for the National Anthem. A panel of six judges -- three for the music and three for the lyrics -- made the final decision. On February 5, 1853, Francisco Gonzalez Bocanegra's poem was chosen for the lyrics. On August 10 of that same year, the judges chose Spaniard Jaime Nuno's musical composition to complete the new national anthem. While the lyrics may seem somewhat beligerent for a peace-loving nation such as Mexico, it should be remembered that only five years had passed since the war with the United States and nationalist sentiments were still strong. Although the original version has 84 verses, the official edited version -- four verses and the chorus -- was created in 1943 by the Department of Public Education. On most ceremonial occasions only the chorus and first verse is sung.

http://guadalajarareporter.com/features-mainmenu-95/908-features/19255-fiestas-patrias-mexicos-national-anthem.html

Mexicans, at the cry of war, prepare the steel and the steed, and may the earth shake at its core to the resounding roar of the cannon.

http://www.inside-mexico.com/anthem.htm

[-] 1 points by MortgagedTent (121) 9 years ago

Correction. Violence is as human as apple pie. Every country was born in violence. This is bs. So lets get back to the issues and think about peaceful solutions.

[-] 1 points by packetStorm (128) 9 years ago

and think about non-violent solutions.

There all fixed up.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

Malcolm X is not violent

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago
[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

what violent actions did he initiate or support ?

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 9 years ago

What did you think By Any Means Necessary meant?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

means [miːnz] n

  1. (functioning as singular or plural) the medium, method, or instrument used to obtain a result or achieve an end a means of communication

  2. (functioning as plural) resources or income

  3. (functioning as plural) considerable wealth or income a man of means

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/means

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

As far as I know, none. He advocated for the right of self defense, the right to bear arms and he polemicized against non violence as a philiosophy. Some Malcolm X quotes:

"Concerning nonviolence: It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself, when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law."

"It doesn't mean that I advocate violence, but at the same time, I am not against using violence in self-defense. I don't call it violence when it's self-defense, I call it intelligence."

"I don't mean go out and get violent; but at the same time you should never be nonviolent unless you run into some nonviolence. I'm nonviolent with those who are nonviolent with me. But when you drop that violence on me, then you've made me go insane, and I'm not responsible for what I do."

Although he never initiated violence and as far as I know did not participate in any violent action, his words were answered with hysteria and alarm and he was painted the bad guy until well after he was murdered.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 9 years ago

Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi led great non-violent movements that changed the world and how power structures perceived humanity. They dis avowed violence because they knew that simply gathering huge numbers of people together for a cause would demonstrate to the powers in control the potential for violence if the powers did not come to reconciliation with the issues of those huge representations of humanity.

Here in America MLK's "March on Washington for Jobs and Justice" resulted in the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. But it did not produce jobs and that led to five years of city burning violence.

For decades before the Civil War there were public and political actions against slavery. So too with the American Revolution. The protests that were ignored by government in those times culminated in revolution and civil war. It was the years of non-violent protests that established the debate.

Politicians today know this rich history of non-violent public advocacy. It is why the continued growth of the #Occupy movement is so important.

And because non-violent protests keep the moral high ground on our side.

[-] 1 points by ThisIsNotCapitalism (156) from Redmond, WA 9 years ago

Troll/OEV post, slightly more sophisticated (like the others by alouis). I know I gave this idiot a post bump, I couldn't help myself. Looks like they took the privates off the job and gave it to a PFC. I'm going to spiel since I did the damage already. You people are morons, transparent sad morons. You know this movement is for you too right? No matter how much artificial dissent and inciting you do, it is not going to make a difference. You fail to understand the complexity of your "opponent".

You are probably targeting the curious that come here to take a look, give false impressions. Even children see through you.

[-] 1 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Not trying to incite anything or anyone. Just making a point. Sometimes violence is necessary.

[-] 0 points by ThisIsNotCapitalism (156) from Redmond, WA 9 years ago

Every post you make states that. We are all well aware that you have a hard on for violence and feel the need to share with the class. This is a peaceful movement. Violent speech is unwelcome and you repeatedly try to incite that, which I am happy to remind you is not a constitutionally protected right. It may, in fact, be considered a crime. We expect accountability for police action and criminal conduct alike.

[-] 1 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

ridiculous

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by sunshower (80) 9 years ago

you give yourself away in the first line.

No, you don't advocate violence - just not at this time

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

that's true. it doesn't make sense. it has to be necessary and understood to be necessary. Our country was born that way and slavery was terminated that way. As I said we name streets and schools for malcolm X who was in a constant polemic with Martin Luther King about just that question and Malcolm X did say "by any means necessary."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhg6LxyTnY8

What do you think should happen to people who do violence at Zucotti Park against women there? I say "anger is a gift" in such situations.

[-] 1 points by sunshower (80) 9 years ago

I think OWS people in Zucotti park should engage the police there to hawl away anyone who's violent . If we act otherwise - the corporate owned media would have a field day with those photos, not to mention Mayor Bloomberg, who represents the 1% and is looking for any reason to throw us out of the park. We must not react with violence ourselves. Stay cool . You're doing a great service on behalf of all the American People. We The People thank you with all our hearts.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Well, detaining such people most likely involves force. Justifiable force.

[-] 1 points by sunshower (80) 9 years ago

yes, we can hold them down with justifiable force while summoning the police do their job

[-] 1 points by mickydees (13) 9 years ago

You're right. Let's nuke washington. Set off bombs in our wake to get the po po. Good plan. That's sure to accomplish lots. Take the lead on that one, will ya?

Are you a fuckin idiot?

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

you are an ass.

[-] 1 points by mickydees (13) 9 years ago

No I'm totally serious. You should set off a bomb, preferably in a cornfield and very much alone. You're in NY? Let's meet up. You can try being violent on me and see how far you get.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

you are an ass.

[-] 1 points by mickydees (13) 9 years ago

maybe so, but you are a danger to society and yourself. what do you think you are advocating when you advocate violence? have you ever seen a man be shot in combat? if not then shut the fuck up and go back to masturbating in front of your videogames you prepubescent socialist leaning twit posting on the ipad your mommy and daddy bought you.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

schmuck i don't think you even read my very brief post, did you? now bug off i'm not giving you any more of my time.

[-] 1 points by mickydees (13) 9 years ago

I did and I'm having your IP traced and the FBI show up at your house. Watch it shmo, anon is on the traiyl

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

The FBI came to my place but i wasn't home. Would you please call them for me?

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence. Mahatma Gandhi

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 9 years ago

Very few people are absolute pacifists. I suspect that there are fewer than 1000 actual absolute pacifists in the United States today.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

And I agree. While being violent under present circumstances would not help OWS there have come times and will come again when it is the necessary means, and will be understood as such by millions of people.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by rbe (687) 9 years ago

I have to agree with the original poster. I don't think anything significant will happen without violence. I am not advocating violence, I'm just looking at this from a historical standpoint.

People that take countries to war and kill 100s of 1000s of people will not be phased by little Bobby refusing to move from his campus square without the aid of pepper spray.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 9 years ago

Interesting. I don't know much about the conflict between the British and the Indians.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Seems there was a violent aspect, though that was not led by Ghandi.

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 9 years ago

I figured that there had to be. When I was a kid, I used to bully this other kid. He tried everything to stop me from bullying him. Talking it out, etc. One day he punched me in the face. I quit after that. lol

[-] 0 points by Glaucon (296) 9 years ago

Why are nonsensical posts being bumped?

[-] 0 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 9 years ago

Sometimes I wonder if Martin Luther King would have been able to achieve what he did if Malcolm X was out of the picture.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

good point.

"I'll say nothing against him. At one time the whites in the United States called him a racialist, and extremist, and a Communist. Then the Black Muslims came along and the whites thanked the Lord for Martin Luther King." "Dr. King wants the same thing I want -- freedom!" "I want Dr. King to know that I didn't come to Selma to make his job difficult. I really did come thinking I could make it easier. If the white people realize what the alternative is, perhaps they will be more willing to hear Dr. King."

Dr. King on Malcolm X: "You know, right before he was killed he came down to Selma and said some pretty passionate things against me, and that surprised me because after all it was my territory there. But afterwards he took my wife aside, and said he thought he could help me more by attacking me than praising me. He thought it would make it easier for me in the long run."

"The goal has always been the same, with the approaches to it as different as mine and Dr. Martin Luther King's non-violent marching, that dramatizes the brutality and the evil of the white man against defenseless blacks. And in the racial climate of this country today, it is anybody's guess which of the "extremes" in approach to the black man's problems might personally meet a fatal catastrophe first -- "non-violent" Dr. King, or so-called "violent" me."

[-] 0 points by eyeofthetiger (304) 9 years ago

man is nothing more than an animal and will always be an animal

[-] 1 points by QuietDay (59) 9 years ago

The only animal with the power of abstract thought and hence the ability to moderate and control his or her instincts.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 9 years ago

Very well said. Beautiful. An elegant counter-argument.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 9 years ago

To advocate for that particular element of our inner selves is probably not a good thing; it seems you are incapable of imagining that inner self. . Picture this: We have people serving several life terms today for extremely heinous acts, or in other words, for doing what comes naturally.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

are you a person or a bot? i mean that was fast and look what time it is?

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 7 years ago

Violence is ALWAYS wrong. and this also is not a statement of principle, but of common sense and humanity.

Murder is Murder. A dead person is dead person.

I dont think, as most americans do, that violence is wrong when it hurts thier interests and is moral if it does benefit to thier own interests.

[-] -1 points by saged (33) 9 years ago

what is ows views on jello wrestling ? its kinda of violent

[-] -1 points by overstand (60) 9 years ago

you reap what you sow