Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Why do the protests have to remain peaceful

Posted 8 years ago on Oct. 27, 2011, 9:41 p.m. EST by esebille (3)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Do you think anyone cares as long as things stay peaceful. Why not mob the Goldman Sachs building or the Federal Reserve and get violent? Just walking up and down streets is not going to make any change. Economic damage and havoc will need to be created for the real change to happen.

27 Comments

27 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

Libya started peaceful than tens of thousands died

[-] 1 points by CHANTER (33) 8 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cbUAwCE7JVY#t=48s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxmtreWQoVs&feature=player_profilepage

This is a rather anonymous SONG-CHANT-RANT offering, that will hopefully unify our message on the streets. Imparting some basic historical information that has lead to the continued debasing of free forms of Government. Where a select group of power seekers never seem to have enough of anything, including us.This is a very serious time for the FREE Global Community, our only weapon is Martin Luther King's legacy. They further try to discredit us with accusations of not having a coherent message when their only endgame is to further in-slave us! Abusing others until there is only two classes the Haves and Have-Not's. we’ just not gonna’ take it no more we’ just not gonna’ take it no more we’ just not gonna’ take it no more

nothing’s been the same since jfk eisenhower warned us it would get this way a vast military-industrial-complex a vast military-industrial-complex

were out here to show the one percentors we’ just not gonna’ take it no more we’ just not gonna’ take it no more

oly norquist pledged most congress (oly’ = satire oliver north)
to his power lil’ oly’ norquist pledged most congress (piglet)
to his power

we’ know who you are were’ tired of our voices not counting

we’ just not gonna’ take it no more we’ just not gonna’ take it no more we’ just not gonna’ take it no more

were out on the streets to get our “countries” back

until foreign trade benefits---the 99%

were out on the streets to get our “countries” back

until foreign trade benefits---the 99%

were’ just not gonna’ take it no more were’ just not gonna’ take it no more were’ just not gonna’ take it no more

so, your’ spreadin’ democracy all over --the world your’ spreadin’ democracy all over --the world

it’s gotten’ so corrupt even we---don’t understand it!

so, your’ spreadin’ democracy all over --the world spreadin’ your’ democracy all over --the world

it’s gotten’ so corrupt even we---don’t understand it!

bring back our soldiers’s your cor-poor-et wars are all over bring back our soldiers’s your cor-poor-et wars are all over

were out here to show the one percentors we’ just not gonna’ take it no more we’ just not gonna’ take it no more

it’s too bad we hav-at spell it out but liars never listen they just -run their mouths

a thousand point of light all over the world

a new world order the bil-dah-burgers can go to hell

were’ just not gonna’ take it no more were’ just not gonna’ take it no more were’ just not gonna’ take it no more------

were’ just not gonna’ take it no more!

[-] 1 points by Stochastic8 (2) 8 years ago

Because you lose credibility. THAT'S PERIOD.

[-] 1 points by RevolutionaryTruth (95) from Houston, TX 8 years ago

The government want us to fight back so that they can shut the movement down completely! "First they ignore you,then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."- Mahatma Gandhi http://therevolutionarytruth.tumblr.com/

[-] 1 points by seeker (242) 8 years ago

They fight and you win Fight back (with violence) and you loose

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 8 years ago

This would be illegal, first, as the constitution does not guarantee the right to destroy personal property of others, or riot. Next, it would be immoral: criminal behavior is not how you protest criminal behavior. Finally, it would just be stupid and self defeating: have you ever been at a party some belligerent ass gets in your face about something? How likely were you to actually want to carry on a conversation with the jerk, listen to ideas, and team up? Most people don't want to associate with hostile people. Stop promoting violence and illegal behaviors.

[-] 1 points by karai2 (154) 8 years ago

The economic damage and havoc has already happened. Do you want to tie the OWS movement to the CAUSE of the damage rather than the remedy. Attacking the fed or goldman sachs at this stage would be a stunt and wouldn't have any impact other than alienating people who are already frightened or confused about what the problem is (That is most of us, by the way). The only way a change will happen is if millions and millions of americans stand up. A lot of people are dissatisfied and feel something is wrong there are not enough people in agreement yet about what is wrong. OWS should hold on, continue and grow. As things unfold with our economy and political system and there's no sign of improvement or things get worse, you will see more and more people willing to join. But not if the movement looks worse than the system it's protesting. That's how real social movements form, not by a few rogue kids acting out. People in this culture are really conditioned for immediate gratification...It took years for this country to get to the point where it is and it will take years to change it. My guess is that the next presidential election will be so ugly, the air waves so filled with corporate sponsored attack adds and partisanship that a whole new crew of utterly disgusted americans will be ready to join.

[-] 1 points by derek (302) 8 years ago

From: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_nonviolence.html

"When 50,000 members of the global justice movement met in Sao Paulo, Brazil, in January, 2002, in the aftermath of the death in Genoa and the terrorist attack of September 11th, there were some second thoughts about the productiveness of property damage and confrontations with police, but by then it was too late. A reporter from The Nation wrote that the movement was at a low ebb once again due to the violence:

"It would be disingenuous to deny that the US movement faces serious roadblocks. The blue-green coalition has frayed, and tension between much of organized labor and the rest of the movement is real. 'The biggest problem inside the Seattle coalition isn't the [anti-terrorist] war,' said one key US activist. 'The problem is around those who want to use violence.'"

The correspondent also quoted a European environmentalist to make the same point: "Too often we get dragged into a swamp debating what is euphemistically called 'diversity of tactics.' Now we need to speak up and say clearly that violence, as a political tactic, just doesn't work either in the United States or in Europe."

The shocking terrorist attacks of September 11th, coming just six weeks after Genoa, add to the likelihood that any type of property destruction or confrontations with police at future demonstrations will be highly counterproductive. Such attacks would anger the overwhelming majority of Americans and meet with strong repression on the part of the government. Reassessment therefore becomes a necessity, providing an opportunity for a new start based on the realization that the property destruction and physical attacks on the police of the previous few years led the movement into a dead end. In democratic countries, social movements need to be based on a commitment to the strategic, nonviolent forms of direct action discussed throughout this document. Such a commitment leaves plenty of room to disrupt routines and get in the way of power without dividing the movement and alienating potential supporters, and it is far more effective in the long run.

This commitment should include the principles put forth by advocates of strategic nonviolence for dealing with pro-violence groups. Nonviolent groups should distance themselves from violent groups and strongly condemn their philosophies and actions. Only groups that specifically state that they are completely committed to strategic nonviolence should be allowed to be co-sponsors of marches and participate in their planning."

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen0000 (3) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Do you want to hurt people? Or get hurt?

If you make enough chaos, I'm sure Obama will be thrilled his plan is working to declare Martial Law.. and there will be no 2012 election, no change.

Please keep it non-violent!

[-] 1 points by Satyr000 (86) 8 years ago

Look at the Constitution and more importantly The First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There no fine print there. All the laws in place to "protect you" and prohibit you from doing something that is protected under the Constitution such as the ones that strip you of your right to peaceably assemble are in fact put in place so that our Corrupt Government can circumvent the Constitution and most importantly the First Amendment. Think about that for a moment.

Lets say you decide to sit down in front of a building holding a nuke the rain forest sign. Most people will look at you and laugh. Some one at some point might call the cops. Once that does happen you know that the 9 times out of 10 that cop is going to be a jerk. Why is it that most cops are jerks? Because they are "trained"(brainwashed) to be. Because if they can make you angry enough that you start yelling at them your once peaceful protest is no longer protected under the First Amendment. If you remain clam and simply tell the officer that it is a peaceful protest and that your right to peaceably assemble is protected by the first amendment, that officer by law can't do shit to you. Yea you might have to endure several minutes of the officer doing every thing he can to piss you off, short of physical violence. But, so long as you remain calm he can't do anything to you with out being in direct violation of your first amendment rights and you can have that police officer arrested.

This is why people are still protesting in CO and in other areas where there camps where torn down. By, tearing down OWS camps the police are in direct violation of there first amendment rights. This is also why the police are actively using underhanded tactics such as police brutality in order to provoke OWS peaceful protests.

This is also why the police are attempting to stop OWS from marching down the middle of the streets. They are trying to force them onto the sidewalk then arresting them in a effort to provoke them.

This also applies to you while you are at work. If they say that you can't discuss OWS at work with your co-workers or the general public. Simply call the police and inform them that your first amendment rights are being violated by your employer. Just remember to remain calm. They can't fire you and the police officer cant arrest you.

[-] 1 points by Quark (236) 8 years ago

Well written. It something I need to work on BIG TIME. Anger is my first response, but after this is all over we will ALL be on a whole new level of Enlightenment. Sweet.

[-] 1 points by Satyr000 (86) 8 years ago

That is also why it is important not to think the police as your enemy during all this. Our Corrupt Government is actively trying to turn them agents us through threats to there lively hood. The government through the chain of command has pretty much told them that if they do not do as told, they will be fired and stripped of there benefits. They are doing as told out of pure self preservation.

Don't yell or resist arrest and do not try to get your point across by telling them why we are protesting. Trust me they already know. Instead you should be reasoning with them. Simply try to make them understand that they are being victimised just like we all are. The best thing we can do is remind them that just because they wear a badge they are not stripped of there rights guaranteed by our Constitution. They can refuse to arrest people and join the protest on the spot. If any action is taken against them by the police department they belong to or by the government is a direct violation of there rights and they can fight back in court through the justice department.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

because once violence is allowed

the violent will become the new elite

[-] 1 points by derek (302) 8 years ago

More on that theme, from: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_nonviolence.html

"For current-day egalitarians, a commitment to the freedoms and democratic procedures won by past egalitarians can provide the primary foundation for the practice of nonviolence, although some of them also draw upon their religious values as well. This democratic commitment has the added virtue of narrowing the gap between egalitarians and mainstream liberals. In addition, a nonviolence orientation can be sustained by the knowledge that it helps to keep the egalitarian movement itself more democratic; it ensures that violence-prone dominators will not take over the movement and subvert its democratic aims. As many historical cases suggest, the most violent people soon rise to the top once the possibility of violence is introduced, and they often use their loyal followers to intimidate or kill rivals.

Most of the people who advocate strategic nonviolence are aware that it cannot work outside of what are at least quasi-democratic contexts. It is hard to imagine that strategic nonviolence would work for slaves in ancient empires, Jews in Nazi Germany, or critics in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. It did, however, play a role in the abolition of slavery in England and the United States, and the courageous activists did have a hand in the transformation of the Soviet Union. Still, dictatorships of any kind usually only fall when there are disagreements among those at or near the top, or if external challenges to the power structure give the oppressed some new openings. There are few instances where dictatorships have been overcome internally by the oppressed majority.

But given the freedoms, civil liberties, and voting rights achieved by a long line of American egalitarians and liberals, there is no end that could be justified by violence, property destruction, or armed struggle in this country. Such actions undercut the democratic rights won by past egalitarians and play into the hands of the government, which has the power to isolate and defeat any violent movement. Furthermore, property damage and armed struggle of any kind are overwhelmingly rejected by the vast majority of the American people. Due to their appreciation of the freedoms they do enjoy, and despite the economic unfairness they recognize and experience, average Americans are repelled by violent political acts, whether by right wingers or left wingers. If the goal is to build a larger movement that connects to a strategy to take over and transform the Democratic Party, not just to force the authorities to react to one or another provocation with slight reforms, then violence makes no sense. It is therefore both immoral and counterproductive for American egalitarians to employ violent strategies. Or, as Cesar Chavez used to say about violence when he was leading the farm worker's movement, it's wrong and it's stupid.

Violence-prone activists sometimes like to claim they are merely retaliating against violence by the police, which they think people will understand and even applaud as justifiable self-protection. Some activists also believe that standing up to the police will inspire others to join them because they have shown they are serious about challenging the system. However, as polls taken after such incidents show, most people do not accept these rationales. They do not like to hear of extreme reactions by the police, but they tend to blame the demonstrators, even when the police are the primary instigators. Thus, it is not a matter of who is right and who is wrong, or about which side started it. It is a matter of whether physical confrontations are effective in gaining adherents, and it seems clear that they are not.

To be effective, nonviolence must be maintained in the face of great provocations, even beatings and murders by the opponents. If there is no retaliation, the perpetrators may be prosecuted, or public sentiment may switch to the side of the challengers. This is in fact in part what happened when police and vigilantes attacked civil rights demonstrators in the 1960s. Those unprovoked actions swung whites outside the South against police violence despite their continuing feelings of racial superiority, and forced the president and leaders in Congress to condemn elected officials and law enforcement personnel in the South.

Once nonviolence is taken seriously as the only and ideal strategy for egalitarians in a democratic society, it quickly leads to new ways of thinking about issues of social change. Although advocates of strategic nonviolence have published catalogues of successful tactics, they stress that each movement invents new methods within the context of their situation. Since outsiders do not know this context, they cannot offer many suggestions or make predictions in advance of what will work. ..."

[-] 1 points by Redmist (212) from Yazd, Yazd 8 years ago

I was having this discussion with my cousin today. We are rather uninvolved, and for the most part uninterested besides my mostly curious and mischievous trolling on these forums I do support some of the OWS issues. If shit hit the fan it is the predators that would become a concern, guys like me would bunker down in our tiny rural towns and protect our own. I would imagine the worst in our society like the damn Nazi's would cause serious damage.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

Nationalism an certainly become dangerous

[-] 1 points by Redmist (212) from Yazd, Yazd 8 years ago

They sure concern the hell out of me, I am not a big fan of peace love and all that cuddly shit but I will sure as hell defend people from the scum of the earth. In my opinion a few ideologies deserve no quarter, nazi's and the klan are two that come to mind. Anyone that suggests a racial or cultural superiority is a dangerous piece of shit.

[-] 1 points by esebille (3) 8 years ago

Wont be me I am in the middle of the road on the issues no reason for me to be out protesting, but as big as the mobs get if they started breaking stuff and causing havoc you bet the message would get across.

[-] 1 points by Redmist (212) from Yazd, Yazd 8 years ago

Have you seen the majority of these protesters? They are not even close to alpha types

[-] 1 points by Redmist (212) from Yazd, Yazd 8 years ago

And your the first one to get popped! Hey why not count me in!