Occupy My Heart

On September 17th of 2011, in Zuccotti Park that is nestled in the financial district of New York City, also known as Wall Street, a protest movement that some would say came out of nowhere, but most assuredly came to prominence, soon spreading globally to a reported 82 countries, in 951 cities. Some say the protest movement was inspired by a single blog post that itself was inspired by The Arab Spring. This single blog post was published on July 13th of 2001 by Adbusters Media Foundation.

The Adbuster blog post, which subtitles itself "a shift in revolutionary tactics", begins as such:

A worldwide shift in revolutionary tactics is underway right now that bodes well for the future. The spirit of this fresh tactic, a fusion of Tahrir with the acampadas of Spain, is captured in this quote:

"The antiglobalization movement was the first step on the road. Back then our model was to attack the system like a pack of wolves. There was an alpha male, a wolf who led the pack, and those who followed behind. Now the model has evolved. Today we are one big swarm of people."
— Raimundo Viejo, Pompeu Fabra University

The blog goes on to call for this "swarm" of people to "zero in on what our one demand will be, a demand that awakens the imagination and, if achieved, would propel us toward the radical democracy of the future...", but what is this "radical democracy of the future" this "swarm" of protestors imagine? Harkening back to that Arab Spring, the blog argues:

Tahrir succeeded in large part because the people of Egypt made a straightforward ultimatum – that Mubarak must go – over and over again until they won. Following this model, what is our equally uncomplicated demand?

What is the "Occuyp's" "equally uncomplicated demand", and was the demand that Mubarak must go really so "uncomplicated"? More than a year after that Arab Spring the internet is rife with article, after article, after article about the Failure of the Arab Spring:

Abu Dhabi (CNN) – This time last year a match was lit by a fruit vendor in Tunis, which triggered uprisings throughout the region. Countries big, Egypt, and small, Tunisia, have witnessed wholesale change and the toppling of governments.

But at the one year mark, those on the ground here in the region are asking a simple question: Are we better off today than we were before the Arab Spring? People talk of a “The New Middle East” with a mixture of both optimism and despair, from Bahrain to Yemen.

This CNN article continues by pointing out that:

Al-Ississ is not optimistic the region’s most populous country can escape “financial Armageddon,” with the erosion of trust in the military. The window of time between now and presidential elections scheduled for late June is considered critical.

Eugene Rogan, of St. Antony’s college at Oxford University, echoes that view. He says the military in Egypt went from “heroes to villains of the revolution in 2011.” But the author of “The Arabs: A History” believes 2012 will offer a great deal of insight on what Islamic-based parties will offer as they move from being the target of repression to the mainstream.

The Lyric Hughes Hale article all ready linked above addresses the post Mubarak Egypt this way:

Post-Mubarak, is life better for the average Egyptian? Most emphatically no, and religious tolerance has actually decreased. Zvi Bar'el of Haaretz.com quotes a letter he received from an Egyptian friend: "At the public level things are degenerating from day to day ... Getting rid of the president suddenly seems like a simple task as compared to the uprooting of the culture of dictatorship, which is firmly rooted not only in the government institutions but also in the public. This culture has become part of the prevailing culture over hundreds of years, as has corruption. Now the dictatorship and the corruption are blending with the religiosity and the religious movements, which are in control of every area of endeavor in the country and are building themselves up as the new National Democratic Party [the ruling party under Mubarak], thereby exacerbating the younger generation's frustration. And the idiot Americans are falling into the trap laid for them by those groups and are beginning to play the same two-faced diplomatic game they played with the brutal regimes of the past, which will lead to a new regional conflagration in the future."

In the video below Hassan Rahimpour Azghadi laments the problem of the failure of the Arab Spring. (Sorry, no translation available, but a brief description below the video)

Dr. Azghadi talks about how although Mubarak and Benali etc. are gone, the regimes are still intact and are in fact worse than before. He talks about how revolutions can lead to failure if they are not led by a proper ideology

What is the ideology of the "Occupy" movement, and is it "proper" enough to sustain the successful revolution that the original Adbusters blog called for? Thus far, that "one simple demand" that Adbusters called for seems as elusive today as it was in the first days following September 17th, 2011. On November 18th, following this "swarm" of protestors initial "occupation", Lee DeCovnik posted a blog on American Thinker citing just some of the demands listed and posted on "unofficial de facto" website for Occupy Wall Street. Here is the complete list of demands posted on October 23rd, 2011, and obviously still up for all to read today. However, as par for the course, a poster piped in to criticize DeCovnik's pointing to this list, clearly wanting to distance the "occupy" ideology from the list of demands still on that site.

To be continued...

Continuing....

Here is the complaint from that poster:

I read　this blog post　on your website today. Just wanted to point out that the writer completely ignored the blatant header at the top of his source material that reads "This content is user submitted and not an official statement". At best DeCovnick is a complete moron who can do not more than copy and paste from other websites at random without in fact reading the entire webpage; at worst he's purposefully misleading and deceitful. Either way, this post is a poor excuse for journalism and serves to perpetuate ignorance and false information. I hope you rectify this as soon as possible.

And here is American Thinker's reply:

The point of providing a hyperlink is for people to check it out and see the origins. We're not exactly concealing the ature of the post as user generated. Nowhere does the post state that the list is official. Does the Occupy movement have anything that is official?

It was a valid question six months ago and remains a valid question today. Does the Occupy movement have anything even resembling official? Just what is the official ideology of the Occupy movement and just what exactly do they want?

Of even more concern to me than what it is they might want is the overwhelming willingness of far too many people claiming allegiance with the Occupy movement to gleefully drive a wedge between people. Claiming to be the "99%" they seem inexplicably willing to add increasing numbers to their perceived enemy the "1%" without any hint of irony what-so-ever. On the other side of the fence there are also an alarming amount of people who are just as gleeful in their own willingness to help the Occupy movement drive that wedge, both sides insistent on having opposing sides and for anyone sitting on the fence, or even far away up on hill just observing, both sides seem insistent that if you are not with them, then you're against them.

God forbid that anyone criticize the damage to private property some protestors have caused. Do so and a small swarm of occupy hornets will buzz in for the kill, stinging harshly anyone who stands up for the right to own and protect private property. Conversely, God forbid that anyone stand in defense of the rule of law and insist that people have the right to peaceably assemble and that governments have no lawful authority to designate free speech zones, or even "permit" protest. Do so, and a pack of wolves will suddenly pounce upon you and accuse you of being a dirty hippie communist.

Defend the Occupy movement when they deserve defense and only those who have their axes to grind against the movement will notice and attack, the occupiers themselves unconcerned with the person who dared defend their rights, still convinced that person is just a fat cat rich shill. Defend the right to ownership and protection of private property and those who have their axes to grind against the "1%" will notice and attack, the anti-occupiers themselves unconcerned with the person defending the right to property, still convinced that person is just a dirty hippie communist.

Personally, I have felt the sting of this swarm of hornet occupiers, and the razor sharp teeth of the rabid wolves of anti-occupiers both, and the taste it has left in my mouth tastes an awful lot like bitter disgust. It is not that I am above crawling down into the mud and getting scrappy with those I disagree with, I am not, but this big ass mud pie made by both the occupiers and the anti-occupiers is the worst damn pie I've ever had.

I have always held high expectations of humanity, both as a collective and for any individual. Because of this, I refuse to back off of my own official, and un-waveringly so, position. Because of this, there are members in this site who've become profoundly disappointed in me, thinking I've somehow betrayed their heart because I've defended the rights of this so called "1%". Conversely, there are people on the other side of the spectrum who are disappointed in me because I've defended the rights of those who claim to be a part of the "99%", and as it is often with betrayal - a two way street - I feel just as betrayed.

How can you leave me standing? Alone in a world that so cold? (So cold) Maybe I'm just too demanding. Maybe I'm just like my father 2 bold. Maybe I'm just like my mother. She's never satisfied. (She's never satisfied) Why do we scream at each other? This is what it sounds like when doves cry.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

How can you leave me standing? Alone in a world that so cold? (So cold) Maybe I'm just too demanding. Maybe I'm just like my father 2 bold. Maybe I'm just like my mother. She's never satisfied. (She's never satisfied) Why do we scream at each other? This is what it sounds like when doves cry.

I'd like to first say, while I may not agree with everything you say regarding Occupy...I'd never just leave you standing alone. I don't always fully understand what you say and as I will point out in a minute, there's things I will say you are wrong about but something I greatly admire about you is that your opinion comes from YOU and not anyone else. No one could ever accuse you of being a victim of rhetoric.

God forbid that anyone criticize the damage to private property some protestors have caused. Do so and a small swarm of occupy hornets will buzz in for the kill, stinging harshly anyone who stands up for the right to own and protect private property. Conversely, God forbid that anyone stand in defense of the rule of law and insist that people have the right to peaceably assemble and that governments have no lawful authority to designate free speech zones, or even "permit" protest. Do so, and a pack of wolves will suddenly pounce upon you and accuse you of being a dirty hippie communist.

I know you don't agree that Occupy's denouncing of vandalism and Black Block is enough. But it would be nice if there was at least some agreement that Black Block are not Occupiers, they have shown up for years and years at anything perceived as a "left" cause. This is a conspiracy site yet no one questions why that is, they go with the, in my opinion, lazy answer...that Black Block are extreme leftists. Even if they are, they're still not Occupiers, Occupiers do actions based on general consensus of which violence is NEVER condoned or advocated for, therefor by default they are not part of the movement. My sense though? They're cops. That usually ends up being the truth and the assumption of people involved in direct actions...they're cops.

Occupy supports and encourages buying from small business, but how would anyone know that? I or another supporter could do a thread about it, but it would get a few silent flags and stars and no responses thus sink to the bottom of the pile because it's just no fun to read about something that can't be ripped apart.

You're safe from my stinger but I don't promise that to any rhetoric eaters.

reply to post by Kali74


Dearest Kali, I hope you know you've occupied my heart for some time now, and thank you for your response. I have no problem at all in agreeing that Black Bloc has nothing to do with the Occupy movement other than using it as an opportunity to wreak havoc.

Tactics of a black bloc can include offensive measures such as street fighting, vandalism of corporate property, rioting, and demonstrating without a permit, but mainly consists of defensive tactics like misleading the authorities, assisting in the escape of people arrested by the police, administering first aid to persons affected by tear gas, rubber bullets and other riot control measures in areas where protesters are barred from entering, building barricades, and resisting the police. Property destruction carried out by black blocs tends to have symbolic significance: common targets include banks, institutional buildings, outlets for multinational corporations, gasoline stations, and video-surveillance cameras

While you insist that the Occupy movement has denounced vandalism, it is hard to find any official Occupy message at all, let alone an official denouncement of vandalism. Combine that with the "unofficial" website for Occupy Wall Street still leaving up the list of demands, and on that list one of the many demands is to ban private ownership of land, and it tends to give weight to the suspicion that there are more than just outside agitators damaging private property, and helps to explain why that "unofficial" website doesn't seem to have any denouncement of vandalism.

I certainly understand that you can't have a movement hundreds of thousands of people strong and expect them all to be saints, but what my own experience has shown is that many in support of the Occupy movement just flat out dismiss the damage to private property done as being disinformation, and whenever I begin posting links to show evidence of the damage done I am very quickly denounced as a "shill", the evidence itself ignored, and the vitriol flung with vigor.

Some toes are going to get stepped on with this sort of angry protest, and more than just a few toes broken, but this is precisely why those in allegiance with the Occupy movement, in my not so humble opinion, need to step up and apply for genuine sainthood, and do all they can to vociferously and unwaveringly denounce not just vandalism, but those people who think it is clever or cool to simply just pretend the damage is not being caused and instead attack those who are asserting that damage is being caused.

I truly believe you are one who has stepped up, and will continue to do so. Stepping up is a difficult task and always comes with painful consequences, so regardless of where I stand on this whole issue, just know that in your own effort to step up and defend the rule of law, if I ever see you attacked for doing so, like the ghost of Tom Joad, I'll be there.

God forbid that anyone criticize the damage to private property some protestors have caused. Do so and a small swarm of occupy hornets will buzz in for the kill, stinging harshly anyone who stands up for the right to own and protect private property. Conversely, God forbid that anyone stand in defense of the rule of law and insist that people have the right to peaceably assemble and that governments have no lawful authority to designate free speech zones, or even "permit" protest. Do so, and a pack of wolves will suddenly pounce upon you and accuse you of being a dirty hippie communist.

You think you righties have it bad with the Occupiers? Imagine being on the other side of the fence and criticizing them for having not gone nearly far enough in certain directions we probably aren't allowed to talk about by ATS's terms and conditions.You have no idea. Imagine, hypothetically speaking, you were to criticize the Occpiers as a bunch of spineless borgiouse wimps who didn't have the guts to start a REAL revolution? Try crtiticizing them for having too MUCH respect for private property! You think you've had an earful?

It ain't easy being a hardcore Maoist in this day and age, let me just put it that way.

reply to post by Leftist

Imagine, hypothetically speaking, you were to criticize the Occpiers as a bunch of spineless borgiouse wimps who didn't have the guts to start a REAL revolution?

I don't have to imagine it. I posted in the Short Story forum for a current contest here, and while I cannot be exactly sure - even though they say a picture paints a thousand words this picture is fairly ambiguous - it appears as if someone suffered a compulsion to post a picture of a troll, apparently calling my short story effort that of a troll. A short story for Christs sakes!

Edit to Add: It is shamefully narrow minded and ignorant to assume that because a person doesn't buy into left wing politics that this automatically makes them right wing. It is indicative of that "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality found on both sides of the political spectrum.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux



Very well put.

Not every revolution,every regime change,has this glowing outlook. The point of the Arab spring,and its "revolution" has the hallmarks of being the very thing,history has repeated. More murders,more violence.NO real change. Without a clear picture,without REAL leadership,OWS has no chance in doing anything,but waking up those who would use this situation,as a backdrop for total anarchy . What would the United States look like? Maybe OWS will show us.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Edit to Add: It is shamefully narrow minded and ignorant to assume that because a person doesn't buy into left wing politics that this automatically makes them right wing. It is indicative of that "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality found on both sides of the political spectrum.

But every argument I've ever seen you make, including those in these threads, is classic right-libertarian!

If it waks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

reply to post by Leftist


Frankly, the vast majority of arguments I make in this site are in defense of unalienable rights for all people...you know those arguments that bore you so much? You can label that whatever you like, but if you keep going around and pointing to a lion and saying it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, this may be why you find so few taking you all that seriously.

reply to post by sonnny1


Yes sir, leaderless leadership usually comes in the form of dictatorship down the road, and a messageless message has its own disturbing message.

reply to post by Leftist


You are very well suited for mind control
There are other countries that you can enjoy being destitute without hope
Communism is such a worldwide success story.

That will not happen in the US child, guaranteed

en.wikipedia.org...

Text
Maoism, also known as Mao Zedong Thought (simplified Chinese: 毛泽东思想; traditional Chinese: 毛澤東思想; pinyin: Máozédōng sīxiǎng), is a political theory derived from the teachings of the Chinese political leader Mao Zedong (1893–1976). Its followers, known as Maoists, consider it as an anti-Revisionist form of Marxism. Developed during the 1950s and 1960s, it was widely applied as the political and military guiding ideology of the Communist Party of China (CPC). It fell into disfavour in China in 1978, when Deng Xiaoping introduced sweeping reforms.

Maoism is also used to refer to Mao's belief in the mobilization of the masses, particularly in large-scale political movements; it can also refer to the egalitarianism that was seen during Mao's era as opposed to the free-market ideology of Deng Xiaoping; some scholars additionally define personality cults and political sloganeering as "Maoist" practices. Contemporary Maoists in China criticize the social inequalities created by a capitalist and "revisionist" Communist party.

Internationally, Maoist organizations mainly draw upon Mao's ideology of the People's War, mobilizing large parts of rural populations to revolt against established institutions by engaging in guerrilla warfare. Notable Maoist organizations and armed groups currently exist in several countries, most notably the Shining Path in Peru, the Naxalites in India, and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist); the latter of which is the only current Maoist party holding power through a democratic process.[1]

Originally posted by Leftist

God forbid that anyone criticize the damage to private property some protestors have caused. Do so and a small swarm of occupy hornets will buzz in for the kill, stinging harshly anyone who stands up for the right to own and protect private property. Conversely, God forbid that anyone stand in defense of the rule of law and insist that people have the right to peaceably assemble and that governments have no lawful authority to designate free speech zones, or even "permit" protest. Do so, and a pack of wolves will suddenly pounce upon you and accuse you of being a dirty hippie communist.

You think you righties have it bad with the Occupiers? Imagine being on the other side of the fence and criticizing them for having not gone nearly far enough in certain directions we probably aren't allowed to talk about by ATS's terms and conditions.You have no idea. Imagine, hypothetically speaking, you were to criticize the Occpiers as a bunch of spineless borgiouse wimps who didn't have the guts to start a REAL revolution? Try crtiticizing them for having too MUCH respect for private property! You think you've had an earful?

It ain't easy being a hardcore Maoist in this day and age, let me just put it that way.

edit on 5/4/2012 by Leftist because: (no reason given)

The "picture" the world sees of Communism is this......




regardless of those who want to paint it like this........




You can paint the picture ANYWAY you want to,but history,and its victims voices are still heard.

reply to post by sonnny1


Wait 'till you see what long-term history makes of Capitalism's crimes!

The numbers are already in the hundreds-of-millions and will easyl reach the BILLIONS when the dust settles, dwarfing the numbers attributed (in many cases falsely) to Communism.

Originally posted by Leftist
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Wait 'till you see what long-term history makes of Capitalism's crimes!

The numbers are already in the hundreds-of-millions and will easyl reach the BILLIONS when the dust settles, dwarfing the numbers attributed (in many cases falsely) to Communism.

If you declare that all property is theft, then naturally any property owner (even those who are anti-capitalist including the corporatist's) becomes a criminal under your view. Hell, why not make declare breathing a crime and then you claim BILLIONS of crimes committed now, instead of later.

I suppose you like to point to the corporations and say: "If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck..." too.

Originally posted by Leftist

God forbid that anyone criticize the damage to private property some protestors have caused. Do so and a small swarm of occupy hornets will buzz in for the kill, stinging harshly anyone who stands up for the right to own and protect private property. Conversely, God forbid that anyone stand in defense of the rule of law and insist that people have the right to peaceably assemble and that governments have no lawful authority to designate free speech zones, or even "permit" protest. Do so, and a pack of wolves will suddenly pounce upon you and accuse you of being a dirty hippie communist.

You think you righties have it bad with the Occupiers? Imagine being on the other side of the fence and criticizing them for having not gone nearly far enough in certain directions we probably aren't allowed to talk about by ATS's terms and conditions.You have no idea. Imagine, hypothetically speaking, you were to criticize the Occpiers as a bunch of spineless borgiouse wimps who didn't have the guts to start a REAL revolution? Try crtiticizing them for having too MUCH respect for private property! You think you've had an earful?

It ain't easy being a hardcore Maoist in this day and age, let me just put it that way.

edit on 5/4/2012 by Leftist because: (no reason given)

Join the Maoist revolution
Fight for the government’s right to tell you where to live
Fight for the government’s right to tell you how to dress
Fight for the government’s right to tell you what to say
Fight for the government’s right to tell you how much food you can have
Fight for the government’s right to tell you how many children you can have
Fight for the government’s right to tell you to be atheist
Fight for the government’s right to tell you everything because the government knows you can’t think for yourself

Fight for your right to become a mindless zombie

Originally posted by Leftist
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Wait 'till you see what long-term history makes of Capitalism's crimes!

The numbers are already in the hundreds-of-millions and will easyl reach the BILLIONS when the dust settles, dwarfing the numbers attributed (in many cases falsely) to Communism.

Change doesn't need to come,if we are going to go down the road of Comparable genocide,in the names of some ism. I don't want to derail JPZ's thread,but suffice to say,without true leadership,that doesn't impose tyranny on the masses,OWS or even Communism will NEVER work. Capitalism is a giant fault also. The rules need to be fixed,by "we the people".

What's happening in Egypt now is a far cry from what the people are trying to achieve. However, I don't recall ever hearing that they gave up or are declaring their revolution over. It's been less than 2 years since the Arab Spring began, that is a very short amount of time for the scale we are talking.

The Occupy Movement in America began 7 months ago, again a very short amount of time to achieve a lot.

Globally, revolution is in it's infancy. It's far too soon to judge it's conclusion.

reply to post by Kali74


Globally revolution has been inexistence since there has been rule of law. Vandalism is not revolution. The government will like you chant and does the mindless zombie dance all day long. Occupy accomplishes nothing.

This is just my opinion. but, it seems to me that Egypt's "spring revolution" will not bring forth a new liberal Egypt. The liberal element of the protest was actually quite small compared to the popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood and the more hard line Islamists.

While the media was giving attention to the liberal protesters full of young optimistic men and women ( Women in particular)

Groups like the Muslim Brother hood were working away in the poor communities on the ground in the villages. While the protesters were tweeting about the revolution and trying to raise money online for the poor. The religious groups were providing food for the poor.

Now the new government in Egypt is likely to be more extreme than the last , especially for the women who played such a prominent part in the "revolution".

Maybe there are lessons to be learnt. The Revolutionaries are not always the ones that take the reigns of power.

Maybe occupy with it's mass of numbers would be better off working in the poor communities gaining support from people who are being hit hardest by the financial collapse. The elderly, the homeless the disabled etc. Maybe the numbers of Occupy would be better spending their time helping these people and the wider community, at the same time highlighting the injustices they come across.

Surely that would be a better way than just protesting. It might actually give occupiers a sense of something more tangible

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
God forbid that anyone criticize the damage to private property some protestors have caused.

This is my main issue with the Occupy movement; the disregard for private property and the mindset of many that it is somehow acceptable to vandalize other's property in persuance of their 'cause'. One of the most valuable tenets that the United States was founded on was the guarantee of indivdual property rights and the codification of laws and statutes to protect the same.