May 2, 2012 -- 8:45AM, catboxer wrote:

 

My advice to the 50 or so people who split off from the main demonstration yesterday to break stuff is to control your vessel. It may feel good to resort to violence, and of course Bank of America has it coming.

I'd be in favor of it too, if I thought it would do any good.

Still, protests like that must have a certain amount of 'ominousness' to them.  The threat, at least, of violence must always be there.  Splitting off a small, distinct (and ultimately deniable--in case the violence gets out of hand) group seems like a good tactic--as was the Cincinatti OWS decision to cancel their protest because of the link to the bridge bombing team.

In the end, discipline is of utmost importance--whether there is violence or not--not just to avoid bad press, but because a disciplined protest is the most fearsome.

May 2, 2012 -- 1:24PM, amcolph wrote:

May 2, 2012 -- 8:45AM, catboxer wrote:

 

My advice to the 50 or so people who split off from the main demonstration yesterday to break stuff is to control your vessel. It may feel good to resort to violence, and of course Bank of America has it coming.

I'd be in favor of it too, if I thought it would do any good.

Still, protests like that must have a certain amount of 'ominousness' to them.  The threat, at least, of violence must always be there.  Splitting off a small, distinct (and ultimately deniable--in case the violence gets out of hand) group seems like a good tactic--as was the Cincinatti OWS decision to cancel their protest because of the link to the bridge bombing team.

In the end, discipline is of utmost importance--whether there is violence or not--not just to avoid bad press, but because a disciplined protest is the most fearsome.

I disagree. MLK Jr's movement got much more done than the Black Panthers and part of that was because MLK used force in the sense that he had a large number of supporters, but he didn't use violence and he condemned violence as a tactic. Black Panthers used violence and it cost them their credibility.

May 2, 2012 -- 2:43PM, amcolph wrote:

No doubt you two are entirely correct that nonviolence is by far the best way, but you don't want  your adversaries to be too certain of what might happen down the road if they continue to ignore you. 

In the present circumstances sending the message that "a lot of people don't like what you are doing, maybe you'd better stop" isn't going to be nearly enough.

The only problem I see with your view AM .. is one has to ask: Who is the Demonstration really for??

Do you think the Demonstration is for Wall Streeters??  Do you think the Demonstrations are for Government Officials?? ..... OR .... is the Demonstration for the PUBLIC as an effort to garner mainstream support for ideas??.. thus pressure politicians to make changes?

I'd say .. protests are for the latter!  You want the PUBLIC to view your organization as a reputable group with reputable ideas.  I don't recall reading story after story about the Tea Party vandalizing places, starting trouble, raping women, destroying property.  While some still oppose the Tea Party Ideas, they can't do so on the basis that they as a group are not primarily upstanding, peaceful people.

Can't say that about some of the "visual" groups of the OWS crowd.  I know there are plenty of reputable peace loving folk .... the problem, is their platform and ideas are of the kind that attract the schaff of the society, who just hate the rich, and think they are owed their pound of flesh.

May 2, 2012 -- 9:06PM, Father_Oblivion wrote:

Friends of mine present at the Seattle protest claim those "dressed in black" who were causing trouble were wearing new clothes, not a sign of the typical 'Black Bloc' who are usually behind the damage. They (Black Bloc) don't buy new clothes just so they can be destroyed by paint or be discarded because of being soaked with pepper spray, that would be expensive. These people don't have money to spend on new clothes to be worn once and discarded. They use old clothes or buy them at thrift stores.

This sounds like agent provocateurs at work.

"Friends of mine claim" is proof of agent provocateurs?

Or an attempt to shed blame for their own violence?

As far as what Occupy's message is that many claimed they did not knoweven though they could have looked at the protest signs to find out, I think these people did know but just wanted to belly ache that they didn't understand. well here is a real pie chart for you