Thursday, December 22, 2011

Grab your bags. We're jumping off the train.

Song for this post: "Oppression" ~ Ben Harper

Taken from the Capitol Hill Seattle Blog:

The Occupy Seattle effort has shifted to meeting for its general assembly at the Washington Convention Center. In Tuesday night's session, a long debate ended in the group rejecting a motion to "commit to using methods of non-violent civil disobedience at all of our demonstrations and define violence as 'unprovoked physical aggression,'" according to minutes published at
"Society is an act of unprovoked violence," one speaker is quoted as saying in opposition to the proposal. "Revolutionary violence we're seeing across the world would be considered nonviolence. We're hung up on the word. To invoke the letter from Cairo: wish not to use violence, but wish not to lose.
Correct me if I'm wrong, because this language is a little confusing. But, if I'm reading it right, Occupiers are basically graying the line of what's "violent" and "non-violent" demonstrations.  So they can graffiti our local businesses, destroy private property, cost blue collar workers $2 million dollars in lost wages, and are now, in no uncertain terms, okay with violence in protesting? Shed a little light on this, Dustin?

Will someone from Occupy Wallstreet please head over to Seattle and tell these little baby anarchists to head home? They're fucking up the vision.

Seriously, though... I understand how, in fighting for a right or a belief, you can start to become so invested and, sometimes, desperate. This is where the idea that "the end justifies the means" can come in to play. And that's what's happening here. "Wish not to use violence but wish not to lose." So, they hope for peaceful change but, if it comes to violence, than it's justified for the sake of change.

There was another dude who believed the end justified the means who affected large scale change on a global level. In fact, he single handedly redefined the Macchiavellian term and put it on the map forever.

His name was Adolf Hitler.



  1. I would simply call it "shooting themselves in the foot." But it seems like their movement is trying to branch out and include literally everyone who wants to be a part of Occupy Seattle, which means including the anarchist groups as well. I think you and I both know this is a huge mistake on their part; the concept of revolutionary violence has eroded every independence movement in modern history. It's the number one reason why most of these groups have virtually no credibility in the eyes of the world at large. What do the IRA, the Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, the Chechen rebels, FARC, and Abu Sayyf all have in common? All of them claim to be freedom fighters... and all of them are considered terrorists.

  2. Thanks for the insight Dustin. I completely, wholeheartedly agree with your viewpoint. I'm glad to see, as well, that we interpreted their vague jargon similarly.

    It's a shame, really. The west coast needs Occupy representatives who will keep us connected to what's going on elsewhere. The deterioration of the movement here just continues to make everyone feel more and more disenchanted with them. :/ It's pretty sad to watch what could have been something revolutionary turn into an obnoxious failure.

  3. Also, I really LOVE that you parallel FARC here. I think it's so important to look at similar situations and their outcomes. FARC bares a remarkable resemblance to our own Occupy movement and it's turned into an armed conflict. I am both fearful and saddened at the thought of the Occupy movement creating the equivalent of a civil war.