Occupy Movement Has Become That in Which They Despise

The Occupy movement has become a rebel without a cause. No longer is the movement focused on their perceived economic injustice from which the movement supposedly was concieved. But a large group even here on ATS have openly called the police or NYPD more specifically the enemy. There cause no longer about economic justice, it is now wether or not they can occupy Zuccotti park at all hours of the night, or shut down the port of Oakland.

They no longer fall on the side of the US Constitution, instead they have declared those who have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution an enemy. However when it comes down to it, they declare that they are upholding their constitutional rights.

Occupy, before another season of this continues. Let's get something straight and clear, not for me but for your own heads and conscience as I have never wanted anything to do with your movement nor will I ever want anything to do with your movement. I have read between the lines and from day one I knew it was a lost cause.

So Occupy, is it the constitution that you wish to uphold or is the constitution your sworn enemy?

Let's be real clear about this here and now before another season of this insanity continues. If your movement follows the path it is on, the movement will be viewed as enemies of the constitution and therefore a threat. Am I being as clear as a glass window?

Now that we got that out of the way, here are a few tips to stay within your constitutional rights.

1. You have a right to peaceably assemble. Peaceably assembling does not include occupying a piece of property for undetermined amount of time without retaining a permit. Peaceable assembly does not include shutting down the port of Oakland.

(example, you can not occupy my house, it is private property and if you trespass on my property or threaten me I have every right to defend myself. This goes for every other person, or persons property you may encounter)

2. Not only do you have the right to peaceable assembly, there is the additional option to hire police to provide security for your city permit zone during your demonstrations. Yes, those evil cops will even protect you if you approach the situation in the right manner.

3. You do not have a right to disrupt commerce or business.

(If you do you are only hurting the ones you claim to care about and believe it or not, business owners and even police have families and loved ones who care for and care about them. They may as well be facing the same perceived economic injustices as you for all you know.)

Last but not least, if you are not enemies of the US Constitution the police are your friends, so treat them that way.

This should separate the men from the boys and by boys I mean self entitled brats.

How does standing up and using your free speech go against the constitution? The "police" have been labeled "the enemy" because they use force on a crowd that doesn't fight back. Don't you remember? I will agree a little bit though. Both "sides" seem to have a poor understanding of the US Constitution.

reply to post by FreedomXisntXFree


Well I never really said anything about free speech, but I think that should be upheld either way. I was more less hitting on unlawful forms of protest, yes they do exist.

Yes it is a two way street and thats the divide and conquer tactic working efficiently. Which was my point. When this movement started, it had nothing to do with cops. Now the focus of the movement has shifted into petty squabbles.

And while in some cases cops do get out of line, I think that so far they have done a good job. I am not a cop, but if I am getting assaulted by a protestor you better believe I'm gonna fight back and I think that is some of what we have seen in the occupy movement. Protestors will antagonize and provoke a situation, even go as far as assaulting a police officer and then cry police brutality when they are promptly put on the ground and cuffed as they should be.

reply to post by FreedomXisntXFree


On a side note, the police are heavily unionized just as many of the protestors there who were there with there union groups, so there is a competing ideology even among the police.

Yeah but there are a lot of vids from the occupy movement where the cops just come in, are the aggressors, brutally attack people, then get off scott-free. The biggest problem with the "movement" so far have been police aggressors. If you can't see that yet you aint really looking

reply to post by thehoneycomb


There should not be certain times of day and certain places that you are 'allowed' to protest. When the people are upset over some BS going on there should be no need to go ask for permission to voice the issues. Another thing that bothered me was all the cities complaining about how much money the protests were costing because they had to pay more police. The police don't need to be there, it was never a riot, it was peaceful gatherings, some even with their own libraries....sounds threatening enough for police in riot gear huh?

reply to post by eazyriderl_l


I watched many of the feeds. I did not see anything done that was unlawful by the police. I remember one incident that happened in Boston where it appeared the cops were in the wrong, but as it turned out the protestors had no permit and were in violation of curfew. The police served them with a eviction notice and when that was ignored they moved in.

Zuccotti Park was a different situation though as it was a privately owned public park, not a public city park.

reply to post by SGTSECRET


I agree there should be places to protest and there are. Even without a permit. Don't obtain a permit however and you have to play by the cities rules. To which many city officials have even turned a blind eye, either due to their own ignorance or fear of being seen by the ignorant masses as violating the constitution.

As for the police not needing to be there, there has been murder, rapes, drugs, vandalization and destruction of property, public defacation, public sex, assault and disrupting commerce so yeah you missed the mark there but it did cost the city money which is also counterproductive to their cause. Good for the police who got overtime though I guess.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


apply to the city to get the permit= play by their rules, dont get a permit, play by their violent rules. ALL legal protest is useless; hence the reason it is still legal, anything that could promote a real change is illegal.

"never forget that everything hitler did in germany was legal" MLKjr.

reply to post by eazyriderl_l


That tells me two things. You believe so much that you are in the right, that you are willing to inflict your views on others in the community that are just trying to live and put food on the tables. You get in the way of trade and commerce, that itself is an economic injustice, hence the title of my thread. You are not hurting the ones pulling the strings who are watching it unfold on TV and laughing at you, you are playing right into their hands.

Second, violent revolution will be met with violent opposition. The only thing this could bring would be a civil war and you would then be on the losing end. That I can pretty much guarantee. Furthermore, if you are willing to take out your angers and frustrations on other members in your community then it is only a matter of time before the Occupiers start turning on each other. Which tells me that your cause has already been lost.

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
Now that we got that out of the way, here are a few tips to stay within your constitutional rights.

1. You have a right to peaceably assemble. Peaceably assembling does not include occupying a piece of property for undetermined amount of time without retaining a permit. Peaceable assembly does not include shutting down the port of Oakland.

The right to defy an unconstitutional statute is basic in our scheme. Even when an ordinance requires a permit to make a speech, to deliver a sermon, to picket, to parade, or to assemble, it need not be honored when it's invalid on its face. – Potter Stewart, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Walker v. Birmingham

I cannot assent to the view, if it be meant that the legislature may impair or abridge the rights of a free press and of free speech whenever it thinks that the public welfare requires that it be done. The public welfare cannot override constitutional privilege. -U.S. Supreme Court, Patterson v. Chicago

reply to post by METACOMET


I can't say that I always agree with supreme court rulings, but for arguments sake could you please link your external content?

reply to post by thehoneycomb


Laughable as always.
You bring up a couple old points, rehash your same talking points you have parroted in every Occupy thread since it started. In this you say occupy has deemed the people "sworn to uphold the constitution" the enemy. I would love to know who that is.

Of course Occupy supports the constitution. The whole concept of Occupy is the constitution in action.
Bring something new to the table. You keep talking I will continue to enjoy watching and being a part of something important. You are no different than the people that frowned and nay-saying the human and women rights movements.

I agree with the statement that Occupy are excessively unfocused. Unfortunately, that has always been the case.

I also agree with the idea that in general terms, an adversarial relationship between civilians and police is not in anyone's best interests, on either side. I've seen a lot of comments on YouTube videos and such about shooting police, and I don't condone any of them.

I do understand from personal experience, that sometimes when watching footage of police brutality, it can be very difficult to refrain from becoming angry; but that still does not mean that I condone murdering them at all. Apart from anything else, it is strategically futile. The police are not the real source of the problem.

With those statements made, however, I also cannot understand how anyone can really view the NYPD's recent response to Occupy, as having been in any way justifiable, particularly in terms of the level of force employed. If people want to advocate Occupy's removal on the grounds that they create a public nuisance, then that is fine; but I do not believe that protestors need to be hospitalised as part of the process of removing them.

I would also strongly encourage anyone watching Occupy related incidents, to refrain from associating too much credibility to official claims of sanitation problems, without doing sufficient research into that subject. As a recent spokesman for the group mentioned, I have repeatedly observed that in most cases, the sanitation issue has been nothing more than pretext and an excuse for the removal of protestors; and not one which I truthfully consider credible. I saw the degree of effort that OWS went to as far as cleaning was concerned, after the sanitation excuse was first used. I would personally consider public nuisance claims on the grounds of obstruction and noise pollution to be far more believable justifications.

I would also like to encourage thehoneycomb to do research on the amount of new legislation that has been put before Congress recently, concerning the outlawing of literally any form of protest in areas which the government deems "restricted," including public areas. The American government literally is trying to destroy the right to freedom of assembly entirely. My recent exchanges with thehoneycomb (as well as his post here) have implied that his main objection to Occupy, is an increase in totalitarianism as somehow being a result of their activities, rather than him simply condoning that their right to assembly be removed entirely; so I'm confident that he will be as disturbed by the introduction of such legislation as I myself have been.

Police believing that they have a need to remove protestors on the grounds of protecting legitimate public interest, and doing so without violence, is not something I object to. The invention of exceptionally flimsy pretexts, on the other hand, and these pretexts then being used to justify blatant sadism, is a different matter entirely.

Police are supposed to be trained in the use of effective takedown methods which do not involve excessive injury to the subject; and if they are not trained in said methods, they should be. I should be seeing an emphasis on putting protestors on the ground in a precise and restrained manner, said protestors being handcuffed, and then said protestors being immediately removed from the area for booking.

That is not what I am seeing. I'm seeing police wrestling with protestors; I'm seeing protestors being driven to the ground and subdued by multiple officers, and not non-violently; and I am also seeing and hearing about protestors suffering severe cranial injuries and being sent into convulsions, as a result of injuries caused by the police.

What the police apparently do not understand is that this is a situation in which violence is going to be inherently self-defeating, for both sides concerned. The police are only going to end up doing serious, long term harm to their credibility with the public, as a result of engaging in brutality of this magnitude. Occupy are largely non-violent in my observation, and that is because I think they understand that the real prize here, for both sides, is the moral high ground in the eyes of the people watching.

The police are not winning the moral conflict here; and even if Occupy had no other goals, and served no other objectives, the amount of damage that they are going to do to the credibility of the police, as a result of the police's own actions, would be formidable enough by itself.

reply to post by petrus4


I gave you a star for the very thoughtful post. If everyone was as thoughtful as you, there might be a pretty decent movement. Unfortunately that is not always the case. Same goes for those that have taken an oath to serve and protect. Sometimes the actions of a rotten few, negatively affect the many.

The oath keepers organization have made up some business cards, they might be useful if you come across any LEO, military or otherwise that does not appear to be upholding their oath, hand them one of these cards. Remind them of their oath and their promise. There are many oath keepers in military and law enforcement positions.

oathkeepers.org...

Officers Oath
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by petrus4

 

I gave you a star for the very thoughtful post. If everyone was as thoughtful as you, there might be a pretty decent movement.

Thanks, thehoneycomb. To the extent that I do, (and I'm not going to necessarily claim to 100% of the time) I support Occupy because I believe that the American government are engaged in some genuinely terrifying actions at the moment; actions which seriously threaten the wellbeing of people all over the planet. As a result of this, I feel that the best interests of the public need to be re-asserted.

At the same time, there needs to be restraint and measured action on both sides. I think the degree of emotionalism we're seeing all round is potentially extremely dangerous. At least certain elements of the American population appear to be in a literally pre-revolutionary state at the moment. While there does need to be a major democratic and libertarian revival, there also needs to be a very careful handling of said emotions in order to avoid large scale loss of life on both sides, or any incident which the government could use as pretext for still more fascist behaviour.

I also have a serious concern with Occupy, which I have expressed several times, that the group is excessively Marxist in inclination to a large extent, and that said Marxist sympathies could seriously jeopardise the legitimate restoration of the Jeffersonian Republic. Occupy are not generally patriots, in my observation; they are advocates of the socialist Internationale. I am not an advocate of world federalism; in fact, I conversely feel that it should be fought to the death, and as a result, I feel that the calls for "solidarity," in international terms, are more dangerous than many perhaps realise.

If there is one thing which the Left are exceptionally good at, it is leading people towards lethally dangerous ideas exclusively via the avenue of tearful, hysterical emotion, (with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights being an excellent example) because of a covert awareness that said ideas would be resoundingly rejected if dispassionate critical thinking were to be employed with them instead.

reply to post by petrus4


Agreed.

For an occupy supporter you seem to be one of the most rational I have come across. Yes there is a problem with our federal government and it is deeply rooted. The so called greedy capitalists or TPTB as some people like to call them have gained wealth through our capitalist system, but are actually devout socialists. Rockefeller is one name that always comes to mind. Make no mistake that family has always been serving to that agenda. Rothschild was another. Some of the corrupt bankers that occupy opposed were foreign nationals, non-americans working in the banking industry and donated large sums of money to the Obama campaign and democratic party. There is an element of marxist/socialists/communists that make up a good chunk of the occupy movement and yes it is very dangerous.

That said I think some of the movement is also deeply disturbed and does not recognize the root of their frustrations. I am frustrated with the current system, all so much as you probably are.

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
For an occupy supporter you seem to be one of the most rational I have come across.

I obtained a mask a few years ago, but it doesn't get worn very often.

Astrologically, Pluto is my own most heavily aspected planet, natally. Anarchy is a fairly fundamental element of my personality; but as one grows older, there is a tendency to realise that, perhaps paradoxically, entropy still needs to be regulated and channelled in certain ways. The human body itself is a form, which means that a state of pure chaos cannot be maintained for very long, if we wish to continue to live. So it becomes less about jagged edges, and more about realising that, even though the constant reconfiguration of the generic matter of the universe is still vitally important, utilising certain structures is not necessarily a cardinal sin, as long as we do not remain attached to them beyond such time as is appropriate.

The other problem, which many of course do not realise, is the extent to which the human desire for liberty can actually be used against itself. In order to fully realise that, a knowledge of history helps; particularly one from less mainstream sources. I look forward to the time when the political Left become aware of the trick that has been played on them, where Marx was concerned. The Millenials are valuable, but as I have said before, their naivete can cause problems.

Of course, the intentions behind the manner in which they were introduced to Marx' philosophy, could also be argued as beside the point. It's a staple of chaos magick that we can, if we figure out how, often use things to our own advantage, by subverting them to fill an entirely different role to that for which they were originally intended. The cabal do it to us themselves all the time; and it is a game which more than one side can play.

That said I think some of the movement is also deeply disturbed and does not recognize the root of their frustrations. I am frustrated with the current system, all so much as you probably are.

The cabal's central modus operandi, is actually to continually use a very fixed system. What they change, often rapidly, are the names, and the number of masks that it hides behind. Capitalism and Communism were both devised by them, and in reality are both opposite poles along the same axis. Because of that, they are able to variably and mutably shift back and forth along said axis to whatever degree they please. They will present whichever position along that line to us, which they think has the most chance of keeping us distracted at the present time, while also maintaining whichever position will bring them maximum advantage; and they can just as easily completely reverse the two.

So the end result is that for us, the bag is always empty, but for them, it is always full; and this is not an element of Marxism, but is simply what happens. What Marx did not express, however, (and what Occupy, being his spiritual children, have also not yet learned) is that the only real reason behind that, is our own willingness to continue to play the game. We can walk away and begin doing our own thing at any time; and that is the single greatest secret, and the one which the cabal will devote the greatest amount of their effort, to preventing the discovery of.

While I do believe there are many things worth protesting in the US, I feel the Occupy movement his missed the mark. When I see the protesters I see them as 'lost sheep' who are being herded by those with less than pure intentions.

The one thing that the Occupiers have been doing that gets strikes a nerve with me is trashing the places the protest at. I am an outdoor man, I respect my environment and want to preserve as much as possible for the next generation. These people have no respect for the land they are protesting on and the amount of trash they leave behind is inexcusable.

Protesting peacefully is protected by the Bill of Rights, trashing the land you are protesting on is not.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say we need a permit to peaceably assemble for redress of grievances. Also even of a cop is punched in the face he doesnt have the right to crack the punchers ribs and leave her there to her seizures without medical help. Getting hit doesnt give a cop the right to smash a protestors face into a window. for the most part we are a peaceful group. Dont get me wrong if a cop swings at me im swinging ba8k but id never throw the first punch. There are problems within the movement but as someone who openly declares they have no affiliation with occupy and neber will youre not reallywell informed enough to speak to those issues