This Is What A Police State Looks Like (Redux)

By now, it should be clear that the Authorities have been busy during the Occupy semi-hiatus over the winter. Oh yes. Oh. My. Yes.

The other day, the Oakland City Attorney sued one of the local Occupy activists for vandalism for acts he is alleged to have committed in Oakland on the night of General Strike Day, November 2. Cesar is one of the gentlest and most generous people I know. He says that on that night, he was not committing vandalism in Oakland at all. He was trying to protect himself from police munitions fire by "liberating" a piece of plywood covering a window to use as a shield. Cesar was arrested that night for vandalism and failure to disperse, but he has not been charged criminally. The video evidence the city says they will produce more than likely is ambiguous about what actually happened, but it's obvious the City of Oakland is using this case as a weapon to keep "outside agitators" out of Oakland. Message: if people from elsewhere show up in Oakland and something happens, the outsiders will be charged for damages. Sort of like the Hotel Tax, I guess.

Not content with merely charging outsiders for damages, the Alameda County District Attorney has filed criminal charges against a number of UC Berkeley students and one professor for their participation in the iconic protest demonstrations at Sproul Hall on November 9, 2011. It's worse than the Daily Cal reported above. Nancy O'Malley -- the now notorious Alameda County DA -- has charged a total of ten students who participated in the protest at Sproul Hall, some of them charged after the UCPD gained access to their records at the University medical center where they went for treatment of the injuries sustained when they were beaten by police. Only two or three of those charged by the DA were arrested that day. One of them was Celeste Langan who is seen dressed in purple, at the extreme left of the video at the beginning, "resisting" arrest.



http://youtu.be/kNHXuf6qJas

Cute. Her arraignment is scheduled for tomorrow, I believe. Should be quite a show.

These are links to raw footage of some of what was going on that day at UC Berkeley.

http://youtu.be/NSat-nRefXY (Langan is seen in this video, the second person thrown to the ground and trussed up by police at about 3:40; at the end of this video, she is shown being hoisted up and starts to be led away)

http://youtu.be/cEcqsLyX-vI (In this video, which shows nonsequential events, Langan appears at about 2:17 being led away. The determination of the students in the face of what was seen at that time to be outrageous police violence is impressive.)

http://youtu.be/SN7WOsvepUg (This video is sort of the Highlight Reel; early on a female likely Cal student is heard repeating "You're hurting him!" while a protester is being beaten nearby. She is then heard saying to someone "That's how we train them to fucking stop us. We pay for them to fucking hurt us." Which is absolutely true. The UC police and the Alameda County Deputies were actually training not far from this very site a month or so before -- I've read it was with Israeli trainers -- to conduct this kind of action. Celeste Langan is shown in complete shock being led away in flexicuffs at about 3:20.)

The picture used in the article about Israelification of Occupy suppression is of course of the UC Davis pepper spray incident that happened a week after the Cal police riot. After numerous delays, an official report on the incident was supposed to be released on March 6, but the UC Davis police officers union sued to prevent it and got a TRO which is currently in effect. They claim that release of the report will compromise the rights of officers who might be named therein. This matter is also supposed to be heard in court tomorrow.

The NYPD is notorious for spying on various suspect groups including Muslims and Occupy Wall Street, but now, according to In These Times, they've gone further than usual by arresting people for "thought crimes" or "pre-crimes." This practice was more-or-less institutionalized during the RNC convention in St. Paul in 2008 prior to which and during which dozens of arrests were made and property was seized of people who were suspected of making preparations to protest. There is apparently a grand jury empaneled in Chicago that has been trying to develop terrorism charges against some of those who were arrested in Minneapolis and St. Paul four years ago, but many of those subpoenaed have refused to cooperate.

This is a compilation video of some of what was going on in Minneapolis/St. Paul prior to and during the Republican convention.



Notice anything? The exact tactics have been used and are being used against Occupy. At the time, in 2008, what was going on in Minneapolis/St. Paul was seen as way over the top. The rallies and marches and protests during the convention were peaceful, even routine in the context, yet the police were on some kind of hair-trigger/steroid alert against the protesters constantly -- even before the convention, and they have stayed that way afterwards -- and they behaved with what was at that time shocking brutality and over kill. People were being kettled and arrested en masse -- whether or not they had anything to do with protesting -- hundreds were held for days, they were not allowed any sort of contact with the outside, nor did were they allowed medical attention for injuries or other conditions; people were arrested for doing nothing at all, but merely because they had been identified as "potential" protesters. Flash bangs and tear gas were liberally employed against nonviolent protests. Police brutality was commonplace. It was a war zone in which only one side -- the police -- was fighting. The protests were nonviolent. The police, however, employed what were at that time considered extreme levels of violence against them.

And it's going on in much the same way against Occupy.

What gives?

The political conventions are what's called National Special Security Events, during which, essentially, the Constitution is suspended. During National Special Security Events, a form of martial law can be and often is imposed; violent and otherwise unethical or illegal means are typically used to suppress protest. While I've written about National Special Security Events and the nature of policing during them, I'm not at all sure that many Americans actually understand what is going on.

More likely, they see the suppression and assume it is due to something the protesters have done, which is simply not the case. The suppression tactics and the "threat display" aspects of officials are policy during these events. The policy doesn't change based on what the protesters do or don't do. The policy is to suppress, to prevent, and to tightly control the public -- no matter what they do.

Since the October 25 assault on Occupy Oakland, it's looked more and more like the Occupy Movement has been categorized as something that requires NSSE-type suppression. The clue came much earlier, however, when fully armored up riot squads were deployed night after night against a handful of local protesters who were peacefully engaged in civil disobedience. Night after night after night, dozens of riot cops (sometimes up to 70 or 80), squad cars, paddy wagons and so forth were dispatched to round up ten or two or, on one occasion, one protester sitting on the sidewalk refusing to "disperse" at plaza "closing time." It was an absurd goon show that became a joke. But not a funny one. Eventually, even the police recognized how foolish they looked in their little riot get-ups and their ridiculously over produced arrest-theater, and scaled back their overkill, and when the hundreds of thousands of dollars it was costing was released, they stopped doing it altogether. The DA refused to prosecute, and in the end, all the charges against demonstrators were dropped, although there has been an attempt to assess "fees" against those who were arrested multiple times (typically around $300).

As someone pointed out, had the police used their discretion and not engaged in this nonsense to begin with, there wouldn't have been any costs to the city at all. Duh. But no. Civil disobedience must be suppressed. Violently in too many cases.

But even when there isn't police violence during Occupy suppression actions, the official intent is to intimidate and disable. For example:

Occupy Miami raided by SWAT teams (VIDEO) (h/t teri49 in comments)

Objectively, this is just insane. The official fear level about the Occupy movement -- and apparently any other civil disobedience -- has reached a fever pitch. The fact that people are so pissed off and no longer fear saying so seems to have hit a raw nerve among the ruling classes and their enforcers.

Bones are thrown to the masses from time to time, but it doesn't stop the protest and actions. Suppression doesn't stop it; in fact, action seems to be on an increasing curve as more and more activists pick up on the Occupy movement's strategies.

This is not going away, despite the institutionalization of the Police State -- which looks to be full-time and permanent now. The ruling class and its bought and paid for government and enforcers are in a pre-panic state. They do not know how to suppress it, and they don't know how to fully control it. But they don't want to actually listen the voices of the People and do the right thing, either. They still don't think they have to. After all, they have NDAA and HR 347.

We got nothin', right?

We'll see about that.

This Is What A Police State Looks Like -- with UPDATE

from: zunguzungu

This incident occurred after the rally at the Capitol on Monday, after I left briefly and I had no idea it had taken place. I witnessed a confrontation with these people and the police across the street from the Capitol grounds as the marchers were assembling at the West Steps in the morning, and I saw a number of confrontations between these people and the police during the day. I didn't realize that this incident took place after the rally. What happened on the Capitol grounds as documented in the video above is much more disturbing than what I saw taking place earlier.

I'm familiar with the behavior of the Capitol Detail of the California Highway Patrol since I have been at -- probably -- more than a hundred demonstrations at the Capitol and have dealt directly with the CHP there many times. Generally speaking, they are polite but firm. There are Rules, you see, and they are there to Enforce the Rules. But what I'm seeing in this video is nothing like their usual behavior. They did not, for example, ordinarily use horse police to intimidate and force people off the grounds. They do require competing demonstrations to keep their distance from one another, and generally will not allow members of competing demonstrations on the grounds without a permit during their rival's demonstration. Ordinarily when they enforce that rule, they do it with a good deal of consideration and respect.

But here we have a case of people who came from Oakland, members of the Oakland Commune - Occupy Oakland, in support of the March in March Occupy the Capitol march and rally, not in opposition or in competition with it. Their point of view about the reasons for state cutbacks in education funding -- ie: in order to ensure prison funding is not cut or can even increase -- is spot on. This is something no one else who spoke at the rally even touched on. But everyone knows it's true. It's obvious as sin.

What's wrong in this incident is that people who were there in support of the March in March/Occupy the Capitol were forced off the grounds several times during the day, and it was done in this instance contrary to the way it would ordinarily have been done had these people been trying to conduct a competing demonstration. ("Demonstrating without a permit" is against one of those Rules the CHP Capitol Detail enforces.)

The male rider who comes in to the scene and tells the people from Oakland to get out is (I believe) the same officer -- from Chico police dept, not from CHP -- who used his horse to intimidate people (including me) who were trying to document the detention and questioning of the fellow dressed in black and carrying an iconic Oakland Move In Day shield who was pulled out of the march almost a block from the Capitol. The female rider may also be from another agency, though I wasn't certain. She was with the male rider throughout the day.

The bike officers and the khaki-attired officers are all CHP, but my understanding is that many were not ordinarily assigned to the Capitol. At no other time did I witness the bike officers or the khaki-clad officers try to intimidate anyone, though they did use... let's call it "persuasion" from time to time.

The behavior of the horse police -- especially -- in this video (which I picked up over at zunguzungu today) is really very disturbing to me. This is not the way it has been done (with a couple of exceptions I can think of from years ago, exceptions that led to lawsuits and settlements) previously, and it is not the way law enforcement officers in a free society should behave. And to behave this way toward people who were there in support of the education demonstration -- apparently because they were from Oakland and knew their rights and were loud -- was perverse.

This is what a truly insidious police state looks like.

BTW, I'm so old that I didn't pay tuition or more than token fees (well, they didn't seem so "token" at the time!) to obtain public higher education in California. It was the policy of the state to provide tuition-free higher education for any qualified applicant (who could find space and be admitted; colleges and the university were crowded) at Community College, State College (it was not yet State University) or the University of California. This concept was actually pioneered at Stanford (a private university), which initially did not charge tuition either, but by the time I applied there, the tuition was horrendous, as it continues to be. These days, the claim is made that it costs students more to attend the California State Universities than it costs students at Harvard -- or Stanford for that matter. This has a profound effect on the future -- to say the least. Of course, in my day, the prison system didn't gobble up so much of the state budget, either.

[Note: this post has been edited to reflect my current understanding of when the video was recorded] [Occupy Oakland sign carrier in video above is named Christopher Morley]

UPDATE: The video below is a follow up to the events in the video above. A young girl was nearly trampled by the horse ridden by Officer Norman Lane (sp?) from Chico -- the officer who kept saying "git-git" in the video above. Members of the crowd and the girl's mother demand that he apologize. He does, though he won't get off his high horse (Clydesdales are rather large and all.) Other incidents are also recorded on the video below.



Video streaming by Ustream

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/the24-7occupysac

Susie Cagle Explains It All For You

Her Citizen Radio essay on Occupy Oakland is outstanding.

Check it out:

http://susie-c.tumblr.com/post/18505418387/my-new-occupy-oakland-field-piece-for-citizen

She also has some of her illustrations up at Truthout:

http://www.truth-out.org/occupy-oakland-2/1329429672

"The Riot" -- or How Propaganda is Done

You may have heard that there was a "riot" in Sacramento on Monday as Occupy Oakland "attacked" other demonstrators and police at the California State Capitol, "injuring" at least two officers and resulting in the arrest of at least three "black clad and bandana wearing anarchists from Oakland."

You may or may not have heard that the other demonstrators were a white supremacist group from Oakland who had a permitted event to publicize what they claimed was the "genocide" of white people in South Africa and that the Occupy Oakland group had come to Sacramento specifically to oppose their demonstration.

You more than likely heard nothing of the fact that the opposition to this white supremacist demonstration at the Capitol was composed of a number of autonomous affinity groups, and that the "riot" actually consisted of hurling mutual anathemas and epithets at one another, and that the officers who were injured apparently injured themselves -- one tackling an unidentified protestor, and one by other means unknown (you have probably heard the claim that he was maced or pepper sprayed, but if so, it wasn't by anyone in the crowd.)

You may have heard that objects such as cans, bottles, rocks and "paint filled eggs" were thrown at the police, but you probably have not heard that perhaps nothing except one paint-filled plastic baggie was actually thrown at the police, and that as a means of marking the officer as one who committed assault on demonstrators. (This tactic was also used in Oakland during some of the confrontations with police on October 25 -- after the violent eviction from Ogawa/Grant Plaza but before the wounding of Scott Olsen.)

You may or may not know that most or all of the reports about what happened that have appeared in the press and mainstream media to date were filed by people who were not there and have no first-hand knowledge. Their second and third-hand knowledge comes from interviews and statements almost exclusively from Sacramento police, California State Highway Patrol, and a very limited number of witnesses.

You also may or may not know that almost all the stories that have been filed to date about the "#F27" events at the California State Capitol have been massaged to fit a "riot" narrative heavily featuring the (scary) Occupy Oakland contingent of "black bloc anarchists" in order to frighten the bejeebers out of the old people and the horses.

This is how propaganda is done. It can be highly effective.

Note: I wasn't there, didn't even know there was going to be a "riot" to attend. I found out about it through police channels well after the events of the day. The police were calling it a "riot Downtown" and advising people to stay out of the area from very early on in the confrontation according to the reports I heard (second-hand t0 be sure.) These reports were -- so far as I was able to discern -- at least half in jest. Much was made by the police of the presence of a contingent from Occupy Oakland. The entire protest was alleged to be an "Occupy Oakland" protest, but it was not.

A point can and should be made that the police in California -- and the 1% they serve -- are terrified of the militancy of Occupy Oakland; not their "violence, " for they are not violent in any rational sense. They stand their ground in other words, and by doing so, they are examples for other Occupys. Standing ground is one of the most effective means of delegitimizing Authority.

In addition to police sources (at least second hand), I also found first hand sources on the ground, whose reports, though not perfect, at least came from within the events themselves in real time. Something that "the Media" seems incapable of doing any more, whether by intention or neglect, we'll leave it to the reader to decide.

These reports paint a very different picture of what happened -- and more to the point, why they happened.

There was a small (permitted) demonstration at the Capitol on Monday sponsored by an outfit calling itself "The South Africa Project" -- which is apparently a rather notorious white supremacist affinity group (widely scattered throughout the country) which focuses on the "genocide" of whites by blacks in South Africa. These sorts of claims of whites being mindlessly slaughtered by gibbering blacks and other Natives of course has a long and miserable history in this country and throughout the Euro centers of the Universe. There are always gibbering Natives slaughtering Peaceful and Civilized White Folk somewhere; it's just the way things are. It's a wonder there are any White Folk left. /snark

There was an unpermitted demonstration against "The South Africa Project" at the Capitol that involved at least 100 and perhaps more protestors including contingents from Oakland and elsewhere in the Bay Area as well as locations in the Central Valley. (California geography lesson: Oakland is about 80 miles west of Sacramento; Sacramento is near the center of California's Central Valley which extends approximately 400 miles north to south and is between 50 and 100 miles wide. The Central Valley is flat land, mostly orchard, farm, and ranch land, though heavily suburbanized during the run up to the Crash of 2007-8, that is often referred to as "The Other California" as it is quite a different sort of place than California's coastal and mountain enclaves. Many of those who live in the coastal areas have only the vaguest notions about the Central Valley, mostly contemptuous, but that's another essay for another time.)

In other words, the counter-demonstration against The South Africa Project's demonstration was by no means an "Occupy Oakland" event. It was an Anti-Fascist event that included people from many parts of California, including Oakland.

Some of them wore black and carried black flags. Eek. Anarchists! Black Bloc! Run for your lives children, we're all going to dieeeeee! Demonization of the Other is one of the primary tactics of propagandists, no matter what interests they serve, and in this particularly instance the propaganda of demonization was heavy on all sides.

Demonization, dehumanization and scapegoating go on so often, many people don't notice when it's happening. In this case, the "Nazis" -- and the police who were protecting them -- were being demonized by the crowd of protesters who had come from the Bay Area and the Central Valley (interestingly, Occupy Sacramento was not involved in this Direct Action) to protest them. The kaffir Natives of South Africa were being demonized by the "Nazis" for killing whites. The media was demonizing "Occupy Oakland" and the "black-clad anarchists" for "causing a riot." And so on.

In addition, there was an excess of process during the day's events. The "Nazis" were allowed onto the Capitol grounds on Monday because they had a permit. The demonstrators who came from the Bay Area and the Central Valley to protest them were not allowed on the Capitol grounds because they did not have a permit, and they were held at bay by a heavy state and local police presence, some of it on horseback. Certain members of the independent media were not allowed on the Capitol grounds while others were, depending -- it seemed -- on skin color and (shall we say) how "polite they were." Later, only media with big honking cameras were allowed to record close ups of those who were arrested after the rallies broke up.

The police were solicitous and very protective of the "Nazis," escorting them from the Capitol grounds when their rally was done, and protecting them from the objects thrown from the crowd of protestors. Who actually threw the objects and what they actually were is not entirely clear. The videos I posted above do not show the objects themselves; one of them doesn't even show the "riot" itself. The one that does show the incident that has been called a "riot" also shows that it lasted approximately 5 seconds. It shows police chasing and running down demonstrators who supposedly threw things at the "Nazis" but there is some question of whether they were actually the ones who did so. One mounted officer is heard to exclaim that his target for arrest has just committed a felony. The man runs and is tackled by a rather portly officer who is then hauled away in an ambulance because he seems to have bloodied his chin in the tackle.

It's all supposedly being done "by the book," though it does seem the police actions are somewhat laid back -- as they often tend to be in Sacramento in connection with Occupy. Certain rituals have been adopted that maintain a rather formal and polite, sometimes even humorous, relationship between Occupy Sacramento and the local gendarmerie. The "black-clad anarchists" from the Bay Area and the Central Valley are another kettle of fish altogether. They were far louder and far ruder toward the police than the police are used to in Sacramento, and it was obviously disconcerting to them. Nevertheless, I'm sure that they had been warned of what to expect from the Occupy Oakland people -- who inspire such fear all across the nation.

Whether any of them actually threw anything at anyone (apart from insults and a baggie filled with paint) is a matter of dispute. As we know, infiltrators are legion in the ranks of Occupy -- why every other Black Bloc is all police infiltrators, aren't they? Or maybe not. It's so difficult to say anymore. The question of who is actually throwing things at any given time, and what their affiliation is, never really gets explored, and it should be. I think there might be some surprises.

There was no riot in Sacramento on Monday; this is the third or fourth time I have seen reports of "riots" in connection with Occupy that were no such thing. You would think that people would be able to discern the fact that something like loud voices and one or two thrown objects and a handful of arrests do not a "riot" make. But propaganda is powerful. And if the propaganda media says it's a "riot," many will uncritically believe it to be so.

It's literally taken me this long -- since Monday evening -- to pore through the "news" and the other material available to piece together something like a factual understanding of what happened based on evidence as opposed to hearsay and hysteria. Propagandists know that most people can't do that, and they aren't inclined to do so anyway. So propagandists can often get away with saying whatever they want. On the other hand, they can't get away with it forever.

How long will it take for average Americans to understand they are being lied to? Something tells me they already know it.

Battle of Oakland -- The Video

The Battle of Oakland from brandon jourdan on Vimeo.


This video covers the events of January 28, 2012, from the perspective of the Oakland Commune/Occupy Oakland; it tracks closely with other depictions of the events and even with most of the mainstream narratives.

It's 20 minutes, be warned. But it's worth the time.

This is what's going on, and it's [what] has so many people so frightened.

History for Beginners -- Militant Nonviolence vs Polite Protest

Video of first day of Occupy Wall Street, September 17, 2011

One of the constant themes of the current Occupy Crisis Over Nonviolence is the insistent belief that Occupy Wall Street was originally an entirely peaceful, nonviolent, welcoming protest against the Wall Street bankers and predatory capitalism, and that it was full of music and strollers and families out on balmy fall days, and it was wildly popular.

According to myth, OWS was not meant to be some militant, confrontational, violent marauding Black Bloc Anarchist Thing. It was not supposed to be an uprising. Certainly not a Revolution. It was supposed to be a peaceful assembly for the redress of grievances against the banks and Wall Street. NOT what it is becoming. And what it is becoming is terrifying.

I've been sifting through the hundreds of emails that have come to me on the topic, and many of them are filled with real anguish at the violent, confrontational, and altogether non-peaceful tactics that have been adopted by OWS/Black Bloc/Anarchists in their determination to just make trouble for everyone and ruin what was once so beautiful and wonderful.

Dear me. WTF? No, I mean really. WTF?

This is not just revisionism, it's fantasy. A nice fantasy, sure, but were these people ever paying attention? Or were they somehow lulled by a propaganda campaign I wasn't aware of? Because I don't recall OWS ever promoting itself as anything but a nonviolent militant resistance campaign, initially to take and hold public space in defiance of authority, wherein the interests of the People, the 99%, could be and would be discussed, debated, and advocated. From its first moment of existence, OWS engaged in militant nonviolent civil disobedience. The encampment at Liberty Square/Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan was an act of militant defiance, not a nice, polite family-friendly protest that precisely followed the rules of the MLK and Gandhian civil rights and independence movements.

Liberty Square for a time became a family-friendly, festive affair, but only after it was established in defiance of authority and held against eviction by highly motivated and militant activists.

The mythology continues on this pleasant revisionist fantasy that somehow OWS has been taken over by Black Bloc anarchists and that anarchists had little or nothing to do with the origination (as I call it, founding) of OWS, which is simply absurd.

They were there at the beginning and they're there now. The entire structure of OWS and most of the Occupys that spontaneously arose subsequently, utilize concepts and processes and ideals that have been part of anarchist practice for decades; autonomy, respect for people's rights over property rights, General Assemblies, direct democracy, consensus decision making, working groups, affinity groups, even the later spokes council all came directly out of anarchic thought and practice. Black Bloc wasn't utilized as a tactic, but people who had been part of Black Blocs were very much involved in the OWS process. Anarchists were founders of NYCGA and Occupy Wall Street, they provided the intellectual space for there to BE an Occupy Wall Street, they provided much of the original energy of the movement, and they provided most of the horizontal leaderless structure and process used by OWS to this day. Anarchists are not some alien intrusion into OWS; they've always been there, as have the Dreaded Boogie Men, the all-powerful "Black Bloc anarchists."

Revisionists like to conflate OWS (Occupy Wall Street) with "Occupy," as if OWS defines the whole, OWS is one Occupy among several autonomous Occupys in New York City and one of hundreds around the United States and the world. It is not the headquarters; it is not run by the Occupy Central Committee, and it doesn't have any operational control or authority over any other Occupy. Since the raid in November that evicted the camp and destroyed the encampment, OWS has had a relatively low profile in Occupy affairs (though it is still an important element in the whole).

Another revisionist notion is that the concept of Occupying public space began in the United States with OWS last September, and that nothing like it had happened in this country before. It's a particularly beguiling pious fiction in that OWS quite consciously pretended to come from nothing, appearing suddenly fully formed and without precedent to press its case for social and economic justice. Of course, that's not quite the case, either. Something in, I believe, Wisconsin happened earlier in the year. In February and March, the Wisconsin State Capitol was occupied continuously sometimes by thousands of demonstrators protesting various rightist economic and labor policies enacted or about to be enacted by the Wisconsin legislature. Protests continued outside the Capitol, sometimes involving a hundred thousand marchers, into July. The Wisconsin occupation and demonstrations were inspired by the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings in January. Spanish protesters occupied the Plaza del Sol in Madrid from May through June to protest the lack of peoples' representation in the government and a growingly dire economic situation for millions of Spaniards. The occupation of Plaza del Sol was evicted by police in June. The Plaza del Sol occupation was used as a model by OWS. There was a student occupation of campus buildings at UC Berkeley in October, 2009, that was violently attacked by campus and area police forces, setting the pattern for the violent and brutal crack downs on the US Occupys in many locations, including the campus of UC Berkeley, in November of 2011. In other words, OWS was preceded by a plethora of similar occupations that served to set the stage for the occupation of Liberty Square/Zuccotti Park.

Perhaps the most pernicious myth being circulated now is that somehow the OWS and the Occupy Movement have been taken over by Black Bloc and anarchists who are forcing the Movement to become violent. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

There has been very little violence initiated by Occupy activists, none of it involving weapons or firearms. There have been a few autonomous Black Blocs during Occupy demonstrations (Black Blocs are autonomous actions), the most notorious being the Black Bloc that paralleled part of the November 2, 2012 march in Oakland as part of the General Strike during which a dozen or so windows of banks, a few businesses and the City Hall were broken and a number of buildings were sprayed with graffiti.

In fact, Occupy has been subject to relentless police violence and destruction of property, mass arrests, and torturous conditions of custody virtually since the beginning of the Occupations. None of it has been in retaliation for isolated incidents of vandalism or object-throwing. Hundreds of demonstrators have been wounded by police fire and thousands have been arrested. Encampments have been wantonly destroyed and the property of Occupiers has been routinely confiscated and destroyed. In one of the most notorious incidents of that sort, the People's Library of the OWS encampment was trashed and its contents thrown into garbage trucks during the eviction from Zuccotti Park, even as occupiers pleaded with authorities to allow them to remove the books safely.

The idea that Occupy has become violent or that Occupy endorses or approves violence is absurd; there has been minor and incidental violence during a few Occupy events, that's it. Meantime, Occupy has been subjected to ever increasing levels of police violence in city after city. And that police violence is not due to any violent incidents that have occurred during Occupy events. Police violence against demonstrators doesn't need an excuse. Violent suppression of Occupy encampments and demonstrations is a matter of policy and command. No matter how much Occupy attempts to suppress violence at its events (as has been done), the police are still violent toward the demonstrators on command.

Occupy practices a variety of nonviolent tactics including militant and confrontational nonviolent resistance. Occupy does not engage in violent or armed resistance, but some of the militant tactics, such as confrontation with police and public officials, or, as happened at UC Davis and UC Berkeley, linking arms and sitting in acts of non-violent civil disobedience, have been declared "violent" or "not-nonviolent" by some observers and officials. They are in fact classic forms of nonviolent resistance.

There have been many examples of "polite" resistance during Occupy actions, and there have been many examples of "militant" resistance as well; there are very few examples of violence initiated by Occupy demonstrators, but hundreds of demonstrators have been wounded by police fire against unarmed and nonviolent demonstrators.

Being loud is not violence. Defying authority is not violence. Impolite does not mean violent.

Last November, Jaime Omar Yassin, a participant in Occupy Oakland, wrote a blog post titled "What Violence Isn't." It's worth a read to get some perspective on the issues that are still roiling Occupy.

It's as if the discussion hasn't moved an inch since then -- except to become more hysterical.


The militant nonviolent Occupy Oakland OccuBus cruising San Francisco's Financial District, January 20, 2012


Sector of parking lot at Democratic National Convention wherein polite protest was allowed, Denver, 2004


Cage within which polite protest was allowed to those who were admitted during the Republican National Convention, St. Paul, 2008

Witness -- The Defenestration of Chris Hedges, KPFA Radio, February 8, 2012

Letters and Politics - February 8, 2012 at 10:00am

Click to listen (or download)

Linkage (since the player embed doesn't seem to want to be embedded in this remote corner of Blogistan.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial comment:

Hedges seemed almost contrite in this onair "debate" with Kristof Lopaur of Occupy Oakland, but he couldn't quite bring himself to do the decent thing and outright apologize for smearing Occupy Oakland with falsehoods, inaccuracies, and inappropriate accusations. Instead, he backslid and insisted that "OWS" should not be confronting the police (on the premise that if they weren't confronted by demonstrators, they would come over to the side of the protest... a problematical assertion, but we'll let it go for now.)

He abandoned essentially any criticism of Occupy Oakland, though, and that's quite a change from what he wrote in his polemic, where almost all the examples of "Black Bloc anarchism" were taken from incidents in Oakland, and he insisted that he "wasn't writing about Occupy Oakland," he was writing about Black Bloc. When he was informed that there was only one Black Bloc in Oakland -- and there has been none that I know of anywhere else in Occupy -- and that was in November of last year on General Strike Day, Hedges essentially wanted to change the subject.

No, he claimed that his focus was Black Bloc and not Occupy Oakland, and what he wanted was to preserve the popularity of "OWS" among the middle classes.

Of course his polemic was triggered by the events in Oakland on January 28, when Occupy re-emerged onto the media radar with some absolutely stunning and spectacular events that included an ample dose of police violence. That wasn't what the media featured, of course; they featured the flag-burning and the something-throwing which was supposedly the justification for the brutal and violent police reaction, which of course is completely out of sequence, but when one has a crusade under way to stamp out the (non-existent) "Black Block anarchists" in Occupy, one really doesn't care about such trivialities as "facts".

Hedges was careful, however, to say nothing antagonistic about OO. He was actually more tongue-tied than I have ever heard him be. And nearly contrite when challenged, which I have never seen or heard from him, either. He tends to get hostile and huffy when challenged. Not this time.

I thought that Kristof was gentler with him than he had to be, and I assumed that was a strategic decision. It was clear that Hedges has taken an immense amount of heat for his falsehood-filled polemic, and Kristof made it clear that OO isn't some separate thing, like a cancer alien to OWS; in fact, he said that OO and OWS are in contact all the time, and if Hedges wanted information about OO, OWS was happy to give him contact information; in fact they did. But Hedges never called.

But Kristof showed no antagonism toward Hedges and he did not descend into rhetorical violence while he calmly corrected the record and rather gently took Mr. Hedges to the woodshed. Ultimately, Hedges may prove to be a useful... ally.

Anyway, Hedges attitude when confronted with his falsehoods and smears of Occupy Oakland in this interview/"debate" is quite a contrast to his writing about OO from his perch at Truthdig.





The fun never stops.

"We Can Chaa-aaange The World"

Editorial comment about the video above:

I witnessed some of the events documented in the video on television as they happened in 1968, and I've seen many retrospectives that focus on the Chicago Police Riot since then, but I have never seen anything that puts together the footage from the streets and the parks near the Democratic Convention site so comprehensively and comprehensibly. It's quite moving to see it in that fashion. It is extraordinarily evocative given what's been happening to suppress the Occupy Movement. It's not the same thing at all. Motivations are very different now, as are, I believe, the intentions of both the authorities and the demonstrators. It's a different world, people are not fighting the same battles for the same things, and I sincerely doubt that the outcome will be the same.

"Rearaaa-aange the World."

-- Chicago (We Can Change the World), 1971

After stumbling around for several days in total WTF? mode, I seem to be gaining some kind of clarity regarding intense assault on "the anarchists" (Black Bloc or no) that has been taking place throughout the Occupy firmament and in many of the corners of the intertubes as well.

It's about Chicago. Well, "Chicago" and "Tampa" and "Charlotte" as well. This year's three big National Special Security Events where the American and global rulership will be gathering for pageants, schmooze, and decisions about the Future Pain the rest of us will be enduring.

And it is about preserving something of the Occupy spirit in the aftermath.

After the J28 events in Oakland, I saw the pressure to expel "the anarchists" increase exponentially. People weren't just saying this, they were deeply passionate about it, fierce, angry, scared. "The anarchists" had to be tamed or be gone, no two ways about it.

And as I explored the issue of Nonviolence with people online and in some of the trenches, I found more and more rigidity of thought about it, to the point where even confrontation with or defiance of authority was being lumped into the "anarchist-bad, no-can-do" category. Cooperation with authority and an absolute commitment to total nonviolence, that went even beyond the Gandhian Principles, seemed to be required.

From my perspective, this was getting completely insane. WTF? No "movement" is possible with those kinds of absolutist requirements, pledges, vows, declarations, expulsions, purges and so on. It struck me as a national, coordinated effort to "kill the Occupy" by remaking it into just another NPO or lobbying front and be done with it once and for all.

And the kill switch was being flipped mostly from the inside. The pressure from the outside, of course, is always there, a fact of life, background noise that sometimes gets way in your face, and much worse, but the Occupy Movement in all its moving parts has been coping with that pretty well. The Occupy doesn't fit America's standard pattern of political advocacy/social service, and there has always been a strenuous effort from the outside to make it fit, whether through police aktions or, shall we say, civic "persuasion," or infiltration and take over by the more established political activist communities. That effort still goes on, the point being to neuter the Occupy as a change agent and make it into a version of every other ineffective NPO -- and possibly giving it A Seat at the Table. Yadda, yadda.

The neutering effort, in my view, has been relatively successful; in many cities Occupy has more or less been integrated into the fabric of city living, there is very little or no conflict with the Established Interests, and a good deal of productive -- primarily social service -- action is taking place. These Occupys are not hotbeds of change, they're hotbeds of service and innovation, at least that's my impression of them from a distance (Santa Fe and the Erie Canal cities of Upstate New York are the primary examples I'm speaking of, but there are plenty many more). They've either been transformed into or they always were community based volunteer service organizations, often run by people I call "Club Women" (though it's meant to be a gender neutral term) whose lives revolve around service to others. The Occupy provides them with a unique organizational and operational structure that eliminates a lot of the overhead of traditional service organizations and provides a means to engage in direct democracy at the same time. What's to object to, what could be better?

There were Occupys that formed temporarily then dissolved, either in dissension or -- hate to say it -- boredom; it just wasn't what people wanted or needed to do. The intensity of the Occupy framework for action isn't for everyone, and if it isn't clear what the action is for or targeting is vague or its off kilter then the whole thing can seem like a complete waste of time. If you don't feel like you're doing something productive and Occupy can't or won't function toward productive ends, that's -- to me -- a perfect reason not to do it.

There is no Requirement To Occupy.

I saw the Winter Hibernation period as a reassessment and shake out period -- hopefully leading to metamorphosis and re-emergence into something different than its initial period last year and even more "beautiful."

Well.

After what I have recently experienced, I am taken aback by what's taken place. It's not at all what I -- or perhaps anyone -- expected.

Occupy Oakland has been up and running all along, it never ceased or went into hibernation, though it did slow its public actions over the winter. Occupy Oakland became the Energy Center for the Movement as a whole after the now-legendary police assaults of October 25 that culminated with the severe wounding of Scott Olsen from police fire into the crowd.

Oakland's energy is not necessarily a good fit everywhere, nor are the methods and tactics employed in Oakland adaptable to every situation. Oakland is Oakland. The Oakland Model is vital, but I doubt it is the right one for widespread adoption. I don't see how it could work without the strength and history and commitment to overcome adversity of Oakland's people.

What happens in Oakland is an inspiration to others. The persistence, the militancy, the stunning bravery when under assault, the innovative tactics, all of these things about Occupy Oakland help to give courage to everyone fighting the good fighting the good fight against entrenched and sclerotic power. And it works.

That's the thing "they" don't want you to know.

And it's fascinating to me to piece together who constitutes "they" in the current effort to flip the kill switch on Occupy.

Nearly all of them are either inside the Movement or just outside it yammering away like Chris Hedges. Their antagonism toward "the anarchists" has taken on a distinctly nasty and threatening tone, dehumanizing and scapegoating, and violent rhetoric toward "the anarchists" has become the standard way of addressing the issue of Nonviolence as it relates to Occupy.

At one time there was a relatively rational debate about tactics going on. There was a general commitment to Nonviolence throughout the Occupy firmament, but with the proviso that Occupys were autonomous as were their working and affinity groups.

There was no Politburo, so there were no directives from the Politburo.

Each Occupy formulated its rules for itself.

So far as I know, there's never even been a suggestion of veering from the broadly defined Nonviolent path. If anybody has made such a suggestion, I'm sure they were shouted down and isolated or... expelled.

Occupy is by definition a Nonviolent Resistance Campaign. It does not engage in, advocate or endorse armed struggle of any kind. It's simply always been out of the question. For good reason too, though this somewhat rambling installment is not about those reasons.

When I point out the inherent, indeed definitional, Nonviolent character of all of Occupy, including its more militant outposts like Oakland, and yes, including "the anarchists," and yes even including Black Bloc, I am often met with a barrage of what I think of as nonsensical rejoinders about a rock thrown here, a bottle thrown there, and a few broken windows in November, "What about those, ya crumb? That isn't VIOLENCE???"

Cue the Sturm und Drang and the rending of garments.

Yes, whatofit? In the overall picture, the minor vandalism and mischief that's taken place is nothing. So?

Let the screaming fits begin. As they have. Ohmigod. I've never experienced these levels of extreme ignorance combined with such extreme rigidity of thought and such extreme rhetorical violence before, and I didn't think I'd led a particularly sheltered life. I have certainly never experienced it within a so-called Nonviolence context, and not at all among people who profess to follow Nonviolent Ethics. It just doesn't happen. Vigorous disagreement and disapproval, certainly, but never in a disrespectful or overtly hostile manner.

Well, the masks have come off, although I will say that there never was a "mask" among Nonviolence believers and practitioners in the faith community. They are what they are, they have never deviated from the Path, nor have ever felt the need or had the desire to act in the manner that so of those DEMANDING strictest adherence to Nonviolence OR ELSE are doing.

Instead, they do what they have always done: they listen, they respect divergent points of view, and they use persuasion -- very effectively. Most understand the Big Picture, too: a broken window is not the End of the World. Really and truly, it isn't. Taking up a gun and instigating an armed insurrection could be, though.

That's the essence of my point of view. Not always my practicve, but we do what we can... Unfortunately proportion and perspective have been lost among the Nonviolence Purists who now appear to be in a titanic struggle with the Phantoms of their Fear: "the anarchists". Black Bloc, eeeeeee! Somebody threw a bottle, OMG, we're melting!!!!! Black Bloc! Anarchists! REDS!"

Because of the consistent violence of their rhetoric and their assaultive behavior toward any question or challenge to or deviation from their absolutist demands, I disbelieve their purported devotion to Nonviolence. If you sincerely believe in Nonviolence, you do not demand or stamp your foot or hold your breath until you turn blue, and you do not threaten others with calamity if you are not obeyed. That's the behavior of children and tyrants.

Have events conspired to infantilize key segments of the Movement?

Maybe.

"Chicago" looms large this year; the NATO/G8 summits take place there in May; the potential for evil is high. And then there's Tampa in August (RNC Convention) and Charlotte in September (DNC Convention). This is a very fraughtful year for tumult in the streets.

All three of these Confabs of the Rulership are National Special Security Events. We've had some experience with them in the not-so-distant past, in such cities as Pittsburgh, Denver, and Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Boiled down to the essence, what happens outside these events matters just as much as what happens inside if not more so. The Constitution and legal protections therein are effectively suspended in preparation for and for the duration of the Festivities and Events.

Bluntly put, during a National Special Security Event, you have no rights the authorities are bound to respect; you may or may not have "permissions" which can be arbitrarily revoked without notice. In fact, the random and arbitrary imposition of State Authority, often in an outrageous and brutal fashion, is one of the chief characteristics of these events.

People taking to the streets are bound to get hurt; mass arrests are all but guaranteed; intense surveillance is routine. Tactics employed by the authorities against protesters are intentionally disruptive and disabling.

People who are thinking ahead expect things to get really, really nasty. Potentially what no one alive has ever seen in this country. Occupy is expected to be in the center of it all. Occupy has become The People's Voice. The People are expected to speak up loud and clear through Occupy at Chicago, Tampa and Charlotte. And it is expected that there will be violence from the authorities.

Making clear that "Black Bloc anarchists" are not part of Occupy is likely seen as essential to mitigating the harm that the almost inevitable official violence will cause. Black Bloc cannot be prevented altogether; but clearly separating Black Bloc tactics from the Occupy Movement actions may be seen as helping to mitigate the effects of official violence.

That's my charitable read of the situation, putting as positive a face on it as I can. There's another way to look at it.

It goes back to Oakland's J28 festivities (yes, it was billed as a festival). What really took place was a series of skirmishs in The Revolution. This is really going on; this is not play acting or sport; it's the real goddamn thing, and Oakland is the center of it.

Much of it was very dramatic, such as The Battle of Oak Street and the Escape from the Park. I've written many times about Storming the Winter Palace as a metaphor, but this was the real thing. In the course of the events of J28, the legitimacy and authority of the civic government dissolved as did that of OPD. None of the stated objectives of the day's events were achieved, but something else was. Delegitimizing the Tsar's authority is an essential step in a Real Revolution.

OK. Now what? And did anyone really know that's what was up and that's what was going to happen? Did they really believe it was about taking possession of the Oakland Auditorium?

It was obvious to me as soon as the confrontation on Oak Street was in place that the building seizure was window dressing. Confronting illegitimate authority was the point, and that was astonishingly successful. Taking the building can wait until after the Revolution is consolidated.

Delegitimizing authority has to come first, and that took place in a manner we haven't seen in this country for many years.

Here's another video of the aftermath -- the Seizure of the Sound System:



This is a police force -- and a city government -- with no real legitimacy at all. Their "authority" is a sham.

This was the outcome, but it was not the intention of the anti-Revolutionists among Oakland's activists. Not everybody wants a Revolution; realistically, hardly anybody does most of the time. Most people don't want to delegitimize authority, either. What happened in Oakland was a victory for The Revolution but it was a betrayal of people of good will who have no intention of participating in Revolution.

That's the source of much of the internal struggle going on over Nonviolence and "the anarchists" and it is the source of much of the vehemence on the part of Nonviolence advocates as well. They never wanted a Revolution. They were never told this was a Revolution. They did not set out to confront, delegitimize and overthrow authority. "That isn't what Occupy is about!!"

Except that it always has been about that -- at least in part and to many of its most ardent participants.

"Nobody expects the Spanish Revolution!"

But that's what we've got, at least in some key cities, and Oakland is at the center of it all.

So I think it is fair to say that the anger and hostility toward "the anarchists" in the Occupy Movement is based on two factors:

1) fears that "the Black Bloc anarchists" will "ruin the brand" at the Global Rulership conferences by acting up and causing everyone else to suffer needlessly;

2) fears that The Revolution is really under way and it is succeeding -- at least in Oakland, where the model for more widespread Revolution is being worked out as we speak.

What of those who didn't sign up for a Revolution? Hmm?

In the comments to my post at dKos yesterday denouncing Hedges' bullshit denunciation of "the Black Bloc anarchists" a number of people commented that if there a Revolution going on, and it succeeds, what of basic infrastructure like water and sewers and trash collection?

This is for the Clean Up Working Group and the Water, Sewer, and Trash cadres organized into Affinity Groups to handle and present reports about at their Operational SpokesCouncils which will then send their Spokes to GA to make Proposals to be agendized, considered thoroughly and consensed on.

Obviously.

Dumb Show In Oakland

It's all becoming more and more surreal, almost dadaesque, out there. Chris Hedges' meltdown over... something... is not a pretty sight, but the weekend eviction ("Not an Eviction") of OccupyDC comes close; the eviction ("Not an eviction") of the Freedom Square camp in DC yesterday was its own little dumbshow.

Today, the focus shifted back to Oakland where there was an apparent act of civil disobedience at the city hall when an Occupy rally (in support of those who had been arrested the previous weekend and since then) was interrupted by OPD who used the OPD sound system to essentially shout over the OO sound system to order that they produce a sound permit or desist -- or have their sound equipment confiscated.

Well. "When Oakland is under attack, what do we do? Stand up, fight back!"

And so the OPD came in and confiscated OO's "shit" -- as they say.

What a sight.

I thought the picture of a pathetic Jean Quan was emblematic of the collapse of civic authority under pressure from OO, but today's absurd seizure show sealed it.

Things are on an increasingly bizarre spiral....

Here's additional video, should anyone want to see more of the Oakland Dumb Show:



For the record, these are both Oaktownpirate's streams

InterOccupy Conference Call on Nonviolence vs Diversity of Tactics

I've tended to stay away from the Occupy Conference Calls since last November. I'm not keen on the highly structured format among other things, but since I've been pretty well embroiled in the intensifying online discussions regarding the merits of Occupy Oakland's more militant and confrontational "Way" compared to the constant litany of "Nonviolent Peaceful Protest" we hear out of New York and elsewhere, I thought the discussion (however tightly it was controlled) might be interesting this morning.

It was.

When I joined, about 20 minutes into the discussion, I thought I heard the tail end of OO's Boots Riley's observations, but I can't be sure, because there's nothing in the minutes about his participation, and as far as I know, he never participated again.

There seemed to be about twenty or twenty-five participants, the plurality in New York, but there were others in Chicago, Los Angeles, and elsewhere, so it was something of a geographical cross section, but did not seem to be inclusive of a variety of positions regarding Nonviolence or Diversity of Tactics. There was instead a heavy concentration of pretty rigid adherents to the narrowest definition of Nonviolent Resistance (you must follow Gandhi and King exclusively or you are a violence advocate, it seems), and there was pretty much no one else at all, at least none (well, few) who spoke up.

I made a couple of points about the fact that overall and in the context of specific occupations like Occupy Oakland, the Movement (pdf) is by definition a Nonviolent Resistance Campaign that includes no Violent Resistance at all. Black Bloc tactics and "the anarchists," are Nonviolent by definition, and they are part of a Nonviolent Resistance Campaign. No one in the Movement advocates or practices Violent Resistance. No one. And no one is engaged in a Violent Resistance Campaign -- which is defined as armed insurrection and the use or threat of deadly force.

Well, the room exploded in furious denunciation and disagreement with my own sweet self. I never heard so many Nonviolence advocates on such a rampage!

I wasn't surprised at their disagreement with me, but their vehemence about it took me aback. These are believers in Nonviolence? Ok then...

As should be clear by now, I'm not a Nonviolence "purist;" while I certainly have respect for Gandhi and King, my view of Nonviolence is colored by a somewhat different experience set than that of many people who are highly socialized and accustomed to a very rigid and narrow definition of Nonviolence. I tend to take a broader, Big Picture view of the topic, and I am a good deal more inclusive by nature than many of the purists. Pretty much anyone who advocates and fights for civil, social and economic justice while eschewing resort to arms and physical coercion and harm toward others -- fits the Nonviolent Resister definition in my book. A purist will go full Gandhi and assert that even protecting oneself in a violent situation with authority is impermissible. I don't agree with that. Nor do I agree that one must follow Gandhi's and King's models in order to be "effective."

In fact, I would argue that rigid adherence to those models in the contemporary context is actually counter effective, because as I say in another post, our Overclass has learned the lessons of King and Gandhi very well, and their chief interest lies in ensuring that their form of Nonviolent Resistance never succeeds again.

I would further argue that Nonviolent Resistance Campaigns that are principally focused on marches, rallies and charismatic leaders and their speeches, homilies, and demands essentially can't succeed in this country any more for the simple reason that the Overclass has learned how to confront them and neutralize them nonviolently. Without the official violence and brutality aspects of the confrontation, the power of the Nonviolent march and the rally and the charismatic leader is significantly reduced or (as in the case of the anti-Iraq War protests) eliminated altogether.

There is much, much more involved in a serious Nonviolent Resistance Campaign than those few aspects, of course, but they are the ones that receive the most attention. And I argue that they don't work the way they used to, nor are they likely to be more than marginally effective for real change in this country again. Their effectiveness is declining in foreign lands, too, as the authorities learn ways and means to counter them.

Something else is needed, specifically something more militant, though not more violent. The days of passive resistance will soon be past.

(I've written before about how disturbing it has been for me to watch the passive behavior of the hundreds and hundreds of people on the Brooklyn Bridge submitting to their arrest after being trapped by police; much the same feeling of extreme unease came over me as I watched the first part of the arrest of the hundreds and hundreds of surprisingly passive people in front of the YMCA in Oakland last weekend. I couldn't watch the rest of it. The scene was too disturbing.)

When the People "stand up and fight back" -- militantly but nonviolently -- the tables are turned and Authority is de-legitimized. This happened at UC Davis in rather spectacular fashion in response to the egregious pepper spray incident. And it has worked extraordinarily well in Oakland as well.

During the call (back on topic!), Starhawk was invited to provide her insight as a long time progressive activist whose experience with Black Bloc and Diversity of Tactics could be instructive. What I got from her talk was that her ideas of Nonviolent Resistance are more inclusive and expansive than those of most Nonviolence advocates, but she can't recommend giving Black Bloc advocates free rein. The backlash against some Black Bloc tactics damaged the movements she's been involved with.

I don't doubt it, but she didn't have time to go into detail, and I would very much like to know more about her experiences, which movements she feels were effective and why. But that's for another day.

Someone talked about how the "violence meme" was constantly being applied to Occupy -- which I thought was odd, but people's perceptions are shaped so much by what they see and hear and read, and I don't have cable, rarely watch television news, have a relatively short list of online bookmarks I visit regularly, and I've decoupled from Facebook and Twitter. So my perceptions are based largely on what I have seen via the online streams, what I have read in the postings on Occupy websites, and how some in the blogosphere and online news community have reported or reacted to Occupy events. So my perceptions are clearly not the same as those who are immersed in the mainstream propaganda.

Nathan Schneider was one of the participants, but I really don't remember what he had to say, and that's too bad. He wrote a really good article for Waging Nonviolence on the topic of OWS, and their employment of Nonviolent version of Diversity of Tactics. It was so long ago in Occupy Time, it seems like centuries, but still the points he makes are valid.

There were some people who pointed out, correctly, that Diversity of Tactics and Black Bloc does not necessarily mean vandalism or other forms of destructive mischief at all. One of the things that happened during The Battle of Oak St on J28 was a classic Diversity of Tactics/Black Bloc action -- whether intentional or spontaneous, I don't know. A demonstrator appeared to be injured and was on the ground well in front of the crowd. One member of the crowd -- unprotected -- went to the injured person to see what had happened and one of them motioned to the police to stop firing. Then the shield bearers in the crowd moved forward to surround and protect the injured person with their bodies and their shields. They weren't dressed in black, but protecting the injured in a demonstration is a Black Bloc tactic. Completely nonviolent, too. Of course they were fired on by police -- which should have shocked the conscience of any onlooker, but you never know about that.

My final comment during this morning's call was that if practicing Nonviolent Resistance was so important to Occupy, there needed to be far more comprehensive and accessible training in what it is and how to do it. Most people have no idea.

The notes from the call are very incomplete, but they may be informative.

There's supposed to be a follow up call in a week to explore the Nonviolence issue further, but I think I'll be on the road that day and will probably miss it.

Darn.

The Problem of Success -- What if the Short Term Goal of Delegitimizing Authority is Achieved?

In an earlier essay I argue that the whole of the Occupy (Wall Street) Movement is a Nonviolent Resistance Campaign -- including its more militant and confrontational outposts like those in the West Coast port cities of Seattle and Oakland -- and that there is no divergence within the Movement from Nonviolent Resistance. Black Bloc is not a Violent Resistance Campaign, (no matter its reputation) nor are "the anarchists" (or anyone else) within the Movement advocating that Occupy engage in Violent Resistance.

I further argue that the militant and confrontational Nonviolent Resistance that has characterized Occupy Oakland has been a stunning success in achieving the short term goal of delegitimizing civic authority.

To highlight just what's happened since the advent of Occupy Oakland, it may be well to look at the following facts:

• Mayor Quan is under threat of recall, two recall petitions having actually been certified, and a recall election is very likely this year -- her authority in the interim has been delegitimized (the pathetic picture of her viewing the overturned model of City Hall in the lobby of said building after the events of J28 was the key metaphor for her complete loss of authority)
  
• Oakland's City Council members have been shown to be bullies and liars in their own right, beholden to their sponsors and owners and not the People; their behavior has been at times appalling, and has delegitimized their authority
  
• The Interim Police Chief has been repeatedly revealed as a liar whose contempt for the city of Oakland and its people is palpable -- his authority is effectively delegitimized
  
• The administration of the City of Oakland has been shown to be both corrupt and incompetent in response to Occupy Oakland -- thus delegitimizing it
  
• Judge Thelton Henderson has threatened to place the Oakland Police Department into Federal receivership because they have not fulfilled their reform obligations under the consent decree issued nine years ago, a threat based in part on events surrounding OPD's violent efforts to suppress Occupy Oakland. This threat, along with the global disrepute brought on the OPD by their violence and brutality toward Occupy Oakland has served to delegitimize their authority.

Delegitimizing authority as thoroughly as it has been delegitimized in Oakland since the advent of Occupy Oakland is almost unprecedented in recent American political history and is a stunning victory in Occupy Oakland's Nonviolent Struggle against the oppression and exploitation of Oakland's people by its elected and appointed leadership.

Certainly nothing so effective has come from the so-called "progressive movement" in the last 40 years.

Victory of this sort is a problem, however.

The question naturally arises: "What do we do now?"

Nonviolent Resistance by Occupy Oakland has gained a spectacular short term victory, but delegitimizing authority opens the door to the unknown and potentially to chaos, as many Revolutionaries throughout time have come to realize, sometimes too late. My sense -- from the outside looking in -- is that Occupy Oakland activists are aware of the problems of victory, but I'm not sure more than a few recognize what they have achieved.

The ongoing internal debate over "nonviolence" vs "violence" in Oakland seems odd to me because there is no Violent Resistance Campaign in Oakland or anywhere else in the Occupy Movement. Violent Resistance has not even been considered, at least not anywhere in the Movement I'm aware of. Just like most Occupy activists, I would immediately suspect anyone who did advocate or try to instigate a Violent Resistance Campaign through Occupy to be a provocateur or worse.

To recapitulate: Black Bloc -- and/or "the anarchists" -- in Oakland (or anywhere in the Occupy Movement) do not constitute a Violent Resistance Campaign, as they do not engage in nor do they advocate armed insurrection or the use of deadly force.

Militant Nonviolent Resistance by Occupy Oakland has achieved first-level victory by delegitimizing civic authority. What is the alternative to the present corrupt and disintegrating authority structure? Do OO activists have an alternative ready to go once the discredited present system is swept away? Or will Oakland's Powers That Be "re-legitimize" their authority before the collapse?

These questions are being worked in Oakland and elsewhere in the Movement right now.

The answers will come, but finding them is a more difficult task. What kind of future and future world do we really want?

Nonviolence in Today's Struggle

This is not violence. Wearing bandanas is not violence. Carrying signs is not violence. Using them as shields against police armed assault is not violence. Defiance of authority is not violence. Marching in the streets is not violence. Confrontation is not violence. Breaking free of police cordons is not violence. Throwing back munitions fired by police at demonstrators is not violence. Protecting oneself and assisting the injured is not violence. Attempted possession and reuse of vacant buildings is not violence.... Image from Indybay.org

Proposition: Taken as an organic whole, the entire Occupy Wall Street Movement in the United States, together with its many affiliates abroad, constitutes a Nonviolent Resistance Campaign by definition. Even its hotbed outposts of assertive activism, such as Occupy Seattle and Occupy Oakland, are by definition nonviolent resistance campaigns.

This simple fact often gets lost amid all the fretting and handwringing over a few broken windows back in November, or a flag burned in front of an AP camera in Oakland a week ago.

Let's define our terms, shall we?

A Nonviolent Resistance Campaign is characterized by a strategy of disobedience and unarmed confrontation with illegitimate authority.

A Violent Resistance Campaign on the other hand is characterized by a strategy of armed insurrection and use of deadly force against illegitimate authority.

See the difference? Armed/unarmed? Insurrection/disobedience? Deadly force/confrontation? They're not the same thing. What is the same is the object of the resistance campaign: illegitimate authority.

How then did it come about that resistance itself is called "violence," and confrontation and disobedience are seen as "tactics of violence?" To whom?

A Bit of History

[Note: I'm concentrating on these incidents because I'm closer to them; there have also been clearly nonviolent resistance incidents in Seattle that have been grossly characterized by authorities and media as protester "violence."]

We all saw incidents during the fall of last year at both UC Berkeley and UC Davis in which UC and allied police forces beat, pepper sprayed and violently arrested Occupy demonstrators who disobeyed police demands and linked arms in solidarity and defiance. And we heard and read, many of us to our shock and disbelief, administrators and police supervisors on these campuses declare those classic tactics of nonviolent resistance to be "not-nonviolence."

These events in Berkeley and Davis followed on one another, and they in turn followed on the spectacular events of Occupy Oakland's General Strike on November 2, 2011.

During the course of the day's activities in Oakland, a Black Bloc contingent (we assume that's who they were) committed acts of vandalism on selected targets such as Whole Foods, several banks and some other businesses in Oakland, by spraying graffiti and breaking a few windows. Later, as part of an attempt to liberate the vacant Traveler's Aid Building, several makeshift barricades were erected in the streets and were set alight.

There were, as I recall, about 100 arrests that night and the Traveler's Aid Building was restored to its official higher use as a vacant building. This is America; one does not "liberate" vacant buildings. It's just not done!

The Black Bloc actions during Oakland General Strike Day were defined by media and officials as "violence." No doubt, vandalism occurred and graffiti was sprayed. As many have noted, there was nothing special about this; it happens practically every day in Oakland, and it is not called "violent." It is called "vandalism." Or most often, "mischief."

It is rare in Oakland or anywhere else in America for vacant buildings to be liberated for the People's use through taking possession and squatting but even in those rare instances when it happens, possession-taking and squatting -- which generally means gaining access to the building without the use of arms or injury to people and moving in -- is not an act of "violence" by any remote definition of the word. Likewise the building of makeshift barricades from urban debris and setting them alight. It's not a "violent" act.

Clue: unarmed defiance is not the same thing as armed insurrection; vandalism is not the same as the use of deadly force.

But imaginations have been stretched to the point that simple disobedience and acts of solidarity are declared to be "not-nonviolence" and acts of vandalism or building liberation are declared to be the equivalent of "violent insurrection."

This is absurd. I use the term of art: "Absurdity on stilts."

And yet it is happening, absurdities upon absurdities adopted not just by officials and the media, but adopted by some of those involved in the Occupy Movement itself, leading to considerable internal dissension, tension and strenuous divisions among Occupy participants, factors that can lead to fragmentation and dissolution -- which is also a clue to what might really be going on. But I'll get to that.

There have been endless calls by well-meaning handwringers for Occupy Oakland, especially, to "renounce violence" and "officially declare themselves nonviolent" as if somehow their campaign of nonviolent resistance is not in and of itself sufficient. No, they must do more. They must RENOUNCE. Then they must OFFICIALLY DECLARE. Finally, as proof of their commitment to nonviolence, they must EXPEL "The Anarchists."

This has become, for many of those within Occupy Oakland (as it did in Seattle) The Most Important Thing In The Whole Wide World.

All Right, What's Really Going On Here?

Taken as an organic whole, the Occupy Movement is by definition a nonviolent resistance campaign. There is no hint of armed insurrection or use of deadly force to achieve political objectives anywhere within the Movement at all. (Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but these things have to be made crystal clear so that people in general and the handwringers especially begin to get it.)

No one within the Movement -- at least no one I'm aware of -- has advocated or attempted to precipitate or participated in armed insurrection or use of deadly force as part of the Occupy Movement.

Despite intense official violence and brutality used against Occupy Oakland and Occupy Seattle participants (as examples), there has never been a hint of adopting or using violent resistance tactics in response, even though participants in both cities, and especially in Oakland, are frequently accused of being "violent" and using "violent tactics."

Despite extraordinary levels of official violence and brutality against the Occupy demonstrators in many places in this country and abroad, the Movement remains dedicated to nonviolent resistance.

We've seen how classic nonviolent resistance tactics have been redefined by officials as "not-nonviolence." In a previous essay, I argued that the Overclass in effect has become the teacher of nonviolence, and therefore gets to determine the definition and allowable scope of nonviolence and nonviolent resistance. This has led to the notion that nonviolence must "look like" King's or Gandhi's campaigns: focused on marches, rallies and charismatic leaders. Appearance above substance, in other words.

When that is what is taught about "proper" nonviolent resistance, that is what participants are going to expect the Movement to look like. But as we saw with the Anti-Iraq War marches and rallies, "looking like" nonviolent resistance movements of the past doesn't work. It has become completely ineffective.

The Occupy Movement doesn't "look like" King's or Gandhi's resistance campaigns, and it is constantly sniped at from within and without partly because of that. It's also far more effective and on a far more elemental level than any of the activism against the Iraq War.

The Occupy Movement is actually forcing political and social change in real time, almost unprecedented since I was a young sport. And because it is effective it is dangerous to our Overclass -- and to those who seek to join the Overclass.

The effectiveness of Occupy Oakland is truly astonishing: they have succeeded in almost completely delegitimizing the rule of the city's elected and appointed leadership as well as their elite controllers, and they have succeeded in delegitimizing the authority of the police. And they've done this through a brilliant nonviolent resistance campaign that has almost no precedent in America.

Thus, Occupy Oakland especially, but Occupy in general as well, is a potent threat to the continued rule of an implacable, indifferent global elite, an elite Overclass whose rapine extractions and misrule have given rise to misery and global opposition.

This, I believe, is the key to understanding why there is so much internal dissension and external sniping over the "question" of using violent or nonviolent tactics by Occupy Oakland. I argue that there is no real question at all; the decision is plain to see: Occupy Oakland is, like all the rest of the Occupy Movement, intrinsically and by definition a nonviolent resistance campaign. A very effective one, perhaps the most effective one in the country at the moment.

OO's effectiveness in delegitimizing the authority of of officials, their police forces and the Overclass that runs them is a profound lesson that the Overclass does not want the masses to learn. My goodness no!

So rather than pay attention to what OO is doing right and well, and the actual nonviolent resistance tactics they are employing in doing so, nearly all the mass media focus and the attention they are getting from the outside, and nearly all the internal dissension that has accompanied their success in delegitimizing authority in Oakland has focused on phony charges of "violence," a largely irrelevant "debate" over whether to "renounce violence," and constant catcalling from within and without to expel "the anarchists."

As David Graeber (an anarchist, btw) has pointed out in a different context, the success of the Movement is a real problem for many people inside and outside the Movement.

What Do You Do Now?

I'm not sure there is an answer yet. But Occupy Oakland shows the way to effectively delegitimizing the authority of a civic leadership and their hired guns that has abandoned and is overtly oppressing the People. They have done it through a purposeful, directed, and completely nonviolent resistance campaign that doesn't look like the campaigns of Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi because it is not obsessed with the appearance of things, it's focused on the substance of political, social and economic justice.

Conclusion: The entire Occupy Movement is by definition a Nonviolent Resistance Campaign. Occupy Oakland has conducted an extraordinarily effective Nonviolent Resistance Campaign that has successfully delegitimized the ruling authorities in Oakland. At no time has Occupy Oakland -- or any other Occupation -- become or even hinted at becoming a violent resistance, not in the United States nor anywhere in the world. Calls for Occupy activists to renounce violence are superfluous, and demands that "the anarchists" be expelled are absurd.

One. More. Time: the Occupy Movement is by definition a Nonviolent Resistance Campaign. None of its activists have engaged in Violent Resistance, nor has any affiliate, nor has any Violent Resistance Campaign been proposed or adopted by any Occupation. At all. Anywhere.

Any questions?

Occupy Oakland Press Conference, February 3, 2012

Testimony of people who were brutalized and arrested on January 28, 2012; many were held for days without charge.

Parts of the video are difficult because of sound problems, sirens, and so forth, but the testimony is important.

Oppressed people tend to testify truthfully; their oppressors tend not to.

Just keep that in mind.

The Armchair Revolutionary (aka Armchair Radical)

From Boston Review, via Susie-C:



Photo of Ian Saxon holding the line at The Battle of Oak St, January 28, 2012, Oakland, CA -- via Daniel Spaulding

I mention this guy in my play by play of The Battle of Oak Street posted earlier. He was all over the place at the J28 events; does anyone know what happened to him? Was he arrested and jailed, or did he manage to escape with his comfy chair?

An Insignificant Handful of Oakland Demonstrators Escape Police Entrapment at HJ Kaiser Park, Oakland, CA, January 28, 2012

Of course some hundreds of them would eventually be kettled and arrested at the YMCA several blocks away later that night.

"Submit to your arrest!" "Submit!" "Submit now!"

----------------------------------------
Editorial comment: My title is meant to be ironic for those who might miss it.

There are erroneous reports that "only" a few hundred participated in the J28 actions in Oakland, which is simply not true. The numbers varied throughout the day and into the evening, from a few hundred at the City Hall where the march originated, to perhaps a thousand or so at The Battle of Oak Street which followed the attempt to occupy the Oakland Auditorium a couple of blocks away, to several thousand at the Henry J Kaiser Park where police made a failed attempt at a mass arrest.

The police had ordered dispersal from the park after closing all exits from the scene. Thousands of people were trapped unable to "disperse" if they wanted to. The police fired teargas into the crowd -- an angry but not violent crowd -- and began to tighten their cordon. Members of the crowd then tore down a chain link fence that separated the park from a vacant lot that had been "liberated" for use as a playground but which was then reclaimed and fenced off by the city for the higher use as a vacant lot. The crowd is seen in the video above breaking through the fence at Telegraph Avenue and continuing their march.

Part of the crowd was kettled by police in front of the YMCA between 23rd and 24th on Broadway, where about 100 escaped arrest through the building, thanks to the kindness of Y staff, and maybe another 50 were able to escape over fences. The rest -- about 400 -- were arrested.

All through the day, citizens of Oakland who were not part of the action were assisting the demonstrators -- residents near the Museum where The Battle of Oak Street took place were aiding people who were suffering the effects of tear gas and assisting the injured, people were cheering the marchers from their apartments as the marches passed by, drivers were honking their horns in support all along the routes. The very idea that OO has no support in Oakland is false on its face.

Below is another video of the police cordoning the crowd at the Henry J Kaiser Park and their escape, recorded from the window of an apartment across the street from the park.