Why the ‘occupy’ protests aren’t working

Oct / Nov 2011

Yes I am skeptical of Left leaning American politics, American political movements and parties  and religions.

Why are these protests not working?

——————————————-

*1 They are targeting business and business people who are trying to get to work. These protestors are ‘occupying’ bridges, roadways. In doing these illegal and unwanted occupations they screw over people who are trying to make a living.

—————————————–

*2 The list of demands or ideology is not only unhealthy for society but is impossible to achieve because the lack of funds.

———————————————–

*3 The ‘leaders’ of the ‘occupy movement’ will be unable to cope with the needs, demands of the Entirety of the USA and its many ethnic groups, religions, races and more should their political group get voted into office. Even if there is no specific political party the ideas that the political left or anarchists, communists / socialists and whatever else exists are unable to resolve problems but create more than they can handle.

—————————————————

*4 There is no specific political statement for this ‘movement’ it is little more than anarchist philosophy and nothing workable for the good of “We the people”!

————————————

I am sure there are many other reasons for the ‘occupy’ wackos are failing to get their limited and uncertain message across. The more I hear about the ‘occupy’ nutters statements, their activities the less I am willing to listen to them and their weirdness.

 

*June 2021 UPDATE:

 

Just on a lark. I found the following text from the following website.

 

“*Occupy Wall Street gave birth to a new generation of activists. It made activism cool again; it made protesting cool again. And I think a lot of those people, and the ethos of Occupy, filtered into Black Lives Matter. But at the same time—and I totally support Black Lives Matter—if I could give a gentle criticism of the movement, I think that Black Lives Matter learned the wrong lesson from the constructive failure of Occupy Wall Street. The truth is that Occupy Wall Street did not fail because we weren’t disruptive enough. Occupy didn’t fail because we didn’t block enough streets during rush hour. Occupy failed because contemporary protest is based on false assumptions. The number one false assumption is that if you can get millions of people into the streets and be disruptive and have a unified message then our elected representatives will have to listen to us. Occupy Wall Street completely demolished that assumption. We had occupations in 82 countries, we had millions of people in the streets and Obama did not even mention the movement until we were evicted from Zuccotti. So we learned that our elected representatives do not have to listen to street protests: they are not required by the Constitution, they are not required by any sort of law. In fact, they can ignore us because protesting has become part of the daily work of the state. Protests happen and they manage protests and protests are irrelevant to the daily decisions that are being made. The continued reliance on disruptive protest tactics, like blocking traffic, demonstrates that Black Lives Matter learned the wrong lesson from the constructive failure of Occupy Wall Street.”

—————————

“*One of the things that Occupy Wall Street was unable to do was develop the processes of complex decision making. If you look at the original poster for Occupy Wall Street, you’ll see that it says at the top: “What is our one demand?” Well the movement was never able to figure out its one demand because our general assemblies were not able to agree on a one demand. But at the same time, I think you must distinguish between revolutionary aims and reformist aims. A revolutionary aim for Black Lives Matter would be to become the force that appoints the police, to become the force that controls the police. Whereas a reformist aim would be something like putting body-cameras on the police. We need to dream even bigger than reform. One of the problems of contemporary activism is that we’re dreaming at a low level. Black Lives Matter can achieve something even greater that body-cameras. It can achieve something like being the President or maybe even being the President of multiple countries. A social movement is going to arise that will win elections in multiple countries in order to carry out its agenda globally.“

——————————————————————————

“*We have prototypes of this World Party in Europe. We have the 5 Star Movement in Italy and Podemos in Spain. The difference between what they’re doing and what we’re going to see next is that we’re going to have global social movements that spread across borders—like we saw with Occupy Wall Street—but that these movements will win elections in multiple countries. Protest will be used not to influence elected representatives, but to win elections. One way to imagine how this could happen is to place all of the elections of the world in chronological order. Then you’d build a social movement that didn’t happen simultaneously around the world but happened, instead, sequentially around the world, leaping from election to election.“

————————————————-

Now why bother to point this out? Because the very one who wrote these above paragraphs knows his ideas failed and yet according to the following:

“F: What do you think of the Black Lives Matter protests that are happening in the United States since last year, the result of racial tension in the country?“

“MW: Of course I fully support this movement. I am black, I have experienced the discrimination that they are protesting. But thinking strategically, I believe it is very important never to protest directly against the police. Because the police are actually made to absorb protest—the objective of the police is to dissipate your energy in protesting them so you’ll let alone the most sensitive parts of the repressive regime in which we live: politicians and big corporations. We must protest more deeply.“

“F: What do you think of the use of violence in protests?“

“MW: Studies suggest that protesters who use violence are more effective than those that do not. I think violence is effective, but only in the short term, because you end up developing a kind of organized structure that is easy for police to infiltrate. In the long run, it is much better to develop nonviolent tactics that allow you to create a stable and lasting social movement.“

“F: But doesn’t violence exclude the public from the movement?“

“MW: People become alienated and become frightened when they see the black bloc tactic because they do not understand and can not imagine doing it. And movements work when they inspire people, when they are positive, affirmative and make people lose their fear.“

“It’s a difficult balance, because you also do not want to be on the other side and only support forms of activism that are tepid and tedious—you have to find a middle ground that excites people and also leaves them with a little fear. No one really has a remedy to resolve the issue.“

The person who spoke those words has already forgotten the failure of his first protests. You can’t harm other people to push them into bad ideas through violence, criminality and riots. And by using leftist politicians’ like those in Seattle they push out all those who want to help the community through Police work and give rise to black racists and the myriad of gangs and other organized criminals that are destroying Seattle as a city.

IF the American political left can actually provide enough evidence to prove critical race theory is correct. Then the other agendas could actually be done. But with rising crime, gang violence and so forth. “CRT” is a failure and soon blm and its associated movements will also fall apart as well.