Occupy Wall Street

[shai]

Assuming you were present at the Laney campus Saturday, do you remember the part where the cops started throwing smoke grenades and firing rubber bullets at eye level into a peacefully assembled crowd that had yet to receive a dispersal order? That's when I lost any and all respect for whatever "leadership" this city purports to have, and that's why it's likely that the action will continue.

 

At this point I could care less about whether this is adversely affecting business, because business is demanding that the police do something and they're getting what the OPD has to offer. Maybe the business owners should get with the protesters and ask why every other large demonstration has to turn into a turkey shoot.

[shai]

Looks like my friends are at it again...

 

[Spambot5000]

Dope! Care to share some contextual info?

[theprotester]

You go girl.

[ipod90]

The "Fuck the police" banner really gives them credibility doesn't it. What a bloody joke.

[shai]

But....what if you took the banner, did an end run around the cops and wrapped them up in it?

 

All I know about the houseboat is that it's a project some of my friends worked on. They're pretty secretive about their projects, they usually disappear while they're working on something then reappear around the time as the installation goes up.

[cunt sauce]

The "Fuck the police" banner really gives them credibility doesn't it. What a bloody joke.

 

Why don't we talk about the Oakland Police Department and their "credibility".

 

When they murder an unarmed, handcuffed man (Oscar Grant) and get off with a mere manslaughter charge, that is when they lose all fucking credibility to be the regulators of our society.

 

Not to mention the fact that they almost killed a veteran of the war in Iraq, Scott Olsen with a can of teargas for protesting non-violently.

 

This fucking list can go on as long as you want, the cops kill innocent people all the time.

 

People seriously need to get over their fetishization of authority and take control of their own lives. If you don't understand the police to be the state's tool of violence in our communities you must have lived a pretty privileged life, free from the kind of shit a lot of people of color living in the inner city have to deal with.

 

In closing, Fuck you.

[angelofdeath]

im totally with you on the 'fetishism' most people seem to have with 'authority' or public 'servants' in general. however to me there is something extremely ironic with the police brutality against the protesters.

the overall message of these protests is that we need more government because capitalism has failed. so in the process of demanding more government, the protesters seem to be literally, as mencken said, 'getting exactly what they want, good and hard.'

[Soup forgot his password]

In closing, Fuck you.

 

Nobody is saying OPD doesnt suck balls. We're just saying when Oscar Grant got shot, the reaction to rob foot locker and play the pity card was fucking retarded. By that logic after 9/11 we should have all stolen cars and be allowed to keep them.

[cunt sauce]

im totally with you on the 'fetishism' most people seem to have with 'authority' or public 'servants' in general. however to me there is something extremely ironic with the police brutality against the protesters.

the overall message of these protests is that we need more government because capitalism has failed. so in the process of demanding more government, the protesters seem to be literally, as mencken said, 'getting exactly what they want, good and hard.'

 

Not true whatsoever. In my experience, (and most of the people I have talked to in Cities where Occupy has really taken off) it has taken a largely anti-authoritarian narrative. No one, besides retarded liberals, are begging for more government.

 

I mean come on, consensus? Direct Democracy? No political party endorsement despite a huge co-opt attempt by moveon.org and other libtards, bureaucratic labor leaders, etc.. They even got rid of a lot of the crypto-fascist Ron Paulites.

 

Social Democratic Liberals (like Michael Moore), Marxist-Leninists and Maoists have definitely been a problem for some cities (see the bureaucratic bullshit of Chicago) for bringing a pro-state, reformist "tax the rich" agenda, but look to Oakland, Olympia, Seattle, Minneapolis, St Louis, etc... Plenty of anarchists- whether they self-identify or not- have been able to push this shit into an anti-authoritarian, anti-state, anti-capitalist direction. Instead of using more government to "tax the rich", we say, change the economic/political structures that produce economic inequality: SMASH CAPITALISM AND THE STATE THAT PROTECTS IT.

 

Anyone who thinks they have the right to make the decisions that affect other peoples lives (whether that be a politician or a boss) has no fucking basis for making these decisions. FOR A WORLD WITHOUT BOSSES.

 

FOR A WORLD OF ANARCHIES, brotha!

[cunt sauce]

Nobody is saying OPD doesnt suck balls. We're just saying when Oscar Grant got shot, the reaction to rob foot locker and play the pity card was fucking retarded. By that logic after 9/11 we should have all stolen cars and be allowed to keep them.

 

Awww... Did someone rob foot locker?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know if you're into reading opposing viewpoints, but why don't you give this a try. It's not about the Oscar Grant murder, but has relevant insight that might apply to what we are discussing here:

 

"Distorted by the bourgeois press, reduced to a mere 'race riot' by many on the left, the L.A. rebellion was the most serious urban uprising this century. This article seeks to grasp the full significance of these events by relating them to their context of class re-composition and capitalist restructuring."

 

LA '92: The Context of a Proletarian Uprising

 

DIRECT APPROPRIATION

 

 

"Looting, which instantly destroys the commodity as such, also discloses what the commodity ultimately implies: The army, the police and the other specialized detachments of the state's monopoly of armed violence."

 

Once the rioters had got the police off the streets looting was clearly an overwhelming aspect of the insurrection. The rebellion in Los Angeles was an explosion of anger against capitalism but also an eruption of what could take its place: creativity, initiative, joy.

 

A middle-aged woman said: "Stealing is a sin, but this is more like a television gameshow where everyone in the audience gets to win." Davis article in The Nation, June 1st.

 

"Looters of all races owned the streets, storefronts and malls. Blond kids loaded their Volkswagon with stereo gear... Filipinos in a banged up old clunker stocked up on baseball mitts and sneakers. Hispanic mothers with children browsed the gaping chain drug marts and clothing stores. A few Asians were spotted as well. Where the looting at Watts had been desperate, angry, mean, the mood this time was closer to a maniac fiesta".

 

The direct appropriation of wealth (pejoratively labelled "looting") breaks the circuit of capital (Work-Wage-Consumption) and such a struggle is just as unacceptable to capital as a strike. However it is also true that, for a large section of the L.A. working class, rebellion at the level of production is impossible. From the constant awareness of a "good life" out of reach - commodities they cannot have - to the contradiction of the simplest commodity, the use-values they need are all stamped with a price tag; they experience the contradictions of capital not at the level of alienated production but at the level of alienated consumption, not at the level of labor but at the level of the commodity.

 

"A lot of people feel that it's reparations. It's what already belongs to us." Will M., former gang member, on the "looting". (International Herald Tribune May 8th)

 

It is important to grasp the importance of direct appropriation, especially for subjects such as those in L.A. who are relatively marginalized from production. This "involves an ability to understand working-class behavior as tending to bring about, in opposition to the law of value, a direct relationship with the social wealth that is produced. Capitalist development itself, having reached this level of class struggle, destroys the `objective' parameters of social exchange. The proletariat can thus only recompose itself, within this level, through a material will to reappropriate to itself in real terms the relation to social wealth that capital has formally redimensioned".

[cunt sauce]

Can't believe there is so much respect for authority and private property on a fucking Graffiti Forum...

 

And before any ign'ant fools red-bait me, that is a libertarian-communist page, not a Marxist State-Communist page. Libertarian Communism is synonymous with Anarchism.

[angelofdeath]

Not true whatsoever. In my experience, (and most of the people I have talked to in Cities where Occupy has really taken off) it has taken a largely anti-authoritarian narrative. No one, besides retarded liberals, are begging for more government.

 

I mean come on, consensus? Direct Democracy? No political party endorsement despite a huge co-opt attempt by moveon.org and other libtards, bureaucratic labor leaders, etc.. They even got rid of a lot of the crypto-fascist Ron Paulites.

 

Social Democratic Liberals (like Michael Moore), Marxist-Leninists and Maoists have definitely been a problem for some cities (see the bureaucratic bullshit of Chicago) for bringing a pro-state, reformist "tax the rich" agenda, but look to Oakland, Olympia, Seattle, Minneapolis, St Louis, etc... Plenty of anarchists- whether they self-identify or not- have been able to push this shit into an anti-authoritarian, anti-state, anti-capitalist direction. Instead of using more government to "tax the rich", we say, change the economic/political structures that produce economic inequality: SMASH CAPITALISM AND THE STATE THAT PROTECTS IT.

 

Anyone who thinks they have the right to make the decisions that affect other peoples lives (whether that be a politician or a boss) has no fucking basis for making these decisions. FOR A WORLD WITHOUT BOSSES.

 

FOR A WORLD OF ANARCHIES, brotha!

 

i guess all these videos of adam kokesh, peter schiff, etc interviewing and interacting with the various occupation movements arent representative of the actual movement then, cause all im hearing is a bunch of marxist statist rhetoric. more taxes, more government, more regulation, more 'fairness,' etc.

 

you know, i thought it would be cool to have an alliance with some commie anarchist types, but the only problem for me is you guys hate capitalism more than you hate the state. another issue would be if the state was actually abolished, i'd have to violently defend my life and property from you and your friends when you seek to rob it from me to put it into the hands of 'the workers.' this might be a problem.

 

just sayin

[cunt sauce]

i guess all these videos of adam kokesh, peter schiff, etc interviewing and interacting with the various occupation movements arent representative of the actual movement then, cause all im hearing is a bunch of marxist statist rhetoric. more taxes, more government, more regulation, more 'fairness,' etc.

 

you know, i thought it would be cool to have an alliance with some commie anarchist types, but the only problem for me is you guys hate capitalism more than you hate the state. another issue would be if the state was actually abolished, i'd have to violently defend my life and property from you and your friends when you seek to rob it from me to put it into the hands of 'the workers.' this might be a problem.

 

just sayin

 

It is true, WE ANARCHISTS DO HATE CAPITALISM. We hate the state because it maintains class divisions in society. The state itself is a ruling class as we all saw in the USSR, Cuba, Vietnam and China so we understand it as not being "an instrument of social change towards a classless society".

 

Now for those videos that you mention, I don't know of all the people you mentioned, but if Peter Shiff made videos against occupy for being "STATIST", I would guess it's because he has an agenda. He wants to discredit a movement that he identifies as being against the class system.

 

Now as far as you having to "violently defend your life and private property" from my friends and I (Holy shit, talk about hyperbole), unless you are a wage-slave driver in a sweatshop or factory, a police officer or a CEO of a multi-national corporation that uses the state in order to enforce land theft from the indigenous, I don't think you have to worry about your life and means to produce a life for yourself. If you mind your own business and want to be left alone to subsist off the land away from communal society, so be it. As you probably already know (you have studied anthropology, the history of civilization, yes?), land was once held in common. It wasn't until greedy fucks came around and used the state to dispossess communities from their right to the land, did we have such a thing as private property. I don't see what's wrong with folks taking back vast acreage of land "owned" by major, multinational agribusiness.

 

Also, your Individualism doesn't have to be in conflict with Communalism as long as you as an individual don't try to deny others of their ability to have self-determination and live in economic democracy.

[cunt sauce]

Now for those videos that you mention, I don't know of all the people you mentioned, but if Peter Shiff made videos against occupy for being "STATIST", I would guess it's because he has an agenda. He wants to discredit a movement that he identifies as being against the class system.

 

I just wanna make clear that yes, there are Marxist-Leninists, Maoists (who have an authoritarian, pro-bureaucratic agenda) and naive Obama-worshiping liberals there and they probably were some of the individuals that were interviewed... As you probably know, the Tea Party was once an anti-government, anti-tax, constitutionalist movement and it was projected in the media as being racist, ignorant and just downright delusional because the only people they featured on the news were the few crazy fucks in attendance. And we all know the end of this story... They were undermined and subverted into authoritarian neo-conservatism.

 

The only point I guess I was trying to make was that as a whole, in it's totality #Occupy has taken an anti-authoritarian direction. If it were not for the hard work of anarchists, autonomists, etc it probably would have fizzled into the Democratic Party's version of the Tea Party.

[angelofdeath]

Now for those videos that you mention, I don't know of all the people you mentioned, but if Peter Shiff made videos against occupy for being "STATIST", I would guess it's because he has an agenda. He wants to discredit a movement that he identifies as being against the class system.

 

he went to wall street with an 'i am the 1%, lets talk' sign.

he essentially went to point the fingers at the government and say the protesters should be occupying the federal reserve. he engaged in a few conversations basically between himself and people telling him to pay more taxes and that a few more regulations can fix all the problems.

 

Now as far as you having to "violently defend your life and private property" from my friends and I (Holy shit, talk about hyperbole), unless you are a wage-slave driver in a sweatshop or factory, a police officer or a CEO of a multi-national corporation that uses the state in order to enforce land theft from the indigenous, I don't think you have to worry about your life and means to produce a life for yourself.

im curious as to where you draw the line to determine whether someone is a 'wage slave.' is a wage slave someone who voluntarily comes to me to contract to work? and i a slave driver if i pay the guy what he wants and what we mutually agree upon, even if you dont agree with the wage?

 

If you mind your own business and want to be left alone to subsist off the land away from communal society, so be it. As you probably already know (you have studied anthropology, the history of civilization, yes?), land was once held in common. It wasn't until greedy fucks came around and used the state to dispossess communities from their right to the land, did we have such a thing as private property. I don't see what's wrong with folks taking back vast acreage of land "owned" by major, multinational agribusiness.

well, i definitely an advocate of private property. so this is where i see the problems. if i am on a farm my family owns for instance, lets say its 500 acres. we work this land and run a business on it. what is keeping you from coming to take my property for being a 'greedy fuck?' i dont understand where you guys draw the line. you are apparently ok with people owning a house, but where does the line get drawn from 'me producing a life for myself' and me 'exploiting the proletariat?' how big of a house? can i own multiple vehicles? how much land can i own and homestead? without an theory of property rights, there is no way to both properly allocate resources and determine what constitutes a crime and an infringement on liberty. since i believe in self ownership, property is nothing but an extension of this. if i have a right to my body, i have a right to my labor and if i mix my labor with property, i therefore own it and control it

 

Also, your Individualism doesn't have to be in conflict with Communalism as long as you as an individual don't try to deny others of their ability to have self-determination and live in economic democracy.

this is where i like what you say. you guys can have all the commmunal living you want. my only provision is to not be forced to join your commune. i would wish you well, i just think we'd have serious problems coming to terms what exactly constitutes 'oppressing' people by living in freedom and what yall would 'allow' me to hold as property. for instance, i think the major problem would come if say i owned a 500 acre farm and ran a business off of it, you'd come to take this from me. to which, you would meet massive deadly force in resistance.

 

 

but what i'd really like to see is you take on the more liberal minded people such as decy or soup on issues where you disagree. because you seem to always be in agreement with the statist liberals, i want to hear where the anti state liberals diverge.

[McLovin]

[cunt sauce]

The way I look at it, property rights are more commonly used to infringe upon economic freedom and deny people of self-determination rather than protect people. I think this is largely because of the state (but the state was created by people who have wealth centralized into their hands, so to us anarchists the state and capitalism is inseparable).

 

I like to differentiate between personal property, which is the property that an individual owns and uses and private property, which is owned by an individual with the intention for other people to use it, such as a large factory, plantation, etc. The only reason why someone would need to own 500 acres of land is if they want to employ other people (who don't own land, why else would they consent to working for someone else to provide a living for themselves?) and extract the surplus value from the products they produce. With pretty much every piece of land in the world owned by either private entities or the state, there isn't much of an option for a little peasant. It's either work for someone else and accept their rules, or starve to death. If you think this is voluntary, you are insane. It would be like arguing that prostitutes aren't exploited by their pimps.

 

this is where i like what you say. you guys can have all the communal living you want. my only provision is to not be forced to join your commune. i would wish you well, i just think we'd have serious problems coming to terms what exactly constitutes 'oppressing' people by living in freedom and what yall would 'allow' me to hold as property. for instance, i think the major problem would come if say i owned a 500 acre farm and ran a business off of it, you'd come to take this from me. to which, you would meet massive deadly force in resistance.

 

 

Hence, "For a world of ANARCHIES". Not one order, but thousands of different orders based upon consent. You can have your self-sufficient farm with all your assault rifles and Ayn Rand porn, but your business that is based off of extracting the surplus value of a person's labor.... is oppression, sorry.

 

i want to hear where the anti state liberals diverge.

 

Not a liberal, bro. Radical is different than liberal.

 

 

 

Anyways, I'm on a homework break right now I will get back to the other shit later.

[Soup forgot his password]

Can't believe there is so much respect for authority and private property on a fucking Graffiti Forum...

 

Nobody taught you the history of graffiti then. Graffiti came out of a time when the Bronx was heavily dilapidated and neglected by the City of New York. Graffiti originates from Hip Hop which was a movement to rejuvenate the borough, not fuck it up.

 

Most of your other posts follow the same flawed and incoherent logic. Why is everybody on the internet a wannabe anarchist?

 

And you do realize anti-government/constitutionalist is an oxymoron, right? If what you're doing goes against "we the people" you are opting out of the constitution.

 

It is true, WE ANARCHISTS DO HATE CAPITALISM. We hate the state because it maintains class divisions in society. The state itself is a ruling class as we all saw in the USSR, Cuba, Vietnam and China so we understand it as not being "an instrument of social change towards a classless society

 

You do realize none of those examples are examples of capitalism, right? China only now has become very state capitalistic and we have seen biggest redistribution of wealth in the history of the country. Cuba is now by choice of its people becoming capitalistic and the quality of life for those people has improved tremendously. When I went there in 04 it was definitely not capitalistic, nor was it any time before then.

 

And there's no such thing as a classless society. We are not all equal. You cant do what I can do, and I cant do what you can do, and society doesn't equally value our talents. There is someone out there that's really good at puppetry and someone else who's really good at creating renewable energy. Guess which one can afford more trips to hawaii.

 

"Capitalism maintains class divisions."

Show me one example of this because the reality is exactly the opposite. Communist, socialist, feudalist countries maintain class divisions. It's only in capitalist societies do you see every generation better off than the last one, segregated communities becoming multicultural, poor becoming the richest in the world. You are sitting on the internet, in front of a computer, talking freely to other people with no restrictions, all biproducts of a capitalist society. You can't do this anywhere else.

 

How exactly do you think you're an anarchist? Because you say anarchisty things? Name one anarchist thing you do.

[Soup forgot his password]

I just want to add too that only in capitalistic societies do you even see what could possibly be construed as "classless societies." In Amsterdam millionares live next to middle-income families who live next to anarchist boat squatters. All these cultures and economic classes on the same block. That could not exist without capitalism.

 

If something like that doesnt exist near you to the extent you wish it did, that's a cultural acceptance issue. Not an economic one.

 

Also what country do you know offers free education to any child in this country, regardless if their parents are illegal immigrants? Then that grows up and gets subsidized college tuition, subsidized rent, subsidized groceries, subsidized everything. Meanwhile I have to pay full price for everything AND pay taxes to help Raoul get an AA in Advanced Physical Therapy at the local city college. And then when hes old im paying his social security.

[angelofdeath]

 

I like to differentiate between personal property, which is the property that an individual owns and uses and private property, which is owned by an individual with the intention for other people to use it, such as a large factory, plantation, etc. The only reason why someone would need to own 500 acres of land is if they want to employ other people (who don't own land, why else would they consent to working for someone else to provide a living for themselves?) and extract the surplus value from the products they produce. With pretty much every piece of land in the world owned by either private entities or the state, there isn't much of an option for a little peasant. It's either work for someone else and accept their rules, or starve to death. If you think this is voluntary, you are insane. It would be like arguing that prostitutes aren't exploited by their pimps.

 

so, a peice of property that is in my family for generations, that was worked and maintained by the family is oppressing people? why is the land ownership oppressing people, but if i just have a house somewhere, im not oppressing them by not allowing them in my house?

to me this logic is totally bass ackwards. its sort of like saying that if you have a wife, and she keeps her legs closed, she is oppressing the other men because they cant get at whats in between those legs.

 

if i wanted to make some money and i contracted with a neighbor to work on his car or bale some hay for him, how am i being oppressed if i consent to it or if i am super excited about the opportunity to earn some money?

 

if a prostitute voluntarily contracts with a pimp to manage her business, that is her problem. she consented. if a pimp puts a gun to the prostitutes head and forces her into service or refuses her the right to leave when she wants, that is involuntary. look at it another way. the tyranny of the symphony orchestra. if you play a wind instrument, the conductor literally TELLS YOU WHEN TO BREATH! i mean, even the nazi's didnt do that. but the player voluntarily agreed to this arrangement.

 

Hence, "For a world of ANARCHIES". Not one order, but thousands of different orders based upon consent. You can have your self-sufficient farm with all your assault rifles and Ayn Rand porn, but your business that is based off of extracting the surplus value of a person's labor.... is oppression, sorry.

 

which is why, when you come to tell me or someone i have contracted with, that this arrangement is oppression, you'll end up getting my precious metals, lead first.

 

i still need to know exactly how much land i can have in my 'self sufficient' farm and at what point you are justified in taking the excess from me. seems to me, if property is oppression, all property is oppression, including the very concept of self ownership. if you own yourself, you are oppressing people 'bro'

 

i fail to see how someone willingly coming up to me and offering to fix my roof is oppressing him. by logical deduction you can say that it is in there best interest if they came to me, otherwise they wouldnt do it. trade is mutually beneficial, if it wasnt, the trade wouldnt take place.

what if the roof guy is starving and wants to fix my roof and i tell him...'sorry man, if you give me your surplus labor, im oppressing you. no, i dont care if you are starving and you;ll willingly do the work for a home cooked meal, im still oppressing you. better try some place else to be oppressed. im an anarcho communist real libertarian.'

[Spambot5000]

Relevant;

http://www.truth-out.org/black-bloc-cancer-occupy/1328541484

[Fist 666]

"The Black Bloc spends more time attempting to destroy movements than they do attacking those in power. They hate the left more than they hate capitalists.”

 

excellent.

[Spambot5000]

I hadn't heard of Chris Hedges before reading that article, so given that a number of people were saying in the comments he has become a somewhat representative figure for occupy sentiment I thought I'd check him out a little. I listened to this

last night on his book 'The Death of the Liberal Class' and found it pretty interesting despite the fact I don't agree with a solid portion of his analysis. I might read his book at some point.

 

Also, here is a clip narrating of The Battle of Oakland. It's pretty slanted but what can you expect? I found it particularly interesting at the end where the younger girl says "we are not making any demands, we are building communities that can look after ourselves... that can house ourselves", apparently not seeing the inconsistency between this statement and marching around attempting to take hold of buildings by force that they do not own or have permission to occupy.

[shai]

"Taking them by force" is a little misleading. Having a sit-in at a foreclosed house hurts no one but the bank, yet judging by the response from a supposedly cash-strapped police department that laid off 140 of its beat cops you wouldn't know that. I'm not going to go into some of the other stuff that goes on here but I can assure you the last thing anyone involved with the activist/radical community wants right now is to deal with the OPD.

 

Most of the people who have been quoted in the press or in blogs from Oakland don't speak for me or a lot of people I know (with some notable exceptions). That's all well and good but I think the way the media frames things here is a little skewed....I've lived in Oakland for a long time and I have a pretty good handle on what's wrong. And after thinking about the issues- a lot- I've decided that I definitely don't know how they can be fixed...addressing the problem with the city and the powers that be doesn't seem to be working while protesting and occupying space just seems to generate crackdowns and ill will.

 

I think everyone needs to unlearn some unhealthy traits, break some bad habits, open themselves to new ideas and not be so rigid in their thinking. That includes the activists. I don't trust the OPD as an agency but I'm willing to talk to them on an individual level as people with as little prejudice as possible if and when the opportunity presented itself.

 

I also wanted to address something that was touched on earlier.

 

I don't have a problem with commerce per se. However, capitalism has some negative associations with me...especially the accumulation of surplus as a means to gain and/or maintain wealth and not as a hedge against future shortage or as a means to benefit the community in time of need.

 

In my world this applies mainly to food and housing, both of which there is an abundance of but it's very poorly distributed due to commodification and greed. I don't advocate involuntary redistribution of the personal property of individuals...the jury is still out on banks and corporations but it's not like they're completely blameless so it irks me when they play the victim. (I'll admit to some personal bias there.)

 

I suppose I could be considered somewhat disadvantaged being poor and semi-disabled but instead of using that as a fallback I took it as a sign that I should try to help people so they might see fit to reciprocate and help others. My politics- such as they are- don't really play into this or my views about Occupy in general. Some things people get right, other things they get wrong. As long as they're willing to learn and communicate and work together they're doing good and that's all I can hope for.

[Spambot5000]

"Taking them by force" is a little misleading. Having a sit-in at a foreclosed house hurts no one but the bank.

 

If the owner did not give permission then an occupation is taking the property by force. They weren't talking about a sit-in in these interviews, they were talking about having a base for operations, which implies to me something far more permanent. Regardless, I'm not making a value judgement about the act specifically, I am just drawing attention to the inconsistency between the girls statement and the movements actions.

[Soup forgot his password]

How do you know the house being squatted in is someone's property or not? One of the houses Occupy Oakland claimed as its own was recently bought by some family. Occupy Oakland apparently trashed it, but appologized and said they had no idea, and would be sure to clean it all up before the family moved in. You'd think the lesson there would be that there's no such thing as just a house the bank owns, and by claiming property that's not yours you're eventually hurting someone, but apparently not.

[ipod90]

Cunt sauce - You talk shit about the cops but have no idea how good you actually have it. Ever spent time in Africa? China? Russia? These are shit holes of the world buddy. All you are doing is helping the elite by solidifying the average persons perceptions on the Occupy movement.

 

Get organized! Win the Hearts and minds of the people. Then you can have your so called Revolution. The

great USA has already been milked for all it has. The empire is falling and the people are starting to realize.

History repeats itself once again.

[shai]

Ideally the property is bank owned or one where the owner died intestate and there's a tax lien on the property. If someone decided to move into a house owned by an individual that was vacant between tenancies, well...it happens. I wouldn't do it but if someone is desperate enough to go to those lengths I don't feel qualified to judge them.

 

Without going into too much detail I probably know a little bit more about this subject than most people.

[theprotester]

Moving in and trashing the joint are two different things.