Anarchists and Occupy, Communists and occupy, Democratic Party and OWS, Nato riot in Chicago, Occupy and Tea Party pictures, Occupy dwindling, Occupy failing, Occupy poll, Occupy violence, Understanding occupy, where occupy violence comes from, Why occupiers wear V masks
The occupy movement started out as mostly misguided college students egged on by their professors and left wing groups to protest. They seemed to be protesting anything and nothing. Ask twenty of them what their gripes were and you would get twenty different answers. The first OWS protesters were mostly young confused wannabe socialists with smatterings of communists, union supporters and curious leftwingers of various sorts. Not always the most hygienic crowd and disrespectful of authority but not necessarily violent either. They seem to be held together mainly by a contempt for the status quo whether that be religion, government, big business or banks it did not matter. All was far game.
A Reporter Seeks to Find out What the Protesters Want at an Early Rally
It was to these people most Democrats rushed to be seen with. It was these people Nancy Polosi wished God to bless and Barack Obama tried to relate to. As the Tea Party and its message of financially responsible limited government was appealing to conservatives and libertarians; the messages of anti-commercialism, anti-capitalism and anti Wall Street that the OWS was brewing seemed to be the lefts cup of tea.
What the left was missing, and to big extent still is, is the fact that almost immediately various subcultures and interest groups were attaching themselves to these protests. Unions marched with the protesters and so did socialists and communists. Other more notorious groups aiming to benefit from the OWS chaos were groups like Neo-Nazis and anarchists. Of all of these the anarchists became to be one of the most influential. The anarchists (as well as some of the others getting involved in the movement), unlike the liberal college kids, had a history of violence and a clear cut agenda. Anarchists started infiltrating and then dominating parts of the OWS movement shortly after its inception. An early poll of OWS showed 31% thought violence was a legitimate means for change, most of these were likely anarchists. As the occupy protests in Denver got out of hand one of the bewildered leaders complained that the violence was coming from anarchist’s that were highjacking the protests. Her complaints went unheard, her warning ignored. Occupy Denver went violent and shortly after that parts of Oakland went up in flames.
That the movement has turned increasingly violent is no surprise. It is just a natural outcome of the more experienced anarchists becoming involved and taking control. Violence is the primary tool of Anarchists worldwide, in fact it has been one of their trademarks since the 1800s. Not above terrorism and known to stage violent protests outside meetings like the G conferences (G7, G8 and G20) this group has a long and violent history. They have never been a major force in the U.S., their numbers were too few and their cause too obscure to elicit much sympathy. Much to their chagrin, the anarchist’s movements and protests have always been squashed in the United States before they could do much damage, at least until now.
With Occupy Wall Street these parasites have found the perfect host to infect and use for their ends. Utilizing the clueless students and their Democratic protectors for their own ends they have been able to initiate havoc in ways never before possible. Democratic mayors seemed to be more then willing to set back and let OWS break laws and destroy public parks. No permits required, no arrests made. Drug use, vandalism and camping in the public squares and parks went on for a long time before public disgust and health concerns spurred them to act. To them the protesters were just the modern incarnation of flower power and the spirit of Woodstock. They could not have been more wrong!
As the movement spread the anarchists moved in with recruitment tables and tents for training. They gave seminars on how to fight cops, destroy property and avoid arrest (popular courses I am sure). In short the OWS camps became an anarchist playing ground. Destroying property, planning violence and recruiting many of the oblivious students along the way they were like bacterium that had found the perfect environment in which to grow. Others have been using the movement as well; communists, socialists, unions and left wing non profits are all part of the feeding frenzy too.
It seems finding ways to use the occupy stooges for political benefit was a full-time occupation for some. George Soros backed groups like Media matters, Move-on.org, Open Society Institute etc as well as unions like SEIU started pumping money and sending out trainers to direct the OWS for their ends. Even the most outrageous screen writer could not come up with a plot as insane as was happening inside the OWS alternate universe. Rich 1% socialist funneling money and effort to clueless students protesting the same rich one percenters while at the same time the so called movement was being highjacked by .001% anarchists. None seemingly aware of the ulterior motives of the others and everything seemingly spiraling out of control. This strange convergence of useful idiots is what constitutes the current OWS movement. An ideological sandwich with mostly oblivious college and left wing activists in the middle seemingly unaware they are beings used as fodder for rich socialists on one hand and cover for violent anarchists on the other. (latest riots in Chicago here)
It is almost befitting that a movement of disillusioned and clueless people are used by nonsensical groups for indeterminable ends. At occupy you have members of the rich 1% supporting groups protesting the rich 1%. You also have at the same time these groups being highjacked by anarchists; who while advocating for freedom from coercive government use coercive violence for the sole aim of controlling others. Add to this people carrying signs and chanting slogans they have no idea the meaning of and you have the present state of the Occupy movement.
It is no wonder despite all the money and time being put into the movement to keep it going there is little to show for it. No political machinery in place (visa-a-vi the Tea Parties), no clear objectives and no coalescence. The only thing that seems have been created is lots of senseless violence. As the May Day protests showed, the movement is slowing. Those seeking non-violent change are being driven out by the anarchists. Communists, no stranger to violence, are staying around but that is just adding to the extremist persona being created in the public’s eye.
At this point it is unlikely the Occupy movement will have any lasting effects on American politics. No politicians are likely to swing in on their coattails, no legislation passed and no clear message sent to the rest of the United States. In other countries with large socialists contingencies the occupy movement is just a fresh coat of paint on the same ole same ole. In Europe the occupy movement will at least seem to have legs, but not in the good ole USA.
This is not to say that groups will not continue to try to make something of the rag tag army of misfits that make up the Occupy movement. Soros and the unions are likely to continue to send money and try to co-opt it. The media might continue to try to protect it by not reporting all the violence. You are likely to even see an assortment of rich celebrities and left wing politicians try to urge on the occupiers. All this in the end is unlikely to succeed. Trying to ride the occupy movement to some sort of victory is likely to be as successful as using a four horse wagon hooked to a pig, a cow, jack-ass and a dog to go to town.
If this article makes you think pass it on