An Open Letter to the Broader Occupy Community Regarding Occupy Oakland

<table><tr><td>From <a href="http://oaklandradicals.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/openletter/#comments">Oa... Radicals</a>

<em>From a Small Group of Oakland Radicals</em>

<p><em>We are a group of radical Oakland activists who have been involved with Occupy Oakland from the very first days. We were previously unknown to each other and met as a result of our frequent participation in OO events and GAs. Two of us (a married couple) moved in to the encampment on the second day at Oscar Grant Plaza (OGP) and have attended all daily camp facilitation meetings and most OO events since then. Another has been active in the POC Committee and Children’s Village/Children Parents, and Allies Committee. Another was involved within the labor community and in the early days of the Move-In Committee.</em></p>
<p>In our individualistic culture, it is rare when radical activists are able to pitch a big tent and draw in masses of people to the cause. The early days of the Occupy movement provided one of those rare opportunities. Occupy was the spark for the emergence of a broad wave of anti-corporate, anti-repression sentiment in our society. We are concerned that the inclusivity that began this movement and contributed to its rapid growth is dying in OO as a result of the dominant insurrectionist tendencies and the “vanguardist” maneuvering and manipulations of some of its proponents.</p></td><td><img title="Why U No Sign Letter?!" src="http://anarchistnews.org/files/pictures/2012/unicornlady.jpg"></td></tr>...
<!--break-->
Dramatically shrinking numbers reveal that this ideology and organizing style either misreads the real political situation in Oakland, or else underestimates the importance of consolidating and advancing a broad, united and popular front. We all collectively must take responsibility for this “hardening” and shrinking of the OO ranks, and we must recognize that in trying to re-make OO in an ideologically purist vision, we are destroying our ability to garner the wide base of support and goodwill that will be necessary to successfully resist corporate and state domination.
<p>Occupiers who have begun to question the decision-making processes involved in recent actions like J28 are being asked, in the name of unity, to maintain silence. We have been told that our concerns will be dealt with, that there&#8217;s nothing to worry about, and that we shouldn&#8217;t speak publicly about them. Yet we feel that without transparency and open dialogue, the problems will only get worse. We are speaking to everyone who still believes in Occupy Oakland, but especially to those most active in the GA and various committees who have the ability to help us make the kinds of changes that would reassure the larger Bay Area community that Occupy Oakland is still a wise place to invest its energy.</p>
<p>The four of us decided to speak out because we have each been pushed to the margins of OO by ugly, ideological purification behavior that often now takes place at the GAs and in groups like the Move-In Committee, where dissenting voices are booed and jeered and “group speak” and in-group relationships now dominate. Please do not mistake our concerns as yet another attack on anarchism or Black Bloc; it’s not about that at all. It’s about the exclusionary strategies and tactics that alienate those of us who are interested in a slower, more solid, more inclusive approach of mass movement building.</p>
<p>What we are attacking is the acceptance and even rewarding of undemocratic practices, and the lack of a system to repudiate both these practices and the people who engage in them. It has been clear for some time that a small group of people with similar insurrectionist leanings have been actively manipulating the process and promoting their own agenda. They have previous ties to each other and many have careers in academia which provide them the time and resources to devote their lives to the Occupy movement in Oakland. These academic insurrectionist leaders thrive in a climate of secrecy, and use vanguardist rhetoric and practices to seize control of actions and messages with which OO engages the public. Many of the most divisive and undemocratic actions undertaken in the name of OO can be traced back to this group, including: two non-sanctioned press conferences, including the one for J28 in which outrageous threats and juvenile rants were made in the name of Occupy Oakland; the secretive and exclusionary planning of the strategy for J28 in which community voices were systematically excluded from the inner workings; the hijacking of the General Assembly during the second Port Shut Down; and many smaller examples of non-democratic behavior. The propaganda produced by these insurrectionist leaders reveals a very narrow scope and embarrassingly juvenile self-aggrandizement. <a href="http://www.bayofrage.com/from-the-bay/a-letter-from-some-friends-in-oakl... target="_blank">They even brag of trashing City Hall in this piece. </a> We strongly believe that the struggle in Oakland should not be used to produce what amounts to riot porn. This only serves to subvert the will of the people here who are spending our time and energy to make OO something that serves the community. It is safe to say that many of us local activists and community members feel a sense of anger and betrayal regarding the continued dominance of the collective agenda by these forces.</p>
<p>Many in leadership positions don’t seem to want the discussion about the future of OO or the Occupy movement to be about Black Bloc tactics. We don’t want the discussion to be about some false choice between Gandhian non-violence and “anything goes.” How about if we all agree to change the subject?</p>
<p>Let’s talk about our visions of what OO should be. We have one: OO could and should return to its origins as a broad mass of anti-corporate, anti-repression forces. Our vision for the future of Occupy Oakland is one of true <strong><em>radical inclusivity</em></strong>. We should think of creative ways to include, democratically represent, direct the energies of, and, yes, increasingly radicalize this amazingly diverse group. OO could evolve into a coordinating council for autonomous affinity groups, vetting, approving and organizing coordinated actions in OO’s name. This would allow political tendencies to form ideologically pure affinity groups if they wish, and to have a seat at the table. But we should all agree not to try to control the table.</p>
<p>We are asking for help from those of you who have been at the center of OO from the beginning and love the potential this movement has to create lasting, real change. We understand that you all played a big role in pitching the Occupy tent, one that is unfortunately smaller now than it should be. Help bring us all back inside. This is not a matter of individual personalities or power trips. This is a profound historical moment in our community. This is a real political and ideological struggle with real consequences. The time has come for us to make choices, make the correct ones and make them now or the moment will pass. We are ready to help bring people back into the OO tent with you. We are excited about this moment, and our future.</p>

Comments

Clearly written by vanguardists that are unhappy that they missed the Occupy train when it left the station.

Although this dud confirmed my suspicions that insurrectos are closet academic masturbators.

So because vanguardists say that IAs are lead by academics it must be true? Or maybe it could be true that the academics like to put themselves front and center. hmmmmmmmm... I'll take the latter

yes, it's because academics think they're fucking everyone's god and savior. it's how the state keep them happy with little pay. also, they're trained to be reptilic capitalist competitors. fighting for their tiny little fame in the various "radical fileds"...but we "trust" them bc they're "so so smart"!!!! smart people are never wrong! neither are famous people!!!!!!!

*fields

That radical inclusivity shit's working out real good for burning man this year.

That's probably because radical exclusivity NEVER WORKED at any point in History, you fool.

I will fuck you in the ass in front of everybody like DJ Hi-tek. You couldn't last 5 minutes in my world.

lol

Actually, that entire bit is a composition of quotes from Mike Tyson, repeated by DJ Hi-Tek.

Irresponsible sourcing, you need academics!

when you watch me smash someone's skull, you enjoy it

yeah NEVER WORK!

CoMB vs Anti-democrats, NICE!

Yeah, because our numbers are so much smaller than the other Occupy camps around the country.

O WAIT LOL

Are these the same "Oakland Radicals" that made tshirts with "Oakland Radical" on the front and ISO logos on the back?

First, the whole "occupy" thing is waning because we live in a culture where short attention spans are waning. Adding to this is likely a lack of desire to sit around and wait for a bunch of a jackbooted thugs to beat people up (stealing phrasing from right-white-wing reactionaries).

Second, have you ever considered that there may not be one big, all-loving, umbrella organization under which everyone can be controlled. Isn't that what you're looking for? To control everyone who might want to identify with your little movement? Let's discuss it and approve it? Nobody needs your bleeding heart, liberal bullshit. Each group can do what they want. Each individual can do what they want. If you want your lovey-dovey, Kumbaya, all-encompassing occupy group, accepting this fact seems to be a fairly obvious prerequisite.

P.S. All of the academics ought to be excluded simply because they obviously lack the knowledge, insight and wisdom to be taken seriously. If they possessed these qualities, they wouldn't be in academia.

The word "short" should have been omitted from the first sentence. Sorry about that. I really should proofread before hitting save.

"everyone who disagrees with me is a liberal!!!"

in a country founded on a liberalist revolution, there are bound to be a lot of fucking liberals around.

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahah

In the writers' defense, they don't seem to be arguing against insurrectionary action full stop, but rather arguing that these specific insurrectionists are acting undemocratically so as to marginalize others - in other words that the consensus basis of OO has been betrayed. I cannot verify this as I'm not from Oakland.

PS- "Each group can do what it want" is not an appropriate anarchist statement. "Do what you want" is the creed of the status quo, legitimizing as it does the capitalists who "want" to extract surplus value from their wage slaves. Emancipation will (paradoxically) require a reassertion of moral normativity.

no, each group do what you want is called AUTONOMY and it is very anarchist.

do what you want is not the credo of today's society at all, have you ever seen a cop or a prison? you can only do what you want if you have the money to pay for it. otherwise, it's an authoritarian nightmare: see the Jim Crow prison system.

autonomy works well for occupations, much more than centralized decision-making which allows petty politicians the chance to argue for enforcement/control of other by the decision-making body: http://www.crimethinc.com/blog/2011/06/08/barcelona-the-plaza-occupation...

I agree.
But whats up with the "Jim Crow prison system" ?
Is the prison system acceptable to you when it's not engaged in systemic racist behavior? (I'm sure it's not, no offense is intended)
I only ask cuz it's a pet peeve of mine when people heap unnecessary adjectives on words that should be able to stand alone on their own wickedness?

"colonial US military policy"
"fascist cop"
"racist judge"
"heartless capitalist"

Are any of these phrases any more or less true without the accompanying adjectives? It's my understanding that we've long since lost the propaganda war, and won't make any headway until we lose the emotionally charged and universally hated "pc" or morally superior language. Just explain to people that our system is evil not because of what it does to poor black lesbian proliterians or whomever, but because it enables a privileged minority the POWER to do so. Whether or not they abuse that POWER is beside the point.

-alligator

sure but i use it because it more accurately describes the reality of the prison system.

cliched choice of adjectives aside, whether or not they abuse the power is Certainly Not beside the point. to most people 'judge' or 'cop' is not going to automatically be "wicked". only to a few anarchists (not even all of them!) - so who's being purist and "morally superior"?

"All of the academics ought to be excluded simply because they obviously lack the knowledge, insight and wisdom to be taken seriously. If they possessed these qualities, they wouldn't be in academia."

Does it still count as a fallacy when it doesn't even begin to look like an argument to begin with?

The dismissal of this letter is indicative of a serious problem among IAs.
Please take this letter seriously, folks. It warrants a critique for its uncritical embrace of democratic process and the idea of a popular front, but it should not be ignored or dismissed. Insurrectionists can also become vanguardists. Don't pull another Weathermen, folks.
In solidarity, an IA

^this. i was excited about the letter until the last couple paragraphs, but just because we don't like what the authors are proposing doesn't mean we should ignore their worthwhile critique.

Anarchists and other political parties basically play out the exact same script with every movement that appears. I'm so goddamn bored with the predictable actions and reactions and responses. Nothing about the anarchist programme has changed since antiglob.

Numbers are dwindling for a variety of reasons, but the one important for us is that anarchists have contributed almost nothing new or interesting to most occupy whatevers.

Aside from building takeovers, which could be cool and should happen everywhere all the time.

yeah. a lot of those academic, "anti-state communists" that bay of rage represents may be nominally anti-state, yet anything but anti-authoritarian. and there has been a very worrying overlap with some people who get away with calling themselves anti-authoritarians. i'm sure a few of us remember the mayday smashings in sf a few years ago, the march 4 freeway kamikazes, the attack on the ucb chancellors house, etc, and other clandestinely organized 'spontaneous' events in which some people made the plans and others got left holding the bag...

March 4 was lame, but all the other stuff didn't really have many people "holding the bag." From your perspective, the only way to organize is "transparently," and you know that's dumb. don't be a wiener. Get organized with your friends and intervene if you want things to do a different way.

hey guise, fun fact. lying to women and getting all your friends to lie to them too is anarchy, or something else kind of radically political. anonymity, you know...it's also like a social rupture or something for your other "friends" to stalk and harass people - for years! ( & not to mention all the gossip and lies spread- some of it publsihed by universities!) because, like, violating other people is anarchy because I think Novatore said something that sounds cool about that and because they deserved to be violated if they are like weak sissies and barely human.

it's totally social rupture. yep.

all hail aleister crowley

anyways, most of the women are liberals or cops and they deserve it. except whoever is currently sucking my dick.

thank you for the FUN FACT. i am a stirnerite and just wanted to add that women can also be OF USE in other ways besides dick-sucking. some of them have impressive media connections!

yeah, but otherwise theyre snitches

-anarcho-juggalist

there is an egoist newspaper

show where any of that has even been remotely insinuated...

sounds like you are having a problem with an abusive person, why don't you out them? stalking people is not cool, here is what (insurrectionary) anarchists can do about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES7z1PNK6tA

violating other people is most certainly not anarchist in any way.

-an IA

you're the abusive person.

but you can keep on trying to be the macho misogynist hero. good job.

i saw identity politics drain all the fighting life out of the anti-globalization movement. i saw people begin to attack each other instead of the IMF, bankers, capitalists, politicians, etc... and I saw that movement crumble in on itself because of it.

and right on queue, another movement springs up, and more attacking each other comes out of the woodwork.

this has got to be a psy-ops strategy.
either way, HATERS GONNA HATE.

you don't need some sophisticated psyops strategy to disrupt things along those lines. all you need is some true believers in the power of words to injure, a couple of people who like to play Oppression Olympics, and others who are too afraid to question the politics of appearance, and voila! identity politicians! they disrupt all on their own.

this has nothing to do with identity, it has to do with behavior - the 'macho man' is a fucking woman, for instance...must have mistook you...i thought that 'stalker action' was lame...

"i thought that 'stalker action' was lame..." tell that to the woman who was being stalked you fucking piece of shit

sucks the woman was being stalked...the action was still lame..& spare me any self-righteous bullshit, i've had to deal with two stalkers in the last few years

yeah, and ppl wonder why i've avoided visibility...

telling people how to deal with their oppressors is the entire problem here.

they can do what they want, and i can think it's fucking lame. capiche?

for someone who has been stalked, you sure treat other survivors in a fucked up unsupportive way. capiche?

spare me your bullshitting

sometimes stalking isn't violent. it's just depressing. voyeuristic, not physically confronting. it's not cool. but, i mean, it's mostly just pathetic.

happy valentine's day

People who act like you can just label someone an oppressor and DICTATE how the world should act, according to you as the all-knowing AUTHORITY on oppresion, are the problem.
For every little tender emotional cupcake who was scared off from the anarchy scene cuz it wasn't accommodating enough to their real and imagined oppression, there are precisely 1372.5 people whose class interests are completely aligned with anarchist ideology, who walked away from yer identity distopia , never to be heard from again.
And yes, if there's an active cointel program, they are most def pimping yer authoritarian noble-victim personas, not throwing shit in the street or breaking windows.

-alligator

PS, If you march yer dumb asses, deep as hell, to the house of some evil stalker,rapist,cat torturer, etc , and you don't have the common courtesy to beat the shit out of said villain, or at least throw a newspaper box in his front lawn. Please at least have the honor not to post it on youtube as though you accomplished anything. k?

I was trollin, but I don't know what you're talking about. Yalls shit might be real, and even resonate else where. But its sort of out of left field, certainly out of the persepctive of my cheerleader booth. All I'm saying is the way you phrased your comment that I responded to was in a way that made an agrument for transparent organization, and even if the alternative can create problems for the flow on comunication, its the only reasonable option available to us. Those problems can be worked through, but I think in the framework of anonymity and opacity.

actually both of those other actions mentioned led to a bunch of immediate arbitrary arrests of people in the vicinity, while someone or other who was already in the know ran back to their ivory tower or something i can only imagine

i dont need to imagine. i'm VERY familiar.

wait, you mean the police ARRESTED PEOPLE?!!? holy shit, they NEVER do that!

musta been those anarchists fault!

I hear this statement fairly often"don't be the Weathermen" and i always wonder about the reference ,why not" don't be the Tupamaros' or "don't be the red brigades" or don't be "John Browns band at Harpers ferry".. I guess i just fail to see how anything that people in Oakland are doing is exactly analogous to to historical movments of the past. It it because some Weather people broke windows and trashed cars? because lots of people do things like this in non-political contexts such as looking for kicks when you are
a bored teen...comments such as these seem like liberal hyper-ventilating,something that unfortunately is all too common round these parts(the US).

the reference is because the weathermen were active in the u.s., unlike the tupamaros or the red brigades. the reference has to do with the numerous mistakes of the weathermen when they were active. the first was their abandonment of white working class people as having any radical potential. the second was the elevation of black people as the only real location of leadership of the vanguard of the revolution. the third was the idea that street battles with the cops would be a way to galvanize the black proletariat into a fighting force capable of beating the cops. should i go on? the tupamaros had their own substitutionist delusions, as did the red bridages, but the poison of identity politics didn't infect them the way it did the weathermen. comments such as yours seem like fake radical hyperventilating, something all too common among those who are ignorant of history and proud of it.

Stupid letter is stupid. All the talk about "mass movements" and building things slowly et ectera, more leftists whining about typical leftist bullshit, like movements and democracy, and general organizational fetishism.

OO is the largest, most radical, most militant, and most innovative thing that has popped up on the US political scene in a really long time. It is an inspiration to us precarious workers/sometime students all over the country.

Long live the commune, fuck the haters, attack, blahblahblah.

What exactly is innovative about OO? It's big and a bunch of militants get together (in a place which has been sucking up our friends from around the country for long enough) and have pretty mediocre street fights, and maybe trick some others to join them, or at least get hit by bean bags. As someone from the other side of the country, I'm generally curious about what innovation OO has offered.

Getting to trash city hall must've been fucking siiick, but lets not confuse a stroke of luck for strategy or innovation.

Also, let's be honest:
"It is an inspiration to [a handful of] us precarious workers/sometime students all over the country."

Just cuz the folks who are inspired are across the country doesn't mean it's "all over the country," at least not in the traditional way that word is used. Yes, there are a surprising number of folks excited (and actually moved to action) by militant insurrecto craziness, but what's surprising is that the number is in the hundreds and not the dozens. Let's not be totally delusional.

agreed. this is a slow motion summit hop. some involved were oakland born and bred, and some of us have no hometown in the first place... but if you're trying to argue some invariant THE COMMUNE COULD SET OFF ANYWHERE shit it's fucking laughable when your laboratory for it is the same counterculture haven where capital encourages soggy liberals run their own experiments in the creative management of austerity. if your grand narrative of struggle in 2012 is "insurrection vs liberalism" you juuuust miiiight be sitting in a nearby university zone's sandbox ghetto. send a postcard fuckers.

All I'm saying is, I come from a place that has no radical presence, and never really has, hell, its never even been able to sustain even any liberal movements. No social justice organizations, no anti-war groups (even at the height of that shit). I tried for years, with various friends from high school on, to try and involve ourselves in struggles, hell, to even get together and read a pamphlet instead of just getting drunk/high and its never worked.

Nobody cares, some people act like they do for a little while, but after getting their rocks off in a bloc in DC they don't want to come home and do the hard work of building resistance to police brutality, gentrification, or outrageous rent levels.

But since images and news started coming out of Oakland, I've had friends who never expressed the slightest interest in this shit, come and ask how we can do whats going on over there.

I'm a pretty bitter and jaded dude in general, but fuck anybody who doesn't think its good for people to get excited about the idea of confronting state/capital.

I don't think the commune can manifest itself here in my small town in the mid-atlantic, but I know it can't if all we do is sit around talking bullshit on each other, taking a hot steamy dump on the commune just doesn't make sense, to me, an outsider, who sees lots of different people inspired by it.

so it's not okay to try and overthrow the liberals who enforce capitalism because you aren't living in a conservative place?

uh, ok....

go oakland go!

I don't think you understood my comment?

The commune means a lot to me (I probably have a very idealistic conception of it though), because it is inspiring people around me to confront state/capital.

you were saying that people who lived in a university sandbox ghetto are full of shit, no?

those people are oppressed just as much as people in conservative places. in fact, liberals are often MORE controlling in my opinion.

INDEED

well, there are a lot of things one can learn from oakland. if you're looking for some magical tactical innovation, you probably won't find it there. (not sure you'll find it anywhere else, either). but if you're looking for a strategy that anarchists can employ you might think about what the "insurrectos and anti-state commies" did which anarchists in most parts of the country don't do. that is, instead of feeling superior and engaging in their own navel-gazing experiments, they actually entered into a mass movement and tried to shape the language, ideas, and tactics there by forming alliances with different kinds of folks. this actually worked, yo, and is what gave rise to the general strike, the port blockades, j28. it involves giving up the quest for ideological purity and having some conversations with non-anarchists. it involves doing a lot of boring organizing work as well as being ready to throw down in the streets.

no secret weapon. just the basics. but lots of people seem to forget about basics...

HEY!!! QUIT TALKING SENSE DAMNIT! I'm trying to navel-gaze here ...

and they are being attacked by the more reformist elements who wish to maintain control and blame their own failures to sustain a "mass movement" or "normal people" on more radical elements, when that explanation is just another excuse to navel-gaze, be a hater, and whine until maybe the people trying to fight the system let you tell them what to do.

politicians should be hung. especially those who pretend to know how to make a mass movement happen and blame other anarchists for not following their program.

going slow is for those with the privilege to not be under attack while they slowly build some mythical mass movement that will never happen because those who advocate such things couldn't organize their way out of a paper bag, let alone fight their way out.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/A._G._Schwarz__The_Riot_or_the_Attac...

If you have to slow down for a little bit to recompose, that's OK.

10 fliers for every brick and so on and so forth.

i mean, there's reasons to be wary of insurrectos getting all weathermen/blanquist on ppl. and there have been tactical and organizational decisions (the over the top bragging in the j28 press conference being a good example of that) that merit some pretty serious critique. but the kids you're talking about (if they're the ones i know) aren't dumb, and are having these conversations and are being critical of their actions. "insurrectos" and anti-state commies don't exist in some vanguardist vacuum shouting "attack!" at everything and scheming to exclude the real proles from the meeting or whatever.

idk. there's a lot of rhetoric in this critique that sounds gross and gives me reason for pause, but i'd rather work assuming some sort of good faith.

as a side note: the ideologically neutral or radically inclusive "coordinating body" idea doesn't work. in practice, an organizational form almost always becomes the project of one or a few political tendencies and gets bogged down in power plays and drama. which is okay, kind of, provided it doesn't foreclose on other ppl's ability to act. the strength of occupy oakland is how much its actual organizing body has been surpassed, and all these randos plug in whatever they want to it. the role of activists seems to me to not be about extending organizational forms and making them properly representative of the people, but rather not fucking things up in the process of doing whatever they feel needs to be done. there's always the potential for OO to close off and coopt the historical moment into a closed loop of activism or a closed loop of militancy. maybe the most important part of our attempts at action is realizing how much our shit, our projects, our pamphlets, our window breaking, isn't at the center of this historical movement, and moving without an inflated sense of our own importance.

There's no such thing as unity peeps

Haters gonna hate. Liberals gonna want control. The world continues as normal. So boring.

-won't even say they are anarchists
-use absurd vague language like community, will of the people, etc...
-sound exactly like the leftists who tried to control the student movement sounded

These people are using the language of democracy to try and gain greater control without having to change their shitty ideas and politics.

Fuck people like this.

The fuck is wrong with trashing city hall?! NOTHING!

Sure, but mostly because city hall wasn't trashed at all, just mildly vandalized, in the lobby.

You mean some "insurrectos" wrote an op-ed that made mild vandalism sound like the apocalyptic revolution?!

NO ...

you mean the liberals made minor vandalism sound like apocalyptic chaos in order to blame others for their own failures and attempt to demand control over the actions of others?!

NO...

your strawman liberal shit is OLD

as is your strawman IA shit. have a nice day.

nope, i speak of real men

I have a better idea! We could build real men, out of snow!

C. Montgomery Burns

I think we should dress the snowmen.

snowman is more accurate. scarecrows have more of a tendency to hang around for years...

They're vanguardist, powerhungry, disingenuous assholes.

Its been a great show though. Thanks for coming.

Oh, and it's awesome that radicals' sexual politics haven't changed much since the sixties. YAWN. I mean, I get the sense that this (and another recent critique) was written by women.

It's just my opinion. :D

Your opinion is patriarchal. I smash it.

No, it's not, reptile.

That was a joke ... geez

Authors of the piece, if you're there, could you describe what you mean by insurrectionary anarchists? The term is so broad that it would help the critique to have a narrower idea.

they have no idea what they are talking about. they mean people who won't listen to them and wait for them to build a mass movement to free them and fight for their own freedom regardless of anything else.

we only have one life. remember that!

"'"one life to live""", mmkay.

the piece is thoughtfully written, and probably points to something VERY REAL, from what I can tell. I don't know, I'm in Ashland.

it points in only one direction: a repetition of the suppression of kronstadt.

bullshit.

There is an egoist newspaper.

kronstadt never ended, neither did the suppression. mind = bottled at @s continuing to work with the authoritarian left over and over and over. nowadays they just do it while claiming not to be leftist. stupids.

I am one of the authors...I am not sure that we used the term Insurectionary anarchists...I am not sure that these folks are anarchists...there do appear to be people who are willing to use undemocratic means to subvert the process here in OO....and some of these people have been fairly public with there association with the insurrectionist movement...I would have to know more....I am an unaffiliated anarchist myself..i draw my own conclusions and make my own judgement...calling it like i see it here in Oaktown.

Touché. The term insurrectionary anarchist-- insurrectionist is used instead. Can you narrow this? Can it be situated?

I don't know exactly what you mean...I think of it as a style of fighting I guess...I kept running into people online who claimed to be anarchist but did indeed remind me more of sectarian RCP types in their style of debate...I don't know..this tendency is not one that I am very familiar with, but my understanding is that a fair amount of insurrectionists have grouped in Oakland...the academics that I speak of have indeed held events celebrating "the coming insurrection", to me a lot of this stuff seems silly, but I also respect the mental battle involved...I am actually trying to figure out what the insurrectionist ethic is all about myself...

here's a good place to start:
http://www.reocities.com/kk_abacus/

I am lying. When I am lying or writing one of my stalking-letters that I have been writing for almost three years. I am never going to say I'm. I am always going to speak like so.

--& "I" wanna make it clear in case anyone's confused. I'm not here to be anyone's friend. I gave that up a very long time ago. I am here to confront someone who has been stalking harassing and spreading gossip and lies about me. (I am also reading up on my anarchism!) Hope that helps...

well you're confusing the hell out of the rest of us...

I’m having a hard time distinguishing between this article and the press releases from City Hall and the OPD saying that Occupy Oakland is composed mostly of “outside agitators” (who live in…Hayward or something) who unlike “authentic” Oakland residents all fully support the mayor, the city council, and the police department.

As a POC, I’m sick of this argument that gets repeated over and over that only white people can confront the state. Who are the “Oakland Radicals”? You’re an affinity group with a political perspective. Congratulations, you now “have previous ties to each other” and are a conspiracy which needs to be exposed. At least you’re not “academics” (what’s up with the anti-intellectualism).

Okay, so most of the Occupy encampments in the US have been cleared through violent police evictions and Occupy Oakland still has weekly FTP marches and can still turn out 1000-2000 for coordinated actions which are publicized as confrontational.

And yet this article argues the opposite, that “dramatically shrinking numbers reveal that this ideology and organizing style either misreads the real political situation in Oakland, or else underestimates the importance of consolidating and advancing a broad, united and popular front.” Okay, what is the real political situation in Oakland?

The Occupy movement is dead in most of the rest of the country, and Occupy Oakland is one of the only places keeping it alive, through good and bad choices. It’s militant. People like Chris Hedges hate it. The Democratic Party is horrified.

If the article authors think they have a better reading of the political situation in Oakland and don’t like the way things are going, then they should organize their own actions. If it takes off, awesome. You were right.

Whose making the argument that "only white people can confront the state"?

Isn't that what is meant by having a mass movement?

the people who are against this:
http://bit.ly/zThLBQ

The academics and their allies who have taken advantage of the numerous defects in the (modified) consensus process are certainly acting for their own benefit, but it's absurd to claim that this is because of their "undemocratic" agenda(s). These complaints, coming from those who wish to curtail anyone not conforming to their fetishes for democracy, inclusion, and cross-class alliances, just sound like sour grapes. For the most part, the self-selected group of behind-the-scenes (until there are media around) vanguardists are Marxists, not anarchists; the anarchists who are part of this clique may identify themselves as anarchists, but their behavior/alliances/agendas are more like those of typical left activists. The irony is that that clique actually wants what the authors of this rant want: a mass movement to lead and control through taking advantage of the decision-making process to make certain their own agenda gets followed and agreed to by the GA.

Like almost all leftists, the authors are right for the wrong reasons. Yes, there's a clique of schemers who abuse the process. Yes, many of them are involved in, or are training for, careers in academia. Yes, there are fewer people participating in actions organized under the umbrella of OO. Yes, some of those actions have been silly and possibly counter-productive. BUT, the process is crying out to be abused; you can't stop career-minded academics from being involved in social change activism; you can't blame those vanguardists for the decreasing number of people at OO events. While it's vital to look critically at whatever we're doing, trying to find and learn from our mistakes, it is also a fact -- and one we ignore at our own peril -- that OPD's disproportionate use of force and brutality has had a long-term chilling effect on people; the liberal outrage at the first clearing of the Plaza could only happen once, and most regular people in Oakland know enough about OPD already not to want to engage in any frontal assaults. In a war of attrition, the side with more resources always wins. You can't blame the vanguardists for that.

The absence of a physical space for OO means that the feelings of "community" that existed at the Plaza were clearly a result of semi-permanent proximity and holding the space itself. Recent escalation actions are probably aimed at trying to recapture those feelings of solidarity and camaraderie that I also felt in the days leading up to the first OPD attack. The failure of that strategy probably has more to do with crowd psychology than the manipulative schemes of a small clique of vanguardists.

Diversity of Tactics doesn't mean "anything goes." That is perhaps the most intellectually dishonest sentence in the entire piece.

Aside from the poor analytical ability of the authors of this hit piece (Insurrectionists? Really? It means something besides having read "The Coming Insurrection" FFS) and their annoying appeal to cross-class alliances, does it bother anyone else that in a document calling for more discussion there's no contact information for them?

Oh, cross-class alliance - how "annoying"! More grand apologies for the abuses of power from Mr Grumpy...

"Diversity of Tactics doesn't mean "anything goes." I have seen the apologies for "anything goes" here NUMEROUS TIMES.

In a war of attrition, the side with more resources always wins. You can't blame the {cops and capitalists} for that!

"does it bother anyone else that in a document calling for more discussion there's no contact information for them?" ahahahahaha

Who's being intellectually dishonest, Mr Grumpy?

Cross-class alliances (aka Popular Fronts) are a doomed strategy for radical change; very early on it becomes apparent that the interests of people who are, or aspire to be, either managers or rulers (aka middle and upper class) are in conflict with the interests of people who are poor, marginalized, dispossessed (aka working class). This is why the 99% meme must be confronted and exploded. Abuse of power is a separate issue.

If by "anything goes" you mean lopsided confrontations with the cops, sure, but that's still not what DoT means.

In a (class) war of attrition, the side with more resources (ie, cops and capitalists) always win. Your attempt at irony is ridiculous.

Anyone who has a username on this site can be contacted directly by clicking on the username. Not sure what sort of polemical point you're trying to make.

so you think vanguardism is inevitable?

of course it is. the challenge is how anarchists respond to those would-be cops, politicians, and managers of revolt.

I was asking Mr Grumpy.

Vanguardism will certainly occur among people who organize themselves in semi-secretive cliques whose agenda is to inject the proper (according the the clique) tactics and strategies into larger groups. That would be a basic characteristic of a vanguardist formation, and is inevitable because the clique is organized specifically to accomplish that; if it doesn't happen, it's because they suck at being vanguardists.

One of the best ways to fight against vanguardism is to be open about one's background, one's politics, one's agenda(s), and one's principles. There's a difference between organizing in a group with like-minded allies who believe your tactics and strategies are better and trying (with a combination of guile and secrecy) to use, exploit, trick, cajole, or manipulate others in order to attain a leadership position in a given struggle.

basically exactly what we are talking about in this piece..we could spell it all out but we are trying this first...if there are people who are willing to be organized and covert while most everyone else is being disorganized and overt..it is easy to game the system, especially when you are not all that familiar to the locals, and you have a lot of time on your hands...I am sure that many other scenarios are playing out that are troubling as well..this happens to be one that I have watched pretty closely..

well we don't claim to know everything...I think that we have contact info on there though...in the about section, and people are free to comment on our blog...I am pretty new to the blog thing..i guess we could have made the names more apparent, but there was intentional attempt to be secretive...

I respect your choice to remain anonymous, but that's not the issue. You don't have an email address so that if people wanted to, they could contact you directly; if anyone wants to respond, they have to write a comment on your blog (or here), and even then, you get to decide if further contact takes place. If you want a constructive conversation about your criticisms, you might want to allow for the possibility that some of it might not happen in a public forum.

well my name is on the blog...I didn't choose to remain anonymous...if there is a way to have an email address attached I don't have a problem with that..it is just not something that we had done..

#sockpuppetofvomit

i totally respect your choice to stalk me these last few years.

the article wasn't written by someone anywhere near Oakland, in case anyone is curious.

well, I only know who one of the authors is but they have been around Oakland for at least 20 years.

well, whoever was speaking for them here sounded weirdly off and like someone who likes to write fake news and criticize OO...lol. Could be wrong! Just my opinion :D

"well, whoever was speaking for them here sounded weirdly off and like someone who likes to write fake news and criticize OO"

which is not mutually exclusive to living in Oakland for a long while, eh.

I just found this out, but if you go to the original wordpress doc. and click on the "about" link you can find the names of the folks who wrote this.

And that page also says they are The Visible Committee. lol.

I really wanted to appreciate this article as constructive criticism. It’s written like it, in some parts. However, there is no way that I can listen empathetically to an article that falls into the same exact traps that reactionary unhelpful critiques do.

Your framework to me is as such:
1. OO used to be great.
2. Now it’s not.
3. We have to bring it back.
4 There is a small elite group controlling things.
5. They have hijacked our movement, and we want everyone else to help us stop them.
6. This will bring OO back to its original greatness.

I have a serious problem with every single one of those statements.

1. The OO encampment was totally fraught with serious issues. To romanticize the early days of OO, where we dealt with rape, assault, theft, and daily sexual harassment (for starters) is misguided. We were continuously trying to relate to one another in a different way than society expects from us, trying to build a new world in the heart of the old. The same inclusivity you praise brought people with all kinds of issues to the camp, where we struggled to live together without (literally) killing each other. The methods employed to prevent serious violence were constantly trashed in the same way as the insurrectionary folks you talk about here. People were called “bullies,” “exclusive,” and “divisive and undemocratic.” So all this sound strangely familiar.

2. I think (temporary and subjective) shrinking numbers are a natural part of a movement. The initial sexiness of a working encampment and spiritual steadfastness of the vigil have worn off, and people are now incorporating Occupy-related activism and resistance into their everyday lives. The still visible aspects of Occupy, like Move-In Day, are inspiring. Only Occupy Oakland would publicly announce a building takeover with intent to create a community center, then march in the middle of the day to the location to take it over, right in front of the cops. It’s the conviction of folks to continue to provide services to the community that keeps us going. Move-In Day didn’t work; that is true. But anyone who takes the recent events of OO to mean that it’s dying down simply gives up too easily.

3. On that note, people giving up too easily is our problem. We have to continue to reach out and assure folks that movements are rocky, that we won’t let failed actions bring us down. If we ourselves portray a dying movement, what else is everyone supposed to think? We should continue to push Occupy to its limits and where it stops, not be afraid to cast off the name Occupy because we are not an Occupy movement in reality. We are a movement for radical social, political and economic change. We can’t bring back what we had in the beginning. Things have changed, that’s how it works. Instead, we must continue to shift our tactics, build our communities and refine our targets in whatever way is threatening to the system at large. Having weekly mutual aid support meetings for survivors of the prison system is arguably just as threatening as a one-day street battle with cops, so don’t think I’m pulling that card. It’s just not helpful to be nostalgic.

4. This is where I get less understanding and more annoyed. Everyone thinks everyone else is the vanguard. For instance, there is a lot of sentiment that the Facilitation Committee is overstepping its boundaries and calling too many shots to be considered democratic. Others say the same about TAC. During the encampment folks said that about Security, or the Camp Meetings, or the “outside agitators,” or certain labor leaders with City ties. You say it about, essentially, the Move-In Committee. If everyone thinks everyone else is the vanguard, what does that say about the existence of the vanguard in the first place? It’s conspiratorial, in the regular sense and the legal sense, to say what you’re saying. That makes it dangerous and unwise. We can’t be dragged into the realm of pointing fingers at every other group that’s not ours and calling it undemocratic, that only fosters an overall mistrust and ends up further isolating the different Occupy projects.

5. The notion that a vanguard group has taken over Occupy is untrue and also dangerous. You create an “other,” one that is separate from the people you call on in the end to bring OO back. Those people, the academic insurrectionists or whatever, are they allowed in your metaphorical OO tent? Or are they lost? Or were they never really “us” to begin with? Not only are there holes in the argument about how secret everything was for Move-In Day, but the holes lead to a created entity that relies on secrecy and sneakiness. So they had connections before. Does that mean that they are seasoned resisters of capitalism, or does it make them a shadow cult? The fact that you don’t recognize the same folks, the same faces that built the camp in the planning for Move-In Day means to me that you haven’t been paying attention. Who are you asking to help you bring back the inclusivity and broad based support? Cause to me Move-In Day was an attempt to do just that. It had all the elements that Occupy contained from the beginning: providing services, political education and workshops, antagonism toward the police, occupation of unused or underutilized property, and broad outreach campaigns.

6. Because the whole framework of calling for action to fix OO is based on false information, it’s pretty hard for me to see what this group wants to plan being effective. Thank you for your contributions, but purging your academic insurrectionist nemeses will only further demoralize people. I appreciate your more constructive sentiments about coordinating affinity groups, but how can you say that after you create a conspiracy against many of the hardworking members of Occupy who were there from the beginning and consistently. Which do you want, inclusive or exclusive? You seem to put out a pretty hardline statement against some folks, how do you plan to enforce your version of inclusivity? Enforcing inclusivity at the camp meant physically throwing out people who were assaulting or sexual assaulting others and refused to leave on their own. That was Security protocol, passed through the GA. I know ’cause I was there. What will be your protocol? How will the shadow vanguard be thwarted in the name of inclusivity?

I very much look forward to constructive criticism. I haven’t seen a whole lot of it. I’m not trying to protect the power of people who hold too much power. I have my own critiques of the recent events and trends of Occupy. I just can’t sit back and watch finger-pointing exclusivity be done in the name of inclusivity. It’s time we did have a serious conversation about how different Occupy projects should relate to one another, but why would people take part if the entire basis for the conversation is conspiratorial and creates “others?”

"Only Occupy Oakland would publicly announce a building takeover with intent to create a community center, then march in the middle of the day to the location to take it over, right in front of the cops. "

That a dare?

One of the authors...I agree with quite a bit of what you are saying..this was somewhat of a politcal piece..of course there is the flip side to everything...some things I have seen for my own eyes and can not be convinced otherwise of though...One thing, I don't think a vanguard has taken over, there is at least one clique/affinity group,....that clusters in certain committees and shapes the direction of things in ways that are less than democratic (changing meeting times, being rude and dismissive, etc...) there are all types of other problems to be sure, and as I always say, I am loyal to the people, and i was born into the movement, so my criticisms come from a place where I am not giving up...we thing we have better strategy, and a bigger base, than what OO is producing right now though..

lol

>>"I am loyal to the people"

well, there's yer problem right there.
you are not a savior.
you are not jesus.
liberate yourself, just as everyone else is figuring out how to liberate themselves.
don't tell others how to do it, because no one obviously has all the answers, otherwise we'd all be free.
if you feel your own liberation is bound up with collective struggle of others to liberate themselves, as I do, then you need to organize yourself and those who feel the same way and see what you can do. no one is stopping you.

no doubt..I don't actually disagree with any of that...mostly I am trying to have fun, and I don't like people trying to hustle me, which is what is happening at OO right now...I am doing a fair number of things..DOT

"no doubt, i am the biggest hustler here" lol

I replied to this on the blog a little bit more in depth..

it was ironic to read this letter about “undemocratic behavior” having seen the so-called “oakland radicals” in action. i was at the move-in assembly meetings where they attempted to unilaterally alter the proposal that had been approved by the #OO GA. the proposal as passed by the GA (http://occupyoakland.org/2011/12/proposal-for-the-taking-of-a-large-soci...) was to take an empty building to serve as a social center and headquarters for #OO. but starting in the first meeting of the move-in assembly (that is, the body that constituted itself to carry out the proposal that had already passed the GA, not to come up with a new or different or better proposal), jan gilbrecht in particular repeatedly intervened in order to change the proposal. jan thought it was a bad idea to take a space and transform it into something that would serve the needs of #OO and the wider community. instead she wanted to plan for #OO not to stay in the building, to take it only temporarily, for a day or so, and then leave. she refused to accept the fact that this wasn’t actually what the proposal said, and she continued to interrupt the meetings, both in person and over email, until it got to the point where she was actively preventing the move-in assembly from doing the planning work it needed to do. in other words, jan thought she knew better than the rest of #OO. whatever we may think of what happened on #j28 and whatever the “oakland radicals” say in their letter, what they’ve attempted to do in actual fact is go behind the back of and undermine the GA.

Aggressively defending ones self from attack is hardly radical or anarchistic, it is a human instinct. Running away screaming while being hit in the back with tear gas canisters and batons is NOT pacifism, it is just running away. I never have the intention or desire to fight cops at these actions, but i find myself under physical attack when participating in one of the most important political strategies available to us citizens. Bless all those who understand what the reality on the ground is, OPD is breaking the law when they attack us, plain and simple. We have no one to turn to for protection, so we take care of each other. Love to all involved, stand up straight and move forward.

beautiful.

>OPD is breaking the law when they attack us, plain and simple
that is neither plain, nor simple, nor true.

Beautiful sentiment maybe, respect for the sincerity ...
But holy shit, you are dangerously naive about the nature of the "law".

I disagree with the author's beef with "Bay of Rage" here. The problem isn't that they are proud and happy about taking part in the minor-league trashing of City Hall, but that as is always the case with B.O.R. they are dosed out of their ever-so-slightly post-adolescent gourds with delusions of grandeur.

If Jan. 28th was such a stellar event for you then I suggest you try to get out a bit more often.

From the B.O.R's:

"...The commune has and will continue to slip out of time, interrupting the deadliness and horror of the day to day function of society. Threads of the commune continue uninterrupted as the relationships and affinity build over the past months. An insurrectionary process is the one that emboldens these relationships and multiplies the frequency with which the commune emerges to interrupt the empty forward-thrust of capitalist history..."

This is fucking gibberish. "Slip out of time" ? BOR's should slip their dicks back in their pants and lay off the airplane glue.

Jan 28th was a rowdy demo. The main objective of the day wasn't achieved. This was not a grave defeat. We are generating an ongoing small scale crisis of legitimate capitalist governance in Oakland. This is good, but it is not sufficient. Among other problems with rowdy demos in downtown Oakland, paraphrasing Supreme Servant of the People Herman Melville, downtown Oaktown is dead as petra after 6pm. This may somewhat limit the world-historically revolutionary significance of a rowdy demo or two that takes place after dark there.

you're right. but i think the romanticization of struggle is what keeps people going most of the time.

any realistic assessment would see that like everything else tried since capitalism began, it will probably fail miserably through recuperation or via repression.

should that mean people shouldn't try?
no, because while now may be similar to many moments in the past, it's not identical, and maybe the stars will be lined up for us this time. shit, there is the internet and shit now...

You are being tongue in cheek now, right?

The idea seems to be clear, Keating. "The Oakland Commune", having been forcibly broken up by OPD some time ago, still exists but only in fleeting moments. It is not so much an object exisiting in a specific time and space, but rather a force which reappears at certain moments. I don't think it's all that esoteric of a concept. It's an idea out of Walter Benjamin's "Theses on the Concept of History", that dead and defeated struggles of the past reemerge in unfolding revolutionary moments in the now and the tomorrow.

Keating is philosophically and constitutionally incapable of understanding this point. if he ever tried to read Benjamin (which i seriously doubt) he never got it; if he ever wanted to expand his imagination to include ideas that exist outside of time and space he couldn't. despite his pretense, hidden behind the occasional big word, he just isn't that smart. you can tell from the way he formulates his insults. because the best insults require a certain amount of cleverness and intelligence, but all Keating can manage are scatological references and ad hominems.

i dont know, how has OO interrupted the deadliness and horror of the functioning of modern capitalist history (etc)? its pretty much just yet another activist sideshow contained safely within it. even the 'anti-state' aspects.

"...The idea seems to be clear, Keating..."

In response. Dear wannabe police snitch; please refrain from trying to get revenge on your political opponents by outing them to the authorities. All the pretentious college Marxism you brandish doesn't redeem your repulsiveness here.

in response, dear Keating, nobody in any police force anywhere is the least bit interested in your delusional rantings on @news. despite your self-image, you are neither dangerous nor relevant. nobody is "outing" you; if anyone were paying attention, they'd already know it was you, for the reasons i outlined above. besides, you're not writing anything incriminating. just self-indulgent and petulant. definitely not a threat to the status quo.

Again, you are a wannabe police snitch. I won't repeat it again, so just keep at it. Here's hoping your fellow playpen companions take note of this.

you are so stupid you think that there is only one person posting here about how idiotic you are. there are at least two. i am only one of them. if you had any capability to read for comprehension and discernment of style you'd see that. whatever dude. again, no cop gives a shit about your anonymous postings here. they do not contain any incriminating evidence of any illegal activity. how could they? you are incapable of doing much more than wheatpasting incomprehensible posters. a police snitch would try to goad you into admitting that you are who we say you are, would try to get you to admit to doing something felonious, or would try to get you to do something felonious in order to help you get arrested and put on trial. neither of us is doing that - fellow playpen companions take note. you are the one continually bringing unwanted attention to yourself because you can't stand the idea of nobody paying attention to you. face it, nobody finds you, or your past failures, or you stupid advice relevant or interesting.

"There are at least two..."

Not one, but allegedly at least two venemous losers who haven't got the minimal integrity to refrain from indulging in these scummy antics, and who conversely lack the courage and integrity to apply similar standards of non-anonymity to themselves. Other than as a minor-league security threat to anyone unfortunate to find themselves within smelling distance of you, you are admittedly no threat to anything beyond your parent's ability to get a good night's sleep, but you should still get appropriate points for trying. Your antics are bogus on the more important larger collective public scale as well as on the smallest interpersonal one. Here at least you are consistent.

Your role in OO is all about you and your fellows being entertained. It is not about the larger world around you. Fatuous posturing submissively imported from French philosophers aside you and others like you are the abject loyal products of the core pathology of US-style consumer capitalism. Your specious radicalism is all about a need to be immediately gratified and endlessly entertained. It isn't about anything bigger and better than that.

Anybody who is even minimally for real about liberatory social change in the context of Occupy has to now be asking themselves why it is that in an overwhelmingly hard-pressed and predominantly working class city of 400,000 Occupy is still such a microscopic and marginal phenomenon. This doesn't register with you. You are not concerned with it.

Two percent of wage earners walk off the job for the general strike? Let's redefine what the phrase "general strike" means. Mainstream working aren't getting involved with the port shutdowns? That's cool; we'll move the goal posts again; the working class aren't really "proletarians," and only criminal-minded lumpens, the hardcore homeless, and people who do the hyper-marginal/precarious toil that we and those in our immediate social set do will now get the "proletarian" brand seal of approval. And since all is always for the best in this best of all spiky protest ghetto time-space bubbles you can present everything and anything you do as a catastrophic defeat for capital. And you don't have to sweat your lack of political credibilty with any of this. You never had any to begin with.

just because KEATING craves public attention attached to his name and face doesn't mean anyone else has to play that game of desperately seeking celebrity. his attempts to goad others into not being anonymous is also funny considering all the pseudonyms he adopts. here i will point out the consistent (and characteristic -- another way to know who the writer obviously is) use of ad hominem insults: "venemous [sic] losers"; "lack ... courage and integrity"; "you are admittedly no threat to anything beyond your parent's ability to get a good night's sleep"; "you and others like you are the abject loyal products of the core pathology of US-style consumer capitalism". and there's something about us being smelly. the question is: what do any of these observations/imputations have to do with anything?

whatever observations KEATING makes about the port shutdown -- playpen companions note that i didn't call it a 'general strike' (i know what one looks like) -- are overshadowed by his abject incapacity to offer an analysis that doesn't try to score polemical points by impugning the motivations and agendas of people he believes are his enemies (many of whom used to be his allies). life must be lonely when you're so paranoid.

how can his life be lonely when he has his loyal opposition, marking his every move, presumed and otherwise?
you are making him more of a thing than he is, and are becoming as much a farce.

don't feed the fucking trolls, lest ye become one.

as usual, your point is well taken. but it sure is fun to counter his stupidities often enough to get him to shut up. there's some real satisfaction there, even if it gives him too much.

response to: "anon - Wed, 2012-02-15 21:49...

yeah, but, you are a venemous loser. So how is pointing this out not being kosher?

In the future you might want to try to stick to the salient points of the discussion. That would be the non-venemous loser type thing to do. One more step, V.L., if you wish to not be a venemous loser!

Point to mean guy keating here, by default.

Yeah, well, I know the people who wrote this letter. At least one of them is hardly a radical. More like a liberal. One of them causes nothing but trouble on the discussion forums by constantly complaining about white out of town anarchists, completely ignoring the white and POC in-town anarchists that are part of OO. And the couple, well, I'm not even sure how they got roped into this piece of crap. All I know is that this is the same kind of shit that has been pushed on people since the beginning of the commune. Pointing fingers instead of trying to join in with people. Blaming and hectoring and lecturing in circles forever and ever amen.

Really sick of it actually.

Speaking as one who has been pushed to the margins by some of the folks that wrote this article. Horizontal hostility sucks balls.

It's a fake letter written by a meddler, and a stalker. I was googling one of the actual people involved in this last night - and saw something really, really fucking lame on a OWS that looks like a meddler who would go to ANY lengths to get "revenge". Anyway, stalking the stalkers isn't too cool either, is it? But I will just tell all to THINK before you exploit and lie to people. Don't assume everyone's going to lay down for your abuse....Thanks for coming. Good day.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
S
D
1
e
v
3
L
Enter the code without spaces.
Subscribe to Comments for "An Open Letter to the Broader Occupy Community Regarding Occupy Oakland "
society