Proposal to Adopt the Chicago Principles of Solidarity

[spencerthayer]

I saw your video but it doesn't make your argument look good. All I saw in were a bunch of doucge bag super heros advocating for non-violence while at the same time instigating conflict by way of battery/assault.

YOU CANNOT BE A NON-VIOLENT ACTIVIST AND SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF DIVERSE TACTIC WITH THE VIOLENCE-OF-BODILY-HARM!

If you are advocating these videos as an example of how Occupy should behave then your argument is a joke. These examples are not advocating for non-violence but for obeying the law by any means.

Did you notice that in this video the Anarchists are responding to the violence-of-bodily harm by the peace advocates? They don't attack anyone unless it is in collective self defence.

Ugh... I hate using this forum. I have to end this here because of the mobile limit.

[Rojo]

Why do you hate using this forum? No. You don't have to answer that. We all know that it is because you only want to deal with the people who agree with you. So go on and run back to the Google Groups with the rest of the people who no longer believe in being open and transparent.

http://youtu.be/iXIy915c8tg

So, the Non-violent protesters actually instigated all of this, Andy? Is that the best you have? You are quite the master of spin. So lets take a look at this video. A protester grabs one of your- , ahem, excuse me, the vandals. Does not hit the person, just restrains him. But then some black bloc members, at least eight of them, jump on him. This starts at 1:13 into the video. Umm, this video btw: http://youtu.be/iXIy915c8tg I guess you don't see the people chanting "peaceful protest", right?

Or at 2:00 where another conscientious objector restrains another black bloc member and is attacked. I mean there are multiple instances of people doing their best to stop your kind of members from screwing it up for the rest of us in this video.

But what about this? You can clearly see them attacking the Police long before they fired on anyone. the good stuff starts at 1:00 in. http://youtu.be/_mzKcsAcKg0 Tell me what this accomplished?

Or what about this one? http://youtu.be/hAd3W6y1MUY

You and your cronies will be the death of this movement in Chicago. Thank you, Andy.

[spencerthayer]

Why do you hate using this forum? No. You don't have to answer that. We all know that it is because you only want to deal with the people who agree with you. So go on and run back to the Google Groups with the rest of the people who no longer believe in being open and transparent.

UGH! You are so self righteous. It's really intolerable.

No it's because if you are using a mobile phone, which most of the time I am, then you cannot resize the text field. Making long posts something I have to do in a separate txt editor on my phone and then copy and paste into the forum. It's annoying. This is one reason I prefer email.

For example. I am almost out of room right now. So to respond to the rest of your post I'll have to start a new thread.

[spencerthayer]

Dearest Rojo,

A protester grabs one of your- , ahem, excuse me, the vandals. Does not hit the person, just restrains him...

...where another conscientious objector restrains another black bloc member...

Yes. What you are describing is an act of violence. It is against the law to restrain someone when it is not in self defense. Anyone attempting to restrain a criminal can be and often is charged with either assault or battery.

I mean there are multiple instances of people doing their best to stop your kind of members from screwing it up for the rest of us in this video.

Yeah like that guy who violently body checks a black clad vandal, steals his pole and then begins wildly swinging the pole into a crowd of people. Yeah a real fucking hero. Way to set an example to all the other non-violent protestors.

But what about this? You can clearly see them attacking the Police long before they fired on anyone.

Throwing shit at police who are armed to the teeth and dressed from head to toe in more armor than a hockey player isn't at all the same as protestors attacking each other. Let the police handle their response themselves you don't have to worry about it for them.

RESTRAINING SOMEONE IS AN ACT OF VIOLENCE.

You cannot be a peace advocate and at the same time use violence as a tactic to keep the peace. It is hypocritical, inconsistent, and more important invalidates your position. It is down right stupid to expect anyone to take you seriously.

In fact. Rojo you are the one obfuscating, spinning mistruths and hiding behind being a non-violence advocate when in fact you are a Statist who wants everyone to obey property law by threat of violence.

If you use violence to keep people from vandalism and sabotage expect violence in return. It is that simple.

This is why the Chicago Principles were brought to OC. Because WE DON'T want this kind of self defeating blood letting happening during G8. But super heros like Rojo here will attempt to de-rail peace so they can start fist fights with people they should see as comrades.

Cordially in your face-
but still cordially,

Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer!

PS. Who the fuck is Andy? I know a lot of people think Andy Thayer and myself are related but I've never met anyone who thought we are the same person. I am Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer. Please address me as such. Or not. I don't really respect your opinion enough to care.

[Roustabout]

More food for thought:

http://wagingnonviolence.org/2012/01/this-may-not-be-a-peaceful-protest-how-to-occupy-nonviolently/

Not going to comment on what argument it supports in this thread. I hope we can move on to what should be done here on out to make OC strong and to make this May momentous with or without the "Chicago Principles."

[Rojo]

Who is Andy? You are. I mean are you going to tell me that a person with the same exact name from CANG8 (Andy's organization) did not originally post the "Chicago Principle's" on January 24th BEFORE it was introduced by Education 01? Hmmmm...that's an awful big coincidence.

Hey all,
Long time no talk.
Last night the GA discussed the Chicago Principles put out by CANG8.
Those principles are appended to the end of this email. I was
wondering what the outcome of that GA was, did Occupy vote to adopt
those principles?
I would like to stress the importants of this type of solidarity and
agreement between allies during events like G8 summits. There are many
of us who support the Occupy movement but cannot participate due to
the stated intolerance for specific tactics.
There will be many divergent groups applying various strategies
against the State during G8 meaning organization, coalition and
brotherhood will allow us to be more effective. More importantly these
principles will keep us from tearing ourselves apart and giving the
movement to the Cops.
Thanks and below are the principles...
===========================
Chicago Principles
• Our solidarity will be based on respect for a political diversity
within the struggle for social, economic and environmental justice. As
individuals and groups, we may choose to engage in a diversity of
tactics and plans of action but are committed to treating each other
with respect and working towards a common goal of peace and
justice.
• As we plan our actions and tactics, we will take care to maintain
appropriate separations of time and space between divergent tactics.
• We oppose any state repression of dissent, including surveillance,
infiltration, disruption, limiting our action to “free speech zones,”
and violence, or attempts to divide our movement through the conscious
creation of divisions regarding tactics, organization, strategies, and
alliances.
• Any debates or criticisms will stay internal to the movement,
avoiding any public or media denunciations of fellow activists and
events.
===========================
Cordially in your face-
but still cordially,
Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer!

People are worried about OC being co-opted? You should be, because it already has been. When the first vote for the principles narrowly failed, talk about lowering the consensus popped up. Doesn't sound very democratic to me. But I guess we are past that what with the people choosing to not be filmed, transparency being discussed as something to be done away with, talk of no longer broadcasting the GA's for those who cannot be there, etc. The list goes on and on.

Restraining someone is violent? But destroying property isn't ? I think it's great that Occupy Marines has come out against the Black Blocs. Apparently there are many in OWS who feel the same way. http://occupywallst.org/forum/suggestio ... -violence/
And I have to agree with him. If you want to promote violence, go ahead. Just don't attach the "Occupy" name to it. And stay far away from us. And then there is this nugget o' goodness. Anons have come out against your tactics. http://youtu.be/LuaF9MK3dNY

And then there is this. If you are interested in learning something new, read this:
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/fil ... noweth.pdf

You know something, Andy? If you were a politician with these kinds of tactics/Points of views we would be calling you a warmonger.

[spencerthayer]

Rojo,

Property destruction is a form of violence but it is uniquely different than the violence-of-bodily-harm. Black Bloc, vandals, saboteurs and militants are not discussing the attacking bodies. But you are. You are talking about physically battering other human beings by restraining them. You are a hypocrite and clearly are only interested in maintaining Capitalist order at the expense of Solidarity.

You want us to stay away? GREAT! We don't want you around. That's why we asked you to sign the Chicago Principles so that we can talk to you. As of right now. We cannot.

I am not Andy. I am Spencer. "...that's an awful big coincidence..." LOL. End the conspiracy theories dude. Clearly you're insane and I will now be ending my correspondence with you since there is no reasoning with you if I cannot even convince you that I am who I say I am.

[bucklaw]

WOOT! WOOT! Another declaration, YUCK.

[spencerthayer]

So again I ask you to please consider these questions and publish some sort of official statement...

1) How will Occupy Chicago organize with those affinity groups that are aware that acts of sabotage will be taking place?

2) How will Occupy Chicago determine where not to be to avoid acts of sabotage?

3) Will Occupy Chicago ignore warnings about acts of sabotage?

4) Will Occupy Chicago attempt to inform the police of any acts of sabotage that may be happening?

5) Will the Occupy Chicago security team attempt to stop acts of sabotage or vandalism if and when they occur?

6) Does Occupy Chicago have a plan to deal with the larger G8 community if they plan on actions that Occupy Chicago disagrees with?

And finally...

7) Will Occupy Chicago be condemning those groups that signed the Principles publicly if acts of sabotage occur?

[Rojo]

SpencerThayer said: When violence comes up it tends to get confused with tactical property-destruction/sabotage or vandalism. Between those two, there is a HUGE distinction. First let’s clarify the more common type.

Vandalism is a low-level tactic used by unimaginative folk of all stripes—be they Leftist, Right-wing, Sports Fans or just kids out for a good time. In the sense of its occurrence at summit protests, it is uncontrollable, unplanned and ultimately a private experience. If people are planning to smash a window they share that information within a small circle of one or two people. They don't plan with other affinity groups. They don't respect the wishes of a "non-violent" organization. They do what they want on their schedule.

At these summit protests there is no centralized "activist authority" so there isn't really anyone who can enforce any agreement to stop vandalism. The rules of engagement set out by the Chicago Occupation will not be respected by those who plan on vandalizing property. They are not affiliated with Occupy and probably could not care less about it.

You contradict yourself a lot, Andy. If signing onto these Principles will somehow prevent protesters of different stripes from crossing paths, how will this be enforced if there is no central activist authority? And if some of these individuals, as you say, won't "respect the wishes of a non-violent organization", then why should we align ourselves with them?

" In the sense of its occurrence at summit protests, it is uncontrollable, unplanned and ultimately a private experience. If people are planning to smash a window they share that information within a small circle of one or two people. They don't plan with other affinity groups. They don't respect the wishes of a "non-violent" organization. They do what they want on their schedule."

And yet you want us to show solidarity with these people all in the name of "diversity of tactics". How are we supposed to hold family friendly events when you can't guarantee that these people, the ones we are showing solidarity with, will not come rampaging through?