Forums:
There was a surprise presentation at the GA yesterday evening. Instead of continuing the discussion on the Press Release regarding transparency, the GA was beaten to the punch as apparently certain unappointed, self-important "liaisons" have been working in secret with the city for over a week to shape an exit plan for OLA from the City Hall encampment. The GA was not told about the "liaisons" involvement in developing the plan nor were we allowed to see it. Instead, someone had the bright idea to use Mario Brito, of all people, to sell it to us sight unseen. One might as well have lobbed a firebomb into the GA. WTF did the "liaisons" expect the reaction to be? People are rightly furious.
As usual, the L.A. Times knows more about what was going on than the GA did http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-1122-occupy-la-move-20111122,0,1592348.story (Although I don't know where the "farmland" angle came from, at the GA all that was mentioned was a 10 sq. ft. "garden".) Mario gets two mentions in the Times article (one a quote) and a pic. More for his clipping file as he already dominates almost every press report on Occupy LA. Using the Movement as a springboard for anyone's political ambitions or whatever is despicable. Mario kept bleating that he'd been "elected". No one's been "elected" to anything. He knows, as well as anyone, that a city liaison was tried in the planning stages before the encampment ever happened and was meant to be temporary. It was never, in any case, an invitation to an abuse of power.
The "liaisons" should have admitted their involvement & posted the offer online & in camp 24 hours before it was even discussed (as per a proposal already passed) instead of trying to railroad us with a sales pitch. But, in actuality they should never have engaged in this behavior at all. The GA is the ONLY decision-making body. Period. No one should have to put up with lies, backroom deals and secondhand information that others have had for more than a week.
The city apparently expects a reply by 28 November. Why should the GA respond to this offer at all (assuming we ever see it)? Throw the damn offer in the bin where it belongs. Disabuse the city of the notion that these "liasons" represent OLA and tell them to start all over again, with the GA, where they should have started to begin with.
And BTW, I am disgusted with the city government for attempting to use the homeless as pawns in some deal. The city is supposed to be looking after everyone who needs services, not using them as leverage to get what the Mayor wants. WTF is wrong with people? The city government has been hanging with 1%er Eli Broad so long they've got no sense of decency left. That, plus the "liaisons" devotion to the status quo is breathtaking. There's so much corruption in just this one deal, it's like our own private "L.A. Confidential". No thanks.
We should consider negotiating on the city's initial proposal
Submitted by tom99 on
I agree that the way this arranged secretly is not right. However we should consider this their initial offer and ask for the additional demands. We have to keep in mind that they can kick us out with force if they want to. If they choose this route we will be left with less than what was initially offered.
On the other hand, if we show that we are are working with the city and we have their continued blessing, we probably get more supporters on our side.
You're right tom99....
Submitted by tovangar2 on
....if the Mayor's got a place going for $1 per year we should take it as long as it contains a professional kitchen, a clinic, internet, laundry facilities, restrooms and showers. The City Hall encampment could use a support building.
We will lose support if we take it, and lose moral high ground
Submitted by Lee on
If we take a building from the City Government for $1 a year, we will lose a lot of support because it will be widely interpreted that the protest is just a special interest getting goodies from the local government at taxpayers expense. So we could just be seen as a high pressure "lobby." Because we are just some (really a few) of the 99%, and what we are saying is on behalf of the 99%, it is approved of by the majority of the 99% acccording to polls, but we are not in fact the 99%. So we can't take stuff from the government that the rest of the 99% don't get. If we have the building etc. for $1, it will really be a few hundred people that have that building, and in fact it will probably really be held and controlled by a handful of people. That's my problem with it. I remember a phrase from the 60s "povery pimps"--we may seem like that.
Leone
I hope you realize...
Submitted by tovangar2 on
...Lee, that my second post was in jest. The Mayor would never offer a support building for a continued occupation. I agree w/ your post.
I prefer what is going on in NY
Submitted by Lee on
My understanding is that in NY, occupy has been taken in by volunteer churches. That kind of thing would be a much better solution in my opinion.
Leone
Yes this
Submitted by Fex on
Not only churches: synagogue. mosques, buddist temples
Every where and anywhere we can make a community impact withoput demanding, simply asking if they agree and if they do, awesome.
"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal
The symbolism of the occupation has succeeded.
Submitted by pompeytodayLA on
The symbolism of the physical occupation has succeeded; informing the powers that be of the crisis we are experiencing. Occupy is no longer a puppy, it has matured and needs to focus its energy on the movement. Valuable time spent on tents, food/water, porta potties, electricity, etc, should now be directed towards political action. This is going to be a long struggle. It is time to bring the computors in from the rain, as well as the soldiers and fight on!
we need to negotiate for more not reject it
Submitted by tom99 on
My point is that we need to negotiate for more not reject it. Possible suggestions include:
Asking for a portion of the City Hall lawn where we can continue to occupy with Welcome & Media Tent, Information Booth and 10 or 12 permanent tent and residents.
Get permission to have rallies at City Hall every day
Find a locations where the homeless people can reside permanently.
If the homeless people prefer to camp out in their own tent, find a location where they can do this without harrassment from the police.
These are just a few of my suggestions. My point is that we need to negotiate to make the current proposal by the city a better one. If we show that the City of LA and the Occupy movement is working together, it will send a powerful message to the rest of the country.
I like your idea
Submitted by Lauren57 on
See my comment further down in the thread. I guess I should have put it here.
Greatly Alarmed- Who appointed these people?
Submitted by tykneedanser on
This "negotiation" was done prior to bringing it to the GA. I am concerned that further negotiations are happening at this very moment, by people simply not authroized to speak for the entire OLA movement. People really need to follow and investigate what is happening here. It happend last night and still is not on the Facebook page. Stay Awake All!
Tiffany Tabares
"Who Appointed These People?"
Submitted by tovangar2 on
As I understand it all committees are subservient to the GA. If a committee has a proposal they must present it at the GA for approval before acting. No committee proposed opening negotiations with the city regarding an exit strategy, or entertaining offers from the city in any way, at a GA meeting. Nor did they report back to the GA after every meeting. Therefore no one "appointed" them or "elected" them. They were acting on their own without authorization from the GA and did not represent OLA.
If I have this wrong, someone correct me please.
Thank you.
"Virtue can only flourish among equals" - Mary Wollstonecraft 1759-1797
This Could be the Future of Occupy
Submitted by AwesomePossumX on
Though frustration with our government extends to all levels- local, state and federal, the prospect of converting local government to our cause can’t be taken lightly. Regardless of how this deal happened, it is worth considering. I believe this could be an important next step for Occupy Movements around the country. There will still be public animosity if the space is taken or if you continue the current occupation. It’s easier to gripe about what people are doing or getting than to actual do something. That’s why Occupy is so important-it’s people doing something. Take the offer with a press conference explaining how it does not cost taxpayers anything and offer to pay the utilities to keep the moral high ground.
The Occupations are great and were an important first step to gain attention and wake up a complacent population. Now it is time to take the next leap and begin massive organization. These spaces can help to do that. It also gives cities an out across the country. The taxpayers are tired of paying OT to cops and the small price of giving unused land/buildings for use will be welcome. I would suggest taking the deal if it is really there. Occupy Los Angeles can’t stop anyone from camping at City Hall if they want to. The City will need to realize that even if Occupy Los Angeles takes the deal it can’t control how individuals choose to protest. Show that you are willing to work with them and if they back-out or obstruct then you win. They back-out, you stay at City Hall, the police raid, you take another spot, they raid (look at Oakland). This is great for attention but hard to get things done. Occupy LA GA, please consider this deal.
Thank you.
@AwesomePossumX
TheMightyMarsupial@gmail.com
Standing with the 99% to change the world!
"I would suggest taking the deal if it is really there"
Submitted by tovangar2 on
I still cannot find the text online. As it wasn't posted or revealed during yesterday's GA, I assume it will not be on the agenda this evening. However, considering the way this deal came into being, it would be reasonable to ignore it if that's the consensus at the GA.
I hope the GA continues with the discussion of the Press Release on transparency tonight http://losangelesga.net/2011/11/public-statement-for-transparent-communication/
"Virtue can only flourish among equals" - Mary Wollstonecraft 1759-1797
The 11/21/11 Minutes are up..
Submitted by tovangar2 on
http://www.occupylosangeles.org/?q=minutes
...& they are much better than usual. Thank you Dennis de la Vega
Still no text of the offer though, that I can find.
You are the Future of Occupy
Submitted by AwesomePossumX on
Whatever you all choose to do I will support you. Stand proud--you're doing an amazing job.
Check out the 99% Declaration - Could be awesome.
https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/
@AwesomePossumX
TheMightyMarsupial@gmail.com
Standing with the 99% to change the world!
We'd be lucky to have the
Submitted by Jonathan Roskos on
We'd be lucky to have the press conference aired. I think we need to not take any gifts from the mayor. Whomever has appointed themselves as negotiators on our behalf without our knowledge should be called on to come forward and be ousted by the GA. Then the process should start over with the GA. But no gifts from the city. We have the capacity to to bring the Mayor to his knees. We use public space that already belongs to us. We don't give it up until we get some movement from the government on the issues: private money out of politics, bankers responsible for the crisis in jail. A bribe to make us go away is far too easy for them and immediately discredits our movement. We won't get in bed with the mayor and start making deals. I hope the concensus is to get the cameras out and burn the bribe in public. We're not going away. If they arrest us we or others replace the occupation of the space. It is the only reason anyone is paying any attention to this at all. The movement will be impotent from a publicly funded office downtown.
JonathanRoskos
Bring the Mayor to his knees?
Submitted by Supersean on
Are you sure we can/want to do that? What's happened to other occupations that have tried that tactic?
"We have the capacity to to bring the Mayor to his knees"
Submitted by Louise Belcher on
How do you figure that?
Moving indoors does not have to mean no outside presence.
Submitted by AwesomePossumX on
I can understand the hesitance to taking any kind of deal with the Mayor but really think that ultimately we're going to have to organize from a steady base to keep it growing. My preference would be that a sympathizer would donate (or rent cheap) space so it would be all legal and untouchable. We might see quickly that the same concerns with "health and safety" might occur even if Occupy is renting legitimate space in which to live and work. But, that would make even more of the public aware of how desperate the government is to keep this movement and its message down (if they still need it, *sheesh*).
Finding a base to organize from is the way to go whether its Occupying Vacant Buildings, Taking the offer from the City (or any other individual) or renting a space. Of course the more legitimate means will be fraught with less distress. A space found without City strings could support the encampments, organize marches, do community outreach, support candidates, feed the homeless/campers, organize reclaiming of public space for parks/gardens/etc, create art, have a digital printing press, a silk-screen, maintain a website, organize volunteers, and so much more.
I believe they have started this in NYC already but not with a deal from the city.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-occupied-office
The hard decisions are going to have people pissed at you either way. We will be scrutinized, ridiculed, called hypocrates and attacked by police as long as the agenda is to bring major changes to the status quo. Some people can't think big or are too secure or insecure to realize that standing up and making the tough choices, right-or-wrong, is better than doing nothing--even when our whole democracy depends on it.
Stay strong!
@AwesomePossumX
TheMightyMarsupial@gmail.com
Standing with the 99% to change the world!
A Chance to Evolve
Submitted by hostvarious on
I agree with @AwesomePossumX and Tom, and the others on here who have said that we should consider this proposal and read it through carefully.
I think this is a chance to move the Occupation out of tents and into spaces where more work can be done.
Step 1 was to garner awareness and rally support, but it is clear now that we HAVE awareness AND support! New York is now mobile, they are truly occupying everywhere.
Step 2 is to move into spaces where we can organize and unify the message and start to make things happen.
The City has been working with us for this long, why would they try and "undermine" or "divide and conquer" us by offering us a better place to organize!?
Provided we can verify some of the things brought up by Tom et al, I think this is something to seriously consider.
It evolves the movement, and I believe it it one step closer to our ultimate goal of changing things in this country.
I'll do my best to make it to the GA tonight!
Everyone, you're all doing amazing, and WE ARE WINNING!
@nonotechnology
We Need to Think, Not Just React
Submitted by Casey on
I completely understand why many people are ticked off about the way this deal has been "negotiated" with the city. But we shouldn't reject the deal out of hand, and it may be possible to enter into real negotiations that might produce something worthwhile. The goal is not to occupy the space around City Hall. The goal is to bring about change. If a move to a permanent home could help the movement get better organized a reach a larger audience, we need to consider the possibility. Also, it seems there are ongoing issues that could threaten the safety and well-being of those at the encampment. Rather than insist on continuing to occupy this space, we need to keep our minds open to opportunities that could take the movement to the next level.
who's gonna negotiate?
Submitted by Supersean on
Will we elect someone to do the negotiating? Or do we expect the Mayor to come to a GA?
The GA Could Invite a Rep from the City
Submitted by Casey on
GA could let the city know they're willing to consider a proposal. Ask the city council to send a representative to present their plan. Those present at GA could comment, offer suggestions. The back and forth might take a while, but I think it's worth giving it a chance. We lose nothing if the process fails.
I attended OLA for the first time yesterday
Submitted by Vyan on
and was present during the initial "Report Back" meeting and the GA later. I've blogged the experience on Dailykos Here - which includes a link to the L.A. Times Article written by Kate Linthincum the report whose presence stalled the 5pm meeting.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/22/1038950/-My-Day-at-Occupy-LA-Pl...
Another Kos Poster has some vital political backstory for why the City is probably making his offer far beyohd just "Getting the Kids Off the Lawn" and I think it's great Intel that Scott & Mario on the Liason team, and especially Jim Lafferty from the Nation Lawyers Guild should be apprised of ASAP! They're aparently killing more than a few birds with this stone. Beware of Shiny Selfless Gifts, nobody gives away something for nothing in L.A.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/22/1039173/-What-It-Means-To-Occup...
Excellent Article
Submitted by Casey on
I really recommend that everyone read the DailyKos article "What It Means...". It gives some important background on the city's offer. I'm still in favor of considering the proposal, but we need to consider all the angles. As the author warns, nobody gives away something for nothing in LA.
Elevate and excise
Submitted by trubbel on
I agree with the people saying we should at least think about accepting the offer. The movement is about evolution, and a secure shelter and some land enabling us to be self-sustaining would be a gret direction to head in, though only if the new location is still accessible to financial and governmental institutions for when we perform direct actions.
However, allowing ANYONE to think they have the ability to negotiate on behalf of OccupyLA without approval from the General Assembly is unacceptable. I think that, whether we accept the proposal or not, we should let those who negotiated behind our backs know that they are no longer welcome at Occupy LA.
The Occupy movement all over
Submitted by PC on
The Occupy movement all over the country is able to occupy the public imagination and the public conversation precisely because it is physically occupying public space. The minute Occupy LA, or Occupy [any city] lets itself be herded into a building it will lose that advantage. I'm not saying that there's nothing to gain, but I have a really hard time seeing any of the gains from a "building for evacuation" deal being *net* gains in the long run.
A whole lot of fine, admirable progressive organizations are doing hard work and laudable work inside buildings. And they're being ignored.
Movin' on down
Submitted by Partiii on
I'm torn at this point on whether to be completely sarcastic or level headed. But I should start out with. I'm not an overnight occupier, I have not shared in the same burdens that so many of you have delt with over these important weeks. But what I've seen is a community take roots, I've witnessed infrastructure grow as if planted by seed. I've watched community develop, split, heal, and persevere. I've done what I can. I marched since day 1. I've sped downtown afterwork to get to GA, dropped off supplies when I couldn't make it, and watched from livestream when that wasn't even possible. But through it all, through the unlawful aggressions in Oakland, New York, Portland, Seattle, Chapel Hill, Dallas, and a list of cities that can go on and on LA has been a beacon of hope. But in all that hope and good faith with the city I and others I know have understood that, even for us, a day would come when this Occupation, like so many others, would encounter the same decisions our sisters and brothers of the Occupation have already faced. The officials of LA had an angle since the beginning. Call it trial by fire for a city who's history of unrest and rebellion is infamous. The city kept its distance and in offering its hand was able to grab some of ours and pull them closer. This "liaison" has been known for a while, its workings discussed and whispered about and questioned. And now this group has been wooed into an offer that fits them. But does it fit the occupiers? Does it fit those of us who support you in any and every way we can? Can the occupation be the shining city on the hill when in fact its a closed office away from the public sphere? Do we camp there? Does it become 9-5? Do we wear suits? Do we answer to office managers who also once lived in tents but answered secretly to the city? I can't tell you how to decide on this, I can only tell you what I think. I think that occupy exists far beyond the camps, I think it exists in any of us who understand the problems we face in this system. But the camps offer a symbol. One that cannot be found in a city leased office. Even for $1. For those who do not camp, Occupy LA is a space to be free, it is an open space where you can debate and discuss and interact under a canopy of blue and grey and not the sterile hum of artificial light and ceiling tiles. But most of all it is a tribute to other occupations who have fought in the street to keep places like Oscar Grant Plaza or the UC Davis quad. Who are we to so easily give up our space when so many have fought to keep theirs? We have a 1st amendment right to protest and anything less than a redress of our grievances is a signal of defeat. So let us stay, let us occupy, let the city make their move, and let us stand our ground.
-D
I like Tom99's proposal
Submitted by Lauren57 on
I think the idea of having a welcome tent and a presence of some tents at City Hall. I would take the offer to resettle the homeless. Maybe they could set up an encampment that mimics the one at city hall and take care of themselves. That would be a huge accomplishment for OLA. And I like what someone else said about having churches provide free office space rather that being bought off with city provided space. I have been working with a an activist clergyman who has already secured space for a single planning meeting. So I know it's out there. Furthermore, I think that whoever wrote this article should write a response to the LA Times and Huffington Post articles. It needs to be known that this did not go through GA and the people negotiating were not empowered to do so. We have to protect the purity of our movement.
City/ unauthorized "negotiator" Meeting Notes 11/22/11
Submitted by tovangar2 on
Unbeliveably, after the 11/21/11 GA the unauthorized "negotiators" met with the city again. Twice. And they plan on meeting with the city again on 11/23/11. I am dumbfounded.
http://www.occupylosangeles.org/?q=node/2198
"Virtue can only flourish among equals" - Mary Wollstonecraft 1759-1797
Offer and a Point of Order
Submitted by ProfPalefuddy on
Absent of any "Leader" any member of OLA could be approached by a City Official and an idea could be offered to be tested at the GA. To be devided by this process is a test of OLA's Maturity. Fact the GA does not have sufficient information regarding the full address, facility, and terms of use and conditional use permits associated with this aleged offer of a space and a farm. If the offer has legs it will stand up only when the GA appoints a signator/negotiator or legal representative willing to sign a contract. Perhaps this is not existant within the organizational structure of the OLA movement.
This does not elimnate the potential use of this property for the betterment of the conditions of the 99 percent , OLA and the displaced amongst them. Perhaps the city could make the offer of office space to an organization that would assume the roll of host to the OLA office/restroom and help offer improved service contacts for the current displaced.
OLA has both a local list of issues as well as state and national level issues. There needs to be a way that this list and related real action can be aken past camping, and demonstrations.
Deal with City falls through. Is this supposed to be a shock?
Submitted by tykneedanser on
A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back because the scorpion cannot swim. The frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The scorpion says, "Because if I do, I will die too."
The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp "Why?"
The scorpion replies: "It's my nature..."
In my opinion we are trying to negotiate with the 1%. They do not care about the movement, support the movement or want us to grow and create change. Why on Earth would we expect a fair shake to be "given" to us? We are protrayed as a bunch of lazy, dirty and entitled people who are fighting the establishment. I think this deal speaks more to being paid off than any success, and confirms that we want something for nothing from the very system we are questioning. From my understanding this deal was supposed to be kept quiet and was brought to the GA anyhow. Kudo's for this and our GA process. Secret deals and negotiations belong to the 1%, not us!
IF YOU LAY WITH DOGS, YOU ARE GOING TO GET FLEAS.
Tiffany Tabares
NO DEALS - EVER
Submitted by Tony M on
The way I see it, the movement has reached a fork in the road and there are two very clear choices before us. And the answer lies in what kind of movement this is ideologically.
The decision that needs to be reached is not to take the offer or not, but what is the ideological nature of the movement itself. Is Occupy a revolutionary movement (based on anarchist principles) or a more pragmatic social-democratic one? Once we figure that out, the choices are obvious. Whether people realize it or not, the movement thus far has been almost entirely anarchist. The process we use - general assemblies, committees, affinity groups and the consensus process, etc - are all anarchist in design and structure. The idea of horizontal leadership - an essentially leaderless movement - is 100% anarchist. No other ideology provides such a framework. If we follow that path, we cannot make a deal with the city. All deals with authority must be rejected. The liaison committee have already broken with anarchist principles by meeting with police and city hall representitives. A true anarchist collective would immediately excommunicate every person involved in those secret meetings and reject the offer - via a press release. There would be no more communication with police, city hall or the media. All liaisons would no longer exist. We would hunker down and prepare for battle with the police. No concessions ever at any point. However, we are not dealing with an anarchist collective. Most people have no idea of political ideology or the fact that they are involved in an anarchist-designed movement. So that leads us to the alternative - the pragmatic social-democratic path. That means we would continue dealing with authority and get the best deal we can from the city and leave peacefully. If we take the pragmatic social-democratic one, then what needs to be clearly understood is that we are making a break from the nature of the movement itself. That way lies compromise and we will eventually be subsumed and become part of the system, ie form a party and contest elections. I'm just laying out the ideological imperatives in this decision - and trying to explain why this is splitting the camp. If you doubt Occupy was founded on anarchist principles, then maybe you need to learn more about anarchism. I recognized the anarchist nature of occupy immediately. It's why I'm here. This article by David Graeber explains a lot: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/10/david-graeber-on-playing-by-the-rules-–-the-strange-success-of-occupy-wall-street.html And this one: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/15/occupy-anarchism-gift-democracyUntil now, anarchism has almost always eventually dead-ended because of the nature of the world we live in. It is a delicate ideal that is easily crushed by the realities of the modern world.
Clearly it may seem that taking the deal offered (without overloading it with too many additional demands) is the smartest option ), but there will be a heavy price to pay. Many occupiers are against this deal and will remain at City Hall. It would mean leaving them to the wolves. We will also be leaving them with the credibility.
Those who leave will most likely be seen as traitors to the movement globally. They will probably have to take on another name. As I said, Occupy was designed as an anarchist movement by anarchists. Even if most of those who are part of it aren't anarchist, the basic principles have been set. Accepting a deal - or any deal - is antithetical to the nature of the movement itself. It was also done in a secret unaccountable way. Mario and everyone involved should not be allowed to continue to 'represent' us. They have hugely overstepped whatever role they have appointed themselves and that can't be tolerated. Mario may have been a liason, but no-one was given the power to negotiate such a deal. We are now two movements. One with credibility and one with potential office space.
Anyway, the offer is now off the table.
Mario Brito
Submitted by audiotruther on
is the "Leader " of the movement according to KFI and other mainstream media reports. Myself never heard or seen a vote of that occuring at the GA, so by the prinicples of the movement, anything Mario has done or said to City Officals as our "Leader" is null and viod.
People came together to stop this Corrupt System, before we leave or stop Occupying can we honestly say we have done that.
If we leave now we will be laughing stocks, and do more damage to movements in the future by just plain quiting than any of the 1% can do to us, we will be letting down an entire Cty, Country, and World. And most importantly we be letting down our colletive selves-
Don't use to failure, because then it becomes a habbit and habbits are a bitch to break-
Rise People that have remained silent from Commitees and the GA this is where we Seperate the Real from the Real Fake-
I believe in all of you , let us push back Fear of Raid, of bodily harm and most importantly of each other. Let this be the time that we fully Unite and fullfill our destiny and then we can show the World what Courage looks like-
Occupy Founders say Declare Victory and Go Home!
Submitted by Sue Basko on
Adbusters, who initiated the Occupy movement, say to Declare Victory and Go Home!
In this link: http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/adbusters-tactical-briefin...
This is what they say:
Hey you creatives, artists, environmentalists, workers, moms, dads, students, malcontents, do-gooders and aspiring martyrs in the snow:
The last four months have been hard fought, inspiring and delightfully revolutionary. We brought tents, hunkered down, held our assemblies, and lobbed a meme-bomb that continues to explode the world's imagination. Many of us have never felt so alive. We have fertilized the future with our revolutionary spirit … and a thousand flowers will surely bloom in the coming Spring.
But as winter approaches an ominous mood could set in … hope thwarted is in danger of turning sour, patience exhausted becoming anger, militant nonviolence losing its allure. It isn't just the mainstream media that says things could get ugly. What shall we do to keep the magic alive?
Here are a couple of emerging ideas:
STRATEGY #1: We summon our strength, grit our teeth and hang in there through winter … heroically we sleep in the snow … we impress the world with our determination and guts … and when the cops come, we put our bodies on the line and resist them nonviolently with everything we've got.
STRATEGY #2: We declare "victory" and throw a party … a festival … a potlatch … a jubilee … a grand gesture to celebrate, commemorate, rejoice in how far we've come, the comrades we've made, the glorious days ahead. Imagine, on a Saturday yet to be announced, perhaps our movement's three month anniversary on December 17, in every #OCCUPY in the world, we reclaim the streets for a weekend of triumphant hilarity and joyous revelry.
We dance like we've never danced before and invite the world to join us.
Then we clean up, scale back and most of us go indoors while the die-hards hold the camps. We use the winter to brainstorm, network, build momentum so that we may emerge rejuvenated with fresh tactics, philosophies, and a myriad projects ready to rumble next Spring.
Whatever we do, let's keep our revolutionary spirit alive … let's never stop living without dead time.
for the wild,
Culture Jammers HQ
Sue Basko, Lawyer
OCCUPY PEACE - Legal Info on How to Hold a Peaceful Protest or Occupation
It'll all come down to the GA
Submitted by Fex on
No matter who tries to take over or speak for Occupy, it will still come down in the end to the GA. That is . . . aye this sucks, having folks run off for either their own political influence or thinking they're doing the best and representing us all or . . . whatever- it comes down to nothing- it's not official without GA consent. People are arguing on this thread mainly purely for that point. And that's a valid point and it's not going to go away. Any sub group can make an agreement and leave City Hall. Sucks for City Hall then, the rest stay around.
I wouldn't worry about it. People are welcome to make their own agreements with the city or any other organization. If they falsely represent Occupy LA as a whole, we simply let the parties involved know, and continue to do our thing. No worries.
"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal
Pages