November 18, 2011

The Fundamental Violence of the Occupy Movement

Filed under: Activism,Economy,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 8:47 am

The Occupy Movement is (hopefully was) violent, coercive, and intimidating at its very core, even if its participants had never thrown a single rock or uttered a single expletive, as Sally Zelikovsky brilliantly explains at the American Thinker (bolds are mine):

… for those of us who have been following this closely, Occupy Oakland is riddled with the steady drumbeat of intimidation, violence and destruction; and the anarchists are not the only players.

At first the drumbeat is subtle, carefully tapping out a steady theme of defiance.

The very essence of the Occupation qua Occupation is coercive. It calls for squatting on public property and forcibly taking it over for the exclusive use of the Occupiers. When probed, squatters readily admit they intend to stay forever, take control of the means of production and Occupy Everything.

Occupiers bully their neighbors simply by “occupying” — blocking access to the plaza, streets and commerce.

Note the critical contrast with the Tea Party, which has always — always — organized its efforts in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations (not to mention cleaned up after itself), and has never — never — engaged in the type of bullying which is the established routine of the Occupiers.

Ms. Z continues:

Occupiers have force fed the public a constant diet of threats that there are more of them than us, this is just the beginning and the rich won’t know what hit them when the revolution comes. OWS poster boy, Michael Moore, recently bayed “When there are a million [of us], they won’t know what the F to do.”

They taunt industrious citizens and productive businesses with calls to confiscate property, seize control of public spaces and expropriate it all for themselves. For those who earn a good living, own a home and have a few investments, these taunts do not go unnoticed — the Occupiers will take by force that which property owners are not willing to give.

… As their efforts devolve into anarchy, will their enablers in the press and City Hall allow the Occupation to persist without enforcing the law? Will they continue to blame anarchists for the scandalous behavior of the entire group? Most importantly, while Rome burns, will they continue to characterize the movement as “mostly peaceful”?

The Occupy Movement became not “mostly peaceful” the minute it began violating park curfew and other laws, routinely disturbing the peace, and recklessly disrupting businesses and other peoples’ lives. Mayors enabling the Occupiers — especially Michael Bloomberg in New York City — have failed their cities’ law-abiding vast majorities. People living in urban areas don’t need another reason to vote with their feet and leave, but they’ve just been handed one.

Share

3 Comments

  1. I have to say as bad as Bloomberg was in dealing with them, at least he didn’t pledge unity with the Occupiers like a certain far left mayor of a certain far left city did. I wonder how the police in that city felt, knowing their own mayor was on the side of the criminals and against law and order. No wonder their chief resigned.

    Comment by zf — November 18, 2011 @ 9:47 am

  2. [...] endorsed (proof here, here, and here) the Occupy Wall Street movement, which has been showing its violent, bullying nature for two months, culminating in Thursday’s inexcusable histrionics. Comments [moderated] [...]

    Pingback by BizzyBlog — November 18, 2011 @ 10:40 pm

  3. [...] spent the past two months describing the violent, intimidating bullies involved with the Occupy Wall Street crowd from its outset as “mostly [...]

    Pingback by BizzyBlog — November 18, 2011 @ 11:19 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.