Occupy or Just Some Guy? Occupy Philly Opposes July 4th “Occupy” Convention

The 99 DeclarationDaniel Denvir writes in the Philadelphia City Paper:

“We do not support the 99% Declaration, its group, its website, its National GA and anything else associated with it,” Occupy Philly voted in December.

Recent articles in the Associated Press and NPR nonetheless falsely stated that the Declaration is “affiliated” with Occupy Wall Street. OWS says “the 99% Declaration and its call for a national general assembly in Philadelphia in July is not affiliated with or endorsed by Occupy Wall Street, and the organizers’ plans blatantly contradict OWS’ stated principles.”

The origins of the 99% Declaration, which will “elect” two delegates from all US states and territories to draft a “petition for a redress of grievances” and then run candidates against politicians who don’t support it, are strange ones: the lawyer who is organizing this conference, Michael Pollok, represented two dozen liberal arts students arrested during an Occupy march across the Brooklyn Bridge. He then made note of their political opinions and turned them into a “Declaration.” …

Read More: Philadelphia City Paper

6 Comments on "Occupy or Just Some Guy? Occupy Philly Opposes July 4th “Occupy” Convention"

  1. Lots of people trying to co-opt the Occupy branding that the movement appears opposed to. Who’s promoting those people? Follow the money.

  2. Uhm, looks like a co-opt attempt from the left.  The only reason why they would try and hurry this to a convention when the whole idea of a convention is so against anything occupy would be apart of.  I am not sure people in MoveOn realize what decentralized means.  Occupy is basically a million of “lone wolfs” working together to something we all agree in.  Justice for all under one rule of law.  Simple as that.

  3. Mr Willow | Feb 24, 2012 at 10:07 pm |

    which will “elect” two delegates from all US states and territories to draft a “petition for a redress of grievances” and then run candidates against politicians who don’t support it,

    That sounds an awful lot like participating in a system just about everyöne in support of Occupy recognises to be morally bankrupt and fundamentally corrupt. Doing anything of the sort is to betray those who wish to see the system ended and reconstructed—or fundamentally altered—and is to recognise the pervading authorities as triumphant. 

    • No it sounds more like a genuine attempt at overturning the system following the rules.
      Now as for selection, make all candidates undergo, health, knowledge, intelligence and psychological testing. In addition provide a reasonably complete and verified history, together with open comments by verified persons about them.
      Then make them put in writing their intentions upon being elected and sign a contractual demand that they quit should they fail to adhere to those intentions.

      • Mr Willow | Feb 27, 2012 at 6:11 am |

        a genuine attempt at overturning the system following the rules.

        The situation calls for wide-scale civil disobedience. The first step in that is to refuse to recognise the authority as legitimate, which means a wholesale boycott of the mechanisms used by the legislative powers to instill in the populace the illusion of democracy. 

        The House of Representative, a third of the Senate, the President, Judges, etc. take oaths to defend the nation (and Constitution) against enemies (particularly in Congress) foreign and domestic. They’ve all sold the damn country through the legislature, through the judiciary, to private entities. 

        Continuing in this system is absolutely ludicrous, and an attempt at changing it through its own processes is futile. Even if these new ‘candidates’ get elected the whole structure is so rotten that any beneficial legislation proposed would be black balled and filibustered, the person would be slandered, their ideas equated with some fretful concept hardly anyone knows the true meaning of. 

        Everything needs to stop, so that things can at least be assessed, and then, hopefully, be changed. That won’t be done by following the rules, because ‘the rules’ are written to shut dissenters up, and in fact are written to the benefit of the system’s owners.

  4. Marklar_Prime | Feb 25, 2012 at 4:25 am |

    That’s just the nature of a decentralized movement, one faction saying another is or is not affiliated is just stupid since there is no central organization to be affiliated with. Get a clue, quit whining and do what you do without worrying about what others are or are not doing.

Comments are closed.