Are the Violent Black Bloc Sheep of Occupy Killing the Movement?

Are Violent Black 'Bloc' Protestors threatening the Success of the Occupy Movement?

The Occupy Movement includes people from all walks of life with all sorts of agendas. Though unified by the desire for change, the participants vary by age, race, occupations, financial status, interests and intentions.

Though most of those who Occupy do so for righteous reasons and purpose, there are those who are only there to disrupt and destroy. Out of those there to harm the movement, there those who seek to do so for the “hell” of it, there are undoubtedly those who do so to give a bad name to a noble cause. 

It would be interesting to know how many among Black Bloc are police infiltrators provoking more violence and harm. 

The Black Bloc anarchists, who have been active on every front and in every city of the Occupy Movement, are that bad name. The attendance of these Black Bloc anarchists (named so because they dress all in black) who hide their faces, move around in packs, destroy property and provoke physical confrontations with police every chance they get is what not only gives Occupy a bad name, it destroys sympathy, credibility and likeability, while alienating The Movement from potential supporters.

In several cities Occupy encampments were even shut down because of these Black Bloc anarchists. There is ever growing concern that the movement is being taken over by these hate mongers bent on overthrowing capitalism with violent revolution. More and more the majority of peaceful activists worry that their message is being hijacked by hoodlums.

The Black Bloc fanatics hate those on the left, looking for ways to take away our tools of empowerment. They actually believe that petty acts of violence and vandalism is a revolution.

They argue that the real enemy is not the capitalists, globalists and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), but the radical intellectuals, environmental activists and unions. Anyone seeking to rebuild society through nonviolent, civil disobedience their enemy. Anyone on the left who is not willing to use violence is not helping their cause.

Fortunately for the Occupy movement, because anarchists do not believe in organization, they guarantee their own powerlessness. Thus, they limit themselves to being obstructionists.

Defending the rambling manifesto by their hero, the Unabomber, Theodore Kaczynski, called “Industrial Society and Its Future,” the leader of the Black Bloc, John Zerzan is a vocal critic of a long list of supposed sellouts, including Noam Chomsky (one of the greatest political minds in history) and anyone else who is not willing to use violence as a means to justify their goal... whatever that might be.

In Zerzan’s magazine failure, Green Anarchy, he once published an article by someone known as “Venomous Butterfly” which criticized the EZLN (Zapatista Army for National Liberation), declaring that “not only are those [the Zapatistas’] aims not anarchist; they are not even revolutionary.”

Even those who disagree with the use of violence and vandalism are unwilling to oppose and afraid to speak out against the Black Bloc, not only because that would be siding with “the enemy,” but also out of fear of revenge by these violent thugs, who are not above using vandalism and beatings to intimidate people who don't agree with them.

Occupy locations around the nation have set-up General Assemblies (“GA”) for governance and planning of their agenda. Unfortunately, the Black Bloc excessively manipulates decisions made at the GAs, with the majority of the Occupy participants only showing up for demonstrations, the Black Bloc hoods which often camps on location overnight, are often left to dominate activities.

Time magazine national poll found: “Occupy movement has a 54 percent favorable rating; the Tea Party’s rating is 27 percent,” in mid-October, but after the vandalism and reported rapes in Occupy New York, Dallas, Cleveland and Baltimore, only 33 percent of likely U.S. voters held a favorable view of the protesters, with 43 percent regarding them unfavorably.

The growing Black Bloc is obviously attempting to disrupt the Occupy Movement. The question is if America and the world will embrace the overall message of the real, honorable activists or succumb to the anti-message of violent thugs.

In the end, it may prove to be more effective using Anonymous, rather than Occupy, as a model for demanding change. Though even Anonymous has it’s own Black Bloc of sorts, the sheer numbers possible with this representation, will show it the more effective way to force governments to pay attention, even getting them to accept some of their demands.

This way of persuasion proved itself recently by getting the prominent SOPA and PIPA censorship bills shelved. Nobody thought it would be possible to reverse bills that had already been voted in, but the overwhelming social media protest participation of people everywhere finally made Washington realize it would be wise to back down.

Unfortunately, Washington is already preparing for a better response to any such attempts to get legislation changed in the future. In fact, by passing measures such as CISPA, NDAA and the new Executive Order, lawmakers are laying the groundwork to squash any future attempts by the public, whether it be Occupy, Anonymous or anybody else, to dictate policy.

Fortunately, the countless attempts that have been made to provide Obama with an Internet “kill switch,” have met with such an outcry from left and right alike that they have died in Congress. The day this happens is the day our last shreds of freedom will truly be in jeopardy, effectively shutting down Anonymous and other hacktivists, as well as stopping the free-flow of information and communication needed for the public to be kept aware of oppressive plans and actions and the means to organize and launch an opposition like the Occupy Movement. 

No, I don’t think it will be quite as easy to stop Washington next time, folks.

But let’s do our best anyway!

Written By: Tom Retterbush
Email: tomretterbush@gmail.com
Updated: 5-20-12

How to Change the World
Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas

This book is an In Search of Excellence for social initiatives, intertwining personal stories, anecdotes, and analysis. It is the #2 Bestseller on Amazon right now. Readers will discover how one person can make an astonishing difference in the world. The case studies in the book include Jody Williams, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for the international campaign against landmines she ran by e-mail from her Vermont home; Roberto Baggio, a 31-year old Brazilian who has established eighty computer schools in the slums of Brazil; and Diana Propper, who has used investment banking techniques to make American corporations responsive to environmental dangers. The new foreword by the author that shows how the concept of social entrepreneurship has expanded and unfolded over the last few years, including the Gates-Buffetts charitable partnership, the rise of Google, and the increased mainstream coverage of the subject. The book will also update the stories of individual social entrepreneurs that appeared in the cloth edition.

Get How to Change the World directly from Amazon, HERE


Come join the conversation on the NEW Conspiracy Watch Facebook Page

Please help promote Conspiracy Watch by clicking the   f   Like and +1 bellow!

A Madman's Massacre in Tucson: Actions, Reactions and Backlash

Tuscon Madman and Murderer, Jared Loughner, in 2010

I am saddened by the senseless killing of all the innocent victims by an insane, deranged madman. My heart goes out to the surviving loved ones of those who's lives have been cut short for no justifiable reason.

Too much is being read into the motives of the sociopath shooter of the Tragedy in Tucson.


After reading countless articles about the Tragedy in Tucson, including the article in Time, Tragedy in Tucson: What Motivated Giffords' Shooter? by Adam Klawonn, an article by CBSNews.com, 2nd Person of Interest Sought in Tucson Shooting and several others, I realize as I watch Meet the Press, that far too much is being read into the motives of the madman shooter. He is not a terrorist, idealist, or any kind of "ist".

We don't know with any certainty what precipitated yesterday's massacre in Tucson, and given the apparent mental instability of he suspected shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, it's possible we may never fully understand why this shooting happened.

Loughner, by all accounts, is clinically ill, and what might set off an armed mad man is necessarily unpredictable. To this extent, the political/rhetorical environment isn't to blame for yesterday's events; the sickness of a disturbed young man is.

Although the shooter was known by his few friends to be mentally ill and a drug addict that did not stop the liberal media from connecting the Tea Party with the shooter.

The Tucson Sheriff and others interviewed since the tragedy hinted strongly that the political rhetoric, particularly by alternative news sources and bloggers drove the shooter commit murder.  He strongly suggested the vitriol rhetoric of radio (Rush Limbaugh) and T.V. (Glenn Beck) pushes people over the edge to commit such acts. What they failed to mention was, there have been people like Limbaugh and Beck all along. 

This sort of thing is not new

News sources, congressmen and women, senators, judges and others associated with the government are already acting as if this were the action of this "uncertain", "troubling" and "violent" times we live in, when in reality thing like this have been happening since since before Plato.

Howard Fineman of the Huffington Post writes in his article, 9/11, Oklahoma City, And Now: Lessons For Obama, "we don't yet know the extent to which the Tucson murders were about politics per se, though the alleged killer apparently did deliberately target a member of Congress. But violent national tragedies such as this one can profoundly affect the temper of the times--and the fate of the presidents who are in office when they happen."

Steve Benen, author of the Political Animal of Washington Monthly writes: "But my fear is the latter observation will somehow mitigate the former. We may come to a point fairly soon at which the investigation of yesterday's massacre is complete, and we learn that the shooting was "just" the result of psychotic madman. "Oh," some might say, "then the political climate is irrelevant; violent rhetoric in the mainstream is inconsequential; and everything's fine."

He should have left it at that, but then added, "No matter what the outcome of the Tucson investigation, everything isn't fine."

Sure not everything is fine, but to make todays troubles out to be worse then they have been in the past is ridiculous. Have we forgotten that not long ago America had slaves, had a civil war, fought against Nazis, communists and nationalists, went through race riots, Watergate, Vietnam, Korea, 911, Iraq and Afganistan. And that is just the senseless violence America has been through at first glance.

To continue, let me remind you, for example, of the Virginia Tech Massacre of April 16, 2007, the University of Texas Massacre by Charles Joseph Whitman of 1966, and the John F. Kennedy Assassination, as far back as November 22, 1963, to name just a few.

Man is by species, a predator. Pre-dating history, men have been killing each other for one reason or another, and its not about to stop now. Sure, we have become more civilized, and laws and law enforcement has curved senseless killing to an all-time low. Never before in history have so few people died at the hands of violence as right now.

But there is no way, no matter how far man evolves spiritually, no matter what laws are passed, no matter how far law enforcement advances to stop the killing completely.

As long as there are human beings, there will be murder, robbery, theft, injustice and oppression. It is part of some men's nature. Genetically. Literally.

Quick to Draw Conclusions and Point Fingers

Less than a year ago a gunman stormed into the Discovery Channel’s headquarters, taking hostages and threatening to kill them all. Then, all were quick to draw conclusions and point fingers. The man was quickly accused of being a tea party activist, but turned out to be an envirowacko leftist raised on Algore’s global warming.

Every time some John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald,  Timothy McVeigh, Maj. Hasan or now Jared Lee Loughner kills someone senselessly, conspiracy theories are hatched, fingers are pointed and the political motives are assigned. Maybe all these assholes were just crazy nutcases!

Backlash and Repercussions

The backlash of the Tragedy in Tuscon will be an outcry for more gun control, more protection for congressmen and women, senators, judges and federal employees. And though there is nothing wrong with more protection for these people, this could be giving him the only possible satisfaction he may have been looking for, promoting fear. Claudia Ricci of the Huffington Post, writes, With all those guns out there ...the Tucson tragedy won't be the last..., but if this were true, these types of attacks should already be commonplace, considering "all these guns out there" have been out there all along.

The Tragedy in Tuscon will end up making it much harder for legitimate, what have been erroneously  labeled "anti-government activists" (of which I am one) to be taken seriously. Worse, he has thrown the criminal element into the mix of legitimate anti-government activists working to expose government corruption and give back the "Power to the People". Real, legitimate "anti-government activists" fight the government in a non-violent fashion with pen and petitions, via social media, websites and blogs. It is exactly the violent Gestapo tactics of shoot first and ask questions later that they (we) oppose.



Lets not be too quick in applying the terms, "crazy", "psychopath" and "insane" to Jared Lee Loughner, so as to give him ammunition when he tries escaping the death penalty with an insanity plea.

Unless, of course, this tragedy sets into motion something that should have been done long ago already;  where in certain cases, people found to be legally insane can be executed, should the "insane" person have willfully killed with malice and/or should there be little or no hope of "curing" the alleged crazy person. Who cares if they know right from wrong! The main thing is, we know right from wrong.

Lets not give this egotistical, selfish bastard the satisfaction of making more out of him than he was; an idiot.

Written By: Tom Retterbush


Related Videos

America: Your Last Memory In A Terrorist Country! (YouTube)

Obama on Giffords Shooting: An "Unspeakable Act" (CBS News)

Related Articles

Tucson tragedy: 2nd suspect sought in Arizona shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, 18 others  (NYDailyNews.com - National)

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik Blames Arizona’s “Prejudice & Bigotry” for Shooting of U.S. Rep Giffords by Jared Lee Loughner (scaredmonkeys.com)