Anonymous Calls On Occupy Wall Street To Form A New Political Party

Article by Robert Johnson.

A third party? No. Too easily co-optable.

A federation of local parties committed to the pan-secession, liberty and populism, ten core demographic and left-right-center tri-partite strategies? Yes.



Anonymous central just posted a notice on its website calling for the Occupy Wall Street Movement to avoid a full blown revolution and put its weight behind forming a new political party.

The statement says a vote for either party is a vote for the status quo and the two party system is entirely insufficient to carry the country through its problems and into the future.

This new party would work in the interests of th 99%.

The full proposal is below.

A Sincere Proposal

In my observation of this movement of the American people, I have begun recently to hear/read suggestions that a revolt might be brewing. I understand why people are saying these things, but I think we can all agree that it would be best to avoid such an outcome. So, I have a proposition, a vision for what we as a nation could achieve.

Currently, the media mocks us, the police beat and arrest us, the business people laugh at us, and every politician in the United States of America is wondering how to sway the full support of the movement in their favor. Each of these groups understands the true power of the 99%. They see us as votes, wasted potential, criminals and a story to keep the viewers at home watching through commercial breaks.

We need to be honest with ourselves: given the current viable options (Republican/Democrat), we cannot vote our way out of this mess that our government and the financial institutions created. It’s as simple as that. Furthermore, any actions taken by the governing body will be meant to placate the masses.

If you cast a vote for a Democrat, you cast a vote for the status quo. If you cast a vote for a Republican, you cast a vote for the status quo. I don’t care if you are a libertarian, anarchist, communist, leftist, right-winger or a completely disillusioned non-voter; you must recognize that this nation’s current political structure is not equipped to fix the problems this nation is facing. If our politicians refuse to work together in the interests of the people, the two party system cannot carry us safely or securely into the future.

And so, we face possibly the most challenging moment in this nation’s history, since the Civil War. We need ideas to avoid a revolution and ways to reign in the policy makers of this country. Our elected officials need to work for us, not against us. So, I offer this path to a better, more accountable nation.

I propose a new political party, one that will always work in the interests of the 99%.

I’m sure we all understand the concept of a republic, but if some need to be reminded, I believe this quote from wikipedia should be sufficient:

“A republic is a country with a specific type of form of government, in which the people, or some significant portion of them, have supreme control over the government, at least in theory, and where offices of state are not granted primarily based upon family, military, or business connections.”

Unfortunately, republics are extremely difficult to maintain. It’s impossible to educate oneself on every issue which requires a vote. It’s difficult for people to find the time to vote.

It would obviously be difficult to establish a pure republic in the United States of America. However, we could have a party that is bound to the will of the people.

Let’s assume we can communicate the votes of the individual to an elected representative of this theoretical party. Given its feasibility, it would look something like this:

1. Each person of voting age in a district that is represented by a member of this theoretical party is entitled to one ‘vote.’ Remember, this is not a legitimate federal vote. It is merely a ‘speaking up’ of the entirety of a representative’s constituency. The people’s votes are then tallied, and the representative, being bound to the will of the people, will vote as directed.

2. Each person of voting age in these districts may choose to actively vote, passively vote or not vote.

  •  An active vote is a Yes or No vote chosen by the individual.
  •  A passive vote is a vote as the Democratic majority votes or vote as the Republican majority votes.
  •  A choice not to vote on a particular issue is a forfeiture of the right to to vote on that particular issue.

3. Each person of voting age has the right to open a petition for a vote.

A system similar to the one outlined above could drastically alter the course of this nation without a revolution. Given enough popular support, people across the nation could petition their representatives for a vote on a certain issue.

We are the 99%. This proposed party can become a reality. Change is possible. So, when our nation’s politicians look at you and say, “We can’t…” respond, “…But we can!”

Keep it peaceful.

Categories: Uncategorized

15 replies »

  1. John Robb theorizes on how the various geographic Occupy movements could form tribes with resilient, localized economies and use them as a platform for future attacks. The majority of these occupiers will likely roll over into something like what Anonymous proposes here. I like RJ’s idea to identify some true revolutionaries and form a smaller “tribe” or collective within the larger movement and then network them up.

  2. I’m concerned the Occupiers will turn out like the Tea Parties and be co-opted as just another ruling class stooge movement: “Fight Wall Street! Re-elect President Obama!”

  3. I’m concerned the Occupiers will turn out like the Tea Parties and be co-opted as just another ruling class stooge movement: “Fight Wall Street! Re-elect President Obama!”

    Well, it could go that way, but it would be hard. Most of the General Assemblies are making decisions by modified (90%) consensus. It’s way easier to block than to push stuff through. I don’t see any assembly with even a modest radical element letting that happen.

  4. “Given the diversified range of the Occupy Movement (some people think the problem is the state, others think the problem is capitalism, some say it’s just the banks, others say it’s the republicans)”

    Well, I’d say it’s all of those and more, and pan-secessionism is capable of accommodating all of these areas of interest.

    “once they do actually move into the political sphere and get the chance to address important issues and institute reforms, I think it would look more like a giant circus.”

    LOL, circus wouldn’t be the word for it!

    “Only the extremists of the movement will withstand the test of time. Everyone else will flock to the journalists, union bosses, democratic leaders, and academics who claim to see the new party’s side of things. As soon as support and sponsorship from influential people is available the party will begin working with their new buddies. And the more this kind of mutual support builds and the longer it lasts the more the democratic party and new party will begin to overlap”

    Right. That’s precisely what happened to the New Left in the 1960s.

    “If this new party wants a “more democratic government” based on a federal model, the elites will be taking it home for Christmas.

    That’s what this:

    and this:

    is all about.”

    Wow! That didn’t take long.

  5. I don’t think any of these kinds of movements are anywhere near where they need to be even in terms of ideas and theory, much less organization and strategy. That’s true of Occupy Wall Street, Tea Parties, libertarians, anarchists, national-anarchists, New Right, Alternative Right, on down the line.

    I see all of these as prototypes that collectively form a laboratory for the development of something more serious in the future. The only way to win is in the battle of ideas. Hayek, Gramsci, De Benoist all recognized this despite their differences. There has to first be an effective counter-elite with truly subversive non-cooptable ideas, and then there has to be committed radical activists with a workable strategy who are committed to seeing thing through to the end.

    The questions to ask are these: How did classical liberalism overthrow feudalism and the ancien regime? How did the classical labor movement become a mainstream institutional phenomenon? How did the cultural revolutions that swept the Western world in the 60s and 70s achieve success? Of all the movements that came out of the 60s, there were many that were enormously successful but there were plenty of others that didn’t make it. Why?

    The big picture is what matters. The OCW seems more like the anti-globalization movement than anything else. That lasted for a few years and petered out. OCW seems to be almost like a resurrection of the anti-globalization movement, which I’m all for, but I’m skeptical of its sustainability. I do think economic struggles and protests will become much more prevalent in the future due to the irreversible downturn of the US economy and widening class divisions. But what has not yet happened that needs to happen is a dramatic paradigm shift in terms of the worldviews and thought processes of those who claim to be protesting against the system.

  6. Here’s an illustration of what I’m talking about here:

    The “Liberty and Populism” essay outlines what is an entirely new ideological paradigm. While it is certainly derivative in many ways in that it borrows from plenty of other sources, perhaps its most distinguishing characteristic is that it rejects virtually every ideological or philosophical premise behind the presently established paradigm and embraces just about every issue or cause that would be considered antithetical to the present paradigm.

    Regarding the Wall Street protesters:

    How many of them would embrace my general lumpenproletarian view, for instance, my argument that urban street gangs are the equivalent of an oppressed minority persecuted by the state?

    How many of them would embrace my Rothbardian view of children’s rights?

    How many of them would embrace my radical anarchist analysis of the persecution of drug users and prostitutes by the state as being no different in kind from past persecutions of homosexuals, racial and religious minorities, women, etc.?

    How many of them would embrace my prison abolitionist stance?

    How many would embrace my de-schooling outlook?

    How many would endorse my Szaszian view of involuntary civil commitment, the psychiatric industry, mental illness, or the therapeutic state?

    How many would endorse, or even understand, the alternative economic paradigm that thinkers like Carson, Gambone, Borsodi, etc have written about and that I have incorporated into the ARV/ATS approach?

    How many would endorse or even understand the broader Nietzschean philosophical framework that I adhere to?

    Of course, we know very well what they would think of my analysis of matters of culture, race, ethnicity, nationality, tribe, etc. or my critique of “totalitarian humanism.” We also know what they would think of my critique of the women’s lib movement as having degenerated into full-on misandry or my critique of the gay rights movement’s totalitarian tendencies.

    What would they think of my analysis of Hezbollah as the cutting edge force in fourth generation warfare, or my specific views on militias and armed struggle?

    What would they think of my left-right-center tri-partite strategic outlook?

    What would they think of the idea of authentic secession as a tactical approach?

    What would they think of the “Mailer model” as a prototype for political re-constitution?

    How many would understand my theories on the relationship between populism and elitism?

    How many would understand my approach to class theory?

    Now, I am not being so arrogant as to insist that the OCW folks adopt all (or even any) of my views, but I am pointing out that given the particular ideas and opinions that are likely to be found in that milieu, it is clear that most of them have no intellectual or ideological foundation for challenging the status quo in any of its manifestations (state, capitalism, banks, Repugs, Democraps, MIC, pigs, etc) in any way that is meaningful. That by itself is not a problem, as most people are not intellectuals and most political protesters are not intellectuals (a considerable understatement, judging by what I’ve seen in the videos of these events). But the dull and cliched ideas expressed by the protesters indicates that an ideological counter-force developed by an authentic counter-elite has not yet “trickled down” into their ranks.

    This is not to say that rank and file protesters guided by a counter-elite developed by ARV/ATS and related currents would act in a way that was any more intelligent or coherent. Such protesters might also, for instance, carry tacky, hand-lettered signs with misspelled words, and they might even include transsexual Maoists in their ranks. But rather than saying things like “Tax the Rich! Free College Tuition!” or “Open the Borders!” or “End Gay Discrimination by Supporting Communism!” (WTF?) the signs might say things like:

    “Death to the PIGS! Support the Attack the System Insurgent Revolutionary Militias!”

    “Sovereignty for All Tribes!”

    “End Child Abuse! Abolish Compulsory Education!”

    “Prisoner Amnesty Now!”

    “The Anti-Federalists Were Right!”

    “Overthrow the Empire!”

    “Kill the Therapeutic State!”

    “Criminal Justice is No Justice! Support the Common Law Movement!”

    “Why Do We Need a Fucking President in the First Goddamn Place?!!”

    “Power to the Neighborhoods!”

    “Destroy the Financial Oligarchy! Support the Mutual Banks!”

    “Burn the Office of the Zoning Commission!”

    “Organize Tax Resistance!”

    I’m sure you get my point.

  7. If the movement became a party, at some point they would have to select an ideology that has the most appeal to the highest number of people within the party.

    Right. That’s why being a political party wouldn’t work. It’s not about ideology or political programs — it’s the creation of a new space for an unparalleled type of politics to be practiced. Anything more is superfluous.

  8. “Keith I agree with the ‘down the line’ vision. That’s why we have to support them. It’s not what they’re “for” but it’s what they’re against.”

    Yes, I very much agree. Supporting OCW is something I regard as a tactical effort towards advancing the 40 year plan.

  9. We need to keep in mind also how rapidly society can change.

    In the 1950s, you could not show married couples in the same bed or use the word “pregnant” on television. That would be unthinkable in the world of internet porn.

    Forty years ago, homosexuals were considered felonious criminals and enemies of the state (like drug users nowadays). At present, you can be fired from your job for holding negative views of homosexuality and in some countries you can be brought up on criminal charges.

    In the early days of the Vietnam War, it was physically dangerous to publicly protest the war. A few years later, it was a fad.

    Our task is to build a movement that over the next half century will de-legitimize the state, state-allied institutions, and state-related social practices in the same way that Jim Crow or sodomy laws are now de-legitimized. Centuries from now, historians should be writing about the North American anarchist movement of the 21st century that overturned the growth of perpetually expanding statism of the kind that had existed for the previous few centuries. Thanks to our efforts, future generations should look at the absurdities of PC the same way we view Ricky and Lucy’s twin beds. Future generations should look at victimless crime laws with the same horror with which we view eugenic laws from past times. Future generations should view the American empire the same way we view the Soviet Union.

  10. If it ever came to the point that we got some celebrity endorsements for what we do, that would help to publicize our ideas immensely. The down side is that it would escalate the dangers of cooptation and commercialization, though I think that would be hard to do in our particular case because our views are so antithetical to the system’s values and institutions.

    The big question there is what constitutes an anarchist leader. If we started to become a real movement that the system regarded as a credible threat, one of their approaches might be to identify “A Liberal Who Has Read a Few Noam Chomsky Books” types of anarchists to be the public and media face of the “good, respectable, non-threatening” types of anarchists who are really nice people and all about “social justice” (as the system defines that concept) and then contrast that with the “bad, menacing, criminal” kinds of anarchists (i.e., us) who really pose a threat to the system.

    It’s the tactic they used with the black people’s movements from the 60s. They adopted liberal civil rights leaders like MLK as icons as a means of marginalizing and demonizing “bad guy” black leaders like Malcolm X. The reason for that is obvious. The system can survive just fine with affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, Black History Month, and so on. In fact, all of that helps the system as it expands the state and creates new constituencies and clients for the state. Malcolm’s or Farrakhan’s ideas of independent black republics in North America are obviously a lot more menacing to the system.

  11. Totally agree with Keith here, the idea of starting another third party in entirely stupid. As far as I’m aware the systems of “democratic representation” operated by Western countries have never allowed any even mildly anti-establishment/elite movement anywhere near control of the state. (with the possible, unique and not exactly encouraging exception of the NSDAP). All that participation in the systematically and structurally rigged “democratic” processes achieves is to prove to the People that resistance is indeed futile.

    Moreover for the Occupy movement to move to a traditional political strategic model would mean abandoning the very principles which have got it as far as it has. The studious inclusiveness and refusal to be drawn into specific demands have allowed it to remain united rather than have the establishment drive ideological wedges into the protest groups.

    From where I’m standing the consensual and decentralised tactics and organisation of Occupy bodes well for its future development. The next stage is not to make a wild leap into the establishments designated kill zone for radical movements but to apply the techniques of Occupy to organic local communities. We will see Occupy style coalitions of groups and individuals starting to implement programs of political and economic relocalisation within their own towns and cities, rather than in tent camps on symbolic targets. This is a natural progression since it’s a lot easier and more productive to sustain an assault on elite power from your own house using your own networks with full access to your own resources than it is from a sleeping bag on a park bench fifty miles from your washing machine.

    To argue for the Occupy movement to adopt the repeatedly proven failed strategy of the Third Party (with the implicit assumption of taking control of the state as the tool of revolution) instead of its current operating system is like arguing that Apple move into the steam engine business.

  12. “The studious inclusiveness and refusal to be drawn into specific demands have allowed it to remain united rather than have the establishment drive ideological wedges into the protest groups.”

    Right! That’s why leading Democrap politicians have pushed the protesters to articulate a clearly defined set of demands. It’s a means of divide, conquer, and cooptation. What the system would try to do is adopt those demands that are the least threatening to the system, thereby coopting factions of the dissidents that are more moderate, and marginalizing the radicals.

    That’s exactly what happened to the protest movements of the 60s. Nixon effectively ended the antiwar movement by abolishing the draft. Once the Vietnam War was no longer a matter of pressing self-interest for the protesters, the antiwar movement dissipated. The Democrats did the same thing throughout the 70s. They capitulated to demands of the radical Left that did not threaten the system itself: expanding civil rights legislation, affirmative action, legalized abortion, gay rights, increased education funding, expanding the therapeutic and welfare state, codifying the sexual revolution into law, enacting environmental laws, ant-gender discrimination laws, opening the borders to mass immigration, diversifying institutions, etc. The system can survive just fine with all of that as we have seen. By institutionalizing all these things, the system was able to marginalize genuine revolutionaries, for instance, those advocating overthrow of the MIC, ethnic self-determination movements like the BPP and AIM, authentic workers movements, radical anarchists or libertarianss or Marxists, etc. Meanwhile, the system was establishing a more fully operational police state with the invention of SWAT teams, the initiation of the drug war, etc as a means of squelching further upheavals and busting unions as a means of widening class polarization.

  13. “he next stage is not to make a wild leap into the establishments designated kill zone for radical movements but to apply the techniques of Occupy to organic local communities. We will see Occupy style coalitions of groups and individuals starting to implement programs of political and economic relocalisation within their own towns and cities, rather than in tent camps on symbolic targets.”

    Right! The problem with these mass protest activities is that they’re still stuck in the 20th century mass organization paradigm, and haven’t fully adopted to the fourth generation warfare model, even if they may be partially influenced by it. Decentralized networks of locally oriented actions and organizing are not only tactically superior and more efficient, but also render superfluous calls for ideological conformity or uniformity of goals.

    As Ryan pointed out, the OCWers vary widely in their analysis of who or what the problem is. Is it banks, corporations, government, the GOP, the Dems, conservatives, liberals, the FED, the Rothschilds, NWO, ZOG, Illuminati, etc? Without a centralized organizational structure or codified ideological platform, none of these questions really matter all that much. It’s more about different groups simply doing what they do at the community level, perhaps with some overlapping consensus that “the system sucks.” That’s really all the consensus we need with this kind of organizational and strategic methodology.

  14. RJ, Please excuse me, I was so incensed by the stupidity of the Anonymous call (whilst acknowledging Anonymous does not speak with one voice)I was compelled to put the boot in. Although I appreciate that you and this site’s contributors never endorsed the proposal as was made clear in the introductory sentence. It would have been a strange interpretation of “pan successionism” which supported this third party bs.

    It’s amazing how resilient this idea that revolution can be affected through the democratic process is. Just look at the Ron Paul advocates, the same people who were smart/cynical enough to call the left saps for being sucked in by Obama are themselves now raving for Paul. Like he could make a difference even if he wanted to even if there was any chance of him winning the nomination much less the presidency.

    As for your point about leadership, I think that the EZLN’s Subcommandente Marcos is the leader in this field. His use of revolutionary and militant symbology, from the camo jacket to the “communiqués”, is sublime. The use of the ski mask to prevent a cult of leadership was inspired. The rejection of an official institutional leadership role was ideologically sound and then there are the idiosyncratic quirks like the pipe to add a touch of humanity. And of course the strategic and tactical models he promoted were a quantum leap in the capacity and ideological sophistication for any radical group anywhere. And we could rave on about the brilliance and courage of “the other campaign” etc but you get the picture.

    On a less obvious note, I’m personally fascinated by the phenomenon of the KLF, a British rock/dance crossover act from the nineties. The bands success was partly the product of a barrage of weird symbology inspired by The Illuminatus! Trilogy, partly by the use of clever post modern viral advertising techniques and partly by some really great music. The KLF constantly claimed to be about something bigger than pop, although what that was never became very clear. Their career concluded with the band firing blanks from a tommy gun into the assembled musical establishment at a major award show and the dumping of a dead sheep backstage. Following this, in a gesture designed to prove their integrity, they set fire to one million British Pounds (claiming it was the entire product of the KLF project) and withdrawing their back catalogue which to this day means that their albums are not commercially available. If these guys had of had a cause to fight for I can’t but believe that mayhem would have ensued.

    As someone here said recently, enjoy the revolution. A little flamboyance and creativity, a dash of confidence and some obvious intelligence can be persuasive whereas calls to join a losing fight ain’t.

    PS “Fuck the Police” is a better slogan than “smash the state”, This is why we need poets like NWA.

Leave a Reply