When I visited the Occupy Wall Street protest in New York City's financial district earlier this week I heard repeated messages about peace, non-violence and egalitarianism. This 'leaderless resistance movement' aims to 'restore democracy in America' by camping out on Wall Street for a few months.
A key strategy is to hold so-called 'people's assemblies' where anyone can get up and voice their opinions and grievances. A young speaker at one of the many assemblies held at the protest headquarters in Zuccoti Park urged attendees to try and 'keep a revolving point of view between age, gender and ethnicity'. Another called for 'anti-oppression workshops'.
In fact, there was so much imploration for participants to be tolerant, to hear each other out, that the 'human megaphone' procedure at the people's assemblies (instead of using a real megaphone, everyone within earshot of the speaker repeats his or her words, sentence by sentence) gave it the air of some kind of slow-motion 12-step meeting. 'I respect you, please respect me', everyone asked of one another.
But despite the peacenik atmosphere of the messy Zuccoti Park encampment, some protest supporters seem to have trouble controlling their true nature. Behind the flower-power veneer (protesters were actually distributing flowers, lighting up joints and reading Beatnik literature) lurk an alarming number of intolerant, bigoted, conspiratorially-minded, free-speech loathers.
After spending hours at the protest on Saturday and Monday, talking to participants, listening in on people's assemblies and taking pictures, I wrote a report on it for the London-based online magazine, spiked. It was an unflattering account of what I saw as a farcical happening, like something taken straight out of a Monty Python skit. It was surreal and I was astonished that the protesters could expect, let alone demand, to be taken seriously when they engage in such shenanigans as 'political yoga', human megaphone meetings, face-painting and fancy-dress parades. One woman even had her boobs out, with the words 'Free Bradley Manning' written across them (a reference to the jailed WikiLeaks whistle-blower).
But the responses I got to my article were even more astonishing than the carry-ons in the Financial District. I received a string of indignant emails and tweets about my Jewish, kleptocrat banking connections; demands that I reveal the details of my pay checks and that I come clean about my not-so-hidden agenda. I was told that my family name disqualifies me from having any opinion about the protest and that I have 'the karma of a demon'. One reader posted my article online, headlining the post 'Journalist & Jew - Nathalie ROTHSCHILD'.
Yes, I am indeed Jewish and I do share a surname with a bank that is owned and run by a rich family. Unfortunately, though, I have no wealthy backers. And to the person who wondered whether spiked employs any non-billionaire journalists - the answer is yes.
One Twitterer told me that 'peaceful protest should be permitted'. Absolutely. Everyone has the right to demonstrate and to voice their opinions. But you also have to be prepared to get called out on your views and your behaviour. There is no right not to be criticised, or even ridiculed.
The protesters demand to be heard as serious critics of 'the corrupt system'. But if you want to flaunt your anti-racist credentials and to be treated as an adult upholder of democratic values, then it might be a good idea to think of the implications of turning around and saying 'shut up, Jew' when someone criticises you - even if that person shares a surname with a key player in the financial world.
For some of the protest's supporters, their commitment to free speech comes with plenty of qualifications. It's alright to speak out - unless you criticise the Wall Street occupation, unless you say negative things about the demonstrators, unless you have a certain name, unless you are a Jew. So much for 'restoring democracy' in America.
Follow Nathalie Rothschild on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@n_rothschild
2) However. Understand, many are skeptical about Jewish protests of oppression within the last 65 years due to rampant wolf-crying by many orgs. (and the Middle Eastern state) purporting to speak and act on your behalf.
For some reason, whenever corrupt banksters are criticized, certain organizations invariably claim "the Jews" are under attack. You should think about why corrupt banksters so often wish to hide behind Judaism. If I were Jewish, I would highly resent that. (I'm black, btw, and I hate black wolf-cryers and race pimps also; they discredit actual complaints of racism.)
3) Given the above, and given you're the single source reporting this, and given your surname (despite disclaimer), i'm not inclined to believe your story. It’s not personal; like I said. it’s a group credibility issue. Group politics swings both ways. If you dish it out – or you identify with a group that likes to dish it out on others – be prepared to also take it. Otherwise, consider a name change or otherwise distancing yourself from bad guys hiding behind you and your faith.
4) Also, had you been charitable enough to take the protests in the intended spirit – as a voice against injustice -- rather than nitpicking about the PC tone and mockingly putting “the corrupt system” in scare quotes (as if it's *not* corrupt!), you might have received more charitable responses.
These events seem to attract plenty of fringe nuts.
I find it hard to believe though that amongst the rabble, you were unable to find anyone worth quoting. I understand you have no respect for the disrespectful but is that really as far as this story goes? Someone called you a Jew and feared your name so the legitimate concerns which were standing on the same streets was no longer the story?
I am just wondering, when did the story become about the reporter? No mention of any kind of violence or abuses. Just an article about a reporter who got her feelings hurt while out in the trenches? With the arrests and pepper spraying and the all of the things that were going on there, the best article topics you could find was hippies, boobs and someone called you names?
People have been calling me a Jew since I was a little kid in a Klan town and my mother isn't even Jewish. I don't build my identity around the insults of others though. I can walk into any large group in America an find people to insult me. Does that mean there are not other valid things going on behind those haters though?
I find the implied description of an entire movement as nothing but bare chested anti-Semites and surname reactionaries to be something less than worthy.
Whatever happened to looking past the idiots and reporting the story?
As well, having been at the protest I can assure you that no one was "lighting up joints." The square is/was surrounded by police; anyone smoking marijuana would have had half-a-dozen cops on them in two seconds. There were a lot of hand-rolled cigarettes being smoked and some sage was burned, which was probably what you saw.
Be a reporter, be a journalist: don't involve yourself in the story. It's unethical.
If we count those as representative of ANY group or opinion or movement, then we're ALL in trouble. Because the world has largely decided that the most heinous stuff is completely "reasonable" to send anonymously online.
Read the comment section to ANYTHING online and you'll see this.
I'm sorry. If you have incidents of people at the protest saying such things, then you have something to write about. Twisted emails and tweets just means it's Tuesday.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why it's easier for 1% of the population to work well together. It's hard to get ONE clear goal across from the other 99% of us. FREE OUR DEMOCRACY FROM CORPORATE OPPRESSION.
This isn't a falsified claim. 1% is getting their political agenda across.The US has granted corporate entities the same rights as human beings. There is something fundamentally wrong with this and it's a HUGE threat to democracy. Democracy is for the PEOPLE governed by the PEOPLE, not a corporate agenda.