I want to explain to you the potential of seeing Occupy differently.
Occupy represents a movement that is intended to represent the average person and their discrepancy between those that are others. Those evil men with their wealth that doesn't come back to the masses.
Nick Hanauer put out published works and a TED talk about how he feared the coming proverbial pitch forks. The Occupy agenda is that the 1% should distribute wealth, and Hanauer, holding a good chunk of that money, agrees.
This is the same (in a sense) conflict that is going on with Hezbollah. Hezbollah want back the land that was taken from them 100 or more years ago. It would become a state of equality between Jews, Christians, Muslims and all faiths. This political view is leading to deaths in the conflict.
The church burnings in Norway were the same idea again. The ancestors of the people were invaded by Christians, who not only destroyed their holy pagan temples, but intentionally build over the sites with Christian buildings. This religious view was ultimately taken to an extreme, and in connection resulted in deaths, and extremist action connected with neo-nazi ideals.
Businesses often go into financial trouble when they seek to look at their previous purchases and justify them. The product may be worthless, but they see they have spent the money, and go further into debt trying to amend the previous expense.
Economically, you forget what happened in the past and make look for the best course of action from that point. The economic solution to this last problem applies to all of the above examples.
In Norway, you need to confront what the Christian society is, not what it had done.
With Hezbollah, you need to realise where you are, not where your ancestors were. The same argument applies to the indigenous of many countries.
Israel and Hezbollah are certainly the most contentious debate, and most agree to not seeing a solution. The solution is not murder though.
With occupy, forget the past. The 1% of people are rich now. That may change in future. The resolution is not simply to take out the pitchforks as Hanauer talks about. And nobody has that intention at this stage.
You can only take in what you have, and work from there. Do not hate the 1%, consider how you will interact with them. Perhaps even forget gauging state power as evil in a need to be destroyed. Consider what that power can achieve.
Couldn’t moralistic philanthropy on a massive scale work in the financial crisis we are still suffering from? Is there other streams where masses of wealth could go that are not being addressed by our government like homelessness and mental health? Are you only disrupting the people in the best position to help those in need you seem to be fighting for?
In war, too many have already died. In our society, your efforts would be better spent elsewhere.