What Ever Happened to "Protesting?" Why Are we "Occupying" Everything All of a Sudden?

Everyone knows the "Occupy" movements around the nation and the globe are rising, and naturally gaining a lot of attention. I have posted before how this all seems suspicious, and many others share the same notion.

My question is (as the title of this post states) "Why is everything being "Occupied" all of a sudden?
It's a serious question to me. I wonder if the devil is in the phrasing. We are supposedly allowed under the constitution the rights to assemble, and to protest... but I don't think the right to "occupy" is covered there in.

If someone could please shed some light onto this particular phrasing, and perhaps enligten me as to where exactly the term "occupy" came into play in regards to protest, I would be very appreciative.

Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but I believe that there has been infilatration into these movements, and whoever is doing the infiltrating is sabotaging our rights by shifting the status of our protests. After all, dosen't the term "occupy" apply to military actions? And given the recent homeland security/patriot act legilations, couldn't that distinction make anyone attending a "occupy" event an "enemy combatant?"

I ask this in all sincerity, and again, any input or further speculation is welcome.

reply to post by Aqualung2012


I know what you mean. Everytime I read something with that title, I think about occupied Europe during WW2. Perhaps it is just a name, but something tells me that the organizers are much smarter than to just put it down as a name, and that perhaps this is the intended effect.

reply to post by Aqualung2012


It is because every attempt to protest in the old ways, every attempt to influence politicians by letter, email, phone or vote has turned out to be useless. The people have been despised and ignored. The elite laugh at their efforts to gain justice and rub their powerlessness if their faces and condescend to them.

The people are furious and running out of time and resources, their survival is at stake, and their cries for justice ignored.

Is that clear enough for you?

Originally posted by Veritas1
reply to post by Aqualung2012

 

I know what you mean. Everytime I read something with that title, I think about occupied Europe during WW2. Perhaps it is just a name, but something tells me that the organizers are much smarter than to just put it down as a name, and that perhaps this is the intended effect.

I would agree completely. It's all in the fine print these days... and when there is over 3,000 pages of fine print in certain cases, it seems quite plausible that a single word could mean the difference between a constitutionally protected right, and an "act of terrorism."

To me this distinction could very well point to the FEMA Camp situation. Many are pointing to some natural disaster that will cause these camps to fill up, but as stated right here on ATS, a economic crisis is every bit as much a cause for Martial Law and for FEMA to step in.

Given the fact that people are ALREADY uprising, I want to see what will happen to the masses of protestors when the actual collapse occours. I imagine we will see a most chaotic response... like a cacophony of very heated, very passionate people who have just been proven right, but to their demise.

Add to all of this the very real possibility OF a major natural disaster (eg the sunspot) as well as the onset of winter, and one can surely imagine that things will get worse, just in time.

Its just a different word that is behing used for the protest movements around the world, i dotn need we need to really analyze what the word means...

Its a protest plain and simple

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by Aqualung2012

 

It is because every attempt to protest in the old ways, every attempt to influence politicians by letter, email, phone or vote has turned out to be useless. The people have been despised and ignored. The elite laugh at their efforts to gain justice and rub their powerlessness if their faces and condescend to them.

The people are furious and running out of time and resources, their survival is at stake, and their cries for justice ignored.

Is that clear enough for you?

I appreciate your comment, however it is not very clear at all. Nor does it even attempt to answer my question.

However, it does raise another question: How is the occupy movement (in its procedure, not its title) ANY different from usual protest? To me, after seeing it first hand in Chicago, this seems to be the biggest, most ill guided, confused and tactless "movement" ever seen in North America. However passionate... however injust the Elite are being... however dire the situation.... I feel as if people's emotions and rights are being funnelled right into the Elite's plan for them, and they are responding precisely as they are wanted to.

Originally posted by GodefroydeBouillon
Its just a different word that is behing used for the protest movements around the world, i dotn need we need to really analyze what the word means...

Its a protest plain and simple

Okay, I can understand that... but, EVERYTHING from wall street to building 7 at the WTC is being "occupied." Is this simply the new term/MO for protest? I don't think its so simple.

Of course, you may very well be right. Maybe its just a trendy new term, and people are piggybacking its populariy, maybe not. Thus the thread.

It is very simple my friend. The world we have created was based on iniquity. Since it is based on iniquity, it is crumbling around us.

Final Warning

When the system collapses in on itself, we will build a new system based on equality for all.

With Love,

Your Brother

the word 'protest; has alot of social imagery about it...to me the word 'protest' is people being upset and demanding...the word 'occupy' is just people hanging out.

i think useing the term 'occupy' is an atempt by TPTB to downplay at every chance...what all these 'occupy this or that' could mean. make it sound passive and that nobody is realy upset, dont bring anymore attention to this, downplay its significance whenever possible......but in the end, everything will be different but nothing will have changed

reply to post by IAMIAM


Well said, and a wonderful link to your very inspirational post. Way to see the bigger picture!

reply to post by Aqualung2012


When I hear the word protest I think of signs, people holding them, and them being arrested and moved from the area when they get too big. When I think of the word occupy, I think of a large group standing for what they believe in, and refusing to move.

To 'occupy' is just a different type of protest. There is more than one method of protesting something, from marches to starving yourself to now, occupying something. It is just a method being used at the moment. It's nothing to really be discussed about the meaning of it.

Protesting was yesterday. Occupying is today.

I think rather than wonder why, you should worry what comes tomorrow.

It aint pretty, methinks.

Does it REALLY matter what particular way they choose to get their messages out??

One cannot deny that they are doing something right here, as FINALLY the voices of the PEOPLE are being heard like never before!!

They are doing something right, there is NO QUESTION about it.

BRILLIANT if you ask me.

BRILLIANT!!

Carry on Occupy movement, carry on!!!

Our children and grandchildren may very well have a decent life and be able to prosper in their generations because of this!!!

Before these movements, their futures were looking VERY DARK for them!!! VERY DARK!!!!!

Protesting implies that the problems can be fixed from within the existing system.

The current global socioeconomic system itself is the problem.

We need to rise above a system that has outgrown its usefulness and turned into a mechanism of unsustainability. We need to examine the world's problems through a new mindset so that the solutions to our problems become self-evident, and I hope this process has begun with the Occupy movements.

reply to post by Aqualung2012


Occupation = long term protest.

Not to be derogatory, but many young people may not understand what the term occupy really meant back during world war 2. Here is a page defining the word occupy, and the the most clear definition (to me means to march aggressively into another's territory by military force for the purposes of conquest and occupation.

www.audioenglish.net...

I wonder how long it took for the people realized what happened to them and they were part of "occupied" territory when the Nazi's started marching through.

Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Greenham Common went on for 19 years at one point having 30,000 attendees at one time. So occupies are not really a new thing IMO. But the diffrence here is there is so many of them because there is a growing awakening of people whom are realising we are heading for pure tyranny in the west. If this happens tyranny will reign over the whole planet pretty much.

Our world will become hell on earth, litterally.

I think the psychology of the word is that an "occupied" territory or building is under the control of the people occupying it.
So the original Wall Street protest used the word to convince themselves that they were actually achieving what the word suggested. (In fact they were not, because "Wall Street" nowadays is an electronic network between computers, and the "occupation" has had no impact on that whatsoever)
Other people around the world picked up on the word because the psychology behind it was so attractive. We're occupying the place! We're in power! But it is essentially self-deceptive.

Originally posted by Veritas1
Not to be derogatory, but many young people may not understand what the term occupy really meant back during world war 2. Here is a page defining the word occupy, and the the most clear definition (to me means to march aggressively into another's territory by military force for the purposes of conquest and occupation.

www.audioenglish.net...

I wonder how long it took for the people realized what happened to them and they were part of "occupied" territory when the Nazi's started marching through.

Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

My point exactly. The term "Occupy" is being used for a civil protest, (which as we are seeing is becoming less and less "civil" as time passes.) People are performing a military maneuver, or at least describing it as such, and my point here is that I feel that the government will respond to them as enemy combatants, especially once the bottom really drops out.

To me, this is all at once more subtle and yet more glaring then many of the people commenting here are realizing. It is not to debate the definition of the word "occupy." It is simply to point out that the word "occupy" seems to denote a tougher backlash from government, and that it seems the like it very well that way.

Consider this: They KNEW the collapse was coming. They knew it before we did. Of course they would want to bottleneck the response in a easily manageable way (as easy as possible of course.) So, what better way than to empower people with the term "occupy," while with the same fell stroke of the pen, rob them of the right to protest? It would be far simpler to label the masses (or at least the ones who REALLY care,) as terrorists and tuck them away with no Geneva Convention, or Constitutional Rights.... much simpler than all that "due process of law," stuff. Much easier that way. And what have people done? They've taken the bait, and swallowed it whole.