occupy "the movie" (where EVERY interview is shown) not a HIT piece

many people try to portray OCCUPY is the light they want to portray,
this movie was inspired by the ONE sided main stream media bias against OCCUPY,
the movies uses ALL footage captured and lets people speek for themselves.

i find the need to post this video to confront the members here who seek to show videos of ONE sided views,
like ALL occupiers are black bloc,
or
like ALL occupiers are ALL comunists
or
like ALL occupiers are mindless criminals

i hope this brings a balance to the HIT piece movies pushed as fact by some unscrupulous members with agendas to discredit this peaceful non violent movement
THIS CONTAINS ALL FOOTAGE WEATHER GOOD OR BAD
not just the small group who attempt to make occupy look bad

the movie is interviews with many different people from all backrounds and is in their own words.


i post this in an effort to allow people a balanced opinion,

it is up to you to form your own opinion on occupy but that is near imposable if the only portrayal is from the anti occupy members who frequently post the worst behavior and attempt to "paint" the entire movement with the actions of a very tiny minority

make up your own mind watch and decide for yourself if these people are REAL americans,
and if thier opinions matter more than some trouble makers trying to discreadit the movement

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


I am aware that a lot of positive things happened at Zucotti Park, XPLodER. When I was staying in Nimbin, a man there had visited the park before it was dismantled by the police, and got to know a number of the people there.

He showed us slides, and he also gave evidence that the sanitation issue (among other things) was merely an excuse...an entirely hollow pretext...which was used by Michael Bloomberg, the psychopathic mayor of New York, to dismantle the camp. I also know about the fact that the eviction was performed in the middle of the night, in a deeply cowardly and dishonourable manner, which very starkly and visibly illustrated the lack of integrity of the people responsible.

My issue, is not that Occupy have managed to achieve some positive things. I know they have. Everything, however, has a point of origin. Everything has a beginning. Nothing comes from a vacuum.

In Occupy's case, I want to know the story of that beginning. I want to know where the idea originated. I want to know who the first few people who ever organised an Occupy event were. I also want to know as much as I can about the backgrounds of those people, and what they were thinking and intending at the time.

My concern stems primarily from the fact that I do know that positive things were done at Zucotti, but that we've also been seeing change, and not for the better. In particular, I am both disturbed and gravely concerned about the apparent merger of Occupy with Anonymous, because I believe that such a merger could potentially threaten the existence of both groups.

Anonymous are not a primarily offline organisation; they were not intended to be, and if they become one, it will destroy them. Anonymous are also not a primarily political organisation, or have not been historically. Anon have historically relied on their previous degree of light heartedness in order to survive; they are becoming far too earnest and passionate about offline political issues, and this can be (and is) used as an exploitable weakness against them, by governments. People who are only doing things for fun, are much less likely to accept bribes to go against their beliefs, or to inform on their associates.

Occupy will also not gain by its' association with Anonymous. The mainstream public do not like Anon. Anon are anarchic, entropic, and chaotic; the public perceive this, and are frightened of them as a result. That is not something Occupy want, if they wish to continue to cultivate large scale public appeal.

I believe that in his film, Mr Breitbart is going to express some valid concerns about the current direction that Occupy as an organisation is headed in, and I share those concerns. One of the main reasons why I began regularly posting on and reading Above Top Secret, is because I was aware of this site's history as a largely conservative bastion, although that is also changing.

My political background is primarily left wing, so I came here with the intention of broadening my perspective, and making the honest realisation that conservatives are not necessarily the enemy, as well as trying to begin to express some genuine empathy towards them. Many of them are deeply compassionate people; they simply are in a situation where, for whatever reason, when they think about problems and how to solve them, they arrive at very different conclusions to the ones I usually do. I'm currently in the process of trying to understand why that is the case.

I know Occupy started out as an organisation with positive intentions. My desire is in seeing that they stay that way; and as part of that process, to learn as much as I can about their history, so that when I observe them drifting away from their core ethos, I can understand how to do what I can, to help bring them back on track.

I've given you a star and flag, as well.

if an occupy movie is made that portrays the occupiers as anything other than Hippie Stoners, i'll now its BS propaganda.

the Cops showed up as Cops...why can't Hippies be honest concerning what they are?

Originally posted by michaelbrux
if an occupy movie is made that portrays the occupiers as anything other than Hippie Stoners, i'll now its BS propaganda.

the Cops showed up as Cops...why can't Hippies be honest concerning what they are?

This is nothing other than pure viciousness for its' own sake.

Why do you hate hippies, Michael? Are you really so far gone psychologically, that uniformity is more important to you, than how someone treats you?

I only just came back from spending six months in Nimbin, in northern New South Wales. That town was the self-proclaimed hippie capital of Australia. They were also, for the most part, quite literally the kindest and most hospitable people I've ever known.

The really scary thing about contemporary Americans, is that I honestly think that it is actually the level of kindness of these people, rather than just their lack of conformity, that you primarily find threatening. Capitalism has taught you to believe that there is literally a no more grievous crime in existence, than feeling or expressing compassion for someone. You've come to believe that human beings are supposed to be sociopathic. We're supposed to build a giant pile of corpses and then climb to the top of it; to benefit ourselves by stepping on everyone else's face.

You've actually come to believe that that is right, and caring about other people is wrong.

reply to post by petrus4

In Occupy's case, I want to know the story of that beginning. I want to know where the idea originated. I want to know who the first few people who ever organised an Occupy event were. I also want to know as much as I can about the backgrounds of those people, and what they were thinking and intending at the time.

i cant speak for the movement,
i can only speak for myself,
i am scared of the consequences of answering your question directly,
what i will say is that history is the architect for OCCUPY,
that in the spirit of the founding document of the United States of America, the constitution
that in the president of a document called COMMON SENSE by author Thomas Paine,
that in the teachings of gandahi and the words of Martin Luther King and in the non violent, peaceful actions,

and from the years of study of the ability of people to treat each other fairly and equitably, when a fair and equitable society is present
and based on the fact that ALL men (and women) are created equal and endowed with un alienable rights (some say god given, some say human rights)

and that people when united within the spirit of inclusiveness will inevitably give of themselves for the benefit of all people in their society.

the next question you will ask is why OCCUPY?
people in their lives are separated from one another,
they are forced to think in the terms of mere survival. pitting one man against the other for a "artificially scarce" resource, MONEY

when people OCCUPY a space, they are living WITH each other, they very quickly realize that in humanity there are many more things they have in common, and the things commonly used to divide them into groups become obviously unimportant.

when someone helps a community and the community works together it feels inclusive,
when some one shares a space with a community they innately start to co-operate for the benefit of all within that community, they feel inclusive and included, and it is inspiring to the WANT for others to enjoy the benefits of a community where all are equal and all are welcome,
it reminds us what it is to be human.

why horizontal direct democracy?
the right to piece-fully assemble for redress of grievances is enshrined in the supreme law of the land as is the right to protest in the manner chosen by the group who have been "damaged" by the actions of another.
the right to free speech means ALL must be equal to express opinion ALL must be FREE to enter and leave as their conscience allows. ALL have the right to speak and ALL have the right to participate in the redress of grievances.

the founding of a republic on democratic principals means all that attend are doing so in the nature and manner that was laid down by the founding fathers.

ALL peaceful lawful non violent means of redress must be attempted as a Democratic action using the founding document as a template.

when people have nothing to look forward and feel isolated and helpless,
and they live with people who are in the same position but who are hopeful of the future,
that inspiration is infectious.

the real truth is that by LAW it was necessary to be a SELF ASSEMBLY of the people by the people and for the people for redress of grievances , using the constitutionally protected rights deemed self evident within the constitution,

the founders were wise indeed as they knew that this would require a democratic process to enable a message from all to be delivered to government for consideration.

why OCCUPY WALL STREET?
when the founders later wrote that a congress divided cant stand,
and the reality of the situation was that congress were only passing laws and statues,
written by and for corporations and that money was free speech and corporations were people

it was obvious that govenment was bought and paid for and would not investigate its own malfeasance,
there were some that investigated why.
what was found was truly shocking, and demonstrated that government had been criminally subverted by large wall street institutions.

rather than damage a government, a country and its peoples,
the redress of "damages" actions layered out in the constitution was shown to be legal lawful and less damaging to the nation and her peoples.

how does OCCUPY fix anything?
the main problem was public awareness that there was a problem and that it would take the people and not the congress to fix it. rather than cause a loss in confidence in the government, it would make sense to slowly open up people to the idea that there was a problem, and in doing so allow the government to repair itself slowly and surely as public awareness of the problem was addressed.

this was done to prevent "damage" to the institutions of the government.
and loss of confidence of the populous in the ability of government to govern effectively.
xploder

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by michaelbrux
if an occupy movie is made that portrays the occupiers as anything other than Hippie Stoners, i'll now its BS propaganda.

the Cops showed up as Cops...why can't Hippies be honest concerning what they are?

This is nothing other than pure viciousness for its' own sake.

Why do you hate hippies, Michael? Are you really so far gone psychologically, that uniformity is more important to you, than how someone treats you?

I only just came back from spending six months in Nimbin, in northern New South Wales. That town was the self-proclaimed hippie capital of Australia. They were also, for the most part, quite literally the kindest and most hospitable people I've ever known.

The really scary thing about contemporary Americans, is that I honestly think that it is actually the level of kindness of these people, rather than just their lack of conformity, that you primarily find threatening. Capitalism has taught you to believe that there is literally a no more grievous crime in existence, than feeling or expressing compassion for someone. You've come to believe that human beings are supposed to be sociopathic. We're supposed to build a giant pile of corpses and then climb to the top of it; to benefit ourselves by stepping on everyone else's face.

You've actually come to believe that that is right, and caring about other people is wrong.

i don't hate Hippies...i love them actually...they exist and will always exist but they have too great a desire to be loved and appreciated more than others within society.

what's a protest without both Hippie and Cop?

the Cop has a billy club, tear gas and handcuffs and the Hippie has the desire to be treated unfairly via their brutality...

this is what makes the world go round my friend.

could you imagine a situation where a Hippie goes to protest and no Cops or Camera's show up to participate?

so...occupiers aren't different from their most recent predecessor, the Hippie. and I won't accept any portrayal of them that suggests otherwise.

Originally posted by michaelbrux
so...occupiers aren't different from their most recent predecessor, the Hippie. and I won't accept any portrayal of them that suggests otherwise.

At least you're keeping an open mind. That is the important thing.

Originally posted by michaelbrux
if an occupy movie is made that portrays the occupiers as anything other than Hippie Stoners, i'll now its BS propaganda.

the Cops showed up as Cops...why can't Hippies be honest concerning what they are?

Talib Kweli ain't no hippy stoner. Immortal Technique ain't no hippy stoner.

I get your point; however it is clear that the adversely impacted gathered and that population has no single demographic.

reply to post by petrus4


what will OCCUPY do in the future?
i cant say for sure, but as long as its actions are democratic, inclusive, non violent and peaceful,
i will support them,

are the annons a problem for OCCUPYs image?
remember this one important point,
annon JOINED OWS
ALL MUST be free to join to be considered democractic,
the only thing they must remember is pieceful non violent civic action,

in the spirit of MLK and Gandhi,

xploder

Originally posted by zroth

Originally posted by michaelbrux
if an occupy movie is made that portrays the occupiers as anything other than Hippie Stoners, i'll now its BS propaganda.

the Cops showed up as Cops...why can't Hippies be honest concerning what they are?

Talib Kweli ain't no hippy stoner. Immortal Technique ain't no hippy stoner.

I get your point; however it is clear that the adversely impacted gathered and that population has no single demographic.

a SOBER artist? that's an interesting elaboration...let's see how it works out for them.

some people don't discover the stoner part of themselves until late in life and career...perhaps that is true for the people you mentioned.

what's really annoying about the protester types of today is that they emulate protest movements of the past that emerged seemingly organically as a direct result of the realities they faced.

protesters of today are bootleg reproductions by comparison.

I remember seeing the first popular, non violent overthrow of a government in history, the toppling of Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines ...and the bootleg copies.

Georgia and Ukraine were uninteresting and quite honestly, offensive to my intellect.

I enjoyed, very much, the Egyptian Revolution, especially the scene on the bridge...(i will watch it after this post), but what comes after it will probably be pathetic.

the occupiers are just obnoxious to me.

reply to post by petrus4

this is the common story told of the first occupy meeting,

Months before the first occupiers descended on Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan, before the news trucks arrived and the unions endorsed, before Michael Bloomberg and Michael Moore and Kanye West made appearances, a group of artists, activists, writers, students, and organizers gathered on the fourth floor of 16 Beaver Street, an artists' space near Wall Street, to talk about changing the world. There were New Yorkers in the room, but also Egyptians, Spaniards, Japanese, Greeks. Some had played a part in the Arab Spring uprising; others had been involved in the protests catching fire across Europe. But no one at 16 Beaver knew they were about light the fuse on a protest movement that would sweep the world

mother jones dot com

the first info on the web was here on ats,
and then on adbusters dot com
a canadian websight/magazine

xploder

Originally posted by XPLodER
mother jones dot com

the first info on the web was here on ats,
and then on adbusters dot com
a canadian websight/magazine

xploder

Great stuff. Thanks, XPLodER. If you're interested, I also found this:-
www.thedailybeast.com...

reply to post by petrus4


i can confirm to you that article is incorrect warren was not part of the original group,
it was a no name person and a group of conspiracy theorists,
some say one of them is a physicist, and their is MANY people claiming to be the source,

take my word for this,
you would have never heard of any of the founders of the original "OCCUPY WALL STREET"
as non of them have come forward and i doubt that any who were there would want to distract from the REAL message,

in fact there is only three or four people who have claimed to be there start,
who actually were, i cant supply names

warren was inspirational but was not involved in the inception, she is attempting to co-opt support.
heres a hint NONE of them were politicians.

xploder

i'm still not convinced that Occupy Wall Street, thus Occupy wherever it occurs, is not a direct result of Gaddafi fleeing his Capital, Tripoli in August 2011.

for this reason...and until convinced otherwise...occupy will always be little more than a tactic by mass murderers, liars and thieves to continue there war upon human society.

Greed has existed for quite some time...why appear when they did?

Occupy is a joke.

And what you call Hippies are no more hippies then Obama is.
I know what a Hippie is because i was one.

Back in the late 1960s there was the hippies
and there was what we hippies called Mugs, people that looked like hippies but really were street criminals.

The best example of a mugs was Charles Manson and his crew..
Mugs meant to signify the book there photos would soon be in.

even the cool cops knew when we called someone a mugs that was the hippie way of excommunicating someone from the identity of being a hippie.

reply to post by ANNED


i suspected that many would see something 'not authentic' about their actions...

i suggested they call themselves hippies to improve their image. maybe make a non-embarrassing place for themselves in history.

Originally posted by ANNED
Occupy is a joke.

As opposed to the original protest movement back in the 60s, which as we all know, was wildly successful.

I'm so glad we've got that cleared up. Thank you for your sage assessment, Grandpa.

reply to post by petrus4


the other posters are just here to derail the thread,
dont feed into the hate,

or as some say dont lower yourself to their level
i tend to ignore the trolls

dont allow them to distract you

xploder