Occupy My Heart

reply to post by Kali74

Globally, revolution is in it's infancy. It's far too soon to judge it's conclusion.

Revolution, in the sense that you are using it, has many of the attributes of war, even if that revolution is fought entirely peacefully. The Velvet Revolution, or Gentle Revolution of Czechoslovakia could not have happened as peacefully as it did if it were not for the collapse of other Warsaw Pact governments, and that collapse would not have come about if the principles of Sun Tzu's Art of War and Car von Clausewitz seminal work On War were not stringently applied during the Cold War. From Sun Tzu to Eisenhower, as well as countless entrepreneurs, all understand certain basic principles, one of the most important being: the ability to successfully predict an outcome is the mark of success.

If the Occupy movement does not finally come up with that one simple demand, and not only that, if they cannot find a winning strategy rooted in sound ideology, then it is easily predicted that their efforts will fail. Just as it is easy to predict that, so too is it easy to, and was easy to predict the failure of the Arab Spring. The ideology behind those uprisings was not rooted in universal unalienable rights, and its naive belief that democracy brings freedom only ensured the mess they face today. Not that the "proper" ideology - as Dr. Azghadi puts it - is all that is needed and even a revolution, peaceful or not, fought with the strong foundation of unalienable rights for all will fail if those fighting this revolution are not resolute in their commitment to necessary change.

reply to post by woodwardjnr

Maybe occupy with it's mass of numbers would be better off working in the poor communities gaining support from people who are being hit hardest by the financial collapse. The elderly, the homeless the disabled etc. Maybe the numbers of Occupy would be better spending their time helping these people and the wider community, at the same time highlighting the injustices they come across.

I have long admired your thoughtful wisdom, and the above quote from you is just one example as to why I do. Thank you for joining us in this thread, Brother.

reply to post by woodwardjnr

Maybe occupy with it's mass of numbers would be better off working in the poor communities gaining support from people who are being hit hardest by the financial collapse. The elderly, the homeless the disabled etc. Maybe the numbers of Occupy would be better spending their time helping these people and the wider community, at the same time highlighting the injustices they come across.

The do actually. They try to stop illegal home foreclosures and get banks to renegotiate with families that have missed 1 or 2 payments and have had some success. They fed and clothed the homeless at many of the camps, they continued to hold food drives over the winter...there's a lot of examples and the numbers are just fine. But unaffiliated Black Block vandalized and we hear how Occupy is violent and nothing about the good they do.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


IMHO

you ask for the answer of a democratic process at its inception?
you ask for the voice and message of a unifyed group all agreeing one one single message at the inception of the discussion?

you miss the process as the aim,
the very nature of General Assemblies, as screaming out for partication in the political process by those disempowered by the standard politics as usual of govenment.

the idea is to generate a concensus for direction in a time of directionless politic environment,
leaders who are too busy scoring points for party alegences to bother about nation as a whole,

justice that means that large banks can falsify documents for foreclosure,
and protestors cannot "self assemble in public for redress of greavences"?

and only the protestors are arrested,
these things and others are being "witnessed" by people who realise what the question is.

they cant articulate it yet let alone agree on it yet,
but it is there far more and more people that see that simple self evedent truth,

that if you want america to be whole again,
you have to agree on where the problems are,
then you must agree on how to fix them.

there are so many problems, so much devision in opinion on the smaller issues,
that the bigger questions are left out from debates.

OWS draws attension of the world, it is such an issue

that is why leaderless agreement using a democratic process that empowers people is asking for a question,
not trying to give THE answer.

it is a process of education,
it is a process of unifycation,
it is a process of empowerment

it is crowd sourcing the fix to the problem,
you say you see nothing coming out of OCCUPY,

yet you dont seem to know where to look,

the black clothing destroyers of property are anywhere there is a chance to cause mayhem,
the people who have clearly stated NON VIOLENCE do not break stuff,
it is OPPOSITE to the stated aims, that WERE collectivly agreed on,
that everyone that wants to join or help with orginizing must agree to non violence,

so far that it would not be tollerated.

the education of groups like ALEC who write bills for passage in the halls of power,
and pay/lobbie congress to pass them,
whos bills make it illegal to film factory farms,

and set up groups to wright 99% legislation, to remove the 1% written legislation,
that is by the corperatiopn for the corperations
and protest for liberty justice and the pursuit of happynes,

and not have corps write legislation that harm people passed by the state and local govenments.

the 99% of people harmed by this "taylored" writing of corperate legislation,
are harmed thinking it is the state that does so.

people make america great,
not coke or pepsi

xploder

Yeah, our local occupy here did not get violent at all, but ended up being forcefully evicted after yielding to demands to move the camp. They did however provide food and shelter for quite a few people without homes and without work. They worked with local unions, other activist groups, homegrown businesses and things like food-not-bombs. It was interesting to say the least, though i never actually occupied. Though i did talk to quite a few people and heard quite a few people from all sorts of age ranges (a woman did a speech, she was 60 or so, maybe a little younger, maybe a little older. She had a lot to say, and it was "I've sat by for too long, watching this happening. I noticed it 40 years ago. And i notice it today" kind of thing (not word for word, memory kinda sucks, but thats the just of it.

Violently removed on rememberance day actually. Ironic kind of.

I agree that Occupy needs one demand, but there is so much wrong that its hard to pinpoint the cause of the real problem. Its hard to pinpoint one particular area the whole thing is coming from..

Because it is THE WHOLE THING. In my eyes anyways. I think the one demand should be "end the financial elite", that seems like it would solve a whole host of problems..like most of them. But that's just my opinion.

Also in my opinion, should be 'violence when necessary', im not talking about towards the police. That should be dealt with peacefully. I'm talking a gang of roaming occupymarines swarming the black bloc and subdueing them and throwing them at the cops feet. It would work, and the cops would have someone to arrest. Maybe too brash, but in order to save from how the media will spin it.. "Occupy protesters stop black bloc vandals" sounds like a GOOD news story..

But its not so much leaderless as it is.. everyone. Everyone is a leader. Everyone has the choice to lead. There is not a public face (i think there should be some public faces, but just that, public faces. Like a leader but only the leading is being done by the general assembly, by people who wants to actually participate in the democratic process. I like the idea of the GA actually. It can easily be adapted for use on the internet.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by woodwardjnr

 

Maybe occupy with it's mass of numbers would be better off working in the poor communities gaining support from people who are being hit hardest by the financial collapse. The elderly, the homeless the disabled etc. Maybe the numbers of Occupy would be better spending their time helping these people and the wider community, at the same time highlighting the injustices they come across.

I have long admired your thoughtful wisdom, and the above quote from you is just one example as to why I do. Thank you for joining us in this thread, Brother.

maby if you watch this video you would see the work being done behind the sceans,
that MSM doent show,


there are many people receiving help,
from legal help,
to full on occupations of peoples houses to help them force the bank to act legally and morrally.

they have saved churches and houses, but you will never see the smiles of the people,
if you expect MSM to show you what the real face of occupy looks like


they dont want to show us helping vets and grandmas and churhes that have stood in the comunities
it might be bad for bank profits


xploder

I just wanted to say when I first clicked on it I thought that was the most romantic title anyone could conceive. Star for the excellent thread. Flag for the beautiful title.

reply to post by XPLodER


Respectfully, I ask no answers at all from a democratic process, and have no more love for the tyranny of the majority than I do for the tyranny of one. I do, however, suggest that if a group is to be truly unified that they must then be truly unified. This means they all agree on their aim. If this is not done at the inception of this groups formation, then just as it has been with Occupy, it is unlikely that group will ever be truly unified.

Law care nothing for consensus. Gravity did not come into play through consensus, nor the speed of light, nor the planetary bodies of motion, and unalienable rights are not derived by consensus.

This assertion that only protesters are being arrested but not Wall Street criminals is simply not true. Jeffrey Skilling was charged and ultimately convicted of fraud and insider trading. Joe Nacchio, Gregory Reyes, John Rigas, Richard Scrushy, Sam Waksal, Dennis Koslowski, and Bernard Ebbers, to name just a very few of these Wall Street scam artists have most assuredly been not only arrested, more importantly they've been convicted.

Further, if any Occupy protestor has been falsely arrested, and then obtains a dismissal from a judge, that dismissal becomes prima facie evidence of the criminal actions of the arresting officer. A simple verified complaint with your county's duly elected Sheriff is all that is needed to have that criminal thug prancing around pretending to be a law officer not just arrested for their crime, but tried and probably convicted.

It is becoming many now, who want to insist that I am only looking at the masked black clothed thugs to judge the movement as a whole, but this is simply just not true. I live in Los Angeles and know many ardently involved in the Occupy movement here, none of them thugs, most of them confused, and too many of them less concerned with the jealous guarding of rights and zealous defense of them, and more concerned with this so called "1%" and wealth redistribution.

The Occupy movement is hopelessly trapped in the scarcity paradigm that has been used so effectively by the very real "1%" to create this wide disparity of wealth. Those who have the wealth are tremendously satisfied that those who don't follow their religion of scarcity as pious adherents. There is, however, another paradigm. There is the abundance paradigm. People such as Buckminster Fuller who insist that there are enough resources on this planet alone, not to mention the universe, to make each and everyone of us a billionaire a million times over.

We can jealously and bitterly envy the rich, or we can jealously guard our unalienable rights, zealously defending them while discover this abundance so that we may all flourish and prosper. However, we can not force abundance on others, and each individual has to make the decision themselves that they actually do want to flourish and prosper. Their own prosperity will not come to them through Marxist or socialist principles. It will only come to them through their own genuine effort.

Finally, allow me to fall back on my pedantry and repeat what I so often do:

Legislation is not law, at best it is merely evidence of law, at worst it is flat out unlawful. All law is simple, true, universal and absolute. No piece of paper, digital text, or any other artificial construct is law. No one can grow a crop of corn on a map of Iowa. No one can drive the word vehicle, and no one will know the genuine pleasure of being touched by a beautiful woman by their picture. A picture of a pipe is not a pipe.

Corporations are legal entities that exist by permission of the state. In the United States, the state is We the People. The vast majority of the Fortune 500 corporations are chartered as corporations in the State of Delaware. Currently, the Attorney General for the State of Delaware is Beau Biden (Vice President Joseph Biden's son). It is the Attorney General of any state who has the authority of charter revocation. If the Occupy movement truly wants to put an end to corporatism, they would have a much easier time of doing that by occupying Delaware and demanding that States Attorney General revoke the charters to those corporations guilty of malfeasance, instead of occupying Wall Street.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


End the corruption in Government. That's an arrowhead. Problem is when asked to qualify the explanation becomes an encyclopedia.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

End the corruption in Government. That's an arrowhead. Problem is when asked to qualify the explanation becomes an encyclopedia.

We begin by ending the corruption within ourselves. If we have our hands out to the government demanding entitlements, we have agreed to be corrupt. Governments do not exist to redistribute wealth, or should not, they should exist to protect the unalienable rights of all people. We cannot expect to end government corruption until we are satisfied we've ended our own.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

~Lord Acton~

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
If we have our hands out to the government demanding entitlements, we have agreed to be corrupt. Governments do not exist to redistribute wealth, or should not, they should exist to protect the unalienable rights of all people.

The more we ask government to do the more we abrogate our unalienable rights. Government is dangerous, inept and inefficient and the larger it becomes the more pronounced those deficiencies become.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


InCivil Disobedience, Henry David Thoreau suggests we take from the government what we can and ignore them for the rest. I say don't take a damn thing from the government and good luck in ignoring them even then.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


It's a vicious cycle isn't it? I believe there should be a safety net for people that get in a jam or start out life way behind the pack but it needs to be an honest safety net, an actual boost instead of signing your life away to the cycle of scraping by if you're lucky. The middle class life used to be easy street now it is one pay check away from skid row. A system that can condemn a person to destitution because your health care doesn't pay for your cancer treatments and your boss doesn't give a crap is a system in need of much more fixing than personal accountability can provide.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
In Civil Disobedience, Henry David Thoreau suggests we take from the government what we can and ignore them for the rest. I say don't take a damn thing from the government and good luck in ignoring them even then.

I would mostly like to take back a large portion of my tax money as my sentiment is that the majority of it is unsoundly spent. I am tired of the government Occupying my wallet.

Originally posted by Kali74
I believe there should be a safety net for people that get in a jam or start out life way behind the pack but it needs to be an honest safety net, an actual boost instead of signing your life away to the cycle of scraping by if you're lucky.

I agree, however the problem is the 'safety net' has turned into a hammock.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


No it's turned into a cage.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


hi

Respectfully, I ask no answers at all from a democratic process, and have no more love for the tyranny of the majority than I do for the tyranny of one. I do, however, suggest that if a group is to be truly unified that they must then be truly unified. This means they all agree on their aim. If this is not done at the inception of this groups formation, then just as it has been with Occupy, it is unlikely that group will ever be truly unified.

NON violent peaceful protest was expressed by an over welming majority of GAs accross the world

Law care nothing for consensus. Gravity did not come into play through consensus, nor the speed of light, nor the planetary bodies of motion, and unalienable rights are not derived by consensus.

in a jury of your peers at trial it is a jury of concensus, of public agreement of the crime and puishment,
inditements from many people may serve as a consensus of evidence.

This assertion that only protesters are being arrested but not Wall Street criminals is simply not true. Jeffrey Skilling was charged and ultimately convicted of fraud and insider trading. Joe Nacchio, Gregory Reyes, John Rigas, Richard Scrushy, Sam Waksal, Dennis Koslowski, and Bernard Ebbers, to name just a very few of these Wall Street scam artists have most assuredly been not only arrested, more importantly they've been convicted.

the main criminals remain at large, free from prosicution, collecting millions from forged robo documents in bonuses,
hedge fund managers who did not complete due diligence with teh pensions of police staff for their retirements.

Further, if any Occupy protestor has been falsely arrested, and then obtains a dismissal from a judge, that dismissal becomes prima facie evidence of the criminal actions of the arresting officer. A simple verified complaint with your county's duly elected Sheriff is all that is needed to have that criminal thug prancing around pretending to be a law officer not just arrested for their crime, but tried and probably convicted.

and indeed it has been noted over and again that may who have been arrested and brought before courts are released without charge, making their aprehention nothing more than a tactic of abuse of powers.

cont..

xp

Originally posted by Kali74
No it's turned into a cage.

I politely disagree. I came from nothing and have done very well. If it is a cage it is not locked.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


It isn't impossible, you're right but it is unnecessarily hard. Life isn't easy, believe me I know that...probably everyone knows that as well as knowing it isn't meant to be so.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

It is becoming many now, who want to insist that I am only looking at the masked black clothed thugs to judge the movement as a whole, but this is simply just not true. I live in Los Angeles and know many ardently involved in the Occupy movement here, none of them thugs, most of them confused, and too many of them less concerned with the jealous guarding of rights and zealous defense of them, and more concerned with this so called "1%" and wealth redistribution.

when you look at the corperate structure controlling the legislators and the lobbying ect,
it is a small percemtage (1%) pushing huge volumes of pre written legislation towards the reps to pass,
this gives them little to no time to read and pass legilsation for the nation,

their actions are in their self interest at the detriment of the nation,
dont you see that this is the fastest acting cancer to a democractic republic?

The Occupy movement is hopelessly trapped in the scarcity paradigm that has been used so effectively by the very real "1%" to create this wide disparity of wealth. Those who have the wealth are tremendously satisfied that those who don't follow their religion of scarcity as pious adherents. There is, however, another paradigm. There is the abundance paradigm. People such as Buckminster Fuller who insist that there are enough resources on this planet alone, not to mention the universe, to make each and everyone of us a billionaire a million times over.

if you look intio the nature of the subversion of the 1%,
you will see why there is scarcity
it is more profitable......

you cant have a nation with freedoms if the 1% coperate written legislation over wealms the process with law designed with one thing in mind
PROFIT

and thats whay it comes down to,

profit or freedom,
corperations writting your laws for profit,
or people writting laws for freedom

We can jealously and bitterly envy the rich, or we can jealously guard our unalienable rights, zealously defending them while discover this abundance so that we may all flourish and prosper. However, we can not force abundance on others, and each individual has to make the decision themselves that they actually do want to flourish and prosper. Their own prosperity will not come to them through Marxist or socialist principles. It will only come to them through their own genuine effort.

you think this is all above work=dollars?
this is about dollars = laws
and dollars being more important than freedoms
ie
dollars>freedom

money is not free speach
corperations are not people

cont.....