Occupy: What's the point?

The most frequent question I see people asking on this site, where Occupy is concerned, is what the point of the movement is, and what is it accomplishing. Kali and I used to have arguments about this as well.

During my time in Nimbin though, I went to a slide show that was given by a guy who'd actually travelled to Zucotti Park, and I realised, at least in my own head, what the point of it was. As a disclaimer, this is only going to be my perspective; other people won't necessarily agree, and that is fine.

The slides which this man showed us, did not primarily suggest to me, that this was a protest movement. What I saw instead was, a giant exhibition, test bed, and laboratory for different elements of a different and experimental society. People were talking about a very large number of different things. Internet infrastructure projects, library projects, representatives of a large number of different groups, a free kitchen; there was all sorts of different stuff going on. About the only common element, if it could be called that, that I saw, was that anything which involved material exchange, was either completely free or reciprocally based; there was no money changing hands at all.

Occupy at its' most positive and powerful, is not about people mindlessly throwing themselves against the police, or even about people standing outside Wall Street and screaming at the suits to clean up the mess that they have created. The suits like the way things are just fine; they're not interested in changing at all, and the smarter among us know that.

What it is really about, however, is information exchange, and creating a focal point where we can begin to come up with ways of building an entirely new society. That, in case you're wondering, is also why the police are employing the intensity of violence towards people within OWS that they are. It's the same reason why you've seen completely non-violent rave parties invaded by SWAT teams at times over the last ten years, as well.

The old system is fighting with everything it can to defend itself, because it knows darn well that if what we want to implement is allowed to take root, it is finished. Its' time will be over. The Illuminati aren't the only people with a New World Order in mind; personally, I've got a few ideas myself.

The cops don't mind people marching in the streets with placards, during the day. That isn't threatening to them at all. People march a bit, they chant a bit, they go home, and nothing changes.

Cops don't like camping, though. Camping is a real threat. Camping is dangerous; and the single main reason why, is because when people are allowed to live together, even temporarily, that is when an entirely different civilisation, a different paradigm, can take root. It provides a place where those who are used to same old mundane thing, can actually be shown how much different, and how much better things could be, if they actually spent a few months full time, with other people who think out of the box.

So the cops have to stop that at all costs. They have to stamp on that, bash that, rip that up out of the ground. They have to completely destroy it, because if they don't, then it is only a matter of time before the system that they live in, and which nurtures them, will cease to exist. People would start coming up with alternatives and replacements for the broken, dysfunctional, toxic, extinction producing mess that we currently live in, if they were allowed to do that.

So that is what this is, and when I started looking at takethesquare.net as well, that is what I found. Groups of people coming together in order to try and figure out how to produce a society that is more positive, and more functional in real, practical terms, than anything we've ever seen before.

Sometimes when you look at that site, you'll see regurgitations of Marxism. Sometimes that will turn your stomach; being quite honest, at times it's turned mine. I try and focus on that being what is in the heads of only specific people, however, and remember that it is not how I have to think.

I don't advocate anything centrally planned. I advocate the opposite. I see people living rurally, and living in small, spread out, individually intimate groups, which don't scale beyond the level of human cognition. I've already got six months of practical experience of living like that, and I know it works.

I don't advocate the end of property ownership. I have a computer, and it is mine, and I'll be damned if I allow anyone else to force me to give it to anyone else.

I want something else, than what most people have got, though. I don't want any more cities. I want places with trees, because I've had trees around me now, as well as being in places where they aren't, and I know how it affects me. I don't want a scenario where I have to eat processed, GMO crap any more. I've recently had stuff grown directly out of the ground, and it is very hard to go back to junk food after that.

I also don't want intellectual property law any more. I used to trade files with people, back in my Amiga days, and I loved it; and on bulletin boards and IRC.

I don't want a scenario where the only things I can do are what the federal government ( or worse, the UN, which is where we're heading) says I can do, and where they're actually looking for excuses to lock me up, so that they can trade me as prison slave labour on Wall Street. I don't want a scenario where this planet ends up being nothing more than concrete, steel, mud, carbon monoxide, and methane; no animals, no plants, no decent food, no drinkable water, and not much oxygen.

A lot of us want a different future to that, and that's what we're pushing for. If you want something better as well, you can come along...but ultimately, that's going to be something that will be up to you.

Well said. It doesn't even have to be such a radical change but the discussions beginning with high ideals can be worked on and ever refined which I believe can be refined to a point of not being too far from what we have now or had not so long ago, just more efficiently implemented, more fair and far less corrupt.

don't want a scenario where the only things I can do are what the federal government ( or worse, the UN, which is where we're heading) says I can do, and where they're actually looking for excuses to lock me up, so that they can trade me as prison slave labour on Wall Street.

At some point a violent vanguard is going to break off and start tossing molotov coctails through department-store widows.

Actually I'm shocked that this hasn't happened.

2012 will be the year the youngsters stop getting meekly tazed and peppahsprayed and start thumping skulls of their own.

In the next year, my duel citizen Australian/American wife and I are moving to Australia. I can’t wait to get out of this country. I have protested and demonstrated on numerous occasions about what our Gov. is doing to Americans. I have even been put in jail for voicing my concerns. You know, I don’t really know who do blame. The politicians who are corrupt or Americans who are allowing it to happen.

When I do leave, at least I can say I wasn’t one of those people who sat behind a computer screen b!tching about it! I did my best to make the difference. Maybe one day when Americans decide to grow a pair, I’ll come back to join to fight. But until then, I wish my fellow American the best…

And one more thing, Americans really need to get their priorities straight. Hanging out on Wall Street isn’t going to make the difference. People need to go after the Federal Reserve, the White House, and Congress. A couple million Americans storming congress and hanging these people where they stand will really speak numbers on how pizzed off Americans are. Forcing these people to make change seems like the only alternative. Some might say that is the wrong way to go, or that Americans are better than that, but do you think screaming “impeach” is going to make any difference at all? Laws don’t apply to any of these people, and they know it. As for voting these people out of office, good luck with that. TPTB make sure who gets to stay and who does not.

If there’s someone with an alternative in dealing with these corrupt idiots, I would really love to hear it...

Any ideas...

Originally posted by Propulsion
If there’s someone with an alternative in dealing with these corrupt idiots, I would really love to hear it...

Any ideas...

The only thing we can do is walk away from them entirely. Trying to do things like abolishing the Federal Reserve is a waste of energy. They will never allow it, and beyond a certain point, anyone who tries will simply be shot.

They are going to start shooting people eventually. When they do, you're not going to want to be one of the people in the city streets. You're going to want to be in the country, where they at least have to actually come looking for you.

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by Propulsion
If there’s someone with an alternative in dealing with these corrupt idiots, I would really love to hear it...

Any ideas...

The only thing we can do is walk away from them entirely. Trying to do things like abolishing the Federal Reserve is a waste of energy. They will never allow it, and beyond a certain point, anyone who tries will simply be shot.

They are going to start shooting people eventually. When they do, you're not going to want to be one of the people in the city streets. You're going to want to be in the country, where they at least have to actually come looking for you.

I am not one to use force when it comes to anything. But can you see the dilemma? These people want more and more from Americans and everyone just allows it to happen. What a travesty…

So, in other words, the Occupy movement agrees with the Georgia Guidestones?

Population no greater than 500,000,000 to leave room for nature?

'Cause that's the only way such a society is going to be sustainable. You think most of the people living in cities would actually choose cities if they could live in such a nice paradisial place as the OP describes?

Originally posted by elliotmtl
So, in other words, the Occupy movement agrees with the Georgia Guidestones?

Population no greater than 500,000,000 to leave room for nature?

'Cause that's the only way such a society is going to be sustainable. You think most of the people living in cities would actually choose cities if they could live in such a nice paradisial place as the OP describes?

As time passes it should be pretty much a given that we'll find better ways of sustaining ourselves if we're given the chances to, so the whole population number doesn't really come into it.

Originally posted by elliotmtl
So, in other words, the Occupy movement agrees with the Georgia Guidestones?

Population no greater than 500,000,000 to leave room for nature?

'Cause that's the only way such a society is going to be sustainable. You think most of the people living in cities would actually choose cities if they could live in such a nice paradisial place as the OP describes?

Elliot, I could be wrong, but even in most apartment complexes, people get balconies. I went to an apartment complex once which actually had a public garden, as well. There are also usually nature strips etc, where people can grow plants.

I don't advocate the Georgia Guidestones at all; quite the opposite, in fact. All I really meant to do, was acknowledge the degree to which, in my experience at least, the presence of plants can improve my health. I also do not believe for one moment that the population needs to be reduced to half a billion, in order to prevent the destruction of the environment. Jacques Fresco has mentioned that he thinks that the planet could support a population of up to 10 billion, if we changed the way we produce and distribute food. I don't necessarily think that the Venus Project is exclusively the way we should go either, mind you; but it's just one more idea.

Have you read about the recent project in Sweden I think it was, to actually start building vertical farms?

Plantagon Breaks Ground on its First ‘Plantscraper’ Vertical Farm in Sweden!

So there are lots and lots of options; no genocide required.

Cops bust raves because of drugs, cops break up OCCUPY for a number of reasons.

There are rules in our world, when you break the rules you suffer the consequences, cause and effect.

Structure, order, power, authority.

What you, PETRUS are talking about is contrary to the established order of things.

You are speaking of something akin to anarchy, something chaotic, and unpredictable.....that is anathema to the establishment.

You are suggesting that people may not need rules, regulations, and enforcers of the rules in order to exist. That people are capable of handling their business and doing the right thing without some outside enforcement.

Blasphemy! How dare you even suggest such things......People need structure and control, we are too weak and sinful and self destructive if left to our own devices. People need predictable rules and standards to live by because if left to our own devices we would fail....chaos would ensue and we'd all kill each other and structure is the only thing that keeps us safe......it keeps us safe by building a cage around us and dividing us from each other, to "protect" us....we live in cages, we sacrifice our freedom in return for our safety.

I heard a story of a guy, long long ago who suggested similar things as what you have mentioned Petrus,......he got nailed to a cross and suffered a pretty terrible death.

reply to post by petrus4


We definitely don't need to continue the destructive path we're on in order to feed the planet, we have enough...more than enough but biotech and agribusiness are HUGE now. They create this false fear of not having enough food so they can continue to become grossly bloated on our dollars.

Camping and living together is not the issue that you pretend it is.

First, if the point of the occupy movement is to get people together to form a new society, that are plenty of places here in the US where land is cheap and they could start a new community. It wouldn't take much money.

Buy some land in a has been city like Detroit and start your new society there. You might be able to bring that area back to life.

While I liked your discussion about bringing people together and creating a new society, I don't think that it's going to happen on the streets of a big city.

It's kind of like all the communes that started in the 1970s. How many have survived?

Best of luck to you .

reply to post by Propulsion


When has violent revolution ever led to a peaceful society? I agree that eventually this will turn violent, protestors and police alike are getting angrier by the day. But storming congress and lynching them wont solve anything. We need to invite them into our community and take care of them like we would our own. I think that would make a much bigger statement. Violence begets violence.

reply to post by petrus4


I'm kind of confused about how we went from talking about abolishing cities and living in the country, to high-rise apartments being a solution to overpopulation.

This is just intuition but I'm fairly certain its impossible for 10 billion people to live that idyllic country lifestyle being described in the original post. I think people who quote that number have in mind a society drastically different than what you are imagining. And I think they may be forgetting that while there's a lot of land on this planet, much of it is not actually habitable by large quantities of humans, without a lot of extra technology for which we don't really have the resources to spare. Advanced technologies that allow efficient mass healthy farming and housing probably require rare earth metals, the mining and processing of which is one of the most environmentally harmful industries in the world. So unless we find a way to do it much better, technology is not the answer.

In short, without the introduction of free energy technology, I don't see any way out of this mess without massive depopulation. Of course I likethe sentiments expressed by the Occupy movement, I just they they are being ridiculously and naively idealistic and unrealistic.

Originally posted by elliotmtl
reply to post by petrus4

 

I'm kind of confused about how we went from talking about abolishing cities and living in the country, to high-rise apartments being a solution to overpopulation.

I didn't say high rises are a solution to overpopulation at all. I meant that I know that a lot of people are already living in high rises now. I don't think high rises are remotely desirable. I certainly wouldn't want to live in one myself. That was an example intended for people who are already doing that.

This is just intuition but I'm fairly certain its impossible for 10 billion people to live that idyllic country lifestyle being described in the original post.

I've said I like having plants around me. There's a big difference between saying that, and talking about an "idyllic country lifestyle." I think it's a little extreme to assume that you've either got to be a farmer on the one hand, or live with bare concrete on the other.

I think people who quote that number have in mind a society drastically different than what you are imagining.

I'm not necessarily imagining something that is primarily rural, at all. Obviously that is not going to work for most people.

In short, without the introduction of free energy technology, I don't see any way out of this mess without massive depopulation. Of course I likethe sentiments expressed by the Occupy movement, I just they they are being ridiculously and naively idealistic and unrealistic.

If your interpretation of what I'd actually said was correct, you might have grounds for saying that.

Originally posted by Mijamija
What you, PETRUS are talking about is contrary to the established order of things.

You are speaking of something akin to anarchy, something chaotic, and unpredictable.....that is anathema to the establishment.

Well, if you like the established order of things, that's fine. We don't...and that's kind of the point.

But let me put it another way. You can see for yourself what Barrack Obama has been doing to the legal and political system in America, recently. You don't need me to point that out to you. If he keeps doing what he has been doing, it is likely that the establishment itself isn't going to offer a viable way of life for much longer.

So it's possible that if you want to survive at all, being anti-establishment might end up being your only option.

You are suggesting that people may not need rules, regulations, and enforcers of the rules in order to exist. That people are capable of handling their business and doing the right thing without some outside enforcement.

Blasphemy! How dare you even suggest such things......People need structure and control, we are too weak and sinful and self destructive if left to our own devices.

We're reaching a point, Mija, where if it is true that we not able to begin to take responsibility for ourselves and the way we live, we are probably going to become extinct. We can't keep simply handing over responsibility for our entire lives to governments and giant corporations any more. Look at how poorly they are handling that responsibility for us right now. You can read about the behaviour of Monsanto, the Gulf oil spill etc for yourself; the information is here online for anyone to see.

I've also known people who aren't weak, sinful, or self-destructive when left to their own devices at all. There are a minority of the population who are like that, yes; but what you tend to find is that it is those people who are actually ruling society.

I'm seeing a number of responses from people in this thread, which are based on indoctrination, rather than what is actually happening in front of them. I have been trying to make decisions based on what I've actually been seeing with my own eyes; not purely on the basis of theoretical mind control.

You haven't made a single statement in the post that I'm replying to, that is based on anything that you can actually prove. It's all just pure hypotheticals that you've been taught to think...it isn't based on real experience. What I am saying, on the other hand, is; and there's a big difference.

People need predictable rules and standards to live by because if left to our own devices we would fail....chaos would ensue and we'd all kill each other and structure is the only thing that keeps us safe......it keeps us safe by building a cage around us and dividing us from each other, to "protect" us....we live in cages, we sacrifice our freedom in return for our safety.

So why are you alive, Mija? What motivates you to get up in the morning? You might be surviving, but what for? Is your survival purely for its' own sake? Do you really feel as though a completely rote, predictable existence is a justifiable way to live? Are you really so completely spiritually dead that you are genuinely willing to accept that?

I heard a story of a guy, long long ago who suggested similar things as what you have mentioned Petrus,......he got nailed to a cross and suffered a pretty terrible death.

Yep. That's because at the time, he was surrounded by people who also thought in a manner that is very similar to what you're describing. The people back then didn't really want to live...they had been indoctrinated to believe that it was acceptable purely to exist; oxygen moving in and out of the lungs, perhaps, but no real emotional and psychological life.

He tried to suggest to them that maybe they should actually start living; and they found it easier to kill him, than to do the developmental work that they would have needed to, in order to do what he suggested.

It's a choice, Mija. It's not a case of you not being able to do it. You can. I'm not seeing here, a person who can't do it. I'm seeing a person who has spent most of their life being told that they can't, and who now doesn't want to believe otherwise. The only thing that you need to do, in order for things to change, is to want it badly enough that you are willing to follow up on it, irrespective of the perceived consequences; and I say perceived, because generally whatever we're afraid of only exists in our own heads anyway.

You're also not really safer, either, I'm sorry to tell you. We're all going to die at some point, irrespective of how safely we try and live. The only thing we do have control over, is how full or empty the time we've had here has been, before we die.

Originally posted by petrus4
I don't advocate anything centrally planned. I advocate the opposite. I see people living rurally, and living in small, spread out, individually intimate groups, which don't scale beyond the level of human cognition. I've already got six months of practical experience of living like that, and I know it works.

I was only responding to this quote.
The lifestyle implied in that quote is not possible for 7 billion people on this planet.
That is all.