Saturday, October 22, 2011

A Suggested Demand For The Occupation

It is not for me to say what the demands of the Occupy movement should consist of. But if it was up to me, this is what I would say.

To the mainstream media, acting governments, and TPTB,
You say you want to know what the occupiers' demands are. Fair enough. Here is one:
We demand that you respect the rule of law, and apply it fairly. The following persons stand accused of crimes against humanity and numerous other sickening transgressions: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair, Benjamin Netanyahu, Stephen Harper, Queen Elizabeth II, Henry Kissenger, Joseph Ratinger (aka, Pope Benedict XVI). The evidence against these persons is more than sufficient to convict them. We demand that they be arrested and prosecuted. They must be tried publicly and by jury. This is not a complete list, but you can start with these, and more names will follow. This is not the sum of our demands. Honouring this demand will not end the occupation. However, if you fail to honour it, we will not disperse willingly, or consider any other solutions that you propose.
Ours sincerely,

Monday, October 17, 2011

A Message to the Occupy Movement

I would like to ask the Occupy protesters, "Who are you trying to influence?" It's not a rhetorical question. I hope it's not your governments. They are working for the 1%. They knew you didn't want them to give all your money to the IBCS (international banking crime syndicate). They knew, but they didn't care, because they don't work for you. They work for them. Surely their actions have proved this. Your governments have also used violent force to suppress your protests. By their actions, they have made their true loyalty abundantly clear. They couldn't address your grievances without condemning themselves, so it isn't going to happen.

I hope you're not pleading your case to a criminal justice system. The judges and prosecutors were appointed by your governments to serve their common masters. They have made it very clear that the 1% are above the rule of law. The 1% brazenly admit their crimes in public, in print and on camera, and nothing happens. The inexcusable inaction on the part of prosecutors and judges has made them directly complicit in these crimes. Don't expect any of this to change from within.

I really, really hope you're not appealing to the 1%, because they truly don't give a shit about you.

None of these groups can fix what is wrong because their survival depends on preventing it from being fixed. Any solution they offer is a trick. Don't even speak to them. There is only one source of power that can respond to your legitimate demands, and that is the 99%. The message has to be intended for us, not them. We need to talk to each other. We need to decide what is important and valuable to us, and then work out how we are going to act on that.

If there is an award category for "worst invention of the year", it should go to the "human microphone". What a terrible idea! Why would you do that? Whoever came up with this is working for the enemy (or might as well be).

First of all, it sounds awful. It ruins the flow of spoken communication, making its content difficult to follow. Everything takes at least twice as long to say and, it's just plain creepy. I can't be the only one who finds it extremely unpleasant.

So what if there's a bylaw against using microphones without a permit? I'm pretty sure the Occupiers are already violating several other bylaws. I suppose the police could battle their way to the microphone and try to take it, but not without it being widely viewed on You-tube. The movements could organise a microphone replacement fund if necessary.

It shouldn't just be assumed that amplification is needed, or even good. Is it really preferable that a single voice should be heard by everyone at the same time? Consider that all other conversation is made difficult, if not impossible. Might it not be better to have multiple speakers' places, conveniently spaced so as not to overlap? Natural consensus is best achieved through dialogue, in small scale discussions. People should mill around and talk to one another, consider many different ideas. There is time for that. And consensus should take some time to develop if it's going to be wise consensus.

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Know Your Enemy (part 1)

These protests sweeping the globe today, what are they about? I've heard a number of different answers. Some say it's the greedy bankers, some the corporations, or the corrupt government officials, or the monetary system, and these are all part of the problem. There is a more basic culprit, though. Failure to address this underlying cause will, in time, nullify any other gains. It always has before.

Essentially, our enemy is the tyrant. A tyrant is one who rules others by force, or the threat of force. You can't fight tyranny by opposing it. The only way to be free of tyrants is to remove the conditions that support their existence. The existence of the tyrant depends on that of the slave. They are two sides of the same coin. Neither can be without the other. It is a mistake to believe that the tyrant is guilty and the slave blameless. Living under tyrannical rule doesn't make you a slave; your willing cooperation does.

If we wish to be free of tyrants, we must cease to be slaves. It's the only thing that will serve. It should be our foremost concern as individuals. If you have lived your whole life under the rule of tyrants, your mind is full to brimming with slave-programming. You need to become aware of it in order to remove it. The following are descriptions of slave-programs, which you may, or may not, be conscious of.

One justification for money is: "Those who contribute most to society should receive commensurate rewards." I refuted this belief on the grounds of morality in "The Way of the Gift". It is also an example of slave-programming in that it disguises awareness of the socio-economic injustice of the tyrant/slave relationship. In practice, it is very, and increasingly, unlikely that you can ever become wealthy enough to comfortably stop earning an income. The main way you become rich is to have rich parents, or marry a rich person. Alternatively, you could be a genius, or a psychopath, or the winner of a lottery or a large legal settlement. None of these is within your control, and even if acheived, your wealth would be peanuts compared with that of the top tyrants on this planet. And it is frankly insane to argue that anyone's contribution is that much more valuable than anyone else's.

Another belief that justifies money is: "People won't work unless they have to. People won't do anything beyond what's barely necessary without "incentives". That belief is also slave-programming. It is very widely believed because it appears to be true within any society based on a tyrant/slave dynamic. Most people can recall instances where irresponsible members of a group became a drain on the others, causing resentment and disharmony. If you train a dog to salivate at the sound of a bell, it does not logically follow that it is in the nature of dogs to salivate when they hear a bell. If you condition a human being to out-source responsibility to an external authority, which you must do with slaves, he will behave irresponsibly. That doesn't mean all humans are naturally like that. Sovereign human beings, meaning those who choose to be neither slaves or tyrants, are aware of their responsibilties as well as their rights. (Too bad libertarians aren't.) The effect of this programming is to get the slave to believe he needs the tyrant.

To be continued.