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.

14 comments:

  1. Great piece.
    I've looked at some similar aspects in my most recent post re: Occupy...
    Good to see so many people talking about the dynamics of the movement.
    It's still amazing to see it growing though!
    Namaste!
    Carl (The Guide)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks, Carl.
    I hope I don't sound cynical, because "Occupy" has great potential, and over all, I have a really good feeling about it.
    In Lak'ech.

    ReplyDelete
  3. hopefully these protests are waking up quite a few (of the 99%) who have been sleepwalking so far.... Those "in charge" are only "in charge" because we let them do what they are doing. They cannot withstand a popular uprising. We need them out of the way before they do any more damage. Major change is now inevitable, thankfully.

    Thanks for stating things so clearly :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Deepian.
    Thanks for your encouragement. This global mess is like a stereotypical abusive relationship. The abuser keeps promising to change and the victim keeps believing it. The only real solution, though, is to leave the relationship.
    In Lak'ech.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I put this post up on the Evolver site as well. I posted the following in response to some discussion there.

    The human microphone issue is confusingly mixed. It is actually made up of disparate parts that should be treated separately.
    1. Legality
    NYC has a bylaw that prohibits amplified sound without a permit. This, as far as I can tell, was the original problem that led to the HM solution. This problem does not apply in some cities and the HM is not the only possible solution to this problem. It seems like the first solution that should have been tried is: ignore the bylaw. Surely one microphone could have been surrendered for the sake of publicity. It would have been really great to have video of the police confiscating it from a speaker, preferably one widely known and respected, such as Noam Chomskey. If they didn't have the nerve to do that in front of cameras, it would have set a precedent for future use, most likely solving the problem. Good strategy should employ a totalitarian-tiptoe-in-reverse. Pushing the boundaries of the control system back in small increments until it becomes irrelevant. If the police did have the guts to take the mic., then another solution would have to be found, which brings us to the next, totally separate issue.
    2. Technology
    As I said, the HM is not the only solution. I'm not very technologically knowledgeable, but I can think of another solution. You could decentralise the sound source. Cell-phones, or other electronic devices, in conference-call connection could be employed as a sound system. The volume could be kept no higher than that of a natural voice, so as not to constitute amplification. I'm sure someone familiar with technology could come up with something just as good or better. If a technologically superior solution is available, or becomes available, there is no reason not to use it aside from totally unrelated issue number three.

    ReplyDelete
  6. continued,

    3. Emotional Investment
    The HM solution is being used in many cities where the original problem doesn't exist. Why? Well, almost all the answers to that can be found in Karahapinohopono's first response to this post. She "LOVES" it because it is "affirming and powerful". It makes her feel connected and gives her a feeling of participation. I want her to feel that way. I want everyone to feel that way, but I want it to be real connection and real participation, and it's not. Shouting the same poorly comprehended words in unison is not real connection. It's just the adrenal thrill of being part of a mob. Real connection is to be found in the nearly universal human values represented by the 99%. Not as exciting, I know, but real. The HM feels participatory, but it's not. I am deeply suspicious of Michael Moore. I believe he is controlled opposition, one of the charismatic psychopaths. In his HM speech, he yells, "I love the human microphone!" (Crowd yells back, "I love the human microphone!") Then he tells us why. It's because, when he speaks through the HM, "it's not just my voice; it's everybody's voice!" That statement should alarm you if you are at all resistant to manipulation, because it's not true. It isn't everybody's voice. It might be everybody's physical voices but it's not their inner voices. It's not their thoughts. It's Michael Moore's thoughts being repeated by everybody. Nobody actually has time to think about whether or not they agree with them before repeating them. The potential for deviant conditioning can't be understated here. When you say something out loud, your subconscious automatically seeks to align your beliefs with what you have said. And you do not have time to consciously question these statements before being called on to repeat the next ones. This is not real participation. It just feels like it. What other forms of participation might you have sought out, had the pseudo-participation of the HM not pacified your urge?

    I have to say, I think the confusion of these three different aspects is deliberate. I think the human microphone is a classic case of problem-reaction-solution. It is a Trojan horse. Did you really think the 1% wouldn't employ covert methods to undermine and steer the movement? Did you think their tricks would easily spotted? I hope these questions will at least be considered.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I an VERY proud of my home town today! video Well done, Victoria!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Victoria is the capital city of BC, and those protesters were standing right on the steps of the Parliament Buildings. This video is equally wonderful. I nearly wept with happiness!

    ReplyDelete
  9. 13, that's a brilliant analysis. I was a bit creeped out by the HM myself. I shall certainly pass this view on to others, especially at my local occupation (although it's small enough that HM hasn't become an issue yet). Thank you for putting thought into this.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks, Psychegram. I owe it all to chess. (Well, some.) I find it hard to watch some people. They're like lambs to the slaughter, and if you try to warn them, they refuse to listen. I wouldn't ask anyone to just believe what I say, only to consider it. I've got to try for my own peace of conscience, but at the same time, it feels like a pointless formality.
    I hope the occupation goes well where you are. May the universe protect you and clear your path. You'll be leaving the water balloons at home, right? I hope it's not still too soon to laugh about that.
    In Lak'ech.

    ReplyDelete
  11. re "The only real solution, though, is to leave the relationship.": yes, self-responsibility demands that we stand up for ourselves and do not submit to any controlling agenda of others - habits of obedience or submission must be broken. Surrender only to divinity (our own higher selves, or God - depending on our understanding of divinity). The old control-based relationships are replaced with co-operative and supportive relationships based on unconditional love for all. Getting there takes us through a lot of upheaval....

    ReplyDelete
  12. "You'll be leaving the water balloons at home, right? I hope it's not still too soon to laugh about that."

    I got a good chuckle out of that :) Totally not too soon. And no, don't worry, I learned my lesson there and have moved on to new follies.

    Another possibility - or really, a different interpretation of the NLP-type dynamics at work in the People's Mic - has occurred to me. As a means of passing information it is shit, I agree. And it does not equate to true consensus, just as you say. But, for the very reasons of its operation on the subconscious that you state, could its effect not perhaps be to make the participants feel themselves more fully to be one, thus more inclined to seek consensus? Occasional mic checks could then serve a sort of spontaneous ritual function, priming the collective to behave as one.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi Psychegram.
    Yes, I do think it serves that function, but that's what bothers me. We could do with improving our empathic/telepathy abilities, but that's different from acting or thinking as one. The control system has its own version of oneness. It isn't the oneness of intrinsic connection; it is the oneness of grey goo. The Borg collective is a unity of that type, a hive-mind. Archons have a hive-mind, but Humans don't, and shouldn't, in my opinion. The kind of unity we should be aiming for expresses as harmonious diversity. We're already One. We just need to remember.
    In Lak'ech.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Your intuition's probably right about it ... I just wanted to play devil's advocate. It's the scientist in me ;)

    ReplyDelete