The London Occupy movement is a year old today. Some have been assessing what they have achieved. Others have been assessing what the whole occupy movement has achieved. I was wondering does any protest achieve anything? Do protesters/activists/social campaigners actually achieve very little? Do they take credit for change after the fact - when infact it is politicians that affect change very very slowly. Do we feel better about ourselves attributing MLK the change in civil rights for black people? Do we feel better about ourselves attributes voting rights for women on a bunch of middle class ladies with perhaps too much time on their hands? Etc :leaving:
Protest achieves little to nothing (at least not for the good of the average person that's doing the protesting).... especially controlled opposition protests like Occupy.
What protesting does is brings whatever issue is being protested into the public spotlight and possibly informs more individuals about said issue.
Like the Anti War movement in the Uk generating 1 million to march? - yet we are 11 years in and aside from combat troops leaving not likely to be out anytime soon. Without being rude: And?
The average person involved in the protests? No. However, the higher levels? Absolutely. It's not hard to steer masses of gullible people with just a few people. To me, most of the Occupy crowd are ignorant of real issues and actually are (unknowingly) playing into the hands of those they think they're protesting against. All I can do is urge you to watch this video (not a conspiracy video). The group that is at the center of the video, an organization funded by all sorts of intelligence agencies and NGOs, played a crucial role at the OWS protests. They also were used by the CIA to overthrow foreign governments a'la the "Arab Spring" and the "revolutions" that ensued. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpXbA6yZY-8"]The Revolution Business - World - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUOmwRfPrL4"]Ivan Marovic of Otpor! addresses Occupy Wall Street - YouTube
Thanks. While I'm watching those videos. What are the 'real issues', in your humble (or not so humble) opinion?
Controversy Various organisations and individuals, including the governments of Belarus and Iran, as well as Hugo Chavez, have accused CANVAS of being a “revolution-exporter”. CANVAS denies this, emphasising its role as educator and empowerer of peaceful methods. CANVAS leaders often stress that "in order to be successful, nonviolent movements must avoid taking any advice from foreigners, must be home-grown" and that "nonviolent revolutions cannot be exported-or imported" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Applied_Non_Violent_Actions_and_Strategies Why the CIA Funds Nonviolence Training by Stuart Jeanne Bramhall / March 13th, 2012 One important aspect of the debate over “diversity of tactics” (i.e. the decision whether to be exclusively nonviolent) in the Occupy movement relates to mounting evidence of the role CIA and Pentagon-funded foundations and think tanks play in funding and promoting nonviolent resistance training. The two major US foundations promoting nonviolence, both overseas and domestically, are the Albert Einstein Institution (AEI) and the International Center for Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC). Both receive major corporate and/or government funding, mostly via CIA “pass through” foundations. While the ICNC is funded mainly by the private fortune of hedge fund billionaire (junk bond king Michael Milken’s second in command) Peter Ackerman, the AEI has received funding from the Rand Corporation and the Department of Defense, as well as various “pass-through” foundations, such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the International Republican Institute (IRI), the US Institute of Peace and the Ford Foundation (see The Ford Foundation and the CIA),which all have a long history of collaborating with the Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA in destabilizing governments unfriendly to US interests. This is a strategy Frances Stonor Saunders outlines in her pivotal Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters. According to Sanders, right wing corporate-backed foundations and the CIA have been funding the non-communist left since the late sixties, in the hope of drowning out and marginalizing the voice of more militant leftists. It’s also noteworthy that the governing and advisory board of both AEI and ICNC have been consistently dominated by individuals with either a military/intelligence background or a history of prior involvement with CIA “pass-through” foundations, such as NED and USAID. http://dissidentvoice.org/2012/03/why-the-cia-funds-nonviolence-training/ http://mailstar.net/Sharp-Soros-NED-CIA.html Interesting. I would wonder how 'occupy' are playing into the hands of bankers, governments etc. Ok, take something such as the civil rights movement are/were they also just pawns in a game? What advantage does it serve to give coloured people more equality What about the suffrage movement. To be fair (ok, cynical), it does not feel like it clear what 'Occupy' will eventually take credit (or credit will be given) for or what they actually want.
Primarily the monetary system and Federal Reserve. Much of the OWS people are obsessed with cliches and slogans pertaining to capitalism and greed, but they direct their attention toward what is not the true heart of the problem, which is not Wall Street but the entire international monetary/fiat system controlled by just a handful of powerful families, literally. Wall Street bankers and CEOs are relatively low on the proverbial pyramid compared to people like the Rockefeller and Rothschild family.
I really want go into this in detail, but I have been up since 5:00 yesterday and need to be getting some sleep. I will respond and elaborate later when I wake up this evening. It takes some explaining.
One must understand where their placement is. I see it as 3 types of people. Their are those who sit in there house unsure what to do, most are lost in the illusion and don't realize that their mirror is covered by smoke. Many know now that they have been robbed of their hard work all their life. Change for the better good can only be started from those who stand up and protest. The occupy movement does just this. This is only one piece though. Now we need physical action. Then their are those who are quiet and have understood the problem for too long. They are waiting for the others to wake up, they are strapped up. Sad but true, the police are pushing back all the protesters. We know the next revolution will be started with words, but it cant be finished with words...if you think it can, chances are your too scared to accept the only way to make the change permanent. Peace keepers will be the first to kill. Color, age, gender, it does not matter. We need all three types of people to join together.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7037906&postcount=2 That seems a pretty comprehensive list. It seems like most of the issues raised by various 'Occupy' groups around the world. If, etherea, is correct then this is the message that is being spread. Spreading these words will eventually, supposedly change 'the system'. My contention is, lobby groups raise these concerns. My contention is, politicians raise these concerns. My contention is many of those concerns are not fair/are biased/not true. Lobbying seems to be a dirty word but protest apparently isn't. Obviously all politicians are in it for themselves and are doing the work of the devil. Many of those concerns have passed the desk of governments, and they have either listened or not. Politicians have raised these concerns. Politicians listen to politicians. If any of those concerns are addressed to the satisfaction of protesters - do protesters take the credit for change - even if those concerns were already being raised by either lobby groups or other politicians? My contention is, protesting doesn't work because the issues are already out there - they are because they will either hinder or help a government (...and, to be fair, perhaps governments want change for the betterment of the populace). Take the student grant issue... There was a fairly lengthy inquiry about that - the result: student finances could not be afforded so students have had to pay/pay more. Sorry protesters you'll be wasting your energy on that one. To be fair, perhaps change is affected by many different means and many different voices. It is unfair to attach change to one particular person or one particular grouping: protesters/politicians/lobbyists. Surely, the best method is for politicians/people/protesters/lobbyists to talk and come to a consensus - for the good of the majority. Yes, I can hear you laughing already.
Btw, could you include in any response if you think government agencies intervention in none-violent 'intervention' is a good or bad thing. Also if you believe historical e.g's have been charaterised as bad but were good (or vice versa). Thank You.
