What is the Endgame?

Listen, whenever angry people gather together and protest the wealth gap, the wealthy get very nervous. Remember that whole Joe the Plumber thing? And do you recall how quickly and fiercely the GOP went on the offensive with the "class warfare" bullshit? This struggle has been going on since the birth of human civilization - obviously the wealthy elite know this and they want to postpone the inevitable for as long as possible and they will go to any lengths to perpetuate the status quo - future consequences (and the fates of their own grandchildren) be damned. They are already going to great lengths to minimize national awareness of this movement by spin and very minimal coverage in the mass media (which they control).

The protests are the public face of the revolution, the DDos attacks and Hacktivism by groups like Anonymous are a bit more behind the scenes, but they ARE related (and believe me, Anonymous is a driving force in the Occupy Movement. The hactivists and activists share the same purpose and it's two fold: 1) to raise awareness. 2) to remind (and frequently remind) the wealthy elite that their position is made possible by the blood, sweat and tears of the people they exploit and that this position of power is precarious and can be taken away - in other words, the pyramid could be flipped and restored to it's proper and natural state with terrifying speed and with terrible force and consequences.

The balance of power will be corrected - it's simple physics and it is inevitable. The question is, can this balance be achieved relatively peacefully, or will it require force. I hope peacefully, because if it comes to force, there will be unprecedented damage to this nation's infrastructure and thanks to the wreckless foreign policy of the United States for the last 50 years, we'll be fertile ground for invasion. We are living in the latter days of information suppression, electioneering and media propaganda. The internet has made this possible, and really the government, and more importantly the owners of the government, the wealthy elite are desperately trying to reign in this monster they've allowed to come into existence.

They don't have the capability to stop it - not without pulling back the curtain and revealing the true power structure of this so-called "representative republic". I already see embarrassing glimpses of the very strings that hold this puppet government aloft.

I'm not endorsing Ron Paul here, but I want you to pay very close attention to the way the media treats him. If he WAS a racist, they wouldn't care. If he WAS a crackpot isolationist, they wouldn't care. The man wants to End the Federal Reserve, but they barely mention it, they also barely mention that this is one of the main reasons he has garnered so much grass roots support. People are, and I mean a lot of people, are waking up to the fact that this government (and likely others) has been privatized by the industrial military complex, big energy and above all the Federal Reserve and the global banking cartel. Ron Paul threatens to bring this to light in a huge and irreversible way. I'll remind you that JFK had intentions of ending the Federal Reserve system. Pay attention to how this all plays out and draw your own conclusions.

 

I laughed my ass off when I read this phrase

 

both of you make good points

 

I just came across this Pew Research thing today and it seems to apply here as well as anywhere. It seems the Occupy movement has made some clueless bumps sit up and take notice:

Rising Share of Americans See Conflict Between Rich and Poor

January 11, 2012

The Occupy Wall Street movement no longer occupies Wall Street, but the issue of class conflict has captured a growing share of the national consciousness. A new Pew Research Center survey of 2,048 adults finds that about two-thirds of the public (66%) believes there are "very strong" or "strong" conflicts between the rich and the poor -- an increase of 19 percentage points since 2009.

Not only have perceptions of class conflict grown more prevalent; so, too, has the belief that these disputes are intense. According to the new survey, three-in-ten Americans (30%) say there are "very strong conflicts" between poor people and rich people. That is double the proportion that offered a similar view in July 2009 and the largest share expressing this opinion since the question was first asked in 1987.

As a result, in the public's evaluations of divisions within American society, conflicts between rich and poor now rank ahead of three other potential sources of group tension -- between immigrants and the native born; between blacks and whites; and between young and old. Back in 2009, more survey respondents said there were strong conflicts between immigrants and the native born than said the same about the rich and the poor.

The biggest increases in perceptions of class conflicts occurred among political liberals and Americans who say they are not affiliated with either major party. In each group the proportion who say there are major disagreements between rich and poor Americans increased by more than 20 percentage points since 2009.

These changes in attitudes over a relatively short period of time may reflect the income and wealth inequality message conveyed by Occupy Wall Street protesters across the country in late 2011 that led to a spike in media attention to the topic. But the changes also may also reflect a growing public awareness of underlying shifts in the distribution of wealth in American society.2 According to the most recent U.S. Census Bureau data, the proportion of overall wealth—a measure that includes home equity, stocks and bonds and the value of jewelry, furniture and other possessions—held by the top 10% of the population increased from 49% in 2005 to 56% in 2009.

Other Demographic Differences

Young people ages 18 to 34—the demographic group most closely associated with the Occupy movement—is more likely than those 35 or older to see “strong” conflicts between the rich and poor. According to the survey, more than seven-in-ten (71%) of these young adults say there are major disagreements between the most and least affluent, a 17 percentage point increase since 2o09.

Baby Boomers ages 50 to 64—the mothers and fathers of the Occupy generation—are nearly as likely to say there are serious conflicts between the upper and lower classes; fully two-thirds (67%) say this, a 22-point increase in the past two years. Among those ages 35 to 49, more than six-in-ten (64%) see serious class conflicts.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012...flict-between-rich-and-poor/?src=prc-headline

 

That's a big movement in that poll..... Of course polls are often skewed but those numbers are probably close to accurate across the population.

Note that they do say it's liberals and those not affiliated that are seeing it.... I still don't understand how the "lower class", or poor, republican voters still think everything is "just fine" and drown out everything else with Faux News. Are they that brainwashed? I live in a town full of them and I just don't get it..... How can they not see it?

Thanks for posting that Shale

 

Sadly, this is a long term plan though. Decades and maybe longer. It will work, the government and their corporate masters will continuously become even more overt in their actions. History proves this. The ponzi scheme of our financial system is on its last legs. Critical mass won't likely be reached until my grandchildren are my age though. Millions will suffer in the meantime.

I really wish the Occupy movement at large would try to work within the system in the short term. I thought the idea thrown out of having each occupy movement send delegates to a place to draft a list of demands and set up the mechanism to form a political party if they were not met was a good one. A coalition of anti-corporatists from across the political section could be very powerful. I think it's close to a majority even now, but the current parties keep dividing people over relatively minor issues like health care, abortion, gun control, etc. Not that those issues aren't important, but they matter very little while our current politicians do the bidding of lobbyists as soon as they are elected.

 

I actually agree quite a bit with Etkearne---this has to be a key part of social change. Part of the problem is that you have to incorporate people who truly understand the problem and the implications.

I have worked in the Stock Market for many years, and I have been lucky in that I have never had to compromise my hippy morals and ethics. In fact I think I have been a good soldier of the later philosophy of Jerry Rubin in that I have always worked to help people achieve financial indendence. I am now pursuing a different career course--in writing, but I still advise on the markets and help people achieve financial indepenence.

I sincerely believe that if members of our government were better versed in economics and the financial markets, and more important--the psychology of the markets, this credit crisis would not have gotten so serious, and we would not be so seriously in debt. (In fact the markets were setting themselves up for a bottom at the beginning of September 2008, but Washington screwed that up). The same issue of knowledge is true for the OWS. There has to be people like etkearne who can make knowledgable change from within.

There has already been mention of Ron Paul and his desire to end the Federal reserve in this thread. He wants to take America back to the country it was before 1913. I have read Ron Paul's book, End the Fed, and he seems that he should be knowledgable enough to understand the disastrous results of such a move----but he doesn't make the connect. He even says that deflation is a good thing. Prior to 1913, the country had a very volatile boom-bust cycle that included depressionary cycles of deflation. I repeat--depressionary, not recessions, not 2007 - 2009 credit crisis-----serious depressions that even the 1930's would be mild by. We survived because Americans were more self-sufficient in the 1700 - 1800s. The FED has succesfully tamed inflation and except for briefly in the 1930's, has prevented deflation since its inception. Even the stagflation of the late 70's and early 80's was nothing like the bouts with inflation we had during the boom times, and wars of the previous centuries. The Federal Reserve is very critical to America's economic growth, and to keeping the dollar as the global reserve currency.

America is currently the strongest most viable economy out there. The dollar has lost so much value because the US government has been continuously manipulating it down to promote US exports. It has nothing to do with the health of America. But we have serious debt issues, and a government that is steeped in a culture of greed. Multinational corporations have too much power, and the social contract (that unwritten agreement that exists between the citizen and the state--for the mutual benefit of both) is being passed on from the State to corporations who have no actual obligation to keep up that side of the agreement. The biggest danger to our future is that we are still in a seriously precarious situation with the biggest threat coming from Europe and their stability.

The main point is--we need people like Etkearne to keep from throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Social change has never been good when it was accompanied with economic collapse. The industrial revolution and the rise of capitalism involved struggle, and hard changes. But it occured with progress at many levels. The Russian Revolution on the other hand, occurred with economic collapse.

SO what is the endgame? We are staring at the end of what is currently referred to as Postmodernism. All of the existing political and social philosophies are becoming outmoded. They were designed for a society built of steel and large heavy machinery, where humans were no better than work horses and cattle, programmed to work 8-hour shifts. We have seen the failure of Marxism, and evidence continues to mount up that any social theories that try to box human beings into a staitstical mean utlimately do not achieve their goals, and produce unplanned and unwanted results---and the average human has roughly one breast and half a penis (i.e. he/she does not exist) Totalitarianism is a failure. Capitalism will have to change, or it will not survive the coming decades---we are already seeing the Austrian economist, Schumpeter's, prediction that Capitalism will fall to repressive legislation (and the rise of overly powerful pockets of power---I forget if he mentioned this last part, but this is what is happening today). The information age is creating a whole new culture of how we view and interact with our world.

What is needed is a new philosophy that reflects the new world we are heading towards. A philosophy that involves a fair and realistic social contract. That gives dignity to, and empowers the, individual. It has to learn from the mistakes of the past. It has to reflect a culture that is empowered like never before through technology. It needs to give individuals the incentives they need to be succesful. It should be born of humanism instead of cold objectivistic science. It will possibly fit the way quantum physics is shaping how we view our universe. That is the end game.

 

For over a year now I have been documenting a concept which is a technical solution to the many problems being raised by the OWS movement. Specifically it takes the political power away from puppet politicians and it takes the financial power away from big banks. It is designed with a significant revenue model, but it is the antithesis of big business and runaway capitalism, because all profits are used to fund projects for the common good, voted for by the ordinary people. The concept is to be built by the people for the people and will not have any shareholders, investors, or highly paid execs.

This is the perfect time for this peaceful revolution. Our communications tools such as the internet, ubiquitous connected computers, smartphones, Facebook, and Twitter, all mean that we can now organize quickly and effectively to rally disaffected people around a common cause. We know things have to change, we just hadn't figured out how to make it happen until now.

So assuming that I am not a crackpot with a pipe dream, or a guy with a scam, what is the best way to get the people to support this solution to bring about real change? We have the technology and the numbers to be able to pull this off, we just need the will of the people to make it happen.

 

Not to be the devils advocate, but, (okay I am a little bit) the technology you want to use is based around "shareholders, investors, or highly paid execs" as is the power grid that runs it, where you want to post messages...... etc. etc.

This is so tightly woven into our lives that we hardly notice it. You posted that message on some unit that was made with the equivalent of slave labor, massively polluted the earth, abused longshoremen and truckers to deliver it to the store, and the CEO of the corporation(s) involved laughed all the way to the bank(s) as did the shareholders in the company(s) involved....... So did I. (I'm not pointing fingers, I'm making a point)

I watched a video this morning, also here in the occupy section, stating that we need to basically "occupy free land" instead of city parks and set up sustainable communities..... another good idea, but! Tools, lumber, equipment,(and the fuel to run it) solar, wind generators, whatever, all this STUFF that we need to do this properly comes from what we don't like, thus we end up being somehow involved. The guy that made the video, and the guy that posted it never mentioned this and probably didn't see it either. As I said it's so tightly woven into our lives that we don't notice it.....

Think about it this way though. You want food, okay... plant a garden, no problem. Do you know how to make a shovel from scratch? No, we go buy a shovel.... some one makes that shovel in a factory somewhere..... I think you see my point.

Do we want to knock the whole system down, so we need to make shovels by hand to plant a garden? I doubt it. Do we want to continue to pay $20 for a shovel so some guy on the other side of the planet might get a bowl of rice if he can produce X number of shovels in a 12 hour shift or he gets fired, while the CEO makes big bucks..... No we don't.

Somehow we need to EVOLVE the system so that it works for everybody. I don't think anyone has come up with an answer for that yet...

I'm not saying your post or anybody's post or idea was wrong, or bad, or out of place.... something we shouldn't be doing. What I am saying is we need to look at this from all angles and think out side the box before the box caves in on us and we are scratching messages in the dirt with sticks......

 

Well thought out reply, Tyrsonswood.

 

From what I saw when I was at the protests in London was the it had become more of a 'general' protest to protest about everything wrong with the world.

Nothing wrong with that, although I felt that most normal people got the impression that this was just a protest for whatever and the people that were protesting were their because they had an 'everything is shit so we're gonna protest' approach.

That wasn't helped by the fact that 1/2 of the protesters were protesting by blasting dubstep out of a rig and dancing to it whilst marching down the street.

I can see the purpose of the political messages in the songs being played, but most ordinary people don't. They just see it as an excuse for anarchy, a portrayal of what the world would be like if the protesters had their way.
Plus it looked like they just weren't taking it seriously because of that.

The main message i heard was 'Who's street! Our street!,' which most people don't understand the meaning of.

That's my criticism that has to be said. The protest overall has raised the issue and proved that people aren't happy about things, and there were many good informative things such as the information tent and the idea of squatting corporate buildings to turn them into community centers.

The 'no leader' policy definitely needs to be rethought, I think. I get the idea, and I'm not saying the solution is to have leaders, but we definitely need the best thinkers to strategize what the main message should be and the best way of getting it across, and to formulate it in a way that the movement can agree on, and that needs to be based around the best way of getting that message into the heads of 'normal' people.

Because not everyone is a hippie.

With that I shall see you in London next Saturday