Occupy Wall Street - Occupy Together

I've been reading about the Occupy Wall Street thing that has been going on, which from what I can see it is essentially turning into a movement. With the amount of stress people are under due to injustice, economic deprivation, political talk about rich versus poor etc., most would say it is no wonder. However, with how stringently controlled the media is, it could be speculated that such things were previously highly suppressed, but are gradually being revealed in bigger loads. Why? For people to become violent. When people are thinking with their emotions, they are incredibly easy to control and manipulate.

Some are saying what is manifesting in the U.S. is like how the protests swept across the Middle East. The problem with this is that I do not think it naturally happened and is essentially being instigated. It could be by foreign government or elements within a government that seek eventual permanent solidification of power. This issue with social networking being used as a tool by civilians to organize and rally people for protests can actually be used in the exact opposite. It could be used to manipulate the mass populace to or not to protest certain things, at certain locations, and at certain times for any agendas.

The media always reports in half truths, which when it does or doesn't report about something, that can not be used as a validation that it specifically censored something. Everything is censored, which if something is released or suppressed, it is to get the mass populace to respond in a certain way. It is the ultimate manipulation device, which social networking is its cousin and may even be a more effective means of control. Control isn't limited to the capability of stopping people, it is also about the capability of making people do certain things in order to produce a desired outcome.

The wave of protests and riots that happened in the Middle East weren't exactly unpredictable and neither was this supposedly new social networking phenomena. About two years before Egypt plunged into riots and its government turned off the Internet, there was something very significant that happened where the following correlation is not discussed in the news or (as far as I can tell) on the Internet. What people have overlooked of the past is that Egypt's Internet went down for about three months, which that segment of the world was essentially cut off from the rest of the world. The reason this happened was because supposedly undersea water cables had been sliced in half. Initially, it was blamed on a submarine, but then the blame shifted that terrorists may have cut the cable. It can most logically be speculated that Egypt's government was testing out a complete shutdown of its Internet if it ever desired to do so. Likewise, it can most logically be speculated that it was known that the riots in Egypt were going to happen because it is far too coincidental when joined with this tidbit of information. This lends to the idea that what happened in Egypt and across the Middle East was deliberate.

Now using this logic, it can speculated that some of the blackouts that have happened in the U.S. over the past six years being blamed on malfunctions or possibly terrorists are deliberate. Remember the huge blackout that happened for the whole Northeast? This would explain why the U.S. didn't jump on Egypt over the correlation of this information because it can very easily be applied to any country that has such incidences occur in the past or future.

Literally, you can't believe anything released by the major news medias. All you can do is read the information over a time span and hope your memory and analytic intelligence is good enough to identify abnormalities or hiccups.

That is what I think of the Wall Street protests and why I think it.

this makes sense; i have accidentally benefited from my indifference/ignorance to worldly events. I often just flat out don't care about things any more, and looks like I have good reason-- it is often all just lies anyways.

I'm either here to make a big splash in the world, or no splash at all. I mean, sure I could lend my vote here or there, and if all people who thought like me would just... yadda yadda. But that's like blaming the rape victim for getting raped.

I guess I just don't care enough to be an activist. Yet, I am aware enough to make my cynical observations from afar.

There is definitely something to be said about the "Tyranny of the masses". I think the cause of the movement is just and whether or not the originators aimed to sway emotionally ridden people into this is of little significance to me; somehow you have to activate a noticeable force. However, the prevailing ignorance among a large chunk of the people sort of ridicules the whole idea ...

Smiley wrote:

I've been reading about the Occupy Wall Street thing that has been going on, which from what I can see it is essentially turning into a movement. With the amount of stress people are under due to injustice, economic deprivation, political talk about rich versus poor etc., most would say it is no wonder. However, with how stringently controlled the media is, it could be speculated that such things were previously highly suppressed, but are gradually being revealed in bigger loads. Why? For people to become violent. When people are thinking with their emotions, they are incredibly easy to control and manipulate.

Some are saying what is manifesting in the U.S. is like how the protests swept across the Middle East. The problem with this is that I do not think it naturally happened and is essentially being instigated. It could be by foreign government or elements within a government that seek eventual permanent solidification of power. This issue with social networking being used as a tool by civilians to organize and rally people for protests can actually be used in the exact opposite. It could be used to manipulate the mass populace to or not to protest certain things, at certain locations, and at certain times for any agendas.

The media always reports in half truths, which when it does or doesn't report about something, that can not be used as a validation that it specifically censored something. Everything is censored, which if something is released or suppressed, it is to get the mass populace to respond in a certain way. It is the ultimate manipulation device, which social networking is its cousin and may even be a more effective means of control. Control isn't limited to the capability of stopping people, it is also about the capability of making people do certain things in order to produce a desired outcome.

The wave of protests and riots that happened in the Middle East weren't exactly unpredictable and neither was this supposedly new social networking phenomena. About two years before Egypt plunged into riots and its government turned off the Internet, there was something very significant that happened where the following correlation is not discussed in the news or (as far as I can tell) on the Internet. What people have overlooked of the past is that Egypt's Internet went down for about three months, which that segment of the world was essentially cut off from the rest of the world. The reason this happened was because supposedly undersea water cables had been sliced in half. Initially, it was blamed on a submarine, but then the blame shifted that terrorists may have cut the cable. It can most logically be speculated that Egypt's government was testing out a complete shutdown of its Internet if it ever desired to do so. Likewise, it can most logically be speculated that it was known that the riots in Egypt were going to happen because it is far too coincidental when joined with this tidbit of information. This lends to the idea that what happened in Egypt and across the Middle East was deliberate.

Now using this logic, it can speculated that some of the blackouts that have happened in the U.S. over the past six years being blamed on malfunctions or possibly terrorists are deliberate. Remember the huge blackout that happened for the whole Northeast? This would explain why the U.S. didn't jump on Egypt over the correlation of this information because it can very easily be applied to any country that has such incidences occur in the past or future.

Literally, you can't believe anything released by the major news medias. All you can do is read the information over a time span and hope your memory and analytic intelligence is good enough to identify abnormalities or hiccups.

That is what I think of the Wall Street protests and why I think it.

GenericTylerDurden wrote:

this makes sense; i have accidentally benefited from my indifference/ignorance to worldly events. I often just flat out don't care about things any more, and looks like I have good reason-- it is often all just lies anyways.

I'm either here to make a big splash in the world, or no splash at all. I mean, sure I could lend my vote here or there, and if all people who thought like me would just... yadda yadda. But that's like blaming the rape victim for getting raped.

I guess I just don't care enough to be an activist. Yet, I am aware enough to make my cynical observations from afar.

Yeah, in an aspect, protest is excusable inactivity. Likewise, violence is inexcusable activity. Basically, both are pointless and counterproductive. Not getting involved is actually the best option, though it is seen as inexcusable inactivity by protesters.

If people were protesting something that was affected by a local mechanism, protest would be useful. However, they are protesting something that is affected by a global mechanism, making it moot. The reason being is if a local issue is modified, everyone gets all happy and complacent leaving the global mechanism once again untouched. The result is a repeat of what they protested, possibly to where it has manifested into a different form. Basically, people don't know what they are protesting.

It is like Hercules chopping off the head of a hydra. It immediately regenerates one or two more heads, rinse and repeat.

The only thing people can really do is not get caught up in the game and just think. Eventually, a tangible solution will arise. Unfortunately, the solution would need to be sizable in remedy to the problem being solved, which if it is to dismantle the core (global) problem, then it may appear to be a seemingly daunting task. So that would take a lot of thinking time, which may once again be wasted if the core problem wasn't properly identified in the first place.

FleurDeLis wrote:

There is definitely something to be said about the "Tyranny of the masses". I think the cause of the movement is just and whether or not the originators aimed to sway emotionally ridden people into this is of little significance to me; somehow you have to activate a noticeable force. However, the prevailing ignorance among a large chunk of the people sort of ridicules the whole idea ...

Oh, its totally just. Anyhow, I agree about the ignorance being a drag.

I'm just all of a sudden paranoid like, "who the fuck started this occupy shit and what is it all about?"

just like I was paranoid at first about "indigo." I assumed it was some entity trying to corral all the future MLK's and murder them before they actually became the next "Martin Luther King Jr."

Either way, same as voting, I don't be needin' to show my stupid face out in public even if I support your cause.

Smiley wrote:

GenericTylerDurden wrote:

this makes sense; i have accidentally benefited from my indifference/ignorance to worldly events. I often just flat out don't care about things any more, and looks like I have good reason-- it is often all just lies anyways.

I'm either here to make a big splash in the world, or no splash at all. I mean, sure I could lend my vote here or there, and if all people who thought like me would just... yadda yadda. But that's like blaming the rape victim for getting raped.

I guess I just don't care enough to be an activist. Yet, I am aware enough to make my cynical observations from afar.

Yeah, in an aspect, protest is excusable inactivity. Likewise, violence is inexcusable activity. Basically, both are pointless and counterproductive. Not getting involved is actually the best option, though it is seen as inexcusable inactivity by protesters.

If people were protesting something that was affected by a local mechanism, protest would be useful. However, they are protesting something that is affected by a global mechanism, making it moot. The reason being is if a local issue is modified, everyone gets all happy and complacent leaving the global mechanism once again untouched. The result is a repeat of what they protested, possibly to where it has manifested into a different form. Basically, people don't know what they are protesting.

It is like Hercules chopping off the head of a hydra. It immediately regenerates one or two more heads, rinse and repeat.

The only thing people can really do is not get caught up in the game and just think. Eventually, a tangible solution will arise. Unfortunately, the solution would need to be sizable in remedy to the problem being solved, which if it is to dismantle the core (global) problem, then it may appear to be a seemingly daunting task. So that would take a lot of thinking time, which may once again be wasted if the core problem wasn't properly identified in the first place.

FleurDeLis wrote:

There is definitely something to be said about the "Tyranny of the masses". I think the cause of the movement is just and whether or not the originators aimed to sway emotionally ridden people into this is of little significance to me; somehow you have to activate a noticeable force. However, the prevailing ignorance among a large chunk of the people sort of ridicules the whole idea ...

Oh, its totally just. Anyhow, I agree about the ignorance being a drag.

Not sure I entirely agree; I understand what you are getting at though.

As awareness to corruption and abuse rises, corporations are forced to exhibit more accurate behavior and transparency. This process has already been set in motion and found official support; the requirements for financial statements, for example, have been increased in the last few years in an effort to curb falsified statements. I guess there are still enough loopholes and greed will always find a way to satisfy itself but it's getting trickier to get away with it.

FleurDeLis wrote:

Not sure I entirely agree; I understand what you are getting at though.

As awareness to corruption and abuse rises, corporations are forced to exhibit more accurate behavior and transparency. This process has already been set in motion and found official support; the requirements for financial statements, for example, have been increased in the last few years in an effort to curb falsified statements. I guess there are still enough loopholes and greed will always find a way to satisfy itself but it's getting trickier to get away with it.

You don't need to agree or disagree with me because available information is limited. Navigating through layers of illusion on this scale is very confusing for me because they seem almost infinite and loopy. It is like solving an Einstein riddle in my head and not being Einstein. Incredibly difficult and time consuming. I'm intelligent, but not that intelligent.

Alternatively, it can be viewed that the stricter requirements have the additional use of functioning as a tool to reel in competition. Corruption is rampant globally, and it is getting worse. The tool could be used in intentionally having primarily smaller sized corporations examined and scrutinized in order to hinder them. In doing so, the big fish can more easily gobble up the smaller fish by weakening them in this method. Placing stricter requirements if used in this fashion is nothing more than the big fish providing an illusion allowing the play of all angles. I'm not saying the requirements are bad, they are actually good. It is just that it may be exploited to maintain a status quo. Such an exploitation would speed up the rate the biggest corporations are monopolizing, effectively speeding up globalization in its pursuit towards singularity.

Basically, it is who is watching the watchers. The traditional system of transparency is incredibly flawed because it doesn't solve this problem. There is no system in existence that can correct the problem, or at least not currently. That is why all over the world countries' populaces change their system of government overtime. Rome etc., but the populaces never received what they sought. All they did was muddy the water by creating confusion.



Einstein riddle: http://www.stanford.edu/~laurik/fsmbook/examples/Einstein'sPuzzle.html (For some reason I couldn't build it into a hyperlink, so I just pasted the link.)

It is difficult to really grasp that situation fully, I struggle just as much ...

I don't see it as a tool to scrutinize smaller corporations, there are a variety of business structures that can be utilized to curb or increase associated paper work and accountability. Imo. small businesses should be just as accountable for their actions as the big ones. The issue that small businesses face relates to economies of scale. Large corporations can curb cost and increase revenue through their mass productivity; cash-flow wise, they can easily outperform small businesses. Small business are not lost, however, they just need to understand and adept to the current market. It's not all that hard to off-set the difference in production cost/revenue if you study the market. Small businesses can't take advantage of the economies of scale but they can still create a competitive edge and play in the pond with the big fish.

Watching the watchers is the hard part. I really don't see a solution to that dilemma yet ... we are missing integrity all around; even if we were to find a watch for the watchers we can't guarantee that our control function can't be corrupted.
Globalization is a good thing imo and may be helpful in regards to that issue in the long run. Developing the world, educating and connecting the "people" will create a strong voice, a force to be reckoned with. I understand that some nations would rather rely on sovereignty; however, I think national boundaries are silly and eventually we will need to accept that we are all people and we are together in this life on this planet.