Operation Occupy Wall Street


Glad we could clear that up.


“you don’t have to march off to the death camps of America”

OWS has never sounded more reasonable, I can see why you linked that.


NYPD kick out real Occupy Wall Street protesters out of Law & Orders: Special Victim Unit’s fake OWS protest camp


And I wish you would get by a bus!


Will this work?


I think a much larger one would work better.


Fuck off pig. We already know you’re corrupt and incapable of any real ethical behaviour or thought from your posts in the taser thread where you defend your fellow cops because they are following procedure, not because their actions are morally correct.


Please just shut up and go die in a corner somewhere. You’re even more odious than Marcus, because you’re never made a single post that actually has any value in it.

You just bitch about people who believe in God, people who don’t bitch about people who believe in God, and people who want their remains to be interred in a cemetery instead of a landfill.




Thanks for conceding.

Any person who believes in God is delusional and believes things for which there is no evidence. At best they are ignorant and foolish. At worst they are dangerous and evil. People who enable the religious to continue to be delusional by not pointing out that they believe in bronze age fairy tales and other such nonsense are foolish.


Righto, so you agree with me.

I swear, the only thing more obnoxious to me than a devout theist proselytizing constantly is a devout atheist doing exactly the same fucking thing with his belief set.

Your actions have no net positive utility to them and were you a tenth the rationalist you suppose yourself to be, you wouldn’t be a tenth as annoying and odious a human being as you are.


lrn2ancienthistory, nubbles

Oh, and you aren’t allowed to be Dawn Falcon here. We already have one of those, thanks. I know times are tough and all, but there are only so many retards one board can support.


Cry more.

Aaron - Just start proselytizing the Noahide Laws. No ban on that!


This thread is in dire need of being swung back on topic. Allow me to do so now with an excellent analysis from the latest issue of Slingshot.

What is Realistic? Rejecting the system’s limits on the possible
By Kermit

I will remember that night for the rest of my life. After an early  morning police raid, supporters of Occupy Oakland converged in the  streets and stood up to riot police hurling tear gas canisters, rubber  bullets and flash-bang grenades. Despite how grim that sounds, my  experience was one of cathartic elation; of being autonomous in a group  of people aware of its own power; of having the lines between what I am  for and what I am against rendered so clearly. 
People around the world are rejecting the perceived inevitability  of capitalist states and electoral democracy, citing their own needs for  autonomy and community, which are not being met. Issues of class  inequality and state violence have been front page news, and the kinds  of conversations that it is possible to have with people in this  atmosphere seem greatly expanded. Connections are being made between  issues on a large scale and the energy generated is not being neatly  channeled into small reforms or manipulated by hierarchical political  machines. 
Often, we go through life utterly surrounded by invisible systems  which limit the actions and conversations that seem possible; which make  any sentiment expressed outside of them seem crazy. Moments that create  a rupture in this banality by making those systems visible allow us an  opportunity to inhabit space and interact with each other in radically  different ways; to become aware of tensions that are ever-present but  often hidden and act in ways that did not previously seem possible. At  their best, the Occupy actions and other demonstrations that have  escalated around the world in the last year have created spaces for  people to interact with each other and articulate their desires outside  of established frameworks. 

Useful realism

There are also tensions that arise as part of the occupation itself  which are important to explore. Central to these is the tension between  the beautiful possibility of this moment and the fact that we are still  living within ugly and powerful systems that have trained us to think,  speak and act on their terms. Thinking about what it means to be  'realistic' or 'strategic' is one way to map this particular tension  usefully. 
Large systems of calcified power like states, banks and  corporations are very good at finding ways to make us believe that our  best interest is what drives them, or failing that, that our goals can  coexist harmoniously with theirs. They do this by shaping the  conversations we have about what is necessary, possible and desirable;  by encouraging us to abandon desires they cannot assimilate and by  offering the promise of comfort, safety, and convenience in return 
Appealing to realism is a tactic often used by these systems to  convince people that their aspirations are too large. Any good idea or  analysis that condemns systems of power or would require a radical shift  in the status quo can be discredited easily as unrealistic by those who  lack imagination. In this context, it is tempting to reject the concept  of realism altogether; to believe that the audacity of demanding  everything from our lives and nothing from established power negates any  kind of rationality. 
In fact, 'being realistic' is useful as a way of analyzing tactics  and situations in light of a particular set of goals and desires. If we  articulate our desires using only the narrow language of the system, "I  want to make more money", then being realistic can only include finding  ways to make the system work better for us. If our goals are understood  to be more expansive, "I want to be able to meet my physical and  emotional needs", then realistic options include subverting the logic of  the system itself.  
As the Occupy movement has gained momentum, some have claimed that  the only way to be effective is with a centralized organization that can  efficiently negotiate with power; they argue that having a specific set  of reforms and charismatic leaders is the only realistic strategy for  success.  
I disagree with this analysis. The danger of making specific  political demands is the danger of taking the energy of the moment and  bending it to the service of something too small. The reason that the  Occupy/Decolonize demonstrations have felt powerful to me is because  they are leaderless and because they have not been interested in making  specific demands.  What is being rejected around the world is not just a  tax system but the tenets of global capitalism itself and the  particular brand of representative democracy that has helped it to  become ascendant; not one incident of police brutality, but the  presumption that a militarized police force is necessary in order to  have communities that function.  
Believing that the vast majority of people in our society are  dissatisfied with the world that capitalism and state power has created  is realistic to me but thinking that these people will be able to rally  behind a single set of demands that is remotely powerful or interesting,  does not.  I am not particularly interested in finding ways to make  small reforms in the systems that oppress us. I would rather use my  energy to nurture communities that reject reformism and aren't easily  co-opted by established systems of power. For me, this means being  honest about the facts on the ground and choosing tactics that allow me  to keep space open where people can act on and articulate desires that  are not easily absorbed by conventional political narratives.   
Daring to frame the conversation in these terms is far more  energizing than borrowing the limited language those in power have given  us to express ourselves. In this context creating more spaces where  power is decentralized and people are able to act autonomously is a  worthwhile political end in itself. If our desires are grand and  beautiful, then what is useful is having ways to assess risk and make  informed decisions in specific situations without compromising them.  This involves being honest about our emotional and intellectual  reactions to the world regardless of whether or not they conform to the  dominant social order or the opinions of our peers.  

What are we doing here?

To think that an entrenched system can be brought to its knees  quickly is totally realistic; the historical record is filled with  moments of collapse. To assume that people who have been raised in and  broken by that system are going to be able to turn on a dime and create  better, more interesting alternatives without working through their shit  and learning how to set boundaries and understand one another is not.  Many people have been unbalanced and made crazy by this system  regardless of income bracket.  
Insisting that these camps are a demonstration of how we would like  the world to function is beautifully poetic, but it does not take into  account the fact that we have been cast into systems which are  destructive and predatory. A city park in a capitalist police state is  not liberated because it is occupied by people who desire liberation. A  demonstration that prohibits commerce is not the same as a space outside  of capitalism. A day when the police don't show up is not the same as a  world without police. The feeling of creative newness and possibility  that has been experienced at various occupations should not be confused  with the world we want. Confusing these things only sets folks up to  burn out when they realize that utopia is not around the corner and  learn how flawed even the communities planned and built with the best of  intentions can be.  
Being realistic about this situation means having realistic  expectations of the work we would need to do to transform ourselves and  each other into communities that are beautiful, strong, and allowed to  thrive. This particular moment is part of a larger process that we  cannot predict, let alone direct. A forest is more than a collection of  trees; it is an interconnected ecosystem that will arise when the  conditions are right. You cannot plant a field of forest, or design one  with a city planner; all you can do is encourage new growth and try to  protect it from toxic elements. Life arises abundant but we should not  be confused about the nature of these glorious weeds, even as we  celebrate their potential


The rest of the issue is pretty good as well.


Never eat a pig 'cause a pig is a cop, amirite?



Occupy Our Homes is (one of the) the next steps, it seems. Pretty cool, right? I’m a fan.

I’m sure one of our resident trolls will be glad to chime in call the foreclosed upon stupid poor people that should have exercised magical powers of foresight and financial acumen that nobody else had, but until then I’m going to bask in the feeling of something good happening.


Attacking the concept of ownership sounds like a good plan. Why would you want to organize your society around such a concept? This will gain support, I know it. This is the future!


I don’t think that is the point. The point is that banks made a lot of money off poor customers when times were good (securitization, etc), and when things went bad, dumped them and got bailouts.

The fault of the poor families this afflicted was to believe what the loan officers likely told them was achievable for their income. Net result for many affected, I am sure, is the destruction of several years plus of their wealth. What did it cost the bankers?

And these are principles we want to defend?

Yes, property is important. Yes, you can’t just gve stuff to people for free. But hey, just consider it a trickle down bailout.


I like it. And also maybe part of the 10% of the massive profits made over years by these financial systems that all good proper capitalists see as their duty(unregulated off course) to give ‘back to society’.


Exactly. Or Rand was full of shit.