Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Breaking out of the Occupy forum box

Posted 7 years ago on March 25, 2013, 4:23 p.m. EST by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Has anybody here been going on youtube, news outlets, and other websites to dispel the massive amount of disinformation circulating regarding Occupy, wealth inequality, corporate takeover of our government, and other related issues?

There are many people here with well honed debating skills that could be put to better use outside the Occupy forum "box", out into the internet world where most uninformed people are. If you spend all of your time here preaching to the choir, the partisans, and the trolls, nothing is going to change on the street.



Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by ericweiss (575) 7 years ago

pardon my ignorance - can you suggest some specific sites?

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 7 years ago

Went to Heritage.org tonight. A conservative site. Have been thinking about going to a tea party site, but the rant I read there goes way beyond the border of rationality.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 7 years ago

I've been on Facebook, Huffington Post, Youtube, and a few others. It shouldn't be difficult to find places where people aren't aware of what's going on.

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 7 years ago

Forums? Or information sites?

[-] 2 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

Smartest thing I read on this forum in a long time.....

I suggest hitting up the bible thumper so called "Christian" sites. Always a gas.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 7 years ago


[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

I always circulate information and Posts out onto twitter - to be shared/circulated. I also contact various groups and share information and express the need to work with each-other in support of common issues.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 7 years ago

I don't understand how twitter works. Does the message just go to people who are following you?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

This I do not know - as I have had people - that I do not follow - request to follow me. But I do know that tweets do go out to those who follow you. So how does that happen? I don't really know - I just post to share good information and issues.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 7 years ago

Yes, I regularly share information that other posters here find, that I think might be of interest in the awakening of minds everywhere.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 7 years ago


[-] 4 points by Builder (4202) 7 years ago

It's mostly why I come here; to either share what I've found, or read the latest that posters here have found.

I still like to cross-reference everything, just to be sure. I've been caught with egg on my face before, when I get all excited about an issue, and it turns out to be a false flag.

There are plenty of disinformation agents active on the web. Be careful, and cross-reference everthing.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 7 years ago

I definitely cross check sources. Probably 50% of the info on the internet is bogus or just being repeated.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 7 years ago

When I see how the govt. distorted the truth way back in history, and realize that they've now had decades of practise at creating propaganda, and controlling media releases, I'm more sceptical of almost everything; trying to guess where certain information is leading the thought patterns.

The admission that the whole women's movement was the work of a bored oligarch, playing social engineering kinda opened my eyes to the "ways of the world", more than anything else.

Still, I live in hope.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 7 years ago

Never heard of the women's movement being the work of a single oligarch. Who was he?

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 7 years ago

On retiring from public life, one of the elder Rothschilds admitted to actively promoting both the women's movement, and the emasculation of the father figure, through television programming.

His family released a statement shortly thereafter denouncing the old man as being insane, though he seemed quite sane to me, at that time.

Of course, finding anything about this, except for on feminist sites, is becoming almost impossible. I just had a look at some bookmarked sites, and they've been removed.

You'll find some interesting info on this link, but again, unverified.



[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 7 years ago

No, we can't be certain, ZD.

But there's no reason to brush it aside either.

Given the record of underhandedness, and utter BS, emanating from sources political and demi-royal, better to treat all their tripe as tripe.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

Seems kinda like wacko conspiracy theory nonsense designed to malign womens movement.

but that's just me.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 7 years ago
[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 7 years ago

Thanks gnomunny. I got the wrong oligarchs, it would seem.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 7 years ago

Another interesting article. Thanks.

Towards the end of that essay, they mention taking advantage of the market while the "big banks are unstable". I kinda got that impression during the '08 fiasco; some of them did really well out of all that drama, and the financial world became a much smaller entity, in terms of the number of players.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 7 years ago

Your welcome. I'll have to read the article again, it's been awhile. A lot of people will think the women's lib thing is just wacko conspiracy stuff, but regardless, it is how things turned out. The family unit has been pretty much destroyed over the last half century. And, not so coincidentally I think, the telegraph article says this:

"The transatlantic alliance cements a five-decade acquaintance . . ."

But then, it could just be a coincidence. ~.^

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 7 years ago

Yes, I saw that too.

The old-school oligarchs probably realised way back that it's pointless being in competition, unless just for the sake of appearances. The hatching of the concept for the US federal reserve was such a clandestine meeting, that they all had code names, but I think we do know now just who was there.

Too close to dinner time here, to go looking, but I might check it out later.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 7 years ago

Yeah, and it's pretty late here so I'll be logging off soon (it's 3 AM here). Let me know if you find something I'd like to see.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 7 years ago

Will do. It will give me something to do this evening.

Sleep well. 3am? I'm usually getting up about then. LOL

[-] -1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 7 years ago

I didn't look at the vids, but read the text....he lays out the "less filling/tastes great" aspect of our political scene. Supports the fact that Republcans and Democrats ARE all the same, no matter what the DNC trolls on this site say. It also has a warning. BTW, I am reading there that the CIA was behind feminism,

The Order’s methodology is a strict adherence to Hegelian Dialectics. Apply those dialectics to the two political parties. Essentially, political parties are artificial groupings designed to create cultural and emotional division. A contrived choice between two bad options, without recognizing alternative better choices, creates the perception of freedom. Ostensibly opposing ideologies generate deliberate distraction and polarization. It is the old divide and conquer tactic. The very public, distracting, lengthy, increasingly hostile battle between the Republicans, posing as thesis, and the Democrats posing as antithesis constitutes orchestrated opposition. Elections, staged for the masses, are completely irrelevant political tennis matches. Domestic and foreign policies remain intact, regardless of the political affiliation of the puppet president.

Despite popular misconceptions, our government is supposed to be a representative Republic, not a democracy, as deceptively asserted and popularly accepted. Citizens vote in both democracies and republics. That single act does not make you free. Those who finagle their way into office supposedly represent the voters who purportedly put them there. Moreover, they are to sustain an invariable written law – the Constitution which mandates civil law and our response to it. The non-negotiable Constitution is our explicit gauge of right and wrong, applicable to all without special considerations for occupation, political, social or cultural status, or ethnicity. Since Woodrow Wilson, we have descended into a Socialistic democracy with adaptable mob rule, adjustable laws and poll-driven public opinions. All democracies, in which selective enforcement of law is tolerated, are short lived, for they typically morph into oppressive tyrannies.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 7 years ago

Thankyou for your excellent paraphrasing.

The point being, subtle coercion and mind manipulation morph eventually into fascist oppression.

[-] 1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 7 years ago

Builder, those 2 paras aren;t my words. They are from that wonderful article you posted a link to above. I still haven't finished it, but have it bookmarked.

i have often wondered why prime time tv is flooded with violent cops and robbers and gruesome murder shows. He posits that it is meant to desensitize us from gore, though I am unclear on the goal of that purpose.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 7 years ago

Oh, okay, kudo for your honesty. I read so much these days, I honestly thought you'd paraphrased for us.

Prime time tv is poison. I wouldn't advise anyone allows their children to watch it.

[-] 0 points by Narley (272) 7 years ago

I tried posting on Stormfront, but didn't seem to change any minds.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 7 years ago

You picked a tough group. Didi you get singed by any of the replies?

I think what ever argument we make has to be 100% backed up with irrefutable facts. Both here and elsewhere. If not, it's just a battle of hot air that gets us nowhere.

[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 7 years ago

Oh yeah. Those folks have as much as some of the people have on this forum.

(that's a joke, before people start foaming at the mouth)