Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Left/Paradigm

Posted 1 year ago on Nov. 28, 2012, 11:25 a.m. EST by ivyquinn (167)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The left/right paradigm is running rampant in this forum. If we continue to divide, and not unite our resistance, we are destined to fail. That's exactly what the 1%ers want. It's mere puppetry. I am including links to my friends YouTube channel in which she exposes this paradmatic machine. As well as a few informational peices on what the paradigm is, if you aren't aware of the sociological brainwash force fed to us.

http://www.youtube.com/user/breakingtheset http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_right_paradigm http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/09/you-vs-corporations/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kw7j4lbDB4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF6Dt7SS_yw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxDwT55rmIw

76 Comments

76 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

Nonsense. This denial of a left/right paradigm simply confuses and disempowers us. The right wing has been in power for so long in America that many have forgotton what the left really represents. We need to rediscover the best ideas of the left, and embrace them.

A movement needs to find itself within the context of history - if only for the sake of coherence.

The whole suply side/neo liberal narritive that has brought us to the pass we are now in is distinctly a far-right agenda. To say we can ALL come together is nonsense. It emplies that that right wing agenda has no adherents. Needless to say, it does have adherents - powerful and well funded adherents, and we can't stop them if we don't acknowlegde what they are, and that they are the opposition.

We want to bring as many people as possible to our cause, but to believe the we can bring Everybody to our cause is denying Reality.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1990) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Hey, are you back??

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

I'm devoting most of my effort to my blog now. I'm just here occasionally.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1990) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Well, don't keep the link a secret!!

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

gypsyking1.wordpress.com

Thanks.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

That's not a link, that's a domain name.

http://gypsyking1.wordpress.com

That's a link.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1990) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Thank you, I will check it out.

[-] 0 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I agree with somewhat of you have stated. We cannot win every battle or wake everyone up. I think however seeing through both sides of the lie and to expose those spouting disinformation is very essential to success in progress.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

I think it is very important that we define what we stand for and embrace that definition. The goals of Occupy all without doubt fall within the traditional left-wing spectrum, and the goals of the 1% fall absolutely within that of the right.

Let us not be afraid to embrace our goals, or to define those goals as left-wing, in that the whole thrust of this movement is to shift the power of this nation and this planet from the hands of centralised corporate power to the hands of citizens. These are left-wing goals, and we should embrace that. It defines what we must do, and who are our friends, and who are our opponents..

[-] 1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I really disagree. These are human rights. We have a right to alternative currencies and we have a right to stimulate our economy. Both sides force feed us their image of economy. One that was built to fail. I find it asinine to label it only a right wing issue.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

I don't know what you are trying to say here.

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

That right wingers aren't the only ones responsible for the corruption currently being force fed to us through debt.

It's both a right wing and left wing system.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

"The corruption force fed to us through debt." WTF?

WTF is it with you people? Did people go out onto the streets last year to protest debt? No! They were protesting Wall Street, not Debt! You people just doggedly try to shift the narrative. Now the enemy is not Wall Street, but debt, and I assume you will shortly tell us that the Neo Cons have the answer! All this does is confuse the issues, which is exactly your objective.

[-] -3 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Of course debt isn't the main issue, but how is it damaging to ease it? It's not a narrative change, it's consciousness evolution.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

And I suppose if our consciousness "evolves" far enough you will have us spouting Sean Hanity and Milton Friedman!

What you are up to here is perfectly clear. You are messing with people's minds.

The issues are simple, and you are a pettyfogging tool.

Consciousness evolution my ass. That is exactly what you are here trying to prevent, and that is one of your most devious methods of evading detection, claiming that you are doing is the exact opposite of what you are really doing. The more outrageous the lie, the less likely people are to see it, right?

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Wow there's so much disinformation in that post I don't know even where to begin.

First of all I do not support the MSM. In fact I am a citizen journalist, spreading truth consciousness wherever I go. MSM is pulling the strings of political puppetry and you are playing into that by propagating disinformation.

National debt is out of control. Without proper funding we won't even make a dent.

However ending debt locally to stimulate local economies isn't a bad thing. The only thing messing with people's minds are those like yourself who can't see past a bias.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

Naw, debt isn't the issue. That's the neo-con con game in a nutshell, and I'm not buying. Whenever somebody starts on about debt being the first issue, rather then Wall Street, rather than income inequality, or some other REAL issue, you know where it's heading - Right into the neo-con con artist switch. Next you'll be talking about saving the wealthy from taxation and telling us it's all about expanding consciousness!

Forget it, I'm done.

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

It's all connected. But that's your choice. Enjoy your despotic paradigm of thought.

[-] -3 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

Just as much as the 1% holding too much money leaves less for the 99%, so does the government having to much money. Defense spending, the spending to limit in order to justify the same budget costs the following year. There are a lot of ways our government spends too much money that have nothing to do with entitlements or justifiable public works, such as infrastructure.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

And all that debt has found it's way, one way or another, into the pockets of the .001%, and so the answer remains the same, shift the wealth from them back to the 99.99%. We can start with the trillions hidden in ofshore bank accounts. This is the problem, and everything else just pales in comparison.

[-] -3 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

The flaw in this reasoning is practically transparent, so I won't even bother to point it out. Any thinking person can see it. I'm done.

So we should subsidize private industry and then pay the shelf price for a product we subsidize? That sounds awfully pro-WallSt.

[-] -3 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

Not really. We subsidize the infrastructure of communication companies that then charge us for the use of the very systems we pay for through taxes. Same with oil, chemical companies. We are paying most industries one way or another through the government on top of what we pay for their products. Those who fail to mention this aren't really for smaller government, their for smaller Common Welfare.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

The flaw in this reasoning is practically transparent, so I won't even bother to point it out. Any thinking person can see it.

I'm done.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

Yes they are.

[-] -1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

The traditional left is one that concerns itself with humanity. Your need for exclusion by label clearly is not part of liberal ideology. Maybe when you lose that narrative provided by MSM, you'll wake up.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

It isn't my need for exclusion, but simply the necessity of recongnizing what is. It is the neo-cons that are persuing an agenda of exclusion, and I don't see how we can embrace their determination to exclude us. I'm sorry.

[-] 0 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

But it's not just the Neo-cons...it's the DINO representives who also are taking cash spiffs and lobbies from Goldman Sachs and other Rothschild mega cabals.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

One only look at the numbers when it was a "Fuck You" movement in the beginning versus getting sucked into the usual shenanigans.

There are WAY more people in this country that are sick of all of em than those that adhere to the D or R losers in office. Its not even close.

[-] -2 points by RedDragon (-161) 1 year ago

Yes but you as a self labeled Leftist believe you are right, right? So here you state that the left is right, and so I must ask, well, what are left and right? Paradigm; the word they use is "paradigm," and what is a paradigm? Well it's a specific model, a pattern, a means to inform and lend structure... but really, does anybody actually live this way? Does anybody actually live the 'paradigm" of the Left or Right? Is it even possible?

For me, Left and Right have always been viewed from afar, historically... there were communists with little Red stars on the left and fascists with little yellow stars on the right. These terms have never had any real application in my world.

But both are collectives as associations of people and they are relatively limited collectives at that, of elitists; as elitists both seek to empower themselves. And realizing this, I have always challenged as an individualist. I am the enemy of all those who seek to empower themselves over the people, by any label, of any paradigm. And we are ALL people; we are all individuals; we live our entire lives as individuals; none wishes to be enslaved to an other's paradigm.

Obama, propped by "progressive" ideology marches incrementally forward - as progressive do - with the foreign policy agenda of the world's money mongers. While domestically he utilizes our money to maintain their monetary policy and to prop up their banks.

And there is no doubt the agenda of both the left and right "paradigm" is the same - to empower themselves as one world central authority, a world bank, intent on extracting the life blood of all as the serfs of their earth. Am I exaggerating? Of course not, all the evidence, all the machinations, are already in place.

The individual must take a stand; ultimately individualism must triumph. If you are Left, I will be Right; if you are Right, I will be Left. If you are for, I am against; if you are against, I am for.

I am an individual.

I am the I am.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Seems to me that the so-called 'elites' like to brag and spout off about 'individualism' as well. Maybe you have more in common with them. In addition to being a general contrarian.

So you're a fence sitter. Waiting to see which way the wind blows. Then taking the contrary view for the sake of taking the contrary view.

[-] 0 points by RedDragon (-161) 1 year ago

Oh no, I've never been a fence sitter. I was on my feet before the fence was even constructed. Unfortunately I stood alone.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Did you just rattle that off after shooting your dinner? How quaint.

[-] -1 points by RedDragon (-161) 1 year ago

Shrimp and sausage gumbo (a little spicy but better than it sounds) and an all American (emphasis on uhh-merrr-ih-kin) hero (inflection on hear; ohh)... and I rattled not after or before but during.

I have another far out theory for ya... I am also of the opinion that collectivism is all about the need to connect in a disconnected world and "progressive" is but the fiction we use to satisfy the purpose of purpose. >> ;p

Progressive and collective, btw, are not necessarily synonymous.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Connecting is a human need. We're an evolved species. We're not animals. Even some animals exhibit the ability to emotionally connect. In a primitive way.

I don't think the need to connect has anything to do with 'progressive' or 'collective'.

We're an evolved species in a highly advanced civilized society of hundreds of millions of people living on the same planet. Like it or not we're connected. Ecologically, economically, biologically. Even if you choose to be emotionally disconnected, those other connections aren't really a choice. Hopefully your individuality isn't so fragile as not to recognize that.

Sociopaths have trouble connecting. Neanderthals too. But we're way past the knuckle dragging stage. Except the Tea Partiers. They're just lagging behind a few million years.

[-] -2 points by RedDragon (-161) 1 year ago

Yes, you know, but I've been trying to draw on my impression of the 60s, assess what appears to be correlations, to evaluate, etc. The question becomes was it really Vietnam or even "turning on"? Or was the prime motivator just the overwhelming desire to connect? Love Ins, Flower Power, Peace... the Flower Child, Psychdelic... it was a beautiful thing. So I have always leaned toward the latter in my assessment; more, that there is this overwhelming desire of young people, young males (no offense) and mature women in particular, to connect in a communal setting. You are suggesting we are an "advanced civilized society" and yet I see this as a tribal born desire; we are reconnecting in a disconnected world.

I don't want to be misunderstood in the above; I saw the 60s as a male dominated movement. The need to connect in this way appears less appealing to older males; the younger females of the 60s, I believe, were more about going with the beauty of the flow. Tiedyed and embroidered, painted and paisley, nature.. it really was beauty. You don't sense this correlation?

Oh, and yes, I am Lion, hear me roar (?) ... therefore a male, i.e, a very typical, somewhat disjoined, "sociopath."

[-] 5 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

I do not know. Maybe every 30 or 50 years, when things get sufficiently fucked up, we bust a move and break out into flower power mode again. Before flower power there was the social reform movement after the Great Depression. But we had FDR then. It's been quoted that he told the reformers of the time, that he agreed with them. But he told them - 'now go out there and make me do it'. Something along those lines. That may not be the exact quote but that's the gist of it.

Strength of numbers is a necessity in a democracy. Or for social change. I guess you can view it as 'connectivity' or reconnecting. I see it more like a - 'time out people, everything's fucked up again' reaction. Maybe reconnecting for the purposes of gaining strength of numbers to unfuck things up. Relatively speaking.

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3280) 1 year ago

Deep insights here from another 'teacher'. We all should read, reflect, research and remember what FDR did for this country because history matters! Never Give Up!! Keep Occupying The Issues!!! Solidarity.

[-] 0 points by RedDragon (-161) 1 year ago

I think you misunderstood. I see the "movement" in part as reconnecting; I see collectivism as antithetical to democracy, which is individualist at its core. And I see the "need" labeled as reform, to some extent, as but the purpose that promotes connectivism.

FDR was not this nation's first reform movement. There have been several. In fact, the settlement of this country was a reform movement.

[-] 5 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

I'm presuming you're talking about collectivism/individualism in the economic sense. If individuals democratically vote for collectivism, how is that antithetical to collectivism? Democracy is just a decision making tool. It's a political system. Which can be perfectly compatible with socialism or collectivist type economic systems.

Capitalism is antithetical to collectivism. Capitalism is an individualist driven economic system. A Darwinian system of winners and losers.

[-] 0 points by RedDragon (-161) 1 year ago

All of the great collectivist movements in history share one common thread - a quest for power through totalitarian governance. Collectivism is antithetical to democracy, which is the result of rising individualism.

Capitalism may very well be antithetical to collectivism; that's part of my point. But it's not capitalism that has hurt us; what has hurt is the rising power of the corporation in the face of prosperity; the corporation has been pushed to the forefront of our capitalism to engulf even our central governing authority.

A Darwinian system of winners and losers... you were hoping for what, that the quest for resources would always be a win-win? If we always won at the craps table, do you think anybody would gamble? If we always hooked fish every time we threw a line, do you think anyone would ever bother?

How many have lost through communism? In Russia, people were standing on line to get bread.... and abortion was the preferred method of birth control - many women would ten in a single year - because even condoms were unavailable. I'm just saying, we need to be real.

We've talked of collectives in other countries; has anyone looked at the collectives operating within this country?

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

'Collectivism is antithetical to democracy' - no it is not. It's called Democratic Socialism. Variants of this system are found in the Nordic countries. See Sweden. Which still operate somewhat capitalist, with private ownership, but more heavily weighted toward socialism. These countries are highly democratic. By many measures more democratic than the US.

'you were hoping for what, that the quest for resources would always be a win-win?' No. But thats why we have safety net programs. Because of the recognition that there will be losers. Capitalism leaves alot of bodies on the side of the road. And we decided we wanted to be a civilized society. Not a bunch of uncivilized brutes that leave the losers on the side of the road. Sadly, some people don't recognize this I think. Why else the fevered attempts of the right wing to destroy welfare programs? Let alone their maniacal notions of privatizing public goods, like education.

'the corporation has been pushed to the forefront' - corporations placed themselves at the forefront as our governing authority. This was by their own design, the result of their own efforts. Not accidental. Or even the inevitable result of progress. See the Powell Memorandum, Buckley v Valeo, see the fact that corporations used the 14th Amendment to gain more power in society 10 or 50 times more often than any former slave or other minority used the Amendment as intended. It was hijacked by corporations. Which allowed them the aggressive exertion of corporate power over society and the government.

Before that, US corporations were 'granted' a charter by the government for a specific purpose, for a set period of time. They were strictly controlled and regulated. Jefferson feared corporations - “I hope we shall crush… in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Jefferson surely wanted limited government. But not so limited as to allow corporations to run amok over society. Let alone be running the joint.

Honestly, it's somewhat disingen to discuss capitalism v socialism. Since we have neither. We have a mixed economic system. Always have. It's always been regulated. We've never had a 'free market'. Up until the early 19th century, the government was financed through tariffs. Not a free market. The earliest corporations only existed for short periods at a time, at the pleasure and will of the people. Not a free market. In many ways, we have a more 'free market' today than ever before.

'But it's not capitalism that has hurt us; what has hurt is the rising power of the corporation' - corporations and the wealthy, the 'capitalists', use 'capitalism', in some cases, distorted and self serving economic theories of capitalism, (ie: neoliberalism, supply side economics, trickle down theories) in order to gain more power. As if policy that favors the 'capitalist', ie: lower taxes, less regulations, will always and necessarily benefit society. Which, quite frankly, is nonsense. It's the right wing that embraces these economic theories like a religion. Besides that, wealth naturally accumulates. It's the nature and definition of capitalism. Wealth accumulation. And economic power translates to political power.

Collectives here in the US - you mean like co-ops? The best example I know of are credit unions are often owned and operated this way. ESOPs are a type of worker/owner program.

[-] 0 points by RedDragon (-161) 1 year ago

I don't agree with you on democratic socialism at all because for it to work we would need relatively low unemployment and a work ethic that is just not present in the US. Norway has probably never struggled with the ethnic diversity that is destined to favor one over another; I'm sure in Norway everyone is eligible for the job. And in the US, whether we are speaking of the Germans, the Irish, the Italians, whatever, whomever... this has never been true. There has always been diversity; it has always created an establishment employment and a second-class-citizen underemployment - in short there has always been this class clash that has impeded a healthy socialism because too few are working or have desire to work.

Co-ops... there are dozens of them in the US; Land O' Lakes, for example, is a co-op. But this forum has never mentioned them and I have wondered why.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

I'm just saying - democracy and socialism are not antithetical to one another. They can be perfectly compatible. Some people believe that democracy is more compatible with socialism than it is with capitalism.

The Nordic countries do very well economically. Canada too. Much more socialist than the US. Neither of those places are tyrannys. By many measures they have better qualities of life, better healthcare, better education systems, lower wealth disparity - and are seen as more democratic. Not less.

Because capitalism is wealth accumulating. Which can be dangerous to democracy. Because wealth translates to political power and can have a corrosive affect on democracy.

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, 1916- 1939

Capitalism creates unemployment. Not ethnic diversity. It's basically not theoretically possible to have full employment under capitalism. Even if by some alignment of forces it actually happened in practice, it wouldn't last long. The basic laws of supply and demand would take hold, among other things. Most economists believe that a 4% unemployment level is desirable for economic stability. So even in the best case, there will always be unemployment.

Class struggle exists in most economic systems going back centuries. And is created by those systems. Fuedalism, mercantilism, capitalism. All created class struggle because of wealth accumulation. Not ethnic diversity. When the 'haves' have too much and the 'have nots' have too little. That creates class struggle. It's ok for some people to be wealthy. So long as everyone else has enough. If the masses don't have enough, they revolt.

Capitalism can't work by itself. And I don't think socialism can work by itself. The best system is a mix. The trick is getting the right mix. It's high levels of wealth disparity, caused by policies that favors the weatlhy, favors the capitalists, at the expense of the 'workers', that is causing both economic problems and political polarization. When wealth disparity is lower, the middle class, the masses, have enough, the economy runs more smoothly and there is less political polarization.

[-] 1 points by RedDragon (-161) 1 year ago

Yea, you know, but in some sense here you are addressing your own questions. The reality is that economic logic evolves from some lesser form of capitalism to some more advanced form of capitalism; but none survive without the profit that creates security in times of famine; this is capitalism, what follows is but a matter of degree.

This apparatus has evolved; it has learned and advanced.

Democracy and socialism are not reciprocals; democracy and communism are the two elements of dichotomy here; is it communism you favor?

No society, democratic or communist, survives without some level of socialism; our question is one of degree - how much socialism?

But when it gets to the point where we derive equal income and all care from the state, that is communism. And it's not something I favor; I favor the right to freely pursue; it was this desire present in the mind before it was even articulated as an ideal, that brought our ancestors to this country.

No one in America dies of hunger; how much socialism do you require? And why?

By the way, prying wealth from the wealthy to deposit in the hands of rich Congressmen benefits no one - they are the corrupt that permitted this accumulation of wealth. And they got paid for not allowing you to accumulate greater wealth. The machine has grown to gargantuan proportions and you think you shall over power them now? Not likely, so it becomes incumbent on you to extract that wealth.

[-] 0 points by RedDragon (-161) 1 year ago

All of the great collectivist movements in history share one common thread - a quest for power through totalitarian governance. Collectivism is antithetical to democracy, which is the result of rising individualism.

Capitalism may very well be antithetical to collectivism; that's part of my point. But it's not capitalism that has hurt us; what has hurt is the rising power of the corporation in the face of prosperity; the corporation has been pushed to the forefront of our capitalism to engulf even our central governing authority.

A Darwinian system of winners and losers... you were hoping for what, that the quest for resources would always be a win-win? If we always won at the craps table, do you think anybody would gamble? If we always hooked fish every time we threw a line, do you think anyone would ever bother?

How many have lost through communism? In Russia, people were standing on line to get bread.... and abortion was the preferred method of birth control - many women would ten in a single year - because even condoms were unavailable. I'm just saying, we need to be real.

We've talked of collective in other countries; has anyone looked at the collectives operating within this country?

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by jbgramps (159) 1 year ago

Never met a coon ass I didn't like. Laissez les bons temps rouler.

[+] -5 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Brilliant! Love it.

[-] 3 points by Ache4Change (3280) 1 year ago

The Left/Right Paradigm in the US is really only 'Crazy-Right v Soft-Right' from the MSM perspective. The 'Liberals' are really 'Soft-Right' and even most 'progressives' are variations of 'liberal'. That is why OWS is so important because it gives voice to the hidden, silent 'Left' & thanks for the good links, btw.

I'm old enough to know what Left/Right means and where it comes from but to think that there is no relevance to this, is to be mistaken I think, though that may reflect my own culture and education of course. As for for The 1% - they are all variations of Right-Wing, I guarantee it!

We urgently need a new movement of a united, pro-99% American 'Left' and if this language is at all off putting to some, then we have to inform and educate and perhaps find new words but the sentiments are universal and true. We need to learn about politics, ideas & past social movements in the US & abroad.

Never Give Up! Go Occupy!

[-] 4 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

There is as much relevance to the Left-Right paradigm as people are willing to put on it. Of course there are people from both the left and right who have differing, honest, legitimate beliefs on what our government should be doing, or not doing. But when you have the overwhelming majority of people being screwed in this country by corrupt influences that have been supported by both parties, it makes that long-held field of battle seem inadequate, and stupid even. The problem as you know is that our government for the most part does not answer to the people's will. Instead they answer to corporate, and banking interests, and feed us, with the help of the CMSM, a bunch of propaganda which we willingly gobble up.

"Never Give Up! Go Occupy!" ;-)

~Odin~

[-] 5 points by Ache4Change (3280) 1 year ago

The matter of Left/Right is both relative and subjective and I agree with what you say. The 'overwhelming majority' IS being 'screwed' and the two party duopoly is only a corporate owned sham for the most part (Denis Kucinich and a few others excepted). You are right in what you say and until the hands of the the bankers are removed from our throats, then we can only live under the illusions of freedom fed to us by the 'CMSM'. We need an awakening. It is happening. OWS is part of that. Never Give Up! Go Occupy!

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

People "awakening" to the realities of the corrupt system that we live under is a beautiful thing, and the people that are truly putting in the most effort toward that goal are some of the best people that i have ever had the pleasure of knowing. This movement is about building community as we go, so that when we get 'there', we are ready to implement the world we all want.

'Perseverance" is the key word. "Never Give Up! Go Occupy."

~Odin~

[-] 3 points by Ache4Change (3280) 1 year ago

'Education' is another key and I do concur with you. Here's an item which I linked to on another thread about Charter Schools recently - 'The Educational System Was Designed to Keep Us Uneducated And Docile', http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11693.htm . Thanks for your strong comment on this 'Odinsday'. Never Give Up! Occupy The Issues!

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

You're right, "educatuion is another key" to the awakening, and that is what, a group i have belonged to since January, Occupy Town Square does so well. The first step probably is to get people off the CMSM, and to encourage them to turn to other sources. Getting them to think for themselves is the goal, and as your liink points out, that has not been encouraged for a long time.

Errr..."Odinsday?". Gee, don't think I deserve a 'day.' lol I'm just a regular dude, who was raised with good values, and to think for himself, and so it goes with my kids too. "Never Give Up!"

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by Ache4Change (3280) 1 year ago

Education is fundamental to the awakening and so I sincerely ask you and all who read here, to read and reflect upon - http://occupywallst.org/forum/item-poverty/ on this Freye's day and beyond :) Never give up! Occupy the issues!

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

It really is not as simple as Left or Right, National or Local. Fundamentally it is about right and wrong. That should be the core driving principle. And unfortunately it is primarily a national and international battle now. Local has its place, but the power of national and international media to shape national and global opinion (i.e. brainwashing) means that alternative voices/media must be pushed forward as much as possible. There is an infowar being waged for the hearts and minds of the masses. It has always been there, but now it is more openly acknowledged. It is propaganda, and it is sinister in its intent.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

That's why the worst thing that happened was when MSNBC started embracing us with chosen soundbites and FOX started criticizing us with chosen soundbites.

The biggest threat to get change is something else that comes out besides divisive L/R nonsense.

Divide and conquer is much older than Dems and Reps.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

here is the problem. there are not two truths. there is only one. yet we act as if both sides are equal and opposite sides. the fact we entertain their flawed logic and insane ramblings has put us into our current position. they have successfully moved the democratic party to the middle of the middle with the new democrat globalist scumbags. while they are now to the right of every republican president in history. a better idea would be to actually hold democrats accountable for being spineless middle of the road wimps. course that doesn't fit your we are in it together narrative which is the equivalent to sticking your head up your own ass.

[-] 2 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Of course democrats are also globalists. Look at the Obama admin. They are filthy pawns of the establishment. Blindly both parties attack each other, woot any substance of true progress. We need a change. We are in this together.

Together in solidarity.

[-] -1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

As you point out, there is only one truth. That one truth is that we all have the same needs. All 100% of us. The trick is making sure 100% are having those needs met.

[-] -3 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I disagree. We don't all have the same needs....at least not above and beyond those required to sustain life. Above and beyond that, even if our needs are similar they aren't exactly the same. You might need more company, I might prefer more solitude. You might need for personal affection, I might need more words. It is literally impossible for anyone or anything-including and especially our government-to meet our needs 100%. It's not supposed to.

[-] -1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

You lack the ability to separate need and want. That doesn't invalidate what I said.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Actually I don't lack the ability just because you say I do. Maybe you could have asked for clarification? I said "above and beyond those required to sustain life.". Those are needs. And people will tell you that even if we all have needs in the same areas, we don't all NEED the same amount of those things.

For example- A large adult male NEEDS more calories than a small child to sustain life. A large adult male who is sedentary NEEDS fewer calories than one who is physically active.

The question is-where does what one person actually NEEDS-as in MUST HAVE cross the line into what they might NOT need? I might only NEED 600 calories a day to survive. I might actually NEED 1200 calories a day to survive in a healthy manner. But what if I believe I NEED 1500 calories, or 2500? And maybe my doctor agrees that's what I NEED-but my government or you or someone else says I DON'T.

How is it even possible to "make sure 100% are having those needs met?" Who gets to define what everyone's NEEDS are and then make SURE they are met?

[-] -1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

Well it sounds like you have all the making of a thread. Crowd-source your answers.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

The problems are deeper than idiotic progressive/conservative talking points. Get to the roots. The economics of it all. They are neither conservative or liberal. They are simply fucked up. And neither sides voters supports them when its laid out with straight facts.

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

"They [the problems] are simply fucked up." Will you give me lessons in writing more succinctly sometime, hchc? lol

~Odin~

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

haha...

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

What should we do if we believe there is real difference between progressive solutions (which OWS supports) And the conservative policies (OWS denounces) that created all our problems?

[-] 1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Work towards ending those policies. Act local.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Only local? Why not national.? I live in NYC, we are less conservative so I can devote energy to fighting the damaging national conservative policies.

Are ya with us?

[-] 1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I do believe in a national consciousness shift and the tyrants paying for their crimes. I do however believe that we have to win our battles. Acting locally can help rebuild our freedoms.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I believe in acting locally too. I also believe in acting nationally.

We need a lot of activism.

The powers that be are certainly active at all levels. so.....

[-] 1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I'm working on a "rolling jubilee" campaign here in my own city. To cut the debt and stimulate local economy, and produce access to more jobs.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Good luck in all your good efforts.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

So it's the libe(R)tarian paradigm for you?

Sympathy for Ayn?

BTW: As to the thread title. Was that a Freudian slip, or just another bitch aimed at the left?

[-] 1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I have no sympathy for Ayn. I have no visions of a paradigm, ESP a libertarian one. I believe in the people over every system of governing. Including left, right, socialist, capitalist, Neo-Fudelism etc and so on. The citizens have the sovereignty, not the system.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You just like a lot of people that do?

Abby seems OK, but it goes downhill from there, ending with Griffith, an obvious Ayn sympathizer.

Wanna know how bad libe(R)tarians really are?

Here.

http://exiledonline.com/a-peoples-history-of-koch-industries-how-stalin-funded-the-tea-party-movement/

PS: Teabagge(R)s raised my taxes.....locally.

[-] 1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Abby is amazing. She's woken me up to so many issues. But I wouldn't say she's built from the same fabric as the Paul family. I'm starting to see more tints of The GOP enter rands speeches. He needs to be exposed.

TPP are nothing more than GOP lite.