Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Where can I find the official OWS forum? (Where people discuss anarchy and OWS, not politics.)

Posted 9 years ago on Feb. 18, 2012, 11:04 p.m. EST by OccupySeatleProtester (1)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I am an occupier from Occupy Seattle. I usually attend general assemblies, but I'm traveling at the moment so I thought I would discuss Occupy over the web.

I came here thinking it was the official OWS forum where people talked about anarchist theory and upcoming OWS plans. I was very surprised when I realized this website is all about political talk. The discussions here are so different that what I am used to in general assemblies. Is this even an OWS site?

Do you know a forum that discusses OWS and anarchy, and not the republicans, democrats, or other candidates?



Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 9 years ago

Well, honestly OWS is about politics don't you think?

I learned that politics is the art of governing, and government itself. So, isn't this a movement that encompasses just that? Questioning the governing of the people, for the people, by the people?

Now, if there is anarchy, eventually someone (or something) has to be in control again, because there is only so long that a group of people will be able to run rampant and crazy, before another force steps in to put it down. So...take the lesser of the two evils...politics or anarchy. Your choice! Change the political climate and perhaps you won't need anarchy and self perpetuated suicide by militia men (Police, SWAT, Army, National Guard, Snipers) It is going to take intelligence and discipline to change all this crap around...unless of course you enjoy watching scenes like that of the Middle East, Africa, and Europe!! Then you might wanna go there instead!

[-] 2 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 9 years ago

"Politics is the shadow cast on society by big business." - John Dewey

[-] 3 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 9 years ago

And what are shadows but things that block light. Yet, that does not change the light from being a reality or continuing to exist, now does it?
So, this present government is nothing but a shadow of what it should be..henceforth.....revolution.
But ask yourselves, are you ready to change it, "by any means necessary"? Everyone has a choice, each of us have to be sure to choose the right one, individually!

[-] 2 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 9 years ago

No politics is the shadow. Not the government. Government is a tool to be used. Think about the word revolution. A revolution is a change of those in power. It does not mean violence. It does not mean usurpation. If you are opposed to revolution then why are you here?

[-] 2 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 9 years ago

Who said I was opposed to revolution? I just don't want a bunch of crazies thinking their law is the law of the land that should be implemented. Sometimes, the best things in the hands of a fool can be turned to his (and others) destruction. Been there, lived through it.. We have fools running the show already! Who is gonna take over and what are they taking over... Who, who, who and what governmental declaratory changes will be made? I see the process, but as an Aries I want to know what goals will come to fruition? Anarchy is different from revolution....after all the generations before have revolted in order to give more freedoms against tyranny!! This whole system as it stands today is a non-violent anarchy already!

[-] 2 points by OkFineIWin (46) 9 years ago

Who? The people. All of them. Left, right and center. What changes? Those are to be seen but so are the changes that will be put in place by those already in power. I'd rather have the people decide on those changes than the current puppets in power.

[-] 2 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 9 years ago

Yeh, yeh, Benjamin Franklin all over again. The people? Ha! The public is too unstable to understand its own power. Someone has got to rule...and that is where I see the problem. Those who know...lead, those who don't follow...It is the law of cause and effect all over again. I don't trust the masses to know a dam thing about what is good and proper for themselves at this time!!

[-] 1 points by OkFineIWin (46) 9 years ago

Where are your perceptions of "the masses" coming from? If you believe the paradigm manufactured by corporate media then you will certainly not trust the public. They are portrayed as idiotic, belligerent, spiteful, etc. You must trust in the fact that we are biologically wired to cooperate and help each other. We gather and share because it is our instinct. Why do you think the media drives the opposite message so much? They repeat the idea that we are inherently evil and selfish, but this is false. (A simplified example: If we are inherently evil there would be no need for boot camp.) Scientifically speaking, we cannot escape the urge to form communities and support each other because it is part of the framework (physically) of our brains. Whether you trust in the public or not, the public will ultimately govern itself.

[-] 3 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 9 years ago

Sure they will, when hell freezes over!!!!

People love to follow, so therein lies the ultimate fallacy of self government... It ain't gonna happen Jack!!! .

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 9 years ago

Did you ever look down two lanes of traffic where both lanes are used for making a right turn. Notice that there are always more people on the right side then on the left.

There could be 20 cars in the right lane and only 5 or so in the left. Wonder why that is? Think maybe it's because the drivers in the right lane want to take the easy way.

In other words when they make the right turn they are in the lane they want to be in because it's easier for them.

The people in the left lane who will also be turning right know that there will be an opening somewhere down the road for them to get ahead and eventually in the right hand lane.

This is exactly what Neuwurldodr is talking about - vast majority of people are "followers" and want the easy way out. The ones who survive are the leaders who take chances and in return get rewarded.

Even though it may not happen all the time they are always trying because that's the way they are.

[-] 1 points by OkFineIWin (46) 9 years ago

This is a logical fallacy or at the very least an inaccurate metaphor. First off, self-governance is not limited to two lanes, nor does it require leaders. Second, when you split a group in two, based on any factor, there will always be more on one side than the other. But this does not necessarily describe a cause and effect. For instance, say you decided to divide all serial killers by political affiliation. You would find that more would be aligned with one party than the other. But political affiliation and the compulsion to murder are unrelated. Therefore you could neither infer that being aligned to that party made you more likely to be a serial killer nor that being a serial killer made you more likely to align yourself with that party. Lastly, in your example there are only two leaders, the two cars at the front of each line. But being at the front would be an effect of being next when the light turned red, plain coincidence. Choosing between two lanes has nothing to do with leadership either. This story of yours better describes risk takers and the risk averse, not leadership.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 9 years ago

Now, tell me Sherlock....who is insuring that all this traffic is kept under control...the public?? Who institutes the laws and keeps it regulated...the public? People, the masses, are followers, not leaders...it takes power of thought to lead..and any fool can drive a car....millions drive every day and millions die every day from doing so as well... I really doubt anyone is keeping tabs on who was the leader or could have been the leader in any driving catastrophe!!! So, what kind of goofy parable was that???

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 9 years ago

Never did say the "public" masses are "leaders" - only the few and that was the point I was trying to make.

Leaders don't sit back and wait for something to happen, they mak it happen.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 9 years ago

It's still a goofy parable and I doubt it really hit the point to anyone but yourself.

So...look...you are boring me....you sound like my prof. with Constructive Restructuring of Governmental Logic 101......I won't respond anymore after this...Yawn!! Goodnight!!

[-] 0 points by Rennaye (34) 9 years ago

They can't possibly know the degree to which they should be revolting because they don't know to which degree they've been conspired against. They don't know just how perilous this situation is. They've been tricked by sinister think tanks, foundations and media with obscene amounts of money behind them. So how is it the fault of the masses? That's like blaming a hungry animal who's only thought is to get food back to it's den for it's babies, for trying to eat the meat that has been set up as a trap by a despicable trophy hunter, and then saying "its a stupid animal anyway, it should have known better."

You're right though that invariably someone has to lead. The point that any thinking people would find consensus is, that the leader(s) should be leading up front and centre, with the good of humanity....all humanity, and with a healthy transparency....not lurking from the shadows ruling only for themselves

You have an English lilt in your writing style.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 9 years ago

Perhaps you are correct, I look basically at what is being spread in the news, on this forum and elsewhere. I suppose that is where my critical analysis come into play about the instability of the masses.

By the way..English lilt...pray tell..really...what is that??.

[-] 0 points by Rennaye (34) 9 years ago

Hehe....from saying things like 'elsewhere', 'pray tell' and 'perhaps you are correct'. Doesn't sound North American. Your choice of words and sentence structure sound like that of "old english" texts. That's usually a sign of a higher education. Perhaps an English university, coupled with an aged wisdom.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 9 years ago

Why I do believe there is a bit of flattery in your statement. Thank you.

Wise, perhaps.. yet life has a way of molding a person, either positively or negatively. I do hope I am the former. I feel there is so much more to learn.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

Shame on you. You're being very naughty.

OWS is not political. That's a big no-no to say that in OWS-land. Hope you don't get banned for that. Or have your post disappear completely.


[-] 2 points by Quark (236) 9 years ago

Whenever, more than one human is involved, it is political. Let's not dilute this movement into the oblivion of Denial & Semantics. Words are hard enough to use without the meanings shifting to nonsense.

[-] 2 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 9 years ago

Well, if speaking the truth is naughty...then beat me with a wet noodle... I don't think half of you on here are really old enough to know what Anarchy is like! Most minorities in this country have lived under it and through it!! And if you think OWS is not political, then you are very much misinformed. It may be leaderless, but it is guided..just like congress and the senate... Call it what you like...but it rests its thoughts on consensus and consensus is defined as "general agreement or concord; harmony" Politics is the process and method of decision-making for groups of human beings, so you show me where there exists two different poles of this magnet? Who, is in agreement with OWS and who is in agreement with the government? Get my drift? So, who is gonna rule after OWS does its consensus thing? Just asking!

[-] 3 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

I agree with you. I was just (sarcastically) pointing out that OWS thinks otherwise. Guess the sarcasm wasn't sarcastic enough.

I know pretty well what anarchy is. Anarchists don't like it when you refer to anarchy in the pejoritive sense as if it always necessarily leads to chaos or destruction. Better to discuss its more intellectual properties of lack of authority and lack of hierarchy. And direct democracy on a grand scale. Or at a small self sustaining community level scale. The principles that are the foundation of OWS.

OWS direct democracy requires 90% consensus. It invites tyranny by a minority. Who can effectively block change with only a 10% downvote. Who do you think is "guiding" this movement?

Who's going to rule after OWS does it's thing? Well, according to OWS theory, what many anarchists want and advocate for, and what OWS attempts to portray in practice - the end of government. We don't need government or authority. We'll all be our own "leader" in a perfect utopian egalitarian society.

Now put on your "solidarity" hat and get with the program - "we don't need politicians". We need a general assembly in every backyard (sarcasm intented).

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 9 years ago


[-] 0 points by OccupySeatIeProtester (5) 9 years ago

No, I don't think OWS is about politics. It's an apolitical protest.

It's not about questioning the government, because we already believe the government is broken beyond repair. Questioning the government only makes sense if you want to fix the government. We want to replace it with direct democracy.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 9 years ago

And what is democracy pray tell?

[-] 2 points by OkFineIWin (46) 9 years ago

Direct democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly, as opposed to a representative democracy in which people vote for representatives who then vote on policy initiatives.

[-] -1 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 9 years ago

And that will work in a country of over 300 million?

[-] 1 points by OkFineIWin (46) 9 years ago

Yes. That will even work in a world of 6 billion.

[-] -1 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 9 years ago

ok, sure.

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 9 years ago

Nope. But all he does is ponder and post about it from his moms basement and it make him feel "involved".

[-] 4 points by Spade2 (478) 9 years ago

OWS isn't officially anarchist.

[-] 5 points by forjustice (178) from Kearney, NE 9 years ago

It's too anarchist to be officially anything ;)

[-] 2 points by Spade2 (478) 9 years ago

Lol but my point still stands.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 9 years ago


[-] 3 points by OccupySeatIeProtester (5) 9 years ago

Well, I'm getting off this site. Most people here are real d1cks. I ask a simple question and I get long rants from people like therising accusing me of being divisive and making all kinds of other assumptions and attacks. Go screw yourselves losers. You guys don't know the first thing about solidarity. Here's a clue, when someone asks you a simple question, you shouldn't become all arrogant and answer like an a$$h0le with some off-topic rant and attack. Simple answering the question in a polite manner is much better. You're a bunch of peanut brains.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 9 years ago

Respectfully, part of what we are trying to do is prevent this revolution from making the mistakes revolutions have made in the past. That is, in seeing what is wrong, but having over-simplistic ideas about how they can be fixed. I would say that the whole intention of democracy has been to prevent dictatorship. The separation of it's institutions, the division of power, the oversight by the people were always the core ideas of democracy, and it is the only system that has ever long held dictatorship at bay.

That is why some of us aren't willing to throw-out democracy, but intent on reforming it. And in this, I think, lies the will of the 99%.

It's easier to tear something down than to build something better in its place.

What your statement tells me, I fear, is that the core of this movement is becoming isolated from the views of the masses they are trying to support.

[-] 2 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 9 years ago

Try New York Times Life style section.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 9 years ago

I thought each of us were leaders. I thought we were a "leaderful" movement. Why are you so disdainful of people who are supporting the same cause you are?. It's not either or, it's both. We need to attack the hijackers from the inside and from the outside.

By excluding the inside approach, you and people who think in extremes like you cut us off from some of the mechanisms and actions that could help unseat the corpopolitical forces that have inserted themselves between us and our republic.

Are you really ready to trash our entire system and throw the baby out with the bath water? That seems absurd. You have nothing to replace it with. Internet voting? Please. Give me a break. We need representatives. We can't be experts on everything.

Besides, who exactly would be setting that Internet voting agenda? I can't for the life of me understand why you would divide a movement that you are trying to build. You say we're the 99% and yet the majority of the people who support Occupy want to genuinely restore our republic, not trash it.

Our fathers, grandfathers, great grandfathers fought to protect this republic. We have no right and no good reason to trash the whole system, especially when we have nothing to replace it with.

Let's focus on the goal. Let's get the money out of politics and address the widening wealth gap. With such huge challenges ahead of us, why in god's name would you isolate and disparage the majority of supporters of this movement. Seriously. Why would you throw the baby out with the bathwater? I'm asking an honest question here.

Our founders were, although flawed, true radicals. They came up with a beautiful system. Just because corporate interests have bought off politicians and regulatory agencies doesn't mean that we can't restore the republic. It's durable and can endure a lot. There is no question that the power of the people can be restored within this system. IT WILL ALSO TAKE TENSION PRODUCED BY PUSHING FROM THE OUTSIDE. I agree with you on that. Read Martin Luther King, Jr.'s words here from the "Letter from the Birmingham Jail" to understand just how radical King was and to see how he successfully created tension from the outside to make change on the inside.

If we really mean it when we say we want to make decisions from a position of unified strength rather than demands from a position of divided weakness, then we're obviously going to need to be inclusive. Your insistence on disparaging a good chunk of your supporters just because they want to put pressure on Congress to effectively overturn Citizens United with a constitutional amendment seems absurd. The movement has plateaued and has stalled and will continue to sputter until we unify. Please don't divide us. Please don't disparage those of us who also embrace a diversity of tactics. You're missing out on support, effective methods and real change that can get the corporate foot off our neck long enough to do even bigger things. This means something to people on the ground.

Notice I am not disparaging the GA's. Others have. I am not. I think they're great. I think the occupy movement has done momentous things and the progress has been incredible. But like most others, I do not have blinders on. It is clear the movement has plateaued and it's time for unity. Please embrace unity. This is a genuine request from a genuine supporter of OWS.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8300) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

Rising, as always you state a good case, I got nothing to add (right now). On a side note have you ever whatched Dexter look at blood splater? That may seem a little off subject, but it's about seeing the whole story all the levels of truth.

[-] 0 points by OccupySeatIeProtester (5) 9 years ago

Do you ever read what people write, or do you always post long arrogant off-topic rants? You posted a whole page, but you didn't even answer my question, you just made a whole bunch of assumptions about what I believe in and stand for. Are you this forum's a$$h0le or something?

Why are you so disdainful of people who are supporting the same cause you are?

Where have I been disdainful you idiot. I asked where I could find a forum to talk about OWS and related issues. Nothing more. OWS has always been apolitical.

you and people who think in extremes like you cut us off...

Hey, Mr. assumption, I asked for a forum to discuss OWS issues, I never told you how I think. Toc toc toc... Anybody home?

Are you really ready to trash our entire system and throw the baby out with the bath water? That seems absurd. You have nothing to replace it with. Internet voting? Please. Give me a break.

No. You give me a break. I asked for a forum where I could discuss OWS. I didn't make a stance on anything. Where do I talk about thrashing the system?

I can't for the life of me understand why you would divide a movement that you are trying to build.

Moron! The only one being divisive is you. I ask a simple question, and you post a whole page attacking me with an off-topic rant. Go to bed you idiot.

Your insistence on disparaging a good chunk of your supporters just because they want to put pressure on Congress to effectively overturn Citizens United with a constitutional amendment seems absurd.

Hey buddy! Read my post. I asked a simple question. I didn't insist on anything.

But like most others, I do not have blinders on.

If you don't have blinders on, then use your eyes. Read what I wrote. Your reply is full of assumptions and is completely off-topic.

Please embrace unity. This is a genuine request from a genuine supporter of OWS.

Where in the world did I write that I do not embrace unity. You're the one being divisive.

Do you suffer from some kind of mental illness, or are you completely incapable of reading English. By the way, hotshot, I'm not an anarchist. I just want to talk about OWS and related issues. To learn. Wanting to talk about a subject does not automatically mean I support those views.

You're a real peanut brain.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 9 years ago

I like that, "Where have I been distainfull, you idiot?" Well, so much for "OccupySeattleProtester." He's a fraud.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 9 years ago

When you find it, let me know.

Or maybe you and I can start it right here. I am also getting tired on this forum of discussing the dying failed capitalist corporate state.

I agree with need more talk on building a new future on an Anarchist Syndicalist model, where the Working Class and its values are are the forefront of change.

All other systems have failed to improve our species and our world. I am on board with the Anarchist model, everything else has failed us.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 9 years ago

Well, let's talk about anarchism .... of course, being a web forum, it attracts people from all over, who are mostly unfamiliar with anarchist intellectual tradition & history (but there's plenty of people here who are well informed & glad to discuss it, I think ... or at least speaking for myself :)).

[-] 1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 9 years ago

There it is again. Anarchists claiming the movement is theirs.

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 9 years ago

It is. You are the intruder. Or should I say, the "useful idiot". Look up the term.

[-] 0 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 9 years ago

I know what useful idiots are. It is probably how the corporations look at you anarchist scum.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago
[-] 1 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 9 years ago

You are attending OWS meetings and have no idea where blog sites are? You really are an idiot.

[-] 2 points by OccupySeatIeProtester (5) 9 years ago

I don't own a computer a$$h0le. I'm on a trip and I access the Internet from the hotel's machine. When I'm in town, I use my legs, heart, and mouth to discuss OWS issues. Go to sleep peanut brain.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 9 years ago

I think this level of contempt reveals that you are in fact simply a troll, here to stir up division.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 9 years ago

I think that if one were to go into the achives of this forum one may well come to a different conclusion about "the official OWS Forum" and it's location. There have been quite a few threads here concerning anarchy, what it entails, it's very definition, etc., etc. Some very heated debates have taken place here on the subject.

There are now a couple of threads regarding the "nuts and bolts" of crafting the best ways of furthering our message and taking actions to move forward.

As for me, I would say a big "thank you" for your concern and interest. Yours in solidarity - TN

[-] 0 points by OccupySeatIeProtester (5) 9 years ago

Thanks, I'll search the forum archives.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 9 years ago

Soft pressures and hard pressures are ALL necessary to effect desirable political changes. Anarchy is but one form of stress that can be applied. It can easily get out of hands, though, because who still have the instruments of mass oppression? Not your everyday citizens. We do NOT want massive casualties or blood on our hands. After all, we should remember that we are trying to make things BETTER. Yes, I recognize that sometimes things get out of hands but that is just the risk that we have to take - no change is without any risk. The best way for all is to apply maximal stress leading to non-disruptive strain that will mold the political system without discontinuities.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

I'd be most happy to discuss the merits of anarchic theory.

Usually anarchic theory goes over like a lead ballon.

As a christian conservative, I'm more of a follower of tolstoy, but can see the merits of chomsky or Kloposky.

[-] 1 points by Mike122333 (102) 9 years ago

The basic concept OWS hasn't gotten straight is that it is the people's/voter's fault that we have the problems we do today. OWS takes on a victim posture. "we've been wronged." No, you've not been paying attention to what matters. Now you've woken up and are crying foul. With MLK and the civil right movement, they raised national awareness to the point where popular support kicked in. Here, there is no articulated message, just a bunch of 'spit in your eye' self-gratification and tit-for-tat with the authorities coupled with a lot of hot air. Own the problem, raise awareness, construct the voting block, make petitions, vote religiously.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8300) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

Ok let me catch you up the plan we make the Republicans so weak we can crack the Democrats in half and get the party we need. Take the message back to Seattle if you want to make a difference. Otherwise, I trust you enjoyed the park.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

THis may be what you're looking for. The link is right at the top of this page.

Although I'm never on it, the chat link (also at the top of this page) might also be what you're looking for, from what I've heard.


[-] 2 points by freakyfriday (179) 9 years ago

They are a bunch of bickering fools on that site, too. Still trying to figure out where all the money went and whether the vids of their meetings should be posted publicly.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

Well, bickering is par for the course in most human gatherings, actual or virtual. And considering that input is open to anyone and everyone, it would be surprising if there wasn't a great deal of static and lack of focus on the sites. But as far as I know, these places are the official sites.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8300) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

Thank God there was no “bickering” back in 1789.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

There was plenty. The Constitution was in danger of collapsing right up until it is was signed. The Union was on the constant brink of dissolving. That first convention is well known for its acrimony.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8300) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

Please allow me to apologize we haven’t met, and it is rude of me to lead with sarcasm. Of course you are completely correct.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

how dare you be sarcastic

you might be in danger of being funny

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8300) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

"funny" funny, or funny, funny?

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

haha funny, not as in hey, does this smell funny? : D

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

My apologies as well. I didn't realize you were being sarcastic. I should read more closely. (It's sometimes hard to pick up on tone if reading too quickly.)

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8300) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

I understand it's like a bar fight in here.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 9 years ago

Where's the drinks? I'll take mine straight up.


[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 9 years ago

Its a chat forum. What the hell did you expect? People from all over the country that hve never met discussing what they wont be doing toegether, what they havent doen together, or what they have never seen being they have never been to a GA?

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 9 years ago
[-] 0 points by mediaauditr (-88) 9 years ago

Thank god you are right. Political talk and action at the polls is the most effective action you can take. Were you hoping to drink too much tonight and poop your sleeping bag?

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 9 years ago

anarchist theory: by Queen Ayn:
Ayn Rand's "real man" by Michael Prescott [ edited ] In her journal circa 1928, libertarian Queen Ayn Rand quoted the statement, "What is good for me is right," a credo attributed to a prominent figure of the day, William Edward Hickman. Her response was enthusiastic. "The best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I have heard," she exulted.
At the time, she was planning a novel that was to be titled The Little Street, the projected hero of which was named Danny Renahan - intended to be her first sketch of her ideal man - after this same William Edward Hickman. Renahan, she enthuses in another journal entry, "is born with a wonderful, free, light consciousness -- resulting from the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people ... Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should." The quintessential anarchist-libertarian role model. In December of 1927, Hickman, nineteen years old, showed up at a Los Angeles public school and managed to get custody of a twelve-year-old girl, Marian Parker. Hickman disappeared with Marian, and over the next few days Mr. and Mrs. Parker received a series of ransom notes. The sum of $1,500 was demanded. Hickman needed this sum, he later claimed, because he wanted to go to Bible college!. After the ransom was paid, Marion's corpse was dumped onto the street. Her legs had been chopped off and her eyes had been wired open to appear as if she was still alive. Her internal organs had been cut out and pieces of her body were later found strewn all over the Los Angeles area."
Of The Fountainhead's hero, Howard Roark: He "has learned long ago, with his first consciousness, two things which dominate his entire attitude toward life: his own superiority and the utter worthlessness of the world." From Rand’s Journals, p. 93. And what of William Edward Hickman? What ever became of the man who served as the early prototype of the Randian Superman? Real life is not fiction, and Hickman's personal credo, which so impressed Ayn Rand - "what is right for me is good" - does not seem to have worked out very well for him - in 1928 he was sentenced to death by hanging, to be carried out at San Quentin later that same year.
It is also fair to say of any sociopath that he "wanted to command and smash away things and people he didn't approve of." In her notes, Rand complains that poor Hickman has become the target of irrational and ugly mob psychology.
We get an idea of the "sins and crimes" of ordinary people when Rand discusses the jury in the case: "Average, everyday, rather stupid looking citizens. Shabbily dressed, dried, worn looking little men. Fat, overdressed, very average, 'dignified' housewives. How can they decide the fate of that Hickman boy?" By the same logic, Jack the Ripper and Ted Bundy posed "a daring challenge to society." So did Adolf Hitler, only on a larger scale. Yes, so do most sociopaths. Grandiosity and narcissistic self-absorption are another characteristic of this personality type. Hickman has "a consciousness all his own"; he is a "man who really stands alone, in action and in soul." How exactly she knew that Hickman was "brilliant, unusual, exceptional," or that he "had a brilliant mind, a romantic, adventurous, impatient soul and a straight, uncompromising, proud character" is far from clear. A more realistic portrait of Hickman would show him as a calculating sadist. For all those who assume that Ayn Rand, as a figure on the political right, would be "tough on crime," please note that she here invokes the hoariest cliches of the "victim of society" mentality. Poor Hickman just couldn't help kidnapping and murdering a little girl -- after all, he had a lousy home life and an unfulfilling job. And it would be asking too much of such a superior soul to put forth the long, sustained effort necessary to rise to a position of power and influence by means of his own hard work. Rand's statement here reminds me very much of an attitude often found in career criminals -- that honest work is for suckers. By the appraisal of any normal mind, there can be little doubt that William Edward Hickman was a vicious psychopath of the worst order. That Ayn Rand saw something heroic, brilliant, and romantic in this despicable creature is perhaps the single worst indictment of her that I have come across.

This is the model of modern American Libertarianism

[-] 0 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 9 years ago

When do you suppose they'll get web access in Seattle?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8300) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

I think Bill Gates lives near there, do you think someone should stop by and ask?

Hey before anybody gets the wrong idea, I like Mr. Gates and I'm all for leaving him alone, really. It's just a joke.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 9 years ago

It's been overrun by people trying to divert the OWS message to every other imaginable topic. They lay out their "bait" posts and snag a dozen away to some irrelevant discussion, and when an honest post comes along no one notices and it is quickly buried. I would love to know where a real OWS discussion group is.

My main concern here is to get Occupiers to fight injustice using economic means such as boycotting the very corporations who fund the politicians. Money is our greatest weapon when properly withheld. I don't think just voting out the corrupt will be enough. They will hold on to their power with all their strength.

What direction does Occupy Seattle lean toward, or is it varied like most?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8300) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

I see lots of posts on here about actions, often they are boycotts, it's easy to see people's scores, I think the people who run this forum from a techical standpoint do a great job of making sure serious dialog is advanced. What is it you would like to discuss that you feel is being overlooked?