Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Who runs Occupy Wall street.

Posted 1 year ago on Sept. 21, 2012, 6:01 p.m. EST by hazencage (58)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

look anyone who has been there obviously knows that Occupy Wall Street is not leaderless, and such things as the GA are merely devices used to mask the "True" Leaders of occupy. In my opinion I think some aspect of it is run by anon, adbusters, and enforced by the anarchists/radicals.

84 Comments

84 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

the ultimate conspiracy theory-
for decades, the brothers have been trying to consolidate their economic power into political power
they took over the tea potty
the tea potty took over the republiclan potty - with total success


what - oh what to do next? I can hear them now ----
"The Ds are too free thinking and they use reason -
they will not swallow our crap."
"But now that we own one side, we HAVE to control the other side"
"What if we create a TP like movement for the socialists, anarchists and Democrats?"
"But they will organize behind strong leaders like MLK or Feingold or Sanders and become our opponents in stead of our property"
"The answer is simple - pre-set it up as a leaderless, disorganized, horizontal group based on consensus and anti-government"
"GREAT-
...and they will spend all of their time and effort attacking each other rather than us!"
"until they give up and evaporate!"


▬►▬►▬►▬►▬► DONE ◄▬◄▬◄▬◄▬◄▬


[-] 3 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

You forgot a few steps:

"The answer is simple - pre-set it up as a leaderless, disorganized, horizontal group based on consensus and anti-government"

"Make sure there is institutionalized acceptance and tolerance of all belief systems, no matter how incompatible and antithetical to stated goals."

"Then send in our hoards of libertarian conspiracy-nut spawn who believe that they are anti-establishment, in order to filibuster and cloture anything relevant."

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

wow. I'd say there needs to be a "do over." Whoever is foisting this scenario on the 99 percent is clearly working for the benefit of the PTB.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Here is a thread that I started some time ago. There has been a concerted effort by free-market groups to influence OWS.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/end-the-fed-movement-has-ties-to-domestic-terroris/

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

People suggesting to get rid of regulations and go to a "free market" obviously have no idea why Labor Standards and minimum wage were created in the first place.

People say regulations make businesses pursue overseas because they can get cheap labor....

Here' an idea.... trade agreements need to include that imports must abide by American labor standards. Then there is no reason to outsource.

Now I'm sure there are probably some crummy regulations that can go. But for the most part, regulations are put in place for a reason.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

You know "End the Fed" sounds so radical and even democratic, and maybe The Fed ought to be replaced by a bank owned by the people along the lines of Kucinich's proposal but yes, I see the End the Ded movement as being against any intervention to blunt the impact on the masses of the financial collapse. As bad as it is and as top loaded as the QE's have been they are probably what 's keeping things from going back to the very very bad old days of 2008.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

End the Fed is based on the logical fallacy that "because bankers thought of it, then it must be evil". By the same logic, the US constitution is evil because it was written by slave-holders.

I don't know I think the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has more to do with stopping the free-fall than did the QE. Since there is a liquidity trap, monetary policy is not really going to help.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"End the Fed is based on the logical fallacy that "because bankers thought of it, then it must be evil"." No, you have a point there but they actually do have arguments.

"the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has more to do with stopping the free-fall than did the QE. " That's a matter of opinin. Could be that both contributed.

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

According to Greenspan himself, "the data do show that the expansion of assets has had very little impact on the economy". Greenspan is one of the worlds most prominent monetarists, so if even he can't see the benefit...

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Dennis Kucinich's proposal on monetary reform backs money creation with real wealth through infrastructure while providing funding for millions of jobs to improve our cities throughout the USA.

Currently our monetary policy is set up to create money and provide unlimited funding for banks and nothing for the people. It's time for a fundamental change in monetary policy.

The solution is not to continue finding out new ways to give banks more money. QE3 aka giving Wall Street 40 billion dollars a month indefinitely

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

A lot of people think OWS are conspiracy theorists when they say the banks and corporations run the government.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

That's not a conspiracy, its right in the open.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

tell that to an Obama or Romney supporter. Most of them, not all of them, will just accuse you of supporting the other guy and dismiss anything you have to say. Say things like "your guy is bought off. Ours isn't."

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Now you're going on a tangent. Anyway, come on now. I know plenty of Obama supporters who readily acknowledge that there is too much money in politics, or that the financial sector is out of control.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

the majority of people do not think corporations and banks run "their side" of the government. They are more than willing to believe the side they don't agree with is bought though. Why else would they willingly vote for people if they think they're bought by corporations and banks?

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Of the two parties that are controlled by corporations and banks, one consistently panders to ignorance, fear, religious zealotry, bigotry, xenophobia, classism and free-market fundamentalism. The preference for those qualities (except for the free-market fundamentalism) are not determined by corporations and banks. That is their demographic. Those people already exist in the US.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

You have quite a point there. What do you think has to happen now?

[-] 4 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

unite to pass an amendment
end citizens united ( as Barak & Nancy advocate ) & end corporate personhood

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

I'm not aainst the amendment but I do recall that politics was for the rich prior to Citizens United.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

The Amendment is NOT the final answer - it is the FISRT answer
After it is done, we can elect candidates who are not supported
by the 1%

[-] -1 points by hazencage (58) 1 year ago

//and they will spend all of their time and effort attacking each other rather than us!" "until they give up and evaporate!"// No eventually what would happen is that occupy would become small enough for someone considered anti-status quo to move in and assume complete control of the group. Just look at all the other leftist political cults....They didn't all start out small, and cultish.

[-] 2 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

The right have far more political cults than the left. Most of there leaders enforce a strict doctrine of what to believe regardless of fact.

[-] -1 points by hazencage (58) 1 year ago

yes and the LEFT has them as well. In general conservatism is a cult, but when it comes to occupy the problem is on the extreme LEFT.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Why do you say that in general, conservatism is a cult?

[-] 2 points by hazencage (58) 1 year ago

because they behave like the borg from star trek.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

JFK was a conservative democrat, as well as FDR, no resemblance to the borg.

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

extremes are a universal problem.

[-] 3 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (581) 1 year ago

Ironically, there allegedly is no true leader for the same reason that Mitt Romney won't release more than a couple of years worth of tax returns.

The moment the returns are released, aka Occupy gets public leadership, the "other side" will have a field day knocking that entity to the ground.

I've given a solid alternative, focus on the number one way that wall street and the banks are destroying main street. They use one simple rule that they themselves don't follow to destroy mainstreet...

Debt restructuring requires a default first.

When the banks had to restructure their own debts created from their own fraud securitization schemes, they did not have to default.

However, the government basically fhen forced the banks to be their enforcer against main street, and rob and steal anything they could get whenever a main streeter asked for a debt restructure.

Main Street's debt restructure requires defaults, the rich elite get to restructure their debts without having to default.

That would make a powerful protest point and a leader would not even be needed to make it.

[-] 2 points by JackTG (-194) 1 year ago

There's a semi-secret circle of people that oversees OWS organization. They often meet in a small anarchist coffee shop in Manhattan. Jart and Zoe are part of that group, so are those who write the news articles for this website.

[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

These people say they are the true leaders: http://assange.rt.com/occupy-episode-seven/ . Note how they primp and preen, the little prima donnas.

Obvious there are leaders, that's why almost all Occupies are structured the same -- GAs with consensus driven decision making -- which means no decision making. That's by design.

David Graeber seems to be the puppet master -- the social scientist/anthropologist based in London. He probably sees himself as a social engineer. It's his design. Fraud by design. He's so brilliant that he front ran a whole social movement, but designed it to fail.

Too bad David, we've only failed initially. We need to throw off the consensus model, come to real decisions and make real demands. That's how we'll reach the still sleeping, that's how we'll reach those lost in misery as they slide out of the middle class.

OWS hasn't even appealed the ruling that kicked us out of the park. NLG said there was no body capable of making the decision because we were leaderless -- I'd laugh, if I weren't crying.

Thanks for leading us into the ground David, you globalist swine.

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

If you feel betrayed, you should leave, and go someplace where you think you would be happy.

Life is too short, not to do otherwise

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

That's preposterous. No one owns the Occupy Wall Street movement. In terms of direction, there should be a struggle to determine the future.

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

No..true, "no one owns the Occupy Wall Street Movement", Including you.

IIt's amusing to me that in one breath you are denouncing David Graeber for his supposed dictatorial powers

And in the next breath you are using those same dictatorial powers that you citicized in him saying, "We ought to throw out the concensus model."..... which BTW is the very concept that keeps this movement accountable to the people

Yes the "concensus model" is a cumbersome one, and the process has been made all the more difficult by people who are there soley to be disruptive,

Or by people who believe that they have all the answers and anyone who does not agree with them is fair game for their rabid wrath. These people have very big EGOS. < ?

Your criticsim is not without any merit though, as other Occupiers have thought the horizonatal/concensus decision making process does not work well, albeit few have your fiery, misplaced name-calling rhetoric.

The other difference is, many of them joined OWS affinity groups. Some of these groups adhere to the principles of OWS closely, and some do not.

Yet other people joined affinity groups outside OWS where the decision making is even more stream-lined

One of the things that all these people share in common is rather than bitchng 24/7, they are taking positive action....... Are you?

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Like in Montreal we need leadership and demands. This is obvious to anyone actually interested in winning at least from time to time.

[-] 3 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

I think more important than a leader is a OWS party line. A clear Policy on public good. The middle class foundation that was laid out by our fathers and mothers, g-ma's and g-pa's, and since abandoned by both donkeys and elephants.

[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

How about Unity Principles?

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

I am located in an area that does not have a strong occupy presence. The half dosen or so members that meat at the county courthouse once a week do more to keep the groupe small through infighting than anything els. I have not been to one of there meetings in a few months. Long story short, I'm not aware of Unity Principles. Though by the name it sounds like there is already the framework for an occupy party line. Are these Unity Principles agreed upon by all occupy groups? What are they? I found a short list of principles on the post: Found on GA site...comments? Is this what your talking about? If so, I think those are great but I was talking about more of a political plan.The kind of thing the partys put together at there conventions only with a bit more substance.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

It was a suggestion. There currently aren't unity principles. Anyone can call themselves an OWSer. This is both good and bad. It creates a big tent with many creative ideas. However, unity principles would focus our message and could attract additional adherents if they forcefully speak to America's problems (particularly saving the middle class).

A first unity principle could simply be, for example, that societies should be organized to answer peoples needs, not corpoRAT greed. Under that umbrella other principles could be worked out.

However GAs under consensus decision making rules seem unable to progress.

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

the unity principles seam to be heavy on philosophy and light on implementation. I think this is a hard sell. I think actual policies that help grow the middle class would be easer for people to galvanize around.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

I don't know if we disagree, "actual policies that help grow the middle class" is what OWS should be all about.

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 1 year ago

no argument here.

[-] 1 points by hazencage (58) 1 year ago

Well it would be nice if these individuals would be more open with occupiers and invite other intellectuals(such as myself) to have discussions as well.

[-] 3 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

It would be nice, but they have no interest in doing so. Consensus decision making is either dictatorship by the ingroup or mindless groupthink (such as the Egyptian Tahrir demonstrators chanting "the army and the people are one" and then going home while their comrades were still being held by that same army and without insisting on creating a caretaker government).

[-] 2 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

Nah... it's much bigger than that.

[-] 1 points by markpaddles (143) from Denver, CO 1 year ago

The people involved with organizing Occupy stuff in the different occupies throughout the country often get labeled as leaders because they actually DO something to make events and actions happen. (i.e. they put real time and energy into making it happen.) And the people who bitch and moan that there are "masked" leaders are generally the people who go to a meeting or two, say a few things, but don't actually do anything beyond talking about their discontent.

And then of course... there are the folks who only sit behind computers spewing lame crap on internet forums...pretending they are active-ists...

[-] -1 points by hazencage (58) 1 year ago

your right those groups actually do get things done and thats why occupy is nothing but a recruiting ground for Non-Profits.

[-] 2 points by markpaddles (143) from Denver, CO 1 year ago

omg, right! How horrible that only groups and people who care about people over profits are getting "recruited" to help occupy. the shock, and horror! [sarcasm]

[-] 1 points by hazencage (58) 1 year ago

no they are getting recruited to help the non-profits and whatever the message of the non-profit may be.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1229) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

Who DOESN'T run Occupy Wall Street?

[-] 0 points by hazencage (58) 1 year ago

people with their own original ideas.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1229) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

Here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_are_the_99%25

I think it's safe to say that 99% vs 1% is a binary obsevation. I see the 1% as the enablers of democrats and republicans who insist on a binary political system. To combat this we need another binary situation- you are either going to vote democrat/republican or you aren't. In a world where information is stored as a 1 or 0 isn't this expected?

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1229) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

If you're worried about who started OWS, you just don't get it- yet.

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

It seams their have been a multitude of leaders vying for control. Maybe we should celebrate that we have maintained our independence until we've done the hard work of solidifying our political position.

[-] 1 points by hazencage (58) 1 year ago

I really do not think occupy is independent because they are too influenced by non-profit groups such code pink, black bloc, and jobs with justice.

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

Every group is influenced by its members. There will always be clusters of agreement between smaller groups. There may come a time when we elect a leader but until that time we remain undefined. Policy first, leader afterwards.

[-] 1 points by hazencage (58) 1 year ago

In Occupy Philly one of our sponsors was called Jobs with Justice, and their involvement helped to exploit a anti-mayor nutter sentiment and used this to further their own goals. Eventually Jobs with Justice left because the financial committee did not handle the money well enough, but then food not bombs came in and it became about feeding the homeless and fighting city ordinances that are often an obstacle for the practices of "Food not bombs".

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1229) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

The answer to who runs OWS is very simple- those that do not want to change it.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1229) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

Prince? Someone from the 80's I think.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1229) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

I'm Sparticus.......

[-] 1 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 1 year ago

I do. I run it behind the scenes. What do you want to know?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20605) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

no.no fool

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

lol :) interesting sight.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20605) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

well thanks. I should update it - probably will if we get a bit of snow.

[-] 1 points by doitagain (234) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

i feel you

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20605) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

you

i remember you

you nobody you

[-] 1 points by doitagain (234) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

you never can be certain . scitzo kido

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20605) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I am absolutely certain -

  • none of us gets out alive

includin you

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (4839) 1 year ago

You say you want a leader, but you can't seem to make up your mind. I think you better close it, and let me guide you, To the Purple Rain.

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

close your mind? your scaring me leo...

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20605) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

yeah-ya - that's alright - I do much better out on point

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

If there were LEADERS we would not be lost.

Has ANYONE here involved in OWS not seen at least a 50%+ dropout rate
TP not only grew - they flourished - but - sin of sins - they had leaders

[-] 2 points by shooz (26719) 1 year ago

They also had the Kochs, among others, and the full backing of the (R)epelican't party.

Don't be fooled, that was always the plan.

[-] 1 points by hazencage (58) 1 year ago

//If there were LEADERS we would not be lost. // No their were people in Charge. For example finance committee in both occupy philly, and occupy wall street had a lot of power.

[-] 1 points by hazencage (58) 1 year ago

//But you know about the AdBusters connection right?// I know about them, but their influence is hard for me to trace aside from them creating the idea.

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

I originally heard about #OWS when I started following some Anonymous Twitter feeds last year after my company's web site was hit with a DDoS attack. For weeks before the Zuccotti encampment, I thought that the whole thing was entirely the product of Anonymous. Because of how aggressively they were trying to organize protesters and because of how I wasn't hearing anything else about it from anywhere else.

But you know about the AdBusters connection right?

[-] 1 points by hazencage (58) 1 year ago

//But you know about the AdBusters connection right?// I know about them, but their influence is hard for me to trace aside from them creating the idea. what do you know?

[-] 0 points by JackTG (-194) 1 year ago

AdBusters still gives ideas to Occupy by writing articles about what OWS should do. They called for flashcamp sites at the beginning of the summer, and now they are calling for protesting capital hill on Halloween.

Also, many prominent OWS organizers are from Canada. Some moderators on this site are from there as well.

[-] -1 points by thoreau42 (595) 1 year ago

Katy Perry

[+] -6 points by HeatherL (-30) 1 year ago

This site is the only thing ows has left to cling to

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1229) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

This is a news site for OWS. The forum has little to do with OWS. It's people pretending they're still in college basically, babbling about ideology, etc... OWS on the internet will 'evolve' as our president likes to say and to take a phrase from the dems, 'where else are you going to go?'

[-] 0 points by JackTG (-194) 1 year ago

The discussions on this forum are crucial to Occupy's tactical plans. The Occupy organizers constantly use this site as their think tank and many of the ideas here are tabled in general assemblies.

[-] 1 points by hazencage (58) 1 year ago

do you have any examples of this?

[-] 0 points by JackTG (-194) 1 year ago

I guess I should have written the word irony in big red letters.