Debunked aerial photo of wall street protestors

Leifer

Senior Member.
I've done some quick searches, and I can't seem to find what these protesters...are protesting about ??

Seems there is no clear message, other than they feel "they are the 99%", and despise the "1%" (the wealthy and the corporate elite).
Depending on who you ask (a protester), any number of issues will be brought up.
When asked for a solution to the myriad of woes included, most will not offer a solution to the woe(s) either.

BTW...interesting photo catch, above !!
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I've done some quick searches, and I can't seem to find what these protesters...are protesting about ??

Seems there is no clear message, other than they feel "they are the 99%", and despise the "1%" (the wealthy and the corporate elite).
Depending on who you ask (a protester), any number of issues will be brought up.
When asked for a solution to the myriad of woes included, most will not offer a solution to the woe(s) either.
I think that perception is partly true, but also part of the spin that many sections of the media has put on the movement. Any kind of anti-establishment protest is bound to attract anti-establishment types with differing views on what needs to change. If you go talk to a random person, you get a random answer. It's an unfortunate result of a grassroots movement that strives to be democratic that no clear leadership emerges.

Part of the problem is similar to that of "chemtrails". It's a complicated subject. What OWS wants is an end of the subjugation of the 99% by the 1%, but how that subjugation is achieved is quite complicated. A brief list of grievances might include:
  • "personhood" status for corporations
  • Influence of corporations in political lobbying
  • The "revolving door" of government to corporations
  • Executive compensation via capital gains is taxed at a low rate, so tax burden vs income is unfair.
  • Offshore tax loopholes
  • The Gramm-Leach-Bliley act of 1999, which removed the separation between commercial banking and investment banking.
  • Regulations and lack of oversight allowing white collar crime in general, such as Enron, Madoff
  • Corporation buying elections with Super-PACs
Many of those subjects are quite complicated, which is why they don't get much popular attention. But I think there's been something of a tipping point recently, where the 99% have finally had enough of being screwed by the 1%, even if they don't all fully understand how the 1% are doing it. Poll after poll has overwhelmingly (consistently 2-1 or higher) supported the idea of taxing the rich more. So in a democracy, how have the rich remained so under-taxed?

There's a lot of issues, and there's a problem with dilution. But the protests help draw attention to issues that might otherwise be totally ignored, like HR 1489 and HR 2451.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Let me give you my take on this.
The day(s) of rage is no more grassroots than the ones in Chicago in 1969 where the name originated.
They are the antithesis of the Tea Party, didn't you notice that grassroots group was not invited?
It emanates from the left, plain and simple. Though I did see some Alex Jones infowars folks out there!
It is significant that they held it on September 17th, Constitution Day.


Their demands:
http://www.usdayofrage.org/about.html
1. They say they want a Constitutional Convention
I say a very hazardous thing to do, because at a Convention the entire Constitution is up for grabs to be changed totally, radically, in any way.
That is the main reason why, though the US Constitution has been changed many times, there has not been another Convention since 1787, al have considered the prospect too dangerous.

2. They say they want an end to campaign contributions exceeding $1, to prevent "special interests" from having influence.
I wonder, then, why the unions are so involved with this? Union membership overall in the US is at a 70 year low, below 12% of all workers.
While only 7% of private sector workers are in unions, 36% of public sector workers are in unions. This tells us that the new strongholds for unions are in the public sector.

What does this have to do with political special interests and campaign contributions?

As a result of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, the 2012 election cycle pits Unions and Corporations against each other to fund campaigns through Politial Action Committees. Both entities can now use money from their general treasuries to fund campaigns.
This is called an "exercise of free speech", which both entities have at their disposal.

Both corporations and unions are special interest groups.

There will not be a Constitutional Convention to change this situation before the election, and the Unions know this.

The mainly public sector unions are facing sharp cutbacks in spending to balance our out-of-control budget deficits, their survival depends on maintaining government spending at current levels, and I suppose they expect even more in the future. (damn parasites) Unless they can maintain their traditional Democrat Party allies in power through 2012 and beyond, both their income and numbers, and consequently their power will be in decline. They know the general sentiment of the public is to reduce spending, and they would like for you to think that taxing the rich will maintain spending

The corporations find themselves in a failing economy, and will most likely support Republicans in the election, along with right wing Tea Party allies who want to limit spending and reduce taxation.

So the Unions are there to find a way to maintain their full rice bowl through their allies on the Democrat Left and forge a coalition of disaffected youth and unemployed similar to the Tea Party. There really isn't much of a record for the Democrats to run on, since they've held power for almost five years of an unrelenting bad economy.

3. They want to tax the top 1% at a higher rate
Well, the best jobs I've had, other than working for myself, were working for rich people. If they hadn't been rich I doubt that they would have had a job for me. I never worked for a poor person, except for when I paid my taxes.

I prefer a flat tax which would actually increase tax on the poor. Yes, I said it. I don't personally think that anyone should be required to pay a progressive tax, it reeks of class envy, breeds contempt for the successful, and allows those who pay nothing very little to lose when government wastes the money, and I estimate about half of what government spends is wasted. I think we would have had better government overall by now if everyone had some meat in the game when government wastes the money they take from us.

Oh,and I shouldn't forget to mention that I new all about these protests shortly after Tahrir Square, and that they were astroturf. Say what you want about Glen Beck, but he called it a done deal shortly after what happened in Cairo.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I don't agree with most of what you said there Jay. But I also don't want to get into a debate over the intangible portions.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Mick, I'm ok with that. I am interested in following the scene.

This appears to be where the first call for "Occupy Wall Street" came from, Canada, July 13th:
http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/occupywallstreet.html

Their stock in trade is called "Culture Jamming". They publish a purportedly anti-advertising yet at the same time very slick magazine that advertises against advertising.

Essentially, they advertise various counter-culture neoanarchist campaigns like not watching Tv as a protest against television, not buying anything to protest consumerism.

Is it any wonder that the message is confusing?

The situation seems to be that a diverse movement is expected to come to some sort of spontaneous conclusions.
I am sure that there are 'facilitators' working to solidify certain messages they prefer, and hope that if anything does come of it it can be positive. These sorts of counterculture movements tend to reject institutions which does not bode well for their success when they are dealing with a structured society, and why their previous campaigns didn't really affect consumersim or stop TV watching.

When did anarchism ever make a lasting, positive difference?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Their stock in trade is called "Culture Jamming". They publish a purportedly anti-advertising yet at the same time very slick magazine that advertises against advertising.

Essentially, they advertise various counter-culture neoanarchist campaigns like not watching Tv as a protest against television, not buying anything to protest consumerism.

Is it any wonder that the message is confusing?
The Adbusters magazine does not have any ads in it. It's promoting a political/economic world view. I don't think that's confusing. There's a world of difference between a Bank of America commercial, and articles on alternatives to banking.

And I don't think not watching tv is particularly anarchist.

I don't think they are the big organizers or masterminds behind the demonstrations. They started it. It struck a chord. It's popular. It's not cohesive - there's a lot of diverse opinions there. It's hard to view it as some big conspiracy by the unions. Seems more like the unions are jumping on the band wagon.

I don't think it's the start of a revolution. I do think it's bringing attention to some important issues - particularly the role of money in politics. Maybe we'll get some campaign finance and lobbying reform out of it, down the road.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
The Adbusters magazine does not have any ads in it. It's promoting a political/economic world view. I don't think that's confusing. There's a world of difference between a Bank of America commercial, and articles on alternatives to banking.

And I don't think not watching tv is particularly anarchist.

I don't think they are the big organizers or masterminds behind the demonstrations. They started it. It struck a chord. It's popular. It's not cohesive - there's a lot of diverse opinions there. It's hard to view it as some big conspiracy by the unions. Seems more like the unions are jumping on the band wagon.

I don't think it's the start of a revolution. I do think it's bringing attention to some important issues - particularly the role of money in politics. Maybe we'll get some campaign finance and lobbying reform out of it, down the road.
I agree with you that adbusters was the premiere of the idea, and that the unions are trying to channel this, even if they didn't start it, but who really knows?.

Are you sure they don't advertise blackspot shoes?
http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/blackspot

One example of advertising that adbusters does is to advertise billboard "culturejamming", which in reality is vandalizing other people's property by graffiti on their advertisements.
http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/actions/billboard-liberated.html
http://www.adbusters.org/category/tags/street_art
http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/actions/art-or-vandalism.html

and of course there's the spoof ads:
[Broken External Image]:http://www.adbusters.org/files/imagecache/item-image-full/images/adbusters_obsession-for-men.jpg
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I agree with you that adbusters was the premiere of the idea, and that the unions are trying to channel this, even if they didn't start it, but who really knows?.

Are you sure they don't advertise blackspot shoes?
http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/blackspot
Well yes they do. Seems a bit at odds with their "no-ads" claim. I guess they are nuancing it.

Though I don't think this is all a big conspiracy to sell more shoes. :)

I'm also not sure the unions are trying to "channel" it. We'll see.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
As with every "big movement", the shit follows the push. ©

Many opportunities arise with "jumping to the front of the parade".
It's hard (or easy) to see this......but who will decipher this ?.....certainly not the entertainment news media.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I see that they have come out with an official list of grievances (* not all inclusive):
http://www.facebook.com/OccupyWallSt#!/OccupyWallSt?sk=info

Reuters11/11/10 said:
They came by the thousands, and then the tens of thousands. As the crowd swelled in Foley Square massing for a march to Wall Street, I was most struck by its diversity. They were young, old and middle-aged; black, white, Hispanic and Asian; college kids, professionals, workers and the unemployed. They had come to march on Wall Street, called by 15 of New York's largest unions in an act of solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street movement in Liberty Park.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/11/idUS387529884420111011

Sounds like someone doesn't want to pay their college loans.

And they grieve those who donate large sums of money to politicians
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That's from two weeks ago. It sounds like a brain dump of every grievance they could possibly think of. It's a large number of serious issues (and I do consider the high cost of education to be a serious issue - mine was paid for by the state, which is how I think it should be). But I think it's not really going to help. It's also seriously verging towards conspiracy theory. All in all it's a list that will just dilute and distract.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And speaking of conspiracy theories, look who's jumping on the bandwagon:

http://losangelesskywatch.org/event/occupy-la-chemtrails-protest

From Michael J. Murphy:

Join Los Angeles Chemtrails Meetup Group in educating the participants of Occupy LA.
We will have the big blue banners and plenty of DVD’s to hand out. See you there!!!!!

Where:
Los Angeles City Hall
200 N Spring St, Los Angeles, CA

When:
Thursday, October 13th at 10:00am

Look for a table w/ info and DVD’s and/or big blue banners
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
"Anyone who questions their beliefs" or any sort of asking them why they believe what and why they do, is soon deemed the enemy.
I went on an FB site, and when my questions weren't viewed as information towards an overall uprising, I was told to go away, called a troll...the usual nudge.

All it took was me pointing out that police were merely doing their jobs as traffic and crowd management......that a particular protest was violating the terms of the lawful assembly permit. I even pointed them to the city's agreement , the before-hand terms of the lawful protest.

I encouraged their fight, but to expect that like any protest, "someone" has to enforce civil order. I pointed out that the police too, have unions, need to answer to a higher authority, and sometimes themselves are marchers for a cause...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiZFpQxQYgU&feature=related

Still, (even though these terms were violated), they were astonished to have the police enforce the terms. Then the police became the object of authority which to rebel against.
Not unlike the reaction when you bring science to the table at a chemtrail discussion and post gov't documents to the doubters of authority.

I really did attempt to come from a standpoint of reason, encouraging them to march-on, albeit peacefully.
Still, I was told to go away with no reasonable discussion, even though the group leader pointed out that to have all views expressed was a healthy exercise, and that censorship was something they should not practice as it is also what they are fighting against.

I guess their intentions start as peaceful, but when in the streets and chanting, a "mob mentality" over-rides, and the bigger the scene and louder-the-voice they can make, the more impact they believe they will have (civil disobedience).
When civil order is attempted to be enforced, they then feel victimized, often heroically.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
Here's a semi-official list of causes......
As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.
They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.
They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press. They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.
They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.
They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts. *

To the people of the world,

We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Well, there is a culture and history of civil disobedience in this country. While you might argue that the police are just doing their jobs, I can undersand why people might think the restrictions placed upon them, while legal, should not be obeyed to the letter.

Consider from the Boston Agreement:

If you are noticed by the BPD that you are unlawfully assembling, or trespassing, you will not be allowed to remain in the area. Please immediately leave the area with your belongings, or you will be subject to arrest.
...
BPD will arrest those knowingly in violation of the law if necessary.
...
In the event that ... 10 or more people are unlawfully, riotously or tumultuously assembled, the police can demand that they immediately and peaceably disperse.
Now if there were some kind of authoritarian conspiracy to silence the protestors, then that would be the front line. Ten or more people not moving fast enough = you're under arrest.

Of course it's a judgement call for the police, and perceptions of what actually happen will vary greatly on both sides. But it's unrealistic to expect protestors to do everything the police want (which ultimately is for nobody to be there, so no problem) without complaint. A balance will be struck, with which nobody is happy.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
Yes..the PD certainly have their enforcement options open (or closed as it is written)....and I'm sure there is a lot of leeway allotted depending on the situation...as every situation is different.

These activists are in essence protesting against laws and rules that they feel are unjust. Fine. I agree with some of their points.
All the initial rally instructions were to remain peaceful, and I am sure that most of them complied. But they feel that it is their right to "occupy" public areas, and when asked (or told) to eventually disperse....many felt it was still their right to remain.....hence the conflict, and arrests.
A "sit-in" of sorts. After all....it would not be a "true" protest about change if they did not attempt to make change.

But as expected, photos and videos are arising showing the "worst case" arrests, which they use as fuel to bend their story into "unnecessary force" by the city's PD. What they don't really want to consider that initial crowd control methods are meant to "show" force....in order to convey the message that they mean business.....that people watching gotta disperse or look-what-can-happen.
It's a psychological tactic by the PD....but often translated by the protesters as typical excessive-ness.

Most of the uploaded videos won't show the PD "asking" for dispersal innitially....but cut right to the physical action of PD force.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
It's a large number of serious issues (and I do consider the high cost of education to be a serious issue - mine was paid for by the state, which is how I think it should be).
Where did this state get the money?
We paid for our daughter's college education.
It was exceptionally high ($120k) because the private school overcharged me and gave free tuition to someone else's child.
I got over it, mostly. You do whatever you can for your children.
I knew two brothers who went to college with me.
The older brother worked to put the younger through, then the younger worked to put the older through.
Both became Marine Engineers.
They put a lot of value in that education.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
They got it from taxes. I grew up in the UK, went to Manchester University. At the time tuition fees were paid by the Government, and I got a grant for living expenses as my family was poor. £1,300 per year.

I don't think education needs to be expensive for people to value it. It needs to be good.

I do think that an educated populace benefits everyone (except perhaps the super-rich). Affordable education is good for everyone. Just look at the GI Bill.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Jay in these parts free tuition by way of scholarships, hardship funds, etc., usually comes from endowments and funds specifically for that purpose, which pay the educational institution the same amount as a "paying" student would have to.

with 2 sons about to enter University (1 next year, the other a couple of years after) I also have a few thousand $'s set aside for each of their costs, and am getting them to apply for every scholarship they can get their hands on - competitive, social/income-based, whatever. Some of these are private, some are publicly funded.

So universities and other tertiary training organisations do not have to put up fees in order to "compensate" for "free" students.

Is this not how it works wherever you are?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
3 Debunked: Fort Lauderdale Passes Resolution Banning Aerial Aerosol Dispersement General Discussion 6
Trailblazer Debunked: Look-up.org.uk's claims of aerial spraying over London on April 12 2015 Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
derrick06 Debunked: United Nations creates a "NWO" website Conspiracy Theories 2
N Debunked: Google Mail icon shows linkage to Freemasons Conspiracy Theories 4
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mendel Debunked: Radar Waves Affect Clouds General Discussion 0
Pumpernickel Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 16
M Ufos arrive to the central zone of Chile. (Debunked). Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
H Debunked: Cadillac Mountain from 220 miles Flat Earth 7
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Mick West Debunked: DoD prepares for martial law in CONUS: Conspiracy Theories 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
Greylandra Debunked: media headline "Judea declares war on Germany" [boycott] Conspiracy Theories 20
Mick West Discovery Channel's "Contact: Declassified Breakthrough" was debunked 2.5 years ago UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
A Debunked : Fake Set Moon Landing with TV Camera and Stairs Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: Photo with Sun Rays at Odd Angles Flat Earth 0
Staffan Debunked: Wikileaks releases unused footage of moon landing (Capricorn One movie scenes) Conspiracy Theories 2
Mick West Debunked: Neil deGrasse Tyson : "That Stuff is Flat" Flat Earth 10
Mendel Debunked: Air Map of the World 1945 is a flat Earth map Flat Earth 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Trees being cut down "because they block 5G" (tree replacement in Belgium) 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 44
deirdre Debunked: Exemption from military service doc proves Jews had foreknowledge of WW2 (fake leaflet) General Discussion 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Obama called Michelle "Michael" in a speech. (Referring to Michael Mullen Jr) Quotes Debunked 0
Rory Debunked: 120-mile shot of San Jacinto proves flat earth Flat Earth 39
Rory Debunked: The Lunar Cycle affects birth rates Health and Quackery 26
Rory Debunked: Study shows link between menstrual cycle and the moon Health and Quackery 30
novatron Debunked: California Wildfires Match the Exactly Path of the Proposed Rail System Wildfires 3
Rory Debunked: "You must love yourself before you love another" - fake Buddha quote Quotes Debunked 7
W Debunked: Qanon claims there have been 51k sealed indictments filed this year. Current Events 11
K Debunked: Audio of David Rockefeller "leaked" speech in 1991 [Audio Simulation] General Discussion 2
tadaaa Debunked: Fake photos-Novichok attack Russian 'agents' (side by side gates) General Discussion 34
Mick West Debunked: XYO Device Replacing GPS, Saving $2 Million a Day General Discussion 23
Mick West Debunked: "Tip Top" as a QAnon Clue from Trump [He's said it before] Conspiracy Theories 3
Whitebeard Debunked: Nibiru FOUND? Mysterious gigantic rogue planet spotted lurking outside our solar system Science and Pseudoscience 1
Mick West Debunked: "There Exists a Shadowy Government" — Daniel Inouye Quotes Debunked 0
Mick West Debunked: Delta Lambda Compression General Discussion 16
MisterB Debunked: Isle of Man from Blackpool at water level proves flat earth [refraction] Flat Earth 19
JFDee Debunked: Wernher von Braun confirmed that rockets can't leave earth Conspiracy Theories 23
Mick West Debunked: Missing $21 Trillion / $6.5 Trillion / $2.3 Trillion - Journal Vouchers Conspiracy Theories 33
MikeG Debunked: Obamacare Article 54 (Satire FB Page) General Discussion 2
Mick West Debunked: "Deadly Ultraviolet UV-C and UV-B Penetration to Earth’s Surface:" [Stray Light] Contrails and Chemtrails 30
Astro Debunked: Apollo Lunar Module Hatch Too Small for Spacesuit Science and Pseudoscience 0
Mick West Debunked: NIST's Lack of Explanation for WTC7 Freefall [They Have One - Column Buckling] 9/11 38
Jedo Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11 9/11 0
Mick West Debunked: Thermite Slag on WTC beams [Oxy Cutting Slag] 9/11 2
Mick West Debunked: The WTC 9/11 Angle Cut Column. [Not Thermite, Cut Later] 9/11 137
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top