A Message to the Occupy Movement
posted by 13 Muluc | October 17, 2011
- Login or register to post comments
- Print this page
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Propeller
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
IcerocketI would like to ask the Occupy protesters, "Who are you trying to influence?" It's not a rhetorical question. I hope it's not your governments. They are working for the 1%. They knew you didn't want them to give all your money to the IBCS (international banking crime syndicate). They knew, but they didn't care, because they don't work for you. They work for them. Surely their actions have proved this. Your governments have also used violent force to suppress your protests. By their actions, they have made their true loyalty abundantly clear. They couldn't address your grievances without condemning themselves, so it isn't going to happen.
I hope you're not pleading your case to a criminal justice system. The judges and prosecutors were appointed by your governments to serve their common masters. They have made it very clear that the 1% are above the rule of law. The 1% brazenly admit their crimes in public, in print and on camera, and nothing happens. The inexcusable inaction on the part of prosecutors and judges has made them directly complicit in these crimes. Don't expect any of this to change from within.
I really, really hope you're not appealing to the 1%, because they truly don't give a shit about you.
None of these groups can fix what is wrong because their survival depends on preventing it from being fixed. Any solution they offer is a trick. Don't even speak to them. There is only one source of power that can respond to your legitimate demands, and that is the 99%. The message has to be intended for us, not them. We need to talk to each other. We need to decide what is important and valuable to us, and then work out how we are going to act on that.
If there is an award category for "worst invention of the year", it should go to the "human microphone". What a terrible idea! Why would you do that? Whoever came up with this is working for the enemy.
First of all, it sounds awful. It ruins the flow of spoken communication, making its content difficult to follow. Everything takes at least twice as long to say and, it's just plain creepy. I can't be the only one who finds it extremely unpleasant.
So what if there's a bylaw against using microphones without a permit? I'm pretty sure the Occupiers are already violating several other bylaws. I suppose the police could battle their way to the microphone and try to take it, but not without it being widely viewed on You-tube. The movements could organise a microphone replacement fund if necessary.
It shouldn't just be assumed that amplification is needed, or even good. Is it really preferable that a single voice should be heard by everyone at the same time? Consider that all other conversation is made difficult, if not impossible. Might it not be better to have multiple speakers' places, conveniently spaced so as not to overlap? Natural consensus is best achieved through dialogue, in small scale discussions. People should mill around and talk to one another, consider many different ideas. There is time for that. And consensus should take some time to develop if it's going to be wise consensus.
Comments
Human Microphone
— Oct 18, 2011
Oh my gosh, I have to tell you why I LOVE the human microphone. It's so affirming and powerful! First of all, it shows exactly the range of the human voice, which is enough for about 20 people to hear you, that's a Quorum, that's the magic number of influence, that's the number that can fit inside the electromagnetic sphere of your heartbeat. Then, everything you say is repeated back to you! You are giving and receiving everything that you say, so you want to say it clearly, lovingly and succinctly. And finally, the best part about the human microphone is that you only have to participate in supporting who you agree with! If something is said that people don't resonate with, their voice simply fades away because no one will support their speech. It is truly the best part of the revolution. Anyone with a microphone can speak, but only people with the heart of the 99% can speak through the human microphone.
oh my gosh!
— Oct 18, 2011
Did you learn nothing at all from the last presidential election in the US?
"And finally, the best part about the human microphone is that you only have to participate in supporting who you agree with! If something is said that people don't resonate with, their voice simply fades away because no one will support their speech."
If you're only going to listen to people whom the crowd instantly agrees with, you're just asking to be led down a garden path by charismatic psychopaths. The truth isn't always pleasant to hear, and it's real solutions we need, not feel-good affirmation. That quorum magic number supports my argument, not yours. Also, it has nothing to do with the range of a human voice. Another issue I didn't specifically mention is this movement's need for broad public support, and the unlikeliness of that happening while the human microphone is making it sound like like a sterotypical mind-control cult.
Faith in the inevitability of humanity to succeed
— Oct 18, 2011
Not to worry, sometimes history doesn't repeat itself.
I'm pretty sure there is already broad public support forming...internationally. I have a great deal of faith in humanity for the same reason that Howard Zinn did. He said something in an interview once that stuck with me: You never know when history will turn, but it always has.
From my hours of listening to the live feeds, the charismatic psychopaths haven't been able to gain any traction (although they try) and the CIA Provocateur plants haven't been able to get any riots going except in Rome, but they were called out immediately and recognized as not being part of the protest.
Oh and, real solutions can only be found when we are feeling good. That's a fact :)
History ALWAYS repeats,
— Oct 18, 2011
History ALWAYS repeats, unless its lessons are learned. I'm 100% sure that you wouldn't know a charismatic psychopath unless he was wearing a sign saying, "I'm a charismatic psychopath", if then. I'll bet you voted for Obama. And your last statement is not a fact, it's just stupid.
Cassius, any mention of Sociocracy at OWS?
— Oct 19, 2011
Poor bully Muluc- You are sad and must lash out, I am sorry for that, but hopefully you realize soon that there are much worse things than being stupid...cynicism, for instance.
From reports from various friends of all political stripes attending working groups, I gathered that most of the work is being done there. It seems that the group mind process developing is flowing very naturally into a governance model akin to sociocracy (aka Dynamic Governance) based on cybernetic information flow. Book: We the People: Consenting to a Deeper Democracy by John Buck
I regret that I failed to
— Oct 20, 2011
I regret that I failed to contain my irritation, but I didn't call you stupid. I said your statement was stupid. ( I find it interesting that you confused the two, in the context of the HM discusion.) I said that because your statement was not based on evidence or reason, but only on your desire to believe it.
I'd like to say as well, that your use of the word "bully" is inappropriate, as it implies that I was threatening you. I most certainly was not.
Bullying with "Evidence" and "Reason"
— Oct 22, 2011
There is ample evidence through research on cognitive neuroscience and neuroplasticity to show that our frame of mind is a key factor in decision-making. We make better decisions by accessing a greater percentage of our frontal cortex when we feel good. When we are feeling connected to a group, our oxytocin levels rise and our parietal lobe is more easily activated, allowing us to see more options than we otherwise would. I could go on and on and on, but if you desire to know more, you can easily find the information for yourself.
Meditative techniques that activate these neuroprocesses have survived for thousands of years for a single reason: they work. One of these methods is a call and response, such as is used in Kirtan.
By using an ill informed judgement of myself to be less evidence-based or well-reasoned you position yourself as a bully.
However, I do not feel bullied or stupid because I recognize you have not adequately informed yourself of these facts which are in-congruent with your own limitations in thinking.
I spend this time introducing you to these thoughts because I am compelled to interrupt anti-revolutionary memes that crop up as cynical insights such as your initial rail on the HM.
With respect I'd also have to disagree.
— Oct 19, 2011
The thing is that the human microphone is only part of how decisions are made in OWS. Most of the practical work is done in various work groups which operate very much like the way you are talking about(the membership is open to all of the groups and the most you have to do to find the coordinator of the group is to shout "mic check! where is someone with the XYZ working group?"). The problem with the working groups is that they need to submit the ideas or projects that they are working on to the whole group at the same time in order to gain actual consensus. Also there are some things that people believe shouldn't be developed in a working group and should be done by everyone from beginning to end. For those things there are the General Assembly.
The General Assembly(and the human microphone) isn't the whole of the process, it is more accurate to say that it is the end of a longer process that most people who aren't there don't see.
Also, in regards to just providing real mics that is part of the "we will shut you down seriously" that was a part of the occupation from the very beginning. Another of those restrictions is that they can't have covered structures(that's why you don't see tents in any of the pictures). A big aspect, especially to the early occupation, was a sort of tense negotiation with the police in regards to what they would tolerate and what was considered "we'll clear the plaza and arrest everyone" territory. Some things the cops didn't like but they were willing to bend on(sleeping there, having food as long as it wasn't cooked there, etc.) but other things they would immediately shut the whole thing down.
Another thing I like about the human mic is that, unlike a real microphone, you have to think and choose your words VERY carefully. It promotes a very strong degree of mindfulness with your speech.
Would he were fatter! But I fear him not:
Yet if my name were liable to fear,Â
 I do not know the man I should avoid
So soon as that spare Cassius. He reads much;
He is a great observer
Human Mic.
— Oct 19, 2011
Cassio, I can see why the HM would be suitable for relaying short notifications. If it were used sparingly for that, it probably wouldn't hurt. You and I both know it's being used for speeches, and very often.
Shouldn't we be asking ourselves why the police have decided to make such an issue over microphones? That's IF they really are making it that much of an issue. I looked for reports of mics being confiscated by police and couldn't find even one. Do you know of any? The police also threatened to shut the protest down over sanitation (a far more justifiable cause) but they backed down when the protesters called their bluff. Additionally, the HM is being used in other cities, where electronic mics could be used without serious issue, and have been in past protests. The HM has come to be identified with the movement itself. That worries me. Where did it come from? Who first suggested it? I tried to find out and couldn't. Doesn't anyone one find it strange that no one is taking credit?
As far as planning and concensus are concerned, it is still too early. I know it's been a month in NYC, but the movement isn't about only one city, and many others are just getting started. More numbers are needed, and I am genuinely worried that the HM will hurt the movement's broad support. I don't want to see it fail over what amounts to a trendy toy.
Cassius, any mention of Sociocracy at OWS?
— Oct 19, 2011
From reports from various friends of all political stripes attending working groups, I gathered that most of the work is being done there. It seems that the group mind process developing is flowing very naturally into a governance model akin to sociocracy (aka Dynamic Governance) based on cybernetic information flow. Book: We the People: Consenting to a Deeper Democracy by John Buck
Further analysis of the human mic.
— Oct 19, 2011
The human microphone issue is confusingly mixed. It is actually made up of disparate parts that should be treated separately.
1. Legality
NYC has a bylaw that prohibits amplified sound without a permit. This, as far as I can tell, was the original problem that led to the HM solution. This problem does not apply in some cities and the HM is not the only possible solution to this problem. It seems like the first solution that should have been tried is: ignore the bylaw. Surely one microphone could have been surrendered for the sake of publicity. It would have been really great to have video of the police confiscating it from a speaker, preferably one widely known and respected, such as Noam Chomskey. If they didn't have the nerve to do that in front of cameras, it would have set a precedent for future use, most likely solving the problem. Good strategy should employ a totalitarian-tiptoe-in-reverse. Pushing the boundaries of the control system back in small increments until it becomes irrelevant. If the police did have the guts to take the mic., then another solution would have to be found, which brings us to the next, totally separate issue.
2. Technology
As I said, the HM is not the only solution. I'm not very technologically knowledgeable, but I can think of another solution. You could decentralise the sound source. Cell-phones, or other electronic devices, in conference-call connection could be employed as a sound system. The volume could be kept no higher than that of a natural voice, so as not to constitute amplification. I'm sure someone familiar with technology could come up with something just as good or better. If a technologically superior solution is available, or becomes available, there is no reason not to use it aside from totally unrelated issue number three.
3. Emotional Investment
The HM solution is being used in many cities where the original problem doesn't exist. Why? Well, almost all the answers to that can be found in Karahapinohopono's first response to this post. She "LOVES" it because it is "affirming and powerful". It makes her feel connected and gives her a feeling of participation. I want her to feel that way. I want everyone to feel that way, but I want it to be real connection and real participation, and it's not. Shouting the same poorly comprehended words in unison is not real connection. It's just the adrenal thrill of being part of a mob. Real connection is to be found in the nearly universal human values represented by the 99%. Not as exciting, I know, but real. The HM feels participatory, but it's not. I am deeply suspicious of Michael Moore. I believe he is controlled opposition, one of the charismatic psychopaths. In his HM speech, he yells, "I love the human microphone!" (Crowd yells back, "I love the human microphone!") Then he tells us why. It's because, when he speaks through the HM, "it's not just my voice; it's everybody's voice!" That statement should alarm you if you are at all resistant to manipulation, because it's not true. It isn't everybody's voice. It might be everybody's physical voices but it's not their inner voices. It's not their thoughts. It's Michael Moore's thoughts being repeated by everybody. Nobody actually has time to think about whether or not they agree with them before repeating them. The potential for deviant conditioning can't be understated here. When you say something out loud, your subconscious automatically seeks to align your beliefs with what you have said. And you do not have time to consciously question these statements before being called on to repeat the next ones. This is not real participation. It just feels like it. What other forms of participation might you have sought out, had the pseudo-participation of the HM not pacified your urge?
I have to say, I think the confusion of these three different aspects is deliberate. I think the human microphone is a classic case of problem-reaction-solution. It is a Trojan horse. Did you really think the 1% wouldn't employ covert methods to undermine and steer the movement? Did you think their tricks would easily spotted? I hope these questions will at least be considered.
