This is a temperature check. I have general sense of what the response will be, but before I "test the waters" I will never really know for sure. So here goes...

I view the Occupy movement as a movement engaged in reestablishing social justice. We have lost a great deal of ground, seemingly an irredeemable amount of ground, to corporate and big money interests that have corrupted our governments, our economics, our politics, our judiciaries, our societies.

Occupy has spread like a wild fire because it is an idea whose time has come.

We are intent on regaining ground, occupying that ground, reestablishing and enhancing the institutions that once held and protected sacred rights, and not giving in inch until we have created a society in which economic and social justice, war, torture, resource colonization, environmental degradation can all be talked about and acted upon in real terms, without the spin of propaganda, the obfuscation of private agendas, the dishonesty and motivations that have powered the 1% in their appropriation of whatever they choose to take from our global society. A just society will call out injustices past, present, and future for what they are, to the best of its ability to make that judgment.

Occupy is identifying the root causes of corruption in our societies and acting to pull out by the roots that corruption. Our direct actions are directed toward the symptoms that this disease manifests. Our legislative actions are directed towards stemming the appropriation of more ground in our fight for justice and sound public policy while we work toward a better future. But all of our actions are directed toward what has been identified as the corruption of corporate and big money interests and the disease that has followed in their wake in the form of war, environmental degradation, economic and social injustice, inequality, beggaring one's neighbor in a mad rush to secure one's own security.

I firmly believe this, and this is why I am a part of the Occupy Movement.

I have also been a member of the 9/11 Truth movement since 2007 when I became aware of the deep inconsistencies in the official narrative of the events of that day. Think what you will of those events, that is your prerogative, but I am convinced the official narrative is false. But I also firmly believe these attacks were a SYMPTOM of the corruption in our society, not the root cause of that corruption. I firmly believe Occupy is identifying and acting against the root causes, while the Truth movement is calling attention to one of its perverse symptoms.

BUT, I am not here preaching on behalf of this movement. Quite the contrary.

I recently replied to a call by some in the truth movement to include as a grievance in the 99% Declaration a call for a new investigation into those attacks by saying, "Now is not the time." The powers that be have effectively made toxic any public conversation questioning the official narrative of those attacks and that toxicity would not be helpful to the Occupy Movement. I firmly believe this, as well.

I have argued from my background in chemistry for 9/11 truth here, here, and here, as well as in many other public forums, on radio, with my elected officials, in newspapers.

But, as I said, this is a temperature check on what Occupiers think about this blacklisted conversation. And how such blacklisted conversations relate to the Occupy Movement.

This is not an easy conversation to have, I know from long experience, strong opinions on all sides... so please, please, please be civil... I will not try to convince anyone of my opinions and I expect the same respect from anyone else choosing to comment. I only want to gauge how this group feels about this blacklisted conversation as it relates to the Occupy movement.

Views: 228

Comment by Stephen M. Demetriou on February 26, 2012 at 7:58pm

Yes, Elizabeth Warren is a pretty visible example today of what you say. I have found her academic work very enlightening and it has provided for me a clear way in which to frame how I view Occupy.  The justice we seek in this movement hopefully will come about through the paradigm shift we are working toward.

Comment by David Eggleton on February 26, 2012 at 11:18pm

"A just society will call out injustices past, present, and future for what they are, to the best of its ability to make that judgment."

Won't that be a waste of time for a just society?  I believe the calling out is the path, is part of the process of bringing about the just society.

Mass production established itself ~90 years ago by using new media to introduce and reinforce mass consumption among our grandparents and parents.  That followed other trade-offs going back ~400 years.  Few today are able to provide necessities, even in community settings, although it is possible.

Until people in general occupy production and temper consumption, we are merely dependents with an attitude problem or two.  Unfortunately, demands of dependents can be ignored by the independents.

Comment by Anna Harris on February 28, 2012 at 10:35am

I am not in US but UK so I don't feel the pressure of not being able to raise a particular topic. Personally I have some unanswered questions about 9/11 as also about the assassinations of various high profile figures in US politics. These are as you say syptoms, not causes, and there is much work to do before we will hear the truth about these things.

Comment by Ben Roberts on February 29, 2012 at 1:28pm

For what it's worth, my fellow OC Steward Jitendra Darling is a 9-11 "truther," while I consider these conspiracy theories to be bunk.  How important is it that we agree on such questions?  I'd prefer to sidestep the whole debate and focus on common ground and moving forward.  But part of me wonders if such divergent views about "how the world works" might become an issue going forward if left unresolved.

Comment by Jitendra Darling on March 1, 2012 at 4:03am

How far does one poke a stick into the hornet's nest to achieve perturbation?  The 9/11 charade, as devastating and lethal as it was, is as you say symptomatic, not causal.  The causal agents will defend their narrative, as with every other modern mythological tale they've concocted, not with argument but accusation.  Their defense is always an offensive attack, that the questioners are unpatriotic.  

If you want to see how bringing 9/11 as a false flag operation forward into the Occupy narrative might go, check out Rob Hopkin's transition town blog and read his rant about Foster Gamble's Thrivemovie and the piling on of people spewing vitriole against "those ridiculous conspiracy theorists".  And these are allegedly socially conscious people not aligned with status quo governmental structures.

I think the response to your query is more a book than a post.  It's complex and convoluted, just like the problem(s) and their potential solutions.  I think it's wise not to run at the castle in a wide open field, naked, with a slingshot.   

I don't see enough coherence among the masses to make a strong enough pointed attack that would be useful.  More understanding is needed, not of the injustices or plots and schemes, but of the system of laws that enable and allow such grievous behaviors to continue unchecked.  

I question the strategy of many Occupy direct actions and initiatives in general.  I don't believe they're really strategized within any larger picture at all, nor do I think they impact much more than the shadows of the power structures that be.  It would be a huge waste of occupy's time and energy capital to go after 9/11, risking a significant drawdown in social equity, as well.  There are far too few people questioning 9/11 to begin with.  The thought of American support of a false flag operation sacrificing 100's of civilian lives is still too shocking for most to consider.

I agree to leave the 9/11 conversation, and others like it, on the black list.  As Ben said, I'd prefer to keep my eye on moving forward, however, I also believe it's important to open our eyes to where we are.


Check out this link.  It's a request by a gentleman in the UK House of Lords to look into patently dodgy transactions totaling $15 trillion, within a span of weeks, primarily between the Federal Reserve, Chase Morgan, The Royal Bank of Scotland and a mystery man named Yohannes Riyadi.  


Comment by KMO on March 2, 2012 at 7:36pm

I think 9-11 is best avoided by the Occupy movement not only for the reasons already listed in this thread but also because a number of obsessions of "Truthers" will likely turn out to be baseless fantasies. Sorting out the useful facts from the red herrings and deliberately-seeded silliness in the 9-11 lore will be a long and largely unrewarding task, and it add an incredible weight to the Occupy movement. This statement should in no way be considered an endorsement of the official narrative.

KMO welcomes Mark Robinowtiz of to the C-Realm to separate verifiable claims from wild science fiction-inspired fantasies concerning the events of September 11, 2001. Mark answers 9/11 skepticism from Gwynne Dyer, and guides the listeners through the treacherous tangle of 9/11 conspiracy theories, the nuttiest of which are held up by the establishment and mainstream media as being the scaffolding upon which suspicion of complicity in the attacks stands or collapses. In the second half of the program guest host Olga K interviews her friend Kevin Ryder, a New York City yoga instructor who responded to the attacks by flying to Pakistan and crossing over by bicycle into Taliban-controlled Afghanistan to serve as volunteer peacemaker. Music by the Transpersonals.


Comment by Stephen M. Demetriou on March 3, 2012 at 12:01am

Thanks. I agree. A Senator was asked if he supported a new investigation sometime ago, to which he replied, keep working on it. There are things that could be investigated. But then he said, putting that effort into an historical context, we still don't know who or if some of Lincoln's cabinet were involved in his assassination. Thanks for the link.

Comment by Ben Roberts on March 3, 2012 at 12:03pm

So, people on both sides of the 9-11 question agree that digging into it doesn't seem like a great idea.  I might add that we should try to use language that is respectful to the opinions of those on the other side, although that is clearly a challenge all the way around.  "Truthers" tend to speak of their views as incontrovertible and suggest that anyone who thinks eleven Arabs could have done this are fools who haven't taken the time to think critically and examine the facts.  Those of us who accept the basic elements of the mainstream explanation struggle not to characterize those who posit an elaborate conspiracy as "silly" and their theories as absurd.  None of this is helpful.

This does still leave the question of what risks such a rift, even if left unexplored, might pose for our work together.  Arguably, a different set of strategies might be called for depending on whether or not one believes that the "Illuminati" run the world, as opposed to more diffuse, chaotic and impersonal forces.  Or perhaps not.  For example, if the solution we seek, for example, involves the creation of parallel institutions that allow people to opt into new paradigms without needing to take on the old ones, we might be able to finesse this potentially divisive split in our understandings of the way the world really works.

Comment by KMO on March 3, 2012 at 12:59pm

How often is, "Well, let's just agree to disagree," a workable solution to any niggling difference in belief systems? 

If everyone involved in socially transformative action agrees to give state and corporate actors a monopoly on violence (not that they concede that this monopoly is legitimate, just that it is a fait accompli) and eschew militant resistance, then that circumvents arguments over whether a particular militant action satisfies Derrick Jensen's requirement that such actions be "strategic, tactical and moral." If not everyone agrees to let that monopoly on the use of force stand unchallenged, then unresolved differences of belief as to whether the impediment to social justice stems from "diffuse, chaotic and impersonal forces" or specific, identifiable persons and corporate entities with specific and unambiguously articulated agendas will lead to disagreements as to what sorts of actions will count as "strategic, tactical and moral." 

In my opinion, persuing any sort of coordinated campaign against a diffuse and impersonal force like greed stands about as much chance of improving the well-being of humanity and the larger ecosphere as waging an open-ended military campaign against a diffuse and impersonal force like terror. For that sort of action to prove effective, it might well be necessary to name names and make reference to specific past events, in which case the details of events like those that took place on 11 September 2001 become relevant.

If we intend to work within the constraints of the existing system to dismantle, transform, or build an alternative to the existing system, then conceivably, we can proceed as if the impediments to our goals are diffuse and impersonal forces. If we decide that the current system has self-maintaining elements built into it that prevent it being dismantled, transformed, or replaced, then it behooves would-be revolutionaries to be able to discern fact from fantasy when deciding when, where, how, and against whom to mount an active resistance.

Comment by Stephen M. Demetriou on March 3, 2012 at 1:09pm

I'd be happy been to have a straightforward conversation in a non-public thread, Ben. Send me an email, but first read through the links I provided. I trained as a scientist and try to weigh the available evidence from the public scientific record. There are some crazy ideas coming from young, enthusiastic truthers, to be sure, but also from young, enthusiastic occupiers. Distilling things down to a purer substance is a challenge.

Interesting thoughts, KMO. I'd like to give this more time, but I am off to a meeting for Occupy... best to you all.


You need to be a member of Occupy Cafe to add comments!

Join Occupy Cafe

Weekly Cafe Calls

Regular Calls are no longer being held.  Below is the schedule that was maintained from the Fall of 2011 through Jan 10, 2013.

"Vital Conversations" 

8-10a PDT | 11a-1p EDT | 3-5p GMT 

Tuesdays (except 10/16)
"Connect 2012"

1-3p PDT | 4-6p EDT | 8-10p GMT

"Occupy Heart" 

3-5p PDT | 6-8p EDT | 10p-12a GMT

Latest Activity

Clay Forsberg posted a blog post

"Happy Birthday Occupy Wall Street ... thoughts on Year One"

Fifteen years ago, I ran across a book, "100 Most Influential People in History," during one of my dalliances to my local Marin County bookstore. "Influential People" was one man's assessment on exactly that. But how he determined his rankings was the interesting part. They weren't always the reasons you would think. But after thinking about it, they made complete sense. For example:George Washington was ranked in the top 40 of all time. Understandable. But the reason why ... not so much. You…See More
Sep 20, 2012
Clay Forsberg is now a member of Occupy Cafe
Sep 20, 2012
Vic Desotelle posted a group

Leadership Ecology

When a Leadership Ecology occurs, a web of relationships emerges revealing each person’s authentic leadership qualities through the transfer of their power to others. When done in a conscious way – a shared collaborative awakening happens.See More
Feb 6, 2012
Vic Desotelle posted a blog post
Feb 3, 2012


  • Add Photos
  • View All

© 2020   Created by Occupy Cafe Stewards.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service