Friday, 10 February 2012


Occupy Central updated the description.





Like ·  · Yesterday at 03:09
  • 7 people like this.
  • 50 of 73
    • Curtis Bard Elan, the problems with group focus is one reason we started the group where EVERYTHING (well almost everything) is allowed.: groups/102643126526288/

      Why keep criticizing and arguing when we are all trying to be on the same constructive and cooperative page here?

      Let's stay focused & on task; which means finding ways to help the Occupy movement and Anonymous instead of arguing about our differences. The hardest obstacle we have to overcome is the tendency to be divisive.

      Abuses of power and divisiveness within the movement are more dangerous than the threat from corporate power, police brutality, or money-driven, power-mad government. 

      We must learn to be tolerant and forgiving of each other if our movement is to prevail. We need to work together as a team, not pull in different directions.

      People are waking up en-mass all over the world, and now corrupt government's and greedy, money-centered corporation's true colors are becoming painfully obvious...


      We are ONE - United together world-wide with the 99%.

      We are as One Family with collective purpose and common problems...
      - One World, One Family ♥

      OCCUPY EVERYTHING! This group is for everything under the sun! (Except for the ...See more
      22 hours ago · Like ·  2
    • Occupy Central As from the beginning.. if you are unhappy here, there are many groups that will provide what you need/want.

      We are what we are. We are also 5k strong... and growing. 

      This says we provide a valued service. if you don't value it- then seek value elsewhere... there are no chains here.

      22 hours ago · Like ·  2
    • Curtis Bard Elan, This is not my group.

      IMHO we all need to direct our anger and outrage outward towards our common enemy and the bastardized form of government they have spawned.

      21 hours ago · Like ·  3
    • Elan Wilson The chains here seem to bind everyone who chooses to remain to the leadership of the group founder. I suppose, Curtis, that the reasons why I would be argumentative are embodied in the paragraph that you wrote;
      "Abuses of power and divisiveness within the movement are more dangerous than the threat from corporate power, police brutality, or money-driven, power-mad government. "

      There is no 'we' in autonomous leadership over a leaderless movement. This group, "five thousand strong" as you put it, is represented and facilitated by you and you alone, with no question of consensus, and no means by which to oppose your unilateral control over the voice of those five thousand people without being asked to leave. You alone are a greater danger to the solidarity of this movement than any number of people who stand in opposition. You "are 5k strong and growing" because you have usurped and defaced the name of Occupy in lording yourself over those seeking a medium to congregate and discuss matters related to the occupation, while completely betraying every value which has given this movement it's strength.

      Yet you go on about "valued service" and "refunding membership fees", pointing out that you are "providing" something which, in fact, costs you little or nothing at all to provide, to people whom sacrifice as much or more than you have to this movement. You want to refund my membership fee to the movements whose name you're utilizing for your own selfish purposes? Good then, perhaps you can refund unto me the last half year of my life, my miserable eighty dollar a day job, the support and nearness of my friends and family, my girlfriend, my anonimity before the authorities, my image of good standing in my community, the prior balance of my completely tapped out bank account, my truck, my sense of contentment, my peace of mind, my safety and my future. Of course, it can be fairly assumed that nobody sacrifices anything but the condescending "facilitators" amongst us who prefer to spend their days building and censoring facebook groups.

      I block your use of the name 'Occupy' until you agree to embrace consensus in the administration of this group, and stop unilaterally representing occupy as 'Occupy Central' in other groups without the expressed consensus of the five thousand people present. I'm sure that wont stop you from defacing this movement, as you clearly have no interest or understanding whatsoever in the values of this movement, of consensus or democracy, but you can take it for what it protest against your lording dictatorship of anything related to this leaderless movement. I most certainly will "seek value elsewhere", as there is no value in the sabotage of a popular movement, and that is exactly what you bring to the table.

      Please stop using the name of the occupation to round up thousands of people for the support of your ego and your personal socioeconomic agendas without democratic consent or consensus. If you really seek to represent this group as indicative of the will of the five thousand people in it and not just your own, then your unilateral actions today put these five thousand people at odds with Anonymous. You may have the right to do so as the administrator of a facebook group, but you do not have the right to do so, under the banner of the occupation. For however many members (or subjects) you may gain today, you have lost one on account of your transgressions.

      21 hours ago · Like ·  2
    • Elan Wilson I was trying to answer your question in that one paragraph, Curtis. The rest was directed at whoever represents themself as "Occupy Central". Our common enemy and the bastardized form they have spawned is no worse than what is being represented in this group, in the name of the occupation. The complete autonomous control of one individual over a party of five thousand is in no way the change we should seek in the world, and nothing about drawing five thousand people together under the banner of 'Occupy' constitutes consensus for arbitrary policies imposed by a dictator.
      21 hours ago · Like ·  2
    • Curtis Bard Your message is very negative and I can assure you that Occupy Central is not the kind of self-centered egotist you are representing her to be. And, she does have the best interest of the movement at heart. 

      We all need to be constructive in our relations with each other if we are going to succeed, and the time and effort distractions such as this bring only serve to diffuse our efforts and disrupt what should be more properly directed towards our common problems and our common goals.

      You are obviously a very intelligent person... How about helping by coming up with some ideas to unify our Occupy groups and members?

      21 hours ago · Like ·  1
    • Elan Wilson I'll take down the other posts for the sake of building solidarity towards the occupation, and not comitting the sort of sabotage myself which I have mentioned, once I'm sure that the message has been received --- but my block stands against using the name of the occupation in representing this movement through any sort of arbitrary leadership over a body of people. What good is to come of unifying groups where the people are stripped of their voice? No man or woman is good or wise enough to govern this movement in any way, without the consensus of the people. So far, I have seen absolutely zero respect presented for the value of consensus. The conflict that arose in interference with another groups' operation is evidence enough of the problem with this movement being represented through unilateral action by a facilitator. Without consensus, this group should not be recognized as being in any way affiliated with the occupation, and solidarity with the name of Occupy by these five thousand people should not be seen as consent or consensus to the policies of the founder. Stating it bluntly, it's consensus or bust.
      21 hours ago · Like ·  2
    • Elan Wilson ‎...and if my response has been negative, perhaps it is because I was offered a "refund" for the "valued service" of representing my solidarity with the occupation for me, through methods that all of one person has decided are appropriate, without consensus. Begging your pardon, but there's nothing about that proposal which is anything less than condescending and rude.
      21 hours ago · Like ·  2
    • Susan C. Watson leave the posts plz. they are well thought out and i think many ppl are interested. opposing points of view are helpful in being able to make informed decisions, not just for here, but for other forums they might encounter! i agree with Elan Wilson about censorship or someone appearing to speak for me when i have not been consulted on the matter. I agree with Elan about consensus and i agree with Elan about not liking someone taking sole leadership of a leaderless movement or what appears to be a leaderless group. (if this is a dictatorship-type group, then it should be so stated. I would be backing up most of Elan's blocks if there was a way to do that here. (for clarity: i was not privy to the actions/statements u appear to be referencing in the thread.) just my 2-cents on the matter...
      21 hours ago · Like ·  3
    • Susan C. Watson at least that is how i feel atm, until i get more or different info that makes me re-evaluate my opinions
      20 hours ago · Like ·  2
    • Elan Wilson Then I'll leave them up at your request, Susan C. Watson, as it's an issue which effects not only myself, but you as well, and indeed everyone else here. The "goals and focus" of this group should be defined by the consensus of the 5000+ members which comprise it, not by the ambitions of any one person, and no such consensus has ever been asked, unless we're to embrace a golden Spiro T. Agnew moment when we hear about the will of the "silent majority". In every post by the person dubbing the title 'Occupy Central', the term 'we' is used in place of 'I', in representation of these five thousand people, without any consideration of how it impacts or represents them.

      I could write volumes in redressing all of the places where 'we' has been used in the paragraphs above to define the will of all of the people here without their consent, but instead, I'll simply redress the original body of the status update:

      -- The word "we" wasn't used here, but "we" did not "offend Anonymous", a person acting autonomously in representation of the five thousand people in this group did.


      -- "We" did not "suspend activity", a person acting autonomously in representation of the five thousand people in this group did.


      -- "We" have no reason to "make amends" for anything other than being amongst five thousand people represented autonomously by one person who acted without our consensus. "We" do not have a compulsory obligation towards "respect for anonymous", and I suspect that the majority of people on this page share the sentiment of the author whom wrote it, but nevertheless, there was still no request for consensus.


      -- "We" did NOT "PISS THEM OFF". One person acting autonomously in representation of the five thousand people in this group did.


      -- and "we" did. What "I" got out of staying tuned, when I voiced dissent, was a unilateral personal invitation on behalf of all five thousand of you, to leave if I don't like the "my way or the highway" attitude of the facilitator. Hence a block against the usage of the name of a popular movement whose values are based and whose strength relies upon consensus.

      The occupation is not to be usurped. It's purposes, goals and focuses are not to be stated or defined by any one person without consensus. If this was a focus group, working group or committee of any occupation site, it's actions, goals and focus would still be bound to the discretion of consensus. Being autonomous of an occupation encampment does not make this group any more autonomous of the will of consensus.

      20 hours ago · Like ·  3
    • Audrey Foust It would be real contradictory don't you think for anonymous violate the amendment that this whole movement is about, dont you think?
      20 hours ago · Like
    • Racy Lee Jones I have been out of the loop the last week or so...and have only heard second hand about this. I'm very disappointed that an alleged slight has moved the topic of conversation off of Occupy and onto some internet drama. How easily we are distracted. But...having said that, the movement is bigger than this. It is bigger than me, bigger than you, bigger than this group, and yes...bigger than Anonymous. As I have said many times...stay focused, get your feet in the street, and look towards the Spring. Namaste.
      19 hours ago · Like ·  1
    • Jon Mohr did you see that Obama seized all iriaian assets in american banks today and promised penalties for any nation doing business with iran
      I saw today that India stopped rice shipments because iran could not pay. Malaysia stopped shipping palm oil nessarsary for irans food industry . And the Ukrainian wheat shipment were halfed. All because iran could not pay
      17 hours ago · Like ·  2
    • Every Man VII the level of faggotry is astounding
      15 hours ago · Like
    • Every Man VII pic related
      15 hours ago · Like ·  1
    • Carl Marx love you anon -- don't taze me bro
      10 hours ago · Like ·  1
    • Delia Labarre It would be better if no one is using "Occupy Central" as his or her avatar. Anonymous was right that it was inappropriate for "Occupy Central" to be making comments elsewhere rather than speaking for him- or herself. I had mentioned early on that the name Occupy Central is a misnomer, since Occupy is about horizontalism, and is not centralized. There seems to be a misunderstanding about this in concept and administration of this group.
      9 hours ago · Like ·  5
    • Bella Cennato Wade I think that all of us here needed this discussion but more importantly, we all learned something valuable. How to not over react in the face of provocation (real or unreal, intended or unintended). I know that the admins try hard to let all sides be heard... but let's face it, there are many provocateurs who come to this website with one goal ... and that is to disrupt. Perhaps the trigger gets pulled to fast for some, too slow for others. But I do believe the admins here seek to be judicious before eliminating any post or blogger.

      What I find heartening is that many people here kept reaching out, trying to understand what the fight was all about. Most stayed calm and reasonable. That is refreshing to say the least when it's on the internet which is far too often a "one sided" conversation. Kudos to all who continued to pursue resolution.... this was a great learning experience for all who participated...and one that will come to mind as we march inextricably forward in trying to return this nation to equitable and just governance.

      7 hours ago · Like ·  1
    • Bella Cennato Wade Delia... your observation about the name Occupy being used elsewhere might be valid... it certainly invited trouble here ... it is worth consideration
      7 hours ago · Like ·  1
    • Carl Marx love anon, thanks, and please.. leave this group in peace.
      6 hours ago · Like ·  1
    • Elan Wilson I agree with Delia Labarre's points wholeheartedly. Furthermore, it seems that any effort to 'centralize' our organization and discussion amongst a group of thousands of horizontally organized people is at risk of becoming the "valued service" of an autocratic facilitator, whom may "refund" us the balance of our participation should there be any dissent against their personal values, ideals or execution of justifiable action or just governance. In many hours of calm, collected thinking, the nicest thing I can think of to refer to that mentality as, is a load of hipster capitalist horse puckey. The five thousand people in here are not the property, leveraged commodity or plaything of a facilitator. The occupation is not a corporation. The revolution should not be privatized. 

      We are not, under any circumstances, ever going to accomplish any sort of positive change by embracing and adopting the same rancid socioeconomic policies and ideologies which have lead us into catastrophe in the first place, and it is impossible to "return this nation to equitable and just governance" if we cannot do so amongst ourselves...when the voice of five thousand people is overshadowed and usurped by the unchecked authority of one person acting to represent them without consent or authorization of consensus, it is not going to be accomplished. 

      Whether the admins "try hard to let all sides be heard", and regardless of how many provocateurs may come here only to disrupt, acting or legislating autonomously without the consensus of the people effected and then hiding behind the authority of the other five thousand people involved whose authority over their own freely assembled organization cannot be exercised, save to disband, is utterly repugnant. It is not only a matter worth consideration, it is a matter that demands redress!

      The use of the name, public support and good will of Occupy, The Occupation, Occupy Wall Street, Occupy anything or the Global Occupation movement which has emerged throughout the world in the naming, appearance or operation of any forum, group, organization or assembly not organized around and subject to the consensus of it's members is so far beyond blocked, it couldn't catch a slow boat back to blocked. 

      I am not alone in placing and supporting that block.

      Do not try and hijack the operation of this movement for purposes that preclude consensus.

      6 hours ago · Like ·  1
    • Occupy Human Rights I was asked to change my Facebook name to an Occupy one to show solidarity with the movement. However, I recognized that in doing so I have taken on a responsiblity to adhere to OWS principles. That said I will be making a fake profile for my personal use as many have come to identify with the OHR profile and its principles....maybe we all should have thought of that before we took Occupy into our names. Our intentions were good :)
      6 hours ago · Like
    • Delia Labarre We also have to guard against the "get-along" device to silence dissention, which is actually a destructive tactic long used by Colintelpro as a method of controlled opposition. It's important to value voices of a minority who are very often articulating what a majority may agree with but are afraid to be accused of being "divisive" or not part of the "get-along" crowd. I suspect Anonymous will continue to watch and will shut down this group for real if it continues to act against the core principles inherent in the Occupy movement.
      6 hours ago · Like ·  3
    • Occupy Human Rights BTW I will be leaving this group if I and others are not allowed to post freely to it. At present, I can only comment on "allowed" posts. :-)
      6 hours ago · Like ·  2
    • Delia Labarre Occupy Human Rights, the word occupy has become universally used, and is why it was selected as word of the year 2011. That's not the same as claiming to be the central Occupy group using the OWS logo. Maybe another group should be formed based on the horizontalism of the Occupy movement and that serves as a virtual Occupy Spokescouncil, with delegates from all the Occupy groups.
      6 hours ago · Like ·  2
    • Elan Wilson That was something close to the idea for the founding of the Global Occupation General Assembly, only with all individuals everywhere in the world able to represent themselves, rather than be represented by delegates. A delegation also bears the unfortunate capability of usurping a consensus-based movement, I fear that there is no room for it. After all, if everyone but delegates are barred from speaking in the council, how is anyone to block the actions of their delegate, or bar a removed delegate from the council? Free and open global communication seems to me to be a better answer for achieving broad consensus.
      5 hours ago · Like ·  1
    • Occupy Human Rights Elan Wilson Apparently, Occupy Oakland now only allows certain people to post too groups/occupyoaktown/

      5 hours ago · Like
    • Occupy Human Rights Wow! Occupy Portland doesn't do that and they have over 12,000 members :-)
      5 hours ago · Like ·  1
    • Occupy Human Rights Don't call it a "group" of X amount of members if only certain people are allowed to post WTF!
      5 hours ago · Like ·  1
    • Occupy Human Rights The groups I admin (and formed) have specific descriptions about focus and about behavior (try to be civil, etc PM those you have a problem with and work it out) but those are "working" groups.
      5 hours ago · Like ·  1
    • Occupy Human Rights Working groups on specific issues. Even there we aren't the thought police.
      5 hours ago · Like ·  1
    • Elan Wilson Descriptions about focus and behavior are fine, Occupy Human Rights, so long as their formation and actions taken under them are bound to the consensus of the organization of the people working in that group, and other members of the movement abroad. I'm guessing that if someone stated a grievance with those principles, your response wouldn't be immediately to tell them that if they didn't like it, they can shove off. That wouldn't be very horizontal, and does nothing to assure the consensus of the people.

      Where Oakland and similar groups that are going rogue against the organizing principles of consensus through the occupation are concerned, that's enough of this nonsense. We should consider any facet of the Occupation which has turned against the binding principles of consensus to be blocked and organized contrary to solidarity with this movement, until they return to full adherence to the principles of the consensus of all their comrades. 

      It's time to step forward and handle this insurrection, to secure the blessings of rightful liberty and consensus for all of our comrades, before this movement is torn apart by the infantile greed, infiltration and usurpation of the self-same power brokers whom we have organized to oppose.

      5 hours ago · Like ·  1
    • Occupy Human Rights Yeah, if there's an issue, we hash things out, take a poll/survey etc for consensus. We want to be inclusive and always defer to the OWS declaration that states we should actively seek participation from those who are marginalized by society in general....THEY need to be heard and valued as they have been living the nightmare longer than most. If you don't adhere to the OWS declaration and OWS principles, you cannot call urself and your group an Occupy/ occupation...simply put.
      5 hours ago · Like ·  2
    • Elan Wilson I'll cast a broader net than that...OWS declaration and principles or not, if the binding principle of consensus is violated, it is an affront to the occupation, and to the rightful liberties of all the 99%. The majority shall not be marginalized, and the revolution shall not be privatized. This is a line in the sand which I hope I am not alone in standing on. We must demand adherence to consensus, and this insurrection against the rightful liberty of the people must be thwarted.
      5 hours ago · Like ·  1
    • Occupy Human Rights yeah, co-option ain't no option! not by other groups or any individuals
      5 hours ago · Like ·  2
    • Occupy Human Rights I haave seen so many occupations be hi-jacked by outside groups, one political party/thought and/or individual egos. In some cases the occupies were almost destroyed by this.
      5 hours ago · Like ·  3
    • Occupy Human Rights BUT ideas are not only bulletproof, they are sabotage proof too :-)
      5 hours ago · Like ·  1
    • Occupy Human Rights I am leaving now. When the format of this group changes to where I can post again to it like I once did, let me know, Occupy Central.
      5 hours ago · Like ·  2
    • Racy Lee Jones OHR is correct about egos and outside groups hijacking Occupy issues and time. Every revolutionary idea or anti government group in existence jumped on board the OWS bandwagon once traction was NY the truthers and Larushies have been part of the crowd and the GA's since day one. Many would say to the detriment of the movement as a whole. *example: The Harlem protest at the Apollo Theater where Obama was fundraising. Mainstream OWS was there to protest the NDAA...then the Larushies unfurled a banner depicting Obama as Hitler. How do you think Harlem reacted to that? Do you think we gained any support that day from the African-American community? No. People were screaming "get out of our neighborhood"* Look what we're doing here is new. Its never been done before. Using social networking to advance the cause is a fantastic long as those ideas are of Occupy and not of an established network of conspiracy theorists.
      4 hours ago · Like ·  1
    • Delia Labarre Occupy Nola just doesn't allow personal attacks, such as, "You don't know shit and I and everyone else HATES you." Yeah, we got that. Civil discourse, even in disagreements, don't call someone anti-Semitic or racist without evidence, etc. We have right now long threads still about Chris Hedges' article, which I think is healthy. Does anyone know how authentic the Anonymous video about black bloc tactics is? Funny how all the people who have been advocating black bloc tactics are saying it doesn't really exist, there's no such thing as "black-bloc anarchists," and evading the central criticisms. I would like to invite a few Anonymous folks to Occupy Nola, groups/OccupyNOLA/ 152427334874553/ ?notif_t=group_activity, but I don't want to attract them by raising their hactivist hackles!
      3 hours ago · Like ·  4
    • Lisa Decarolis l.php? W-iptAQG5KG89tU50Ih35lItSW tRlqK9lN4S-V_cKZw
      ‎#3OccupySF @ Ustream.TV: @punkboyinsf here, broadcasting live and direct from #...See more
      about an hour ago · Like ·  1
    • Lisa Decarolis FTP MARCH IN SF
      about an hour ago · Like ·  1
    • Incognitus Meritus Perplexus Why what happened?
      28 minutes ago · Like
    • Occupy Central I apologize for my absence from this discussion...
      14 minutes ago · Like
    • Anna Navarre You should unblock Jaya.
      12 minutes ago · Like
    • Occupy Central I would like to address the [valid!] concerns noted in this thread. I am very interested in reaching understanding with all...
      10 minutes ago · Like
    • Anna Navarre This is a valid concern. You " INTEND TO TRY AND MAKE AMENDS" unblocking her would be a good start, jus' sayin'.
      9 minutes ago · Like
    • Occupy Central right now I am focused on saving this group... however controversial.
      6 minutes ago · Like