occupy

a friend of mine is strongly interrested in the occupy protests worldwide. taken worldwide, apparent worldwide, talking on the matter with him is very enjoyable.

he liked it back so i was for my doing moderately flattered.

whence that comes first, i like it like mad.

----------------------

over the years i have allways been thinking the way change would one day allways come to be is when people unite over a goal that is not limited but diverse and that they have to carry it "themselves" a lot more then you would somehow expect or understand even in a few years.

burn out is a word, that does not fit the load. not only because it is worse, and ideological problems can be a superhuman burden, also because it is different, what change needs is the engagement of plenty, and not a great few can get/keep it organised through dedication.

action, and grassroots 'power-building', needs an informed and interested critical lot. ' a critical mass' in some theory, but is more about the numbers than about a limited weight.

they need to engage for something that is within their understanding and strangely, probably within their reach. a limited target like "peace", or a definite and often specific environmental, human rights or animal rights complaint seem not enough to have the people unite.

in the case of war and peace, this is psychological, but it is also that people appear to regard many things as out of reach. so indeed, the old (and classically anarchist) idea of fighting poverty, and the fighting the structure for poverty in society , wich perhaps too is general of the movements against the further distribution of wealth to the few, is the kind of handhold that might do.

it is hard to be definite, i get insecure of great events with a positive approach and intention. people are powerfull, but also powerless often.

ideally the people come up with all the ideas they need, but in describing events i reason from my own experiences, i am not really such a common person it feels like there can be 'the critical mass' of people similar to me.

somehow it all seems so relevant. it is so desperately relevant to be positive, whilst there is actually so and so very much to be rather edgy.


so i take an excursion into occupation.
scr.w neoconomics, and neocology will have to wait a bit more.


activism and strangely also anarchism wich is the way i politically analyse events and weigh relations (in the sense of in actuality foremostly but sometimes in the personal), have a charming dynamics of their own.

that is more intuitively for me in anarchism. but that is only subjective, activism itself generates similar associative strength.

however anarchism is to what i test the human value and quality of judgement (a very 'ethical' quality) so for you it can be activism (or in a more symbolic way of speaking 'activity', a psychality), but i would like to refer to everything within terms with anarchism.

the dynamic in activism is often absolute. it is not anyone's special thing, it works for all and everything. for example the word occupy.

keep bussy.., don't be vacant.. weird associations with a tool imperialised,

the occupied nations , and used to be people.

but within activism (and considering housing and non-housing basic rights is about the most feasible thing in anarchism), occupation is something still entirely different.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

terms with a vast impact tend to get obfuscated, confused through the application of different meanings..

there is a reason you can say : are you not occupied? are you occupied with that you are not preoccupied? or are you in fact the opposite?

because 'occupation' is an ancient, age old and powerfull tool of emancipation, that naturally and anarchistically follow to be basic freedoms of people, ancient dispositions.

it has been 'obfuscated' purposedly obscured from clear insights.

that does not mean it is no good as a tool. no, even the worst of the machiavellian (occupy every other) thinking ofcourse respects how occupation is a superefficient direct action.

we actually seen it this year, each and every side has their bias and preoccupations with the events, but that 'occupying' squares did have enough of a impact and visible aspect to change destinys is typical.

(thinks ok.. so that is where at least the definite association is from, had been wondering)

but really it is historical, the olympus is about the first sinai to been occupied, and so have symbols of power been all through the century's , from the fora to the bath houses to the roofs, and even the whole homes of the rich with the romans.

probably more burocratical institutions have been occupied then one nation singly features (said the optimist, well, reasoning there should be less institutions than people for me at least it is true).

in any case the pavements before more then any of these institutions have been occupied for plenty of the day. a usual 'capital' features usually tenfolds of protests and demonstrations, routinely ignored on windy corners of motorways, just as often on the pavement and with nearly allways some police seemingly keeping possible public at a distance.

it is a nice idea to a place like washington or brussels, (and both probably have the policys in place to prohibit) to join in a wide range and variety of protests in an organised fashion whilst you are at it in occupying the metropoles.

anyhow it is getting cold and i will get back on that, because the southern hemisphere is actually warming up.

to judge whether you can publicly as a movement or symbol of your own can join in the oftentimes specialist and remote requests of the various protests i would merely look at principle.

it is predictable that any organisation, even perhaps the small political foreign platforms, with the dear naivety to consider protest an option on a once per year or whatever base, is charmingly naive and often limited but somehow the ground cause is within a bigger concept..

for justice, against corporative power, for political freedom..

unless there is complete disagreeal with a case perhaps you do not need to be as informed or concerned as the protest , to just join in because protests actually lack power.

activism is or at least has been for me, to explore protest and action, to find new things to 'occupy' for example, to find new ways to give voice.

so that is all very absorbed, how i lived it. but somehow it is what turns in the anarchist idea, so perhaps it is just as true for activism.


i look forward to some more philosophy on the subject, more then explaining what meritocratical let alone corporate securitys would perhaps not doom the people of this planet to utter insignificance or slavery, risking being misinterpreted or face straight forward abuse.

-----------

tomorrow it will be about the negative side of todays activism, the police infiltration, the punishment or lifelong file to unfollowedly still to fool you fully, personalness and whatever.

today it suffices to remark:

anarchism is without borders, and activism is not to stick to many limits.

you can occupy a house but you can occupy a huge place to keep warm and protest.

you can occupy the police and not keep them occupied, but you can also occupy yourself and stay occupied.