orchideyes:

- The Passion of Music, Andrew Atroshenko.

orchideyes:

- The Passion of Music, Andrew Atroshenko.

(Source: reizbel)

And I Can't Keep It to Myself...: Kate Rusby and her little posse of incredible folk musicians came to...

isinghelplessnessblues:

Kate Rusby and her little posse of incredible folk musicians came to my town tonight. Folk music just speaks such volumes to me- it’s been passed from generation to generation, picking up cultural context and diversity as it goes… So much is carried in the music. I suppose that’s because it’s not…

Pretty much sums up why I love folk music.

Maybe we'll die, maybe we won't!: So from what I can gather the vast majority of the people participating in the Occupy Wall Street protests are...

shotdowninmay:

ukuleleash:

shotdowninmay:

ukuleleash:

shotdowninmay:

ukuleleash:

shotdowninmay:

ukuleleash:

shotdowninmay:

anirishginger:

shotdowninmay:

But the whole thing is controlled and organised by a minority. Ok. Makes perfect sense.

This whole thing is caused by self righteous greed. The belief that they as an individual are entitled to something. Whether it be the corporate bankers taking home multi million dollar bonuses and pay checks…

“Organized and controlled by a minority”

No one is forcing us to be a part of the movement, and no one is telling us what to do within the movement.  We are autonomous parts working together to address issues and attain various ends.  

“This whole thing is caused by self righteous greed”

I’m not asking for any kind of handout, and I haven’t spoke with a person yet at my occupation that is.  I’m a full-time student on a free ride scholarship, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have anything to say.  Many of us are here because we are against a system that promotes, and continues to carry out, the exploitation of others and of the planet.  

LOL I’ve seen many videos of inside the protest of a secular few spreading orders around and telling people what the “plan of action” is. You are incredibly naive to think that noone is in control, if there wasn’t nobody would be there. What exploitation would that be out of curiosity? Because my definition of exploitation would be the flaunting of someone else’s situation for personal gain. Also your free ride scholarship was probably paid for by people who are part of the system and benefit from the system that “exploits” people. Hypocrite.

You obviously aren’t too clued up on anarchism, anarchism isn’t against having plans of action, people can always choose not to follow that plan, and as someone who has participated in an Occupy movement, any plans of action are organised democratically by consensus, not from any elite group at the top.

No I’m pretty clued up on anarchistic ideals. Anarchy is the ideal that people should govern themselves and not be answerable to a higher authority. But you are wrong, there are a select few in any group that dictate the direction and means of said group. That’s a fact, that’s not debatable. I’d bet any money on the fact that most people at these occupy movements couldn’t give a shit about the system and have never suffered an injustice of the system and are there through blind following. Where there are followers there are leaders. You need to remember that humans are social animals and within social animals there is a natural hierarchy and a need to lead or follow. To say a select few aren’t leading is incredibly naive. 

If you could back that claim up by some evidence that’d be great. I’ve been involved in Occupy Manchester, I promise that it’s done by consensus, everyone has a right to speak, should they want, everyone gets a veto on actions, and if one person vetoes, a proposal doesn’t go through until a compromise or agreement is reached. While there are some who are more active in the decision making process than others, they don’t have more of a say than anyone else, if someone barely speaks except to veto one proposal, their contribution is just as valued. So I’d say the idea of a select few dictating the direction is VERY debatable.

Have you heard of mob mentality? Most protests have the exact same effect. Exactly, people compromise on their ideas to suit the needs of others. That’s not protesting that’s sacrificing ones needs and wants to benefit the group even if they don’t agree with the action or proposal, I call that blind following. I don’t think you understand my point, I’m not arguing the logistics of the events I’m arguing the fact that there are leaders, every movement has them, if there were no leaders there wouldn’t be a movement. It’s not something I’ve conjured up, it’s a FACT.

Please stop abusing the word fact when expressing your opinions, gravity is a fact, 1+1=2 is a fact, the airspeed velocity of an unladen European swallow = 11m/s is a fact. Your thoughts on crowd psychology in the context of occupation movements are not. Are you seriously suggesting that to be “truly anarchist” (a fallacy in itself) everyone should stick solely to their absolute beliefs and never ever compromise to achieve a common good? There’s a difference between conscious compromise and blind following. Also, movement is defined as “A trend in various fields or social categories, a group of people with a common ideology who try together to achieve certain general goals,” nowhere in that definition does it explicitly state, imply, or suggest that movements must have leaders.

You really don’t understand what I’m trying to say do you? Are you so stupid that you cannot comprehend that without any type of leader your “movement” would not be possible. It took one person to take to the streets and the rest are followers. There are more influential people in your “movement” and these would constitute leaders whether they accept that title or not. You physically cannot have a movement without someone or people starting it, because if they didn’t you’d all be sitting around at home moaning about it. Do you understand that every political protest in history has been started by one persons ideology and action that has amassed followers? And I didn’t once say that to be an anarchist you couldn’t work with other people, my point was that it’s not protesting if you concede on your ideals and beliefs to benefit someone else’s. 

I’ll make this statement and call it quits because I’m not going to engage someone who has to resort to personal attacks.

You’ve diverted from saying the whole thing is controlled by a minority, to saying that a movement had to start with someone and they might be called a leader. You’ve gone from challenging the claims of a movement to arguing semantics.

As far as conceding ideas to benefit someone else? That’s within the minds of people who disagree to make it known, it can’t be helped if you disagree but don’t say anything, but within the organisational structures of the occupations, no one person has more of a say than anyone else. If I didn’t agree with the ideals that the movement has come to embody, and I could not change them, I would not participate in it, the simple fact is that if someone disagrees, and chooses to put that aside for whatever reason, that’s their choice, not anyone else’s. There is no righteous leader dictating our beliefs, there is no tyrannical majority overriding the beliefs of the few or the benefit of the many. A protest is “an expression of objection, by words or by actions, to particular events, policies or situations,” and I can’t think of any reason someone would go on a protest that does not fit in with their beliefs, for example, if I did not believe the banks should be punished for their reckless and selfish greed, I wouldn’t march against them, If I didn’t think that something must be done to fix this country, I wouldn’t stand with the Occupy movement. The goals and ideals of the Occupy movement are undefined because of the diversity of the people who make up that movement, they are under constant refinement as a result of discussion and change.

I’ve resorted to personal attacks because you’re an actual idiot. The whole thing was started and is controlled by a minority whether you choose to see it that way or not. You yet again have failed to understand my point, I was saying that in order for it to be a valid and meaningful protest people would have to whole heartedly believe and agree in the ideals of the group, otherwise you have a group of people following something they don’t agree with and what’s the point in that? 

By the way, go get fucked if you’re gonna try and take the moral high ground here with that “personal attack” bullshit. I will personally attack you because quite frankly I think your ideas are idiotic and you are a complete imbecile. 

Bored of you.

Maybe we'll die, maybe we won't!: So from what I can gather the vast majority of the people participating in the Occupy Wall Street protests are...

shotdowninmay:

ukuleleash:

shotdowninmay:

ukuleleash:

shotdowninmay:

ukuleleash:

shotdowninmay:

anirishginger:

shotdowninmay:

But the whole thing is controlled and organised by a minority. Ok. Makes perfect sense.

This whole thing is caused by self righteous greed. The belief that they as an individual are entitled to something. Whether it be the corporate bankers taking home multi million dollar bonuses and pay checks…

“Organized and controlled by a minority”

No one is forcing us to be a part of the movement, and no one is telling us what to do within the movement.  We are autonomous parts working together to address issues and attain various ends.  

“This whole thing is caused by self righteous greed”

I’m not asking for any kind of handout, and I haven’t spoke with a person yet at my occupation that is.  I’m a full-time student on a free ride scholarship, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have anything to say.  Many of us are here because we are against a system that promotes, and continues to carry out, the exploitation of others and of the planet.  

LOL I’ve seen many videos of inside the protest of a secular few spreading orders around and telling people what the “plan of action” is. You are incredibly naive to think that noone is in control, if there wasn’t nobody would be there. What exploitation would that be out of curiosity? Because my definition of exploitation would be the flaunting of someone else’s situation for personal gain. Also your free ride scholarship was probably paid for by people who are part of the system and benefit from the system that “exploits” people. Hypocrite.

You obviously aren’t too clued up on anarchism, anarchism isn’t against having plans of action, people can always choose not to follow that plan, and as someone who has participated in an Occupy movement, any plans of action are organised democratically by consensus, not from any elite group at the top.

No I’m pretty clued up on anarchistic ideals. Anarchy is the ideal that people should govern themselves and not be answerable to a higher authority. But you are wrong, there are a select few in any group that dictate the direction and means of said group. That’s a fact, that’s not debatable. I’d bet any money on the fact that most people at these occupy movements couldn’t give a shit about the system and have never suffered an injustice of the system and are there through blind following. Where there are followers there are leaders. You need to remember that humans are social animals and within social animals there is a natural hierarchy and a need to lead or follow. To say a select few aren’t leading is incredibly naive. 

If you could back that claim up by some evidence that’d be great. I’ve been involved in Occupy Manchester, I promise that it’s done by consensus, everyone has a right to speak, should they want, everyone gets a veto on actions, and if one person vetoes, a proposal doesn’t go through until a compromise or agreement is reached. While there are some who are more active in the decision making process than others, they don’t have more of a say than anyone else, if someone barely speaks except to veto one proposal, their contribution is just as valued. So I’d say the idea of a select few dictating the direction is VERY debatable.

Have you heard of mob mentality? Most protests have the exact same effect. Exactly, people compromise on their ideas to suit the needs of others. That’s not protesting that’s sacrificing ones needs and wants to benefit the group even if they don’t agree with the action or proposal, I call that blind following. I don’t think you understand my point, I’m not arguing the logistics of the events I’m arguing the fact that there are leaders, every movement has them, if there were no leaders there wouldn’t be a movement. It’s not something I’ve conjured up, it’s a FACT.

Please stop abusing the word fact when expressing your opinions, gravity is a fact, 1+1=2 is a fact, the airspeed velocity of an unladen European swallow = 11m/s is a fact. Your thoughts on crowd psychology in the context of occupation movements are not. Are you seriously suggesting that to be “truly anarchist” (a fallacy in itself) everyone should stick solely to their absolute beliefs and never ever compromise to achieve a common good? There’s a difference between conscious compromise and blind following. Also, movement is defined as “A trend in various fields or social categories, a group of people with a common ideology who try together to achieve certain general goals,” nowhere in that definition does it explicitly state, imply, or suggest that movements must have leaders.

You really don’t understand what I’m trying to say do you? Are you so stupid that you cannot comprehend that without any type of leader your “movement” would not be possible. It took one person to take to the streets and the rest are followers. There are more influential people in your “movement” and these would constitute leaders whether they accept that title or not. You physically cannot have a movement without someone or people starting it, because if they didn’t you’d all be sitting around at home moaning about it. Do you understand that every political protest in history has been started by one persons ideology and action that has amassed followers? And I didn’t once say that to be an anarchist you couldn’t work with other people, my point was that it’s not protesting if you concede on your ideals and beliefs to benefit someone else’s. 

I’ll make this statement and call it quits because I’m not going to engage someone who has to resort to personal attacks.

You’ve diverted from saying the whole thing is controlled by a minority, to saying that a movement had to start with someone and they might be called a leader. You’ve gone from challenging the claims of a movement to arguing semantics.

As far as conceding ideas to benefit someone else? That’s within the minds of people who disagree to make it known, it can’t be helped if you disagree but don’t say anything, but within the organisational structures of the occupations, no one person has more of a say than anyone else. If I didn’t agree with the ideals that the movement has come to embody, and I could not change them, I would not participate in it, the simple fact is that if someone disagrees, and chooses to put that aside for whatever reason, that’s their choice, not anyone else’s. There is no righteous leader dictating our beliefs, there is no tyrannical majority overriding the beliefs of the few or the benefit of the many. A protest is “an expression of objection, by words or by actions, to particular events, policies or situations,” and I can’t think of any reason someone would go on a protest that does not fit in with their beliefs, for example, if I did not believe the banks should be punished for their reckless and selfish greed, I wouldn’t march against them, If I didn’t think that something must be done to fix this country, I wouldn’t stand with the Occupy movement. The goals and ideals of the Occupy movement are undefined because of the diversity of the people who make up that movement, they are under constant refinement as a result of discussion and change.

Maybe we'll die, maybe we won't!: So from what I can gather the vast majority of the people participating in the Occupy Wall Street protests are...

shotdowninmay:

ukuleleash:

shotdowninmay:

ukuleleash:

shotdowninmay:

anirishginger:

shotdowninmay:

But the whole thing is controlled and organised by a minority. Ok. Makes perfect sense.

This whole thing is caused by self righteous greed. The belief that they as an individual are entitled to something. Whether it be the corporate bankers taking home multi million dollar bonuses and pay checks…

“Organized and controlled by a minority”

No one is forcing us to be a part of the movement, and no one is telling us what to do within the movement.  We are autonomous parts working together to address issues and attain various ends.  

“This whole thing is caused by self righteous greed”

I’m not asking for any kind of handout, and I haven’t spoke with a person yet at my occupation that is.  I’m a full-time student on a free ride scholarship, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have anything to say.  Many of us are here because we are against a system that promotes, and continues to carry out, the exploitation of others and of the planet.  

LOL I’ve seen many videos of inside the protest of a secular few spreading orders around and telling people what the “plan of action” is. You are incredibly naive to think that noone is in control, if there wasn’t nobody would be there. What exploitation would that be out of curiosity? Because my definition of exploitation would be the flaunting of someone else’s situation for personal gain. Also your free ride scholarship was probably paid for by people who are part of the system and benefit from the system that “exploits” people. Hypocrite.

You obviously aren’t too clued up on anarchism, anarchism isn’t against having plans of action, people can always choose not to follow that plan, and as someone who has participated in an Occupy movement, any plans of action are organised democratically by consensus, not from any elite group at the top.

No I’m pretty clued up on anarchistic ideals. Anarchy is the ideal that people should govern themselves and not be answerable to a higher authority. But you are wrong, there are a select few in any group that dictate the direction and means of said group. That’s a fact, that’s not debatable. I’d bet any money on the fact that most people at these occupy movements couldn’t give a shit about the system and have never suffered an injustice of the system and are there through blind following. Where there are followers there are leaders. You need to remember that humans are social animals and within social animals there is a natural hierarchy and a need to lead or follow. To say a select few aren’t leading is incredibly naive. 

If you could back that claim up by some evidence that’d be great. I’ve been involved in Occupy Manchester, I promise that it’s done by consensus, everyone has a right to speak, should they want, everyone gets a veto on actions, and if one person vetoes, a proposal doesn’t go through until a compromise or agreement is reached. While there are some who are more active in the decision making process than others, they don’t have more of a say than anyone else, if someone barely speaks except to veto one proposal, their contribution is just as valued. So I’d say the idea of a select few dictating the direction is VERY debatable.

Have you heard of mob mentality? Most protests have the exact same effect. Exactly, people compromise on their ideas to suit the needs of others. That’s not protesting that’s sacrificing ones needs and wants to benefit the group even if they don’t agree with the action or proposal, I call that blind following. I don’t think you understand my point, I’m not arguing the logistics of the events I’m arguing the fact that there are leaders, every movement has them, if there were no leaders there wouldn’t be a movement. It’s not something I’ve conjured up, it’s a FACT.

Please stop abusing the word fact when expressing your opinions, gravity is a fact, 1+1=2 is a fact, the airspeed velocity of an unladen European swallow = 11m/s is a fact. Your thoughts on crowd psychology in the context of occupation movements are not. Are you seriously suggesting that to be “truly anarchist” (a fallacy in itself) everyone should stick solely to their absolute beliefs and never ever compromise to achieve a common good? There’s a difference between conscious compromise and blind following. Also, movement is defined as “A trend in various fields or social categories, a group of people with a common ideology who try together to achieve certain general goals,” nowhere in that definition does it explicitly state, imply, or suggest that movements must have leaders.

Maybe we'll die, maybe we won't!: So from what I can gather the vast majority of the people participating in the Occupy Wall Street protests are...

shotdowninmay:

ukuleleash:

shotdowninmay:

anirishginger:

shotdowninmay:

But the whole thing is controlled and organised by a minority. Ok. Makes perfect sense.

This whole thing is caused by self righteous greed. The belief that they as an individual are entitled to something. Whether it be the corporate bankers taking home multi million dollar bonuses and pay checks…

“Organized and controlled by a minority”

No one is forcing us to be a part of the movement, and no one is telling us what to do within the movement.  We are autonomous parts working together to address issues and attain various ends.  

“This whole thing is caused by self righteous greed”

I’m not asking for any kind of handout, and I haven’t spoke with a person yet at my occupation that is.  I’m a full-time student on a free ride scholarship, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have anything to say.  Many of us are here because we are against a system that promotes, and continues to carry out, the exploitation of others and of the planet.  

LOL I’ve seen many videos of inside the protest of a secular few spreading orders around and telling people what the “plan of action” is. You are incredibly naive to think that noone is in control, if there wasn’t nobody would be there. What exploitation would that be out of curiosity? Because my definition of exploitation would be the flaunting of someone else’s situation for personal gain. Also your free ride scholarship was probably paid for by people who are part of the system and benefit from the system that “exploits” people. Hypocrite.

You obviously aren’t too clued up on anarchism, anarchism isn’t against having plans of action, people can always choose not to follow that plan, and as someone who has participated in an Occupy movement, any plans of action are organised democratically by consensus, not from any elite group at the top.

No I’m pretty clued up on anarchistic ideals. Anarchy is the ideal that people should govern themselves and not be answerable to a higher authority. But you are wrong, there are a select few in any group that dictate the direction and means of said group. That’s a fact, that’s not debatable. I’d bet any money on the fact that most people at these occupy movements couldn’t give a shit about the system and have never suffered an injustice of the system and are there through blind following. Where there are followers there are leaders. You need to remember that humans are social animals and within social animals there is a natural hierarchy and a need to lead or follow. To say a select few aren’t leading is incredibly naive. 

If you could back that claim up by some evidence that’d be great. I’ve been involved in Occupy Manchester, I promise that it’s done by consensus, everyone has a right to speak, should they want, everyone gets a veto on actions, and if one person vetoes, a proposal doesn’t go through until a compromise or agreement is reached. While there are some who are more active in the decision making process than others, they don’t have more of a say than anyone else, if someone barely speaks except to veto one proposal, their contribution is just as valued. So I’d say the idea of a select few dictating the direction is VERY debatable.

Maybe we'll die, maybe we won't!: So from what I can gather the vast majority of the people participating in the Occupy Wall Street protests are...

shotdowninmay:

anirishginger:

shotdowninmay:

But the whole thing is controlled and organised by a minority. Ok. Makes perfect sense.

This whole thing is caused by self righteous greed. The belief that they as an individual are entitled to something. Whether it be the corporate bankers taking home multi million dollar bonuses and pay checks…

“Organized and controlled by a minority”

No one is forcing us to be a part of the movement, and no one is telling us what to do within the movement.  We are autonomous parts working together to address issues and attain various ends.  

“This whole thing is caused by self righteous greed”

I’m not asking for any kind of handout, and I haven’t spoke with a person yet at my occupation that is.  I’m a full-time student on a free ride scholarship, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have anything to say.  Many of us are here because we are against a system that promotes, and continues to carry out, the exploitation of others and of the planet.  

LOL I’ve seen many videos of inside the protest of a secular few spreading orders around and telling people what the “plan of action” is. You are incredibly naive to think that noone is in control, if there wasn’t nobody would be there. What exploitation would that be out of curiosity? Because my definition of exploitation would be the flaunting of someone else’s situation for personal gain. Also your free ride scholarship was probably paid for by people who are part of the system and benefit from the system that “exploits” people. Hypocrite.

You obviously aren’t too clued up on anarchism, anarchism isn’t against having plans of action, people can always choose not to follow that plan, and as someone who has participated in an Occupy movement, any plans of action are organised democratically by consensus, not from any elite group at the top.

One of my favourite films.

One of my favourite films.

We are the 99%

We are the 99%