Apologists are out in force making excuses for the lack of political demands and focus PLAGUING the ‘Occupy’ movement; even bourgeois leftist, Naomi Klein, refers to the Occupy protest as “important.” It seems North Americans are so desperate for any opposition to the status quo they are willing to tolerate a CLAYTONS protest movement, which of course is a protest movement without movement!
So, sheeple, point-less protests by their very nature, must FAIL – blow your whistles and beat your drums until you are deaf BUT without focus, demands or an agenda, you are of NO ACCOUNT; notwithstanding that elites are a little concerned at the POTENTIAL threat. However, without a focused ATTACK on executives, Corporatists and puppet politicians, the movement remains impotent and innocuous.
The fact that protesters are unable to develop a coherent narrative and strategy with so many righteous causes available to them augurs very badly for future success -- there simply is no such thing as an EFFECTIVE, CLAYTONS protest movement!
Without focus and direction success is IMPOSSIBLE – try to imagine Martin Luther King without a civil rights agenda or Gandhi, Ho Chi Minh and Mao without a freedom agenda – get the picture, kiddies?
I would dearly love to see you succeed, dreamboats, but I am too pragmatic to forgive or ignore the lack of critical elements required for any protest or project to succeed.
A fine tuned racing car without wheels goes nowhere, though its powerful engine shakes the ground and emits a ‘terrifying’ noise.
Have a nice day in the park people, and I would dearly love to be proven wrong on this one.
Alan Grayson scratches the surface of Banker Crime, BUT the point is if he can articulate THE OBVIOUS, why can't mute 'OccupyWallStreet' protesters? He received a standing ovation from the audience, which the cameras were careful not to capture; why are Americans so frightened of stating the truth?
There seems to be alarm from some quarters, I assume DeGraw (see link) that the 'Occupy' movement that he "worked his ass off" to create -- (u see the ego source of the problem?) is being co-opted.
Seems like a feeble attempt at people management to me but that is not the issue. An old adage here applies -- THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A VACUUM IN THE WORLD OF POLITICS!
The danger to a movement without a clear direction, manifesto or some other defining characteristics is that it runs the risk of take-over by very experienced and subtle external forces -- seen it too many times before.
Populist fledgling movements without clear direction are usually infiltrated then subtly appropriated; once that has been achieved they are then destroyed from within, it's too easy. Weak egos, already evident with the public bickering of DeGraw and Alex Jones, fall prey to expert people managers/manipulators and trained specialists in every aspect of PR, advertising, propaganda, perception management and psychology -- circus!
Of course the existence of an amorphous 'organisational/structure' prohibits external forces targeting anything that would subvert or destroy that 'organisaton' BUT it ALSO INVITES take-over, as human frailty FOREVER falls victim to this form of attack -- DeGraw and Jones amply demonstrate the fact -- pathetic!
A solution is to maintain the strictest ANONYMITY while presenting VERY CLEAR OBJECTIVES. A manifesto without leaders is highly effective, as people would flock to a movement that targets the OBVIOUS CRIMINAL FORCES of our time while defining itself as leaderless or OF THE PEOPLE, a trick that has been played on the masses before -- can u guess?
The hit squads -- that also kill US presidents if 'necessary' -- would have nothing to target. However, A POPULAR MESSAGE would CONTINUE to be SPREAD/BROADCAST AROUND THE GLOBE, galvanising entire populations in the process.
Subversive forces would then be unable to locate with any ease and in TIME, any critical elements within the movement -- and don't kid yourselves about spotting leaders, all one has to do is attend meetings -- 'LEADERS' stick out like dogs balls regardless of any idealistic pretense; and never forget that evil cabals will target any number of individuals regardless of their position/stature in society, as they did in he 60's -- JFK, MLK , Malcolm X, heaps of pop stars including Hendrix and Joplin -- almost a clean sweep at the time, the remaining political activists shut their mouths and went underground quick smart. Therefore, ANONYMITY during the fledgling stage of a movement is absolutely IMPERATIVE.
After the movement gains ample momentum and becomes SELF-PERPETUATING/expanding, the original tacticians and planners simply melt into the sunset and unless they hate living should never take credit for anything, especially when the movement reaches sublime heights of political success -- EGO (human frailty) is the enemy of ALL political movements, change and social reform.
Knowledge that the highly skilled TACTICIANS and original PLANNERS roam freely in society prohibits, to a large extent, any recidivism into traditional hierarchical structures, which, as we all know lend themselves to CORRUPTION!
Assange is a good example of what occurs if radical initiators/leaders seek the limelight -- Assange could have accomplished much more had he chosen to remain ANONYMOUS -- he is aware of that NOW!
So where to go from here? Work it out for yourselves, people ;o)