Tag Archives: Occupy Wall Street

Mini-Rumination: Which Movement Are We Talking About?

“Big Government” (biggovernment.com) is a web site run by a fellow named Andrew Breitbart, a conservative blogger of sorts who, failing to gain recognition as a legitimate voice and brain, has chosen to wallow instead in the muck of occasional sensationalism.  He had some role in the Shirley Sherrod scandal more than a year ago – a role that is still apparently being defined in a court of law.  He’s also the person who first exposed – pardon the pun – the tweeted photograph of former congressman Anthony Weiner’s weiner.

We’re not exactly talking Walter Cronkite here.

Recently, Big Government featured a two-part piece called “Occupycalypse Now,” by a recent college graduate who is described as “an avid hunter and firearms enthusiast”… who for now “works at a local gun store while he is completing his Masters thesis and Missouri Geology Certification.”

“Occupycalypse Now” is hysterical – hysterical as in funny and hysterical as in evoking hysteria.  It speculates on a ridiculous scenario in which the Occupy Wall Street movement aspires to overthrow the U.S. government.

The Curmudgeon would like to present a few selections from this screed.  To be fair, these selections, quoted verbatim, are presented without context.

For some of us, it’s difficult to take the Occupy movement seriously.  However, for once, let’s do just that and ask the simple question, ‘What if the Occupiers take power?’

In reality, though, the only way the Occupy movement could garner power would be through direct, possibly violent, confrontations with authority figures.  Their demands are too absurd to be accepted by the general public en masse.

If anyone succeeds in bringing down the United States government or creating a social dislocation that breaks this fragile, amazing machine the Founders create, what comes after is not pleasant.  What comes is what was before the Dream of America.  That was simply survival of the most vicious.

These guys are good at anarchy…because they are without conscience or any sense of moderation…That is what anarchy looks like.

These movements are regularly co-opted by more insidious ideologies.  Those who instigated the French Revolution ultimately found their way to the guillotines just as many of the antagonists who toppled the Russian Empire found their way into the gulags of Soviet Russia.

The irony with the Occupy people is they seem to be pining for an age that has never, and cannot, exist.  Instead, you end up with an age of the top level in the elite and a whole lot of people at the bottom…To want to destroy a system that abrogates that is appalllingly stupid.

It was suggested by those interviewed that the Occupy movement will only further polarize our nation, and I agree.

…we may mistakenly dismiss the OWS [Occupy Wall Street] protesters as incapable of having any rational idea of how to run our country.  However, as suggested, these people have an idealized vision of that end, albeit one lacking significant consequential understanding.

Let’s face it, though; many of them are facing poor job prospects and massive amounts of debt.  They’re pissed and, in some ways, I don’t blame them.  Yet millions have chosen a different path from these radicals – one of personal responsibility – and therein lies the ultimate downfall of the OWS movement.

The Curmudgeon would like to offer a few observations.

First, in what alternative universe does anyone believe the objective of the Occupy Wall Street movement and its various off-shoots is to overthrow and take over the U.S. government?  Hasn’t the chief complaint about the movement since day one been that its members have utterly and repeatedly failed to articulate any concrete objectives at all?  Even liberals have found this exasperating, yet here, a voice of the conservative movement – the same movement that has been busy mocking the meandering, wifty ways of the Occupy movement – has suddenly uncovered the movement’s hidden motives.  Thoses motives are so hidden, one suspects, that even Occupy participants are unaware of them.

Second, the author seems to fear that Occupy’s participants are violent.  Really?  These long-haired, slow-moving, kumbaya-singing, indolent semi-protesters will engage in “direct, possibly violent confrontations with authority figures”?  Really?

Third, and the reason The Curmudgeon has chosen to offer an entire post about an unknown writer published on an irrelevant web site, is this:  the reader could take every single statement quoted above from the article, substitute the words “Tea Party” wherever it uses “Occupy Wall Street,” and the author’s assertions would not only be at least as valid, but they also almost certainly would be even more valid, more relevant, and more true.

Try it; it’s fun.

Mini-Rumination: Another Mystery Solved

As an avowed leftist – which sounds a lot more subversive than it really is – The Curmudgeon is a fan of the magazine The American Prospect.  Like any publication that approaches subjects from an ideological perspective, it sometimes goes too far and verges on the foolish, but for the most part, it’s in the right places on most of the issues near and dear to The Curmudgeon’s heart.

Among the publication’s contributors, The Curmudgeon is still on the fence about Robert Kuttner, the magazine’s co-editor.  He’s right on some matters, silly on others, but probably an okay sort; like a lot of journalists, his writing suggests that he’s never worked in a business that actually aspires to make money and that he suspects that such enterprises are inherently evil.  In the December 2011 issue, though, he offers a truly profound statement about the Occupy Wall Street movement (which the publication dubs “OWS,” no doubt because everything sounds more important when you endow it with an acronym).   In a feature entitled “Protest and Possibility,” which you can find here, Mr. Kuttner writes:

OWS has put the Republican right, Fox, and friends in an exquisite bind.  The more they ridicule the protests, the clearer it is which side they’re on.

Thank goodness Mr. Kuttner cleared that up for us.  Without his insight, readers – including The Curmudgeon – might have mistakenly assumed that conservative America heartily endorsed the Occupy Wall Street movement and its scruffy participants.