 |
| Tell me he's not a wolf! I miss him terribly! |
|
Occudoc or Poppycock?
What has turned me off the OWS movement is its
focus on holding ground, as in public parks. This strategy, imo, can only lead
to failure. Why? Because the real territory that must be occupied to win is the
mind-scape, not landscape. Because the "enemy" is strongest in
military tactics, armed uniformed men, and firepower. This conventional action,
imo , sets the movement up for failure. We don't have the strength, nor do we
want to use violent conflict, as our main tactic because it will turn us into
terrorists in the easily duped eyes of the public. The establishment can easily
inflate fears of social unrest in the public, into a rout against us. That is
why I still wonder who is behind this, really. It sometimes seems to me to be a
set up designed as a pre-emptive tactic to show the public that even large
demonstrations can be easily controlled and squashed, that it is futile to
attack the state. I wonder? A government that is capable of 9 11 is going to
use every subversive tactic to win. Do you think that a country that has a
century of covert destabilizing operations around the world, would not try this
type of tactic? It sure beats overt armed conflict, like police state tactics,
open to world media scrutiny as they did in the 60's and 70's. They almost lost
that one because of the direct conflict which lost them support for the war in
vietnam. Maybe it is just that the OWS have poor tacticians, logistic experts,
and leaders, but it sure looks like it was set up to fail, to me.
When you are
outnumbered, overwhelmed in firepower, the best tactic is not a frontal attack.
It is surprising that a movement which claims to be expert in internet
knowledge (smart enough to be co-creators of the internet) would then put all
of its eggs in one territorial/real estate occupy movement. I have learned how
effective even one determined person can be, demonstrating only one hour per
day in front of the local courthouse and effectively writing about it on the internet.
The Judge's words several times to me were "There has been a lot of
discussion about you in Judge's chambers." I even had the Prime Minister's
office on my blog twice in 2010. I wonder why a tactic of roving,
simultaneously timed, set of large numbers of short lived demonstrations, in
front of Police stations, courthouses, Post offices, tax offices, municipal
offices, financial districts, everywhere all the time, wouldn't be a more
effective tactic? THAT WAY THE OTHER SIDE HAS TO DISPERSE ITS RESOURCES AND
THIN THEM OUT. LARGE NUMBERS OF DEMONSTRATIONS, EACH CONVENIENTLY LOCATE NEAR
WOULD-BE DEMONSTRATORS/recruits WOULD DRAW OUT THE GOVERNMENT'S RESOURCES AND
COSTS TO COUNTER THEM. As the government realizes that they can't go to these
instant demonstrations and effectively disperse them before they disperse
themselves and fade quietly away back into the urban jungle, they will abandon
trying to jump here and there to stop them. Effectively that will mean victory
on the entire landscape of North America. I can't see why a culture that can
invent internet treasure hunts or instant gatherings on Facebook wouldn't do
this instead of trying to hold wall street or Zucatti Park .
When we have
the capacity and know how to digitally record each event and use the internet
to inflate their value globally, we would soon BE THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA should
we exercise this tool. If a single person like myself (a cyber dunderhead)
could use these methods effectively, then why would this movement, whose
expertise lies here, play by the opposition's rules on their playground? I am a
very reluctant conspiracy theorist. I didn't even accept 9 11 until 2005. What
I believe is that it seems very fishy to me that the name of a movement,
"OCCUPY," would actually enshrine a losing tactic: "Concentrate
all of our limited resources so that they can be easily corralled and taken out
by police action." Wouldn't “Overthrow,” “Demolish,” or “Abolish” Wall Street
be our goal, a better choice of movement names breaking away from the tradition
of “changing-the-guard,” as in a new set of occupiers?
I ask that
you remember the words “Ye are snared by the words of your mouth” (Proverbs 6.2)
and apply that theory here.