Occupy Leadership: Because NOTHING Happens In a Vacuum

The Washington Post says that there is no leadership in this movement.  The author of the article makes this statement
:

Implicit in this structure is also a rejection of the narcissistic, “I know what’s good for you” form of leadership, now pervasive in this country, in which lawmakers fail to consider the needs and desires of the people they claim to represent. The failure of representative democracy in the United States is perhaps one of the most serious problems of our time, and the Occupy movement is a symptom of this crisis of legitimacy. The people no longer trust their leaders and are even starting to indict the system itself. They think we can do better.

The movement is acknowledged to be political.  The parallel is set against other movements, and the standard Leftist theme that "everything is political" makes its appearance.

In the 1960s and 70s, feminists convened consciousness-raising meetings aimed at politicizing the various forms of women’s oppression that were occurring in private. Women in the ranks were tired of being excluded from the inner circles of leadership where the issues and demands were being decided. And, they were sick of the generalized hypocrisy regarding gender roles. For this reason, feminist consciousness-raising eschewed formal leadership because each woman’s experience and opinion had to be valued equally. The personal was the political. (bold mine)

It seems that the occupy movement is some sort of experiment in direct democracy.  When the author says things like "We are all leaders," we can be certain that this is an "anarchist-inspired" movement.  Just as the author has stated.

So is this movement just a flash-in-the-pan event?  Sooner or later, will these disgruntled students who took massive loans for meaningless coursework, go about creating their own income?  Will they be willing to work jobs outside of their meaningless Columbia degrees?  Will they produce, or will they continue to complain?

There is an irony to their complaint.  Among their complaints is the bailouts given to Wall St.  I think that was a problem as well.  But who gave the bailouts to Wall St?  Go protest Obama, Reid, and Pleosi!  (But don't get your hopes up.)

Of course this could become (if the quantities of people increase and violence increases) a "stage 1" revolution where the people are turned on their government.  (Stage 2 is where the attacks are direct and people fight their government.  Stage 3 is where all parties lose hope and seek a new leader.  That's how Lenin manipulated Russia from the outside.)  Right now police and other public servants are being encouraged to turn on their cities.

There are some who parrot the WP article.  Bill Berkowitz parrots the WP with the claim to it being leaderless.  Be belittles the anti-Jewish flavor that has come on more than one instance.  Funny how that works.  For the Left, all conservatives/Republicans are racists and deserve the badge.  But Leftists are somehow as pure as the driven snow.

At least Berkowitz acknowledged the place of AdBusters in the movement.  And he acknowledges a few other notable problems.  But it seems that these problems are to him just little ones.  After all, the Right is always at fault.  "The right is 'exploiting anti-Semitism'."  Funny how that works.  Better than defending it, protecting it, or minimizing it, Bill.

So where are we?  Well, we have a supposedly leaderless movement which was instigated by Adbusters and some other influences.  It operates on a revolutionary/anarchist paradigm.  So far it is only able to raise sentiment but has the capacity accomplish nothing.  To fulfill that goal -- actually being productive -- seems opposite its complaint.

Beck calls this Communism.  I think that needs to be more specific.  Let's try Leninism.  It is revolutionary.  The institution of a form of government comes after a revolution.  But certainly the mindset behind this behavior can be traces to Leftist thought which comes from universities.  These people have been educated in a mindset.  The real leaders are the educators behind the scenes.

Now is the time (actually, yesterday was the time) for Christians to earn their higher degrees and enter the world of education.  Christianity will lead to stability.  Marxism only leads to anarchy, poverty, and death.  As Russell Kirk noted, only the vermin survive a revolution.  Only the redemptive message of the Gospel is suitable here as people prepare for eternity.