Social Web Directory :: Social Network Directory :: Ning Tips and Ning Support
The majority of members in the corporate media disparage the Occupy Wall Street protesters as lacking focus and a definite aim. In the article Gunning for Wall Street, with Faulty Aim, the NY Times stated "group's lack of cohesion and its apparent wish to pantomime progressivism rather than practice it knowledgably is unsettling." Leuven from Belgium says the article attempted to portray protesters as naive, misguided youth haven taken to the streets to "assuage their adolescent boredom by pretending it is 1968."
"writers were deployed by the establishment to defend itself against the forces of change (the other main instrument being the police), and tasked with quieting the rumblings of democracy. Poking fun and diminishing the protesters efforts was intended to function as a deterrent, destroying the morale of the people in the street and discouraging others from joining them for fear of humiliation. They raised the specter of what Jean-Paul Sartre calls fraternity terror, putting those within the establishment on notice that open sympathy with the occupation movement will not be tolerated. Like the occupiers themselves, these sympathizers will be summarily judged, humiliated and driven out. And for those who are merely afraid of the implications of the movement for their positions of affluence and security, they provide assurances that the distant thunder that they’re hearing won’t be followed by a storm...Whatever their actual motivation for acting as instruments of the establishment—whether they really identify themselves with it or whether they’ve become enamored of its comforts, or some combination of the two—it should now be clear that these writers are little more than tools of the system. If they merely identify themselves with what they argue, we can hope that witnessing these protests triggers some hidden sympathy for the effort that escapes this self-identification and begins to undo it.Sadly, a darker possibility remains the more probable explanation; that they are so enamored of the comforts of the establishment, so isolated from the suffering that pervades American society, that they truly wish to see the effort fail, since its success would mean precisely the loss of these extraordinary luxuries and their position of power. Girded by these luxuries against sympathy and self-doubt, their identification with the corrupt establishment is allowed to stand unencumbered by conscience or scruple. Any sympathies that they might have had have been buried alive and, because they neither act on them nor allow them to become a part of their social identity, these sympathies suffocate under the weight of their own lassitude and complacency"