When the media applauds and amplifies a "movement" ask yourself why. What was Occupy's agenda, what were they asking for? What was it other than an outlet for undirected rage?
They were praised so much for not having a specific agenda. Who benefited from that?
They were praised so much for not having a specific agenda. Who benefited from that?
When the economy collapsed due to the fraud, greed, and fecklessness of big banks, hedge funds, and other investors there was outrage on the left and the right. On the right, the Tea Party organized electorally. On the left, Occupy organized performance art.
The Tea Party elected people who empowered the wealthy and gave them tax cuts. Occupy didn't support candidates or even specific legislation, so all they did was take progressive outrage and direct it to pointless public performance
When people brag about Occupy, I know they know jack shit about making real change. They may be experts in public displays of anger and outrage, but they don't know how to change a light bulb in the Capitol
If Wall Street wanted to make sure nothing was done to redress the over-reliance on finance in the American economy, they could not have done better than hire some people to organize Occupy to redirect liberal outrage from policy-advocacy to rituals of rage
And of course, Bernie is the perfect embodiment of Occupy nothingness and performative progress. For all his talk about how things should be, Bumbling Bernie has a record of accomplishing nothing, just like Occupy.
