Going back to
the subject of logistics, and how these protests originated, I think that like
the military, economy of force is important. While the sudden, spontaneous rise
of several hundred OWS franchises--for lack of a better term--across America was
inspiring (and demonstrated a deep-seated frustration and exasperation with our
government and its corporate masters), the Occupy Wall Street movement's large
number of protests could not be sustained at their initial massive numbers, not
without large-scale outside support in terms of funding and positive media
coverage. Except for a small number of commentators on MSNBC, and left-wing
magazines and websites, the American media was generally very negative about
the entire OWS movement.
In the future,
we need to organize better, and take our cues from the people who protested in
Madison, Wisconsin, against Scott Walker, and in Cairo, Egypt, against Hosni
Mubarak. OWS needs to look at the Ukrainian model: its targeted locations, its
funding and organization, and its tightly scheduled series of events. I believe
that OWS would have been better served if, after two weeks, it had consolidated
its protests from more than three hundred down to three or four dozen, and
concentrated all of its resources into that smaller number of sites (economy of
force). The organic nature of OWS worked against sustaining (in the long-term)
the passion and power inherent in the rise of OWS itself. They also need to
concentrate on discipline--self-discipline--if they ever take to the streets
again. Occupy Wall Street and its successors must remember a simple rule: if
someone is advocating violence, you can bet that they are agents of the police
or the super-plutocrats. Throw advocates of violence out immediately.
super-plutocrats' ultimate goal is nothing less than the creation of a
neo-feudal society of haves and have-nots, in terms of not only money, but
power (political, social and economic), and rights. Serf City here we come.
Simplifying the Difficult to Explain the Inhuman
And this leads
me into a discussion of the Seven Deadly Sins and selfishness.
Sloth is more than simple laziness; it is the active desire to do nothing while satisfying your desires. Lust is more than just sexual desire; it is the satisfaction of those desires at the physical and emotional expense of others. Wrath is more than anger; it is unfathomable rage, directed against a person or a group of people that can only be satisfied by those people's complete humiliation, or the utter eradication not only of them but of everything related to them from the face of the Earth. Envy is more than wishing you had something someone else has; it is the willingness to take it from the other person by any means necessary, or, if that is impossible, exceed the achievement(s) of the person you envy. Gluttony is more than a need to eat and drink; it is an unquenchable desire for sustenance. libation, or some other need at the cost of every other phase of your life. Pride is more than simple over-blown self-worth; it is the need to always be without peer, first and foremost within your circle of friends and colleagues. Avarice is far more than simple greed; it is the desire to have so much wealth as to be untouchable by life's surprises and downturns. Every one of the traditional "Seven Deadly Sins" has the integral components of: 1) selfishness, which can be defined as narcissism with little or no empathy; 2) dehumanizing other human beings to satisfy one's desires, which I defined seven years ago in my 16 June 2007 OpEdNews article "Choosing the Hardest Thing," as the basis for human evil; and 3) the sheer impossibility of ever fully satisfying the unhealthy desire associated with the sin.
We must also
consider the interconnectedness of all Seven Deadly Sins: Envy often lies at
the beginning of all of the other Sins; Avarice, Lust, and Gluttony are the
same Sin with a different focus; Sloth arises out of the idea that if you have more
than enough, you won't have to work so hard for what you want; Pride is always
felt when you have achieved your next benchmark for the underlying Sin,
regardless of human or other cost; Failure to satisfy your Sinful desire
invariably invokes Wrath.
So why am I
bringing up the idea of the Seven Deadly Sins?
thousand years ago, human beings did not have the fancy words to describe the
neuroses and character disorders (the modern term for psychoses) that fill our
modern lexicon, as well as the DSM-IV, and yet these mental disorders existed
even then. In those days, such illnesses were blamed on possession by the Devil
or the various demons in Hell's hierarchy, the sale of one's soul to the forces
of Evil, or simply doing the Devil's work for your own benefit, including
practicing witchcraft and alchemy.
And if you
will note, all of the Seven Deadly sins exist, in whole or in part, within the
conditions of Hoarding, Narcissism, Dynasty Disorder, Addiction, Depression/Low
Self-Esteem and overcompensation for these feelings, Anti-Social Personality
Disorder (which covers psychopathy and sociopathy), and Münchausen Syndrome by
Proxy, which Rob mentions in "Treating
Extreme Wealth As a Disease."
And make no
mistake, the super-plutocrats suffer from some or all of the Seven Deadly Sins
as well as the psychological disorders of which Rob wrote.
again, why do I bring up the Seven Deadly Sins?
quote Rob's article, "I would also argue that people who sympathize with and
defend and support the interests of the wealthy against their own and their
families' interests are suffering from Münchausen Syndrome by Proxy. In that
disorder, parents subject their children to unnecessary surgery and medical
treatments. Is it that big a leap to wildly speculate that people who fight for
the rights of billionaires to widen the income gap even further are literally
hurting their children by voting to protect the ultra wealthy?"
A lot of those
people that Rob is writing about in that paragraph are Conservative Christians,
and if you throw all sorts of psychological mumbo-jumbo at them, they will
Seven Deadly Sins at them, in the proper fashion, and you will find yourself
with a staunch ally.
Yes, I am
talking tactics here. But perception is reality, as someone once pointed out.
Start pointing out that while everyone has a right to make a profit, no one has
the right to profiteer--to make an excessive profit at the cost of the lives and
well-being of other human beings. Most Conservative Christians can see the
inherent wrongness in profiteering.