The Occupation: Warning Against Partisanship

In light of the organic nature of this movement, as proclaimed by the majority of participants from within, a risk that has been heavily touted by the media and promoted by haphazard participants is frustration topics that extend beyond the movement.
Because the larger media sources profit from sensationalism and partisanship, as well as the grudging that the latter promotes, any and every morsel of this zealous but ill advised behavior is latched onto and spread to discredit us. As an occupant, it is your duty not to supply these nuggets of “wisdom”.

So then, what should we be saying?

A protester sporting the common core principle

A most popular and largely accepted statement by Occupy Wall Street is “We are the 99%”, an allusion to the disparity of financial ownership and, more so, power, in the United States and abroad. We must highlight this in our minds. If you are frustrated with other issues, there will be a time for that. And that time will be greatly enriched by a successful campaign here, so let’s be united in our message in this campaign first and foremost.

We are protesting the ill gotten power of Wall Street and the Financial District. Focus on this and study the issue, because when you speak, you should speak with the power gained by knowledge.

City of Pueblo

Taking this into consideration, I advise the city of Pueblo to consider what a movement of this kind offers to all citizens. Your party loyalty doesn’t have to play into this; simply your understanding of economics and finances should matter here. While you may have the impression that one party is participating in this, I ask you to think again.

About The Author

4 Comments

  1. BlueHost says:

    Thank you for sharing. Not to many people in your position are so gracious. Your article was very poignant and understandable. It helped me to understand very clearly. Thank you for your help.

    • Ropita says:

      it before, and it’s worth syiang it again. We should label Obama and Ron Paul disabled , brutalize them with MANDATED drugs, tests, procedures, steal ALL of their property, deny them any opportunity to get any money, snark and laugh at them for being disabled and then deny them food without redress! Rude awakening for them both and this is what people with a tiny bit of power have turn this country into.I used to think we had something in this country to fight for, but with the corporatization, the land grab, the abuse of power, the denialism of peak oil, the glazed over eyes of the people I used to like well, I just can’t find my patriotic feelings anymore. Bring down JPM wake these zombies up!! Michael Hudson, Max Keiser and occupyWall Street can’t do it all by themselves. Of course, there will be slap downs the more reason to fight! Keep those youTubes on the internet, keep on encouraging each other.

  2. While I can agree with much of what this young man has to say, particularly about the corrupt nature of the FED, I fail to see how his proclamation that we must “elect Ron Paul,” is either non-partisan or apolitical (Last I checked, Paul was a Republican candidate, albeit a Libertarian Republican, but still ultimately of the right-wing mindset that advocates a complete hands off approach to even the worst abuses of employers and corporations against their employees, the environment and consumers). Further, while the passion this man speaks with is inspiring, the underlying values expressed should not be overlooked as they are the same principles that allowed the Robber Barrons of the 1890’s thru the 1920’s to create vast sums of wealth (whether backed by gold or not) on the backs of a hugely exploited and oppressed working class–and which also precipitated the Great Depression. Add to that his relentless intoning about “State’s Rights,” and we also have a defense that was used to justify slavery 150 years ago. I think a little knowledge of history is necessary before swallowing this man’s VERY partisan, very conservative libertarian message hook, line and sinker.

    • Admin says:

      I have deleted what you reference Sarah. I want to be clear about why I included it, and within the context of the article, I hope you can understand. It appears to me that we will need to be hospitable to the entire 99%, whether we agree with their perspectives or not. Now, once they feel welcome among the movement, we can debate the things that we disagree about, but erecting fences based upon party values is not going to serve us well. The DNC and the RNC, the banks, and the corporations are too large for us to stick with those that we agree with on the whole.

      Since I sense a risk that some might perceive inclusion of this video as though it were some sort of synopsis of our entire movement, I’ve removed it.