The Occupy Movement: A study in Contrasts | Eastern North Carolina Now

    What has become both a most celebrated, and scorned political movement has finally evolved to the level of full accountability to the public. After all, the movement is, if nothing else, an occupation of our public places, in full public view, and ultimately requiring a full public examination.

    Similarly, the Tea Party Movement certainly had their examination, to the point of editorialized scorn, by the many major media operations that work so diligently to shape public opinion. The Occupy Movement, who has often compared their own organization structure to that of the Tea Party's, certainly should be afforded that same scrutiny.
The images of these two movements juxtaposed here together speaks volumes as to the intrinsic nature of either's core message - Occupy Movement (above), Tea Party Movement (below).
    The one similarity that the Occupy Movement has exhibited, which is similar to that of the Tea Party, is their lack of any formal hierarchy; however, both have a measure of financial backers. It has been reported that the Koch Brothers, Conservative philanthropists, rumored to be worth 21 billion dollars and the 5th richest Americans, help fund the Tea Party, while the Occupy Movement is reported to be funded by many factions of the Big Labor coalition, as well as Liberal activist George Soros, and the Tides Foundation. At some critical junctures during the formation of the movement's momentum, weekly paychecks were issued to those doing the actual protesting / occupying.

    Even now, as many occupiers head home for the holidays during this colder Thanksgiving season, the Homeless are being paid to occupy these public places until the original occupiers return. While this gesture may seem somewhat disingenuous on many levels, it is mainly a supreme point of hypocrisy since the occupiers have publicly complained of he Homeless eating their food and "occupying" the same public space as themselves. It is not known, or has it ever been reliably reported, whether the Tea Party has ever paid the Homeless to occupy public spaces or protest, or for that matter, complained that the less fortunate Homeless ate their food. Does this, hypocrisy of the occupiers, not remind you of that petty college room or dormitory mate, who would mark the clear milk container, as evidence, for some future bitch-battle?

    It is also unknown, nor has it been reliably reported, why the Occupy Movement has so often compared their struggle to that of the Tea Party Movement, when so many of its organizational core and the farthest left media outlets (MSNBC), who promote the Occupy Movement, commonly refer to Tea Party people as tea baggers (a derisive term with homoerotic connotations) and racists.

    What is known is that the Occupy Movement has resorted to many of the measures manifested from the President Barack Obama's Campaign 2012 Playbook, where class warfare is employed to gain some populist momentum to express ideals that do not necessarily represent a majority of the population of industrious Americans. In that same populist vein, the Occupy Movement employs the practice of exclusion of what they call the 1%, which they have yet to fully define, to the benefit of the other 99%, which they similarly have yet to fully define. What they have defined is their maxim: You are either with us or you are against us, and we are well prepared to handout punishment to all nonbelievers. This behavior, based on exclusivity and punishment, certainly does; however, remind one of the Bolsheviks of 1917, whom later became the political structure of the Communist Party of the USSR, which ultimately dissolved from the the profound effects of economic chaos in the early 1990's.
1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights guarantees Americans the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to redress one's grievances. We are fortunate to have these rights. With that privilege comes certain rules, as one would ascertain that are well being followed by these Tea Party folks: Above.
    That dissolution of the Soviet Union remains as a perfect example of how the twin terrors of Socialist Communism and Anarchy will ruin a people and wreck a nation. The Socialist agenda espoused by the Occupy Movement, coupled with its public practice of anarchy, and the festival atmosphere of this neo counter-cultural movement maybe a huge draw to this disaffected populace, but at some point all reasonable people must come to the singular conclusion that, like all parties, all pointless festivals must come to an end.

    What one must also question is to what extent this Occupy Movement can sustain some measure of momentum to continue their fragmented message to further their populist ambitions. The Tea Party Movement has survived because that movement formulated a cogent message that is rooted in the founding principles of the United States of America.

    Conversely, the Occupy Movement's splintered message of an alternate economic model of their new capitalism, which would more resemble European Socialism at best and Bolshevik Communism at worst, is rooted more in the decaying European Union, and the now defunct Union of Soviet Socialist Republics than the Capitalist economic system long employed in the U.S.A.

   I cannot see how this would presently offer any promise of hope to the these disaffected people, who refer to themselves as occupiers. Furthermore, I will never concede that any sustained economic benefit can ever be derived from their proposed economic model of Socialism. In actuality, the occupier's promoted Socialist model does not allow for much economic future at all.

    It does lend one to question: Why don't they just return to their homes, their families, and get a job, any job, and seek to better themselves through the industry of their constructive efforts? If that job is not to their liking, they can strive to find a more suitable "occupation" at a later date. Just do something productive, and for God's sake, stop the interminable whining.

    We would all be far better off.