Occupy’s Philosophical Backflip

The Occupy Movement has left a bad taste in my mouth, and I was edified to learn I wasn’t alone, so by comparing notes some of us gained some refreshing perspectives on the Occupy Movement, which had emphatically presented itself as such a noble, grassroots cause but proved anything but. In aping the Tea Party Movement, they tried to ensure we believed they were neither left nor right. Given what I’ve witnessed, all this hollow platitude of theirs tells me is, they simply cannot see themselves for what they are. Their mantra is, We have to work together. Who says? I agree with organic interdependence, but not the coerced co-dependence they seem hell-bent on establishing! There is a happy medium between, on the one extreme, stepping on each other’s toes and, on the other, being mere gears in a clock. It’s called networking! but I guess the reason many of them won’t arrive at this conclusion is because of the basic continence (equally sexual and psychological) it presupposes. They’re laboring under a false anthropology that wants communities that act as organisms, the essence of Saul Alinsky’s Community Organizing outlined in his book Rules for Radicals. It is amoral and Luciferian in its inception, despising the Christian mystery of the Incarnation. One of the pillars of Western Christianity, Augustine of Hippo, author of the Confessions, says, “In essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things charity.” This sounds a lot like that happy medium of networking to me. What do you think?