Dissension among the ranks at Occupy Wall Street

[FirstLight]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45285979/ns/us_news-life/#.TsHIM7K1yuI

<snip>

A meeting of the protest’s general assembly late Sunday descended into yelling and jockeying over who could speak, witnesses said, as protesters living in the Zuccotti Park encampment voiced concerns about financial transparency, feeling underrepresented and not having enough daily resources as winter nears.

The contentious meeting came days after an ad hoc group of protesters held an alternative general assembly and yet others living in the camp formed their own movement.

<snip>

...Well it is part of the whole unifying thing that we will have differences of opinion...
Is this the MSM trying to undermine the movement's credibility once again?

[coalition_unwilling]

1. Occupy Los Angeles' GA descended into yelling and jockeying

over who could speak on Saturday. But Sunday at OLA was a breeze:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2304712

MSNBC is, I believe, owned by GE (nation's 2nd largest defense contractor). Follow the money, as one of OWS's persistent grievances has been that mega-corps like GE pay little or no taxes.

Edited for garbled sysntax and unclear thought.

[elleng]

2. No surprise; think of DU disagreements,

and sure, prolly part of MSM attempts to undermine. Prolly won't be shortage of such stories, given MSM's inclination AND libs/progs inclinations to be inclusive AND permit and encourage variety of opinions. AND physical conditions, which will become more difficult.

[tcaudilllg]

3. They've got a website... they should use it.

Free speech? Polls? Let anarchy decide the leaders. The org leaders should serve the people, not direct them.

This is just more of the same authoritarian shit in a liberal package.

[pacalo]

4. There was dissention among our forefathers, too, before the Constitution was finalized.

[tcaudilllg]

5. Yeah we really aren't speaking with one voice anymore, are we?

[lonestarnot]

6. Do you know of a herd of cats that I do not?

[tcaudilllg]

8. Interesting thing about the far left

Picked this up from applying Michell's political types.

I believe, based on interviews and my own introspective analysis, that each person embodies all eight of Mitchell's types. However, half the types are seen as inferior, and are relegated to the subconscious. Social liberals have a social conservative shadow, and cultural liberals have a culturally conservative shadow. Vice versa for social and cultural conservatives. Each person has cultural and social halves, and can be liberal or conservative with respect to either.

The far left and far right groups -- the people who have a preference for social issues -- number half the population combined. The center is the other half, and is composed of people who prefer cultural issues (apparently because they tend not to take survival for granted like the social libs and cons do). They have a split of their own, between reformers (cultural libs) and traditionalists (cultural cons). They tend to find a marked level of agreement on social issues (though not all), and the seizing of this middle ground by politicians is what leads to landslide electoral victories. The social left culturalists tend to be stronger left than their social conservative peers, but are weakened by an anarchic bloc that refuses to vote their values. Thus elections hinge on support from the center-right ("populists"), the key swing group.

As regards OWS, it's a problem of division between cultural conservatives and cultural liberals. The camp is mostly far left, but there is nonetheless a cultural lib/con division within the group. The cultural libs (in this context) are willing to employ their subconscious attitudes, which endows them with a sense of great personal power. This is why they are less patient than the cultural cons and probably more prone to violence. The cultural cons feel less powerful and want to vent their rage. This is what OWS is really about, is venting rage peacefully. They believe they can create change simply by changing themselves, without a real plan. In the eastern half of the country, cultural cons carry more weight. In the western half there is a stronger cultural lib influence, and that's why there is more violence there.

At heart, the cultural cons rely on change as a last resort. They actually have a deep and abiding cynicism that the cultural libs don't share. Obama is a cultural con... they hold liberal values but tend to have conservative sensibilities. The cultural libs, in contrast, live in a constant state of flux that they try to channel around through understanding of immutable laws and factors, so as to avoid wasting effort. The cultural libs are skeptical about cultural con commitments to substantial change (thanks to Obama) and the tension between the two groups is increasing as the cultural libs try to achieve measurable dividends from the protests.

If the movement is to succeed, the cultural libs and cons are going to have to agree on principle to a plan.

[tcaudilllg]

11. Maybe the conflict comes down to hope for change vs action to make it. n/t

[Beartracks]

14. Wow, that's informative. n/t

[pacalo]

12. The teabaggy minds are confused about the concept of healthy debate. Their robotic brain circuitry

was wired for susceptibility to gullibility, laziness in forming their own opinions, & total lack of empathy for their brother man, & Fixed News took advantage of them on a daily basis.

[WCGreen]

7. What do you get when you have ten progressive together in a room...

25 agendas....

[tcaudilllg]

9. That's why you need vision.

[autorank]

10. They're onto the success of occupy

So they'll sow dissent.

[MilesColtrane]

13. Why it almost sounds like....anarchy.