occupy this space.

i have been fairly reserved as of yet, about the occupy movement sweeping north america. those doing the occupying would say "the world", but what happens off this continent is - please excuse the turn of phrase - a whole different ball game. there is almost no comparing the two, and to do so, is to reach a little too far. anyway, i have remained relatively quiet on the subject because 1) i have several close friends who have bonded quite strongly with the movement, and 2) up to this point, playing - sorry, another turn of phrase - a devil's advocate against said movement, has seemed a little like pissing into the wind - damn it, i can't stop! (for the few who don't know yet, pissing into the wind is a bad thing... really, no good will come of it.)

the rally cry is "99% vs. 1%" and (i suppose) that is accurate enough. however, spoken by a group of people who almost seem to preach the gospel of individuality, this is a confounding statement, yet somehow not unfamiliar. as has been illustrated many (many) times over in history, this call for revolution assumes that the 99% is not itself, divided by variations in the populous. in other words, not everyone is going to want the same thing, nor are tactics and requests going to be unanimously agreed upon. not when the fight is for the individual, and therein lies the painful, obvious truth of the matter. now, i will toss around some simple generalizations, but - if you're actually reading this, for one - supposing you really want to get into the details of these observations, then just leave a message (you can do so anonymously).

my first observation was that the ninety-nine v. one not only defines rich vs. poor, but, within the 99% itself, informed vs. ignorant, relatively speaking of course (disclaimer: i am NOT inferring that 99% of the 99% are definitively ignorant). this just means that of those gathering/rallying only 1% truly have a message, and an idea of not only what the real issues are, but possible solutions or, at the very least, compromises that could be made. and this illuminates the underlying inspiration, and nature of not only this movement, but its past influences; those recent and historical. though it has worn many masks, its name (also interpreted age appropriately) has been the same for centuries: anarchy.

this is the first dictionary submission: a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. that simple. this basic principle can be adapted to nearly every call for individualism since the beginning of civilization. but even that is so incredibly contradictory, that the very notion of anarchism becomes instantly skewed by human perspective. we invented civilization, having evolved from the wilderness and the terrors our primitive ancestors faced, almost instantly installing a chain of command, or selection of respected leaders... only to conceive of an ideal (which was only possible because of civilization) that would, in modern terms, return us to a more primitive state.

it is this contradiction that causes the mind to reject (for a plethora of reasons throughout history) severe similarities in our myriad movements, even those which seem to be juxtaposed. from occupiers to hippies, back through emancipators, all the way to the birth of the hebrew (disclaimer: i am NOT implying ANY sense of negativity regarding any of these movements). what they all have in common, is a revolt against their current authorities, which has always been fueled by drawing out that primal instinct known as the individual, in enough of the population that a rebellion can take place. but, and this is where the 1% of the 99% come into play, there is always some rebels who recognize the unbelievable opportunity before them... and they gently convince the masses to accept a "new" form of leadership, because the individual does not allow for a collective direction, this is the exact opposite of what it is.

so, am i just going to run my mouth and not offer any ideas of my own? i am, after all, one of the ninety-nine, though the only place i'm occupying is the single rocking chair in the middle of my living room. i will not leave you totally empty handed, but i should warn of a possible vagueness to my opinion. we cannot (and will not) dismantle a system, and our current system has reached its global milestone; there is no going back... not without a great deal of unwarranted violence, at least. yet, it's understandable that the individual is also, for all intents and purposes, impossible to dismiss or deny. therefore, the species will, quite literally, have to adopt the simultaneous dual perspective of individual and (global) collective. this may be somewhat unrealistic, but in theory the best way to achieve real results is forming a unified mass of those willing to truly be involved in finding the most beneficial directions, inspired by the individual and influenced by the collective. in other words, be a part of the system, an equal piece of the direction. if the world speaks in corporations, make a people's corporation. be accountable to each other, and don't hold expectations for only yourself or put it all on the next guy. do both. with regards to my neighbours to the south in the u.s. of a. you could - again, in theory - form a "corporation" so massive that you could replace your entire government. but nothing is going to change, without change in a collective direction. don't just occupy, specify and direct the real needs of yourself in relation to your species.

i'll leave you with the first image (or series of moving images) that came to mind when i first began typing this, almost two hours ago. it is the final scene in a favourite film of mine, from my youth. enjoy! (oh, and i didn't hide any links in this post... it took me long enough to write it ;)