 |
| Reminds me of some other revolution, sickle missing |
I made no secret about my total dislike of those lunatics with their obsession of falsely claiming to be representing "99%" of the population as they "Occupied" spaces on this planet akin to sqatting illegally, without even bothering to check if their actions were, erm, wanted or would even serve some "planet changing" purpose. It turned out to be neither as they splintered into the usual lunatic rabble that these type of functions attract..
These are the same clowns who fight against our efforts to get some justice into the system, pretend white knights and change everything, merchants..
I thought the whole thing was entertaining and a welcomed distraction. Comedy was not it's original intention but it was definitely it's outcome. Tim Blair, one of my favourite journalists, explains..
Final four folly in feeble friendship
 |
| This should have been their logo.. |
For a time we challenged various war-torn feudal communities for the title of Most Leaders in a Six-Year Period (Bob Carr, Morris Iemma, Nathan Rees, Kristina Keneally and Barry O'Farrell), but that's really a state prize.
Besides, it's difficult to win against players who leave the heads of ex-leaders on sticks. We're severely disadvantaged when it comes to tie-breakers.
So let's hear it for Occupy Sydney, who in competition with an international field of world-class tent Trotskyites managed to stage the single lamest Occupy demonstration ever seen.
All credit to our team, whose Martin Place-based war on exploitative capitalism basically ended on its first night, when the overwhelming majority of Occupiers simply didn't.
By last week Occupy Sydney was down to just four participants, calling into some slight doubt their claim to represent 99 per cent of Australians. In fact, at that point Occupy Sydney didn't even represent all of Occupy Sydney. Further cementing the tiny group's earth-beating lameness credentials, it had been rent apart by beautifully predictable leftist factionalism.
More on that later. First, a review of Occupy Sydney's main opposition.
Occupy Oakland: These punchy Californian Occuwarriors put on the best show of all the Occupations, closing down the city's docks and starring in a series of entertaining skirmishes.
They scored major lameness points for fleeing at the first sign of resistance - shown by Oakland developer
Phil Tagami, who took the precaution of taking a shotgun to work during the Occupy uprising.
He was prepared when Occupists tried to break into his building. "They saw me there, and I lifted it. I didn't point it, I just held it in my hands," Tagami told a local paper.
"And I just racked it, and they ran."
They are the run per cent.
Occupy Melbourne: The southern capital is home to a greater number of screechy leftoids than is Sydney, guaranteeing a larger turnout at their Occupy party. Recent soft policing tactics led to surprise when Victorian cops decided they'd had enough and began pitching hippies out of the City Square like so many passively resistant bean bags.
Literature judge and Occupy enthusiast Jacinda Woodhead was present as the chuck-a-thon began.
"Lucky for me, I wasn't physically violated," she wrote, "because at the last second, the younger occupier beside me and I opted to walk out."
Jacinda's definition of "luck" is interesting.
Occupy Whitehorse: northern Canada gets mighty cold during the winter, which is why this Occupation in the territorial capital was both sparsely attended and quickly abandoned. According to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: "The sole member of Occupy Whitehorse camped out outside the Yukon legislature says he will be leaving by the end of the week because winter is setting in."
Some might see this as an even greater work of lameness than we saw in Sydney.
Against that, however, the Yukon movement never set such high expectations of societal overthrow.
Your experienced observer of leftist folly knows how to judge these things.
Occupy Harvard: there are few more privileged people on earth than students at super-establishment Harvard University, but that didn't stop campus malcontents from running their own Occupation. "They held a 70-person walkout of a popular economics class," reported the Boston Globe, marking one of the few times in recorded history that the phrase "popular economics class" has appeared in print.
Elsewhere, Occupy campouts witnessed sexual assaults, shootings, theft, outbreaks of tuberculosis, visits from $50 million sympathiser Michael Moore and repeated efforts by leftists to find deeper meaning in Occupy's fantastic incoherence.
"There is something else critics of Occupy get wrong," wrote former academic Tim Dunlop at the ABC's Drum site, "and it is a mistake common to the well-educated. It is the presumption that before you can involve yourself in public discussion, you must understand precisely what you are talking about."
Bear that in mind the next time a conservative deemed by the left to be an ignorant moron - Sarah Palin, for example - runs for office. Apparently you no longer need to know "precisely what you are talking about". It's enough just to care. Or to camp.
What set Occupy Sydney apart from the rest of these Occupy try-hards was the group's determination to fracture almost instantly into tiny conflicting sub-movements. Maybe it's a Sydney left thing.
Labor has taught these people well.
Less than a month after their occupation began, Occupy Sydney's website reported: "There are people abandoning the cause in frustration, groups of like-minded people attempting to separate and create their own cause, imposing their views upon all the other fellow occupiers by means of violence and abuse. There are people wanting to break apart, taking what in their view are the most important values of the
Occupy movement, and creating either a separate Occupy Sydney or something other along the lines."
Remember, these are people who presume to lecture us on the best way to run the planet.
Yet they can't even run a society of, at most, a few dozen baby commies.
My personal Occupy Sydney standout is "Steve", who early in the occupation laid down a mighty challenge.
"How about a debate, Tim? How about actually discussing the issues at hand?" he wrote.
"Tim Blair, you are a coward. Shame. Shame. Shame." So I agreed to a debate. Could've been fun. Moreover, a Sydney investor volunteered $2000
to charities nominated by me and Occupy Sydney should a debate take place.
Radio 2UE presenter Mike Jeffreys stepped up to offer a debate venue. This represented a potentially historic convergence of capitalism, Occupyism, News Limited and Fairfax.
But Steve's revised view: "I don't see what such a debate would achieve."
This is why Occupy Sydney wins. In just one individual, we have two factions: pro- and anti-debate.
Beat that, worldwide Occupeople.
Tim Blair..
