He objects to a strawman OWS of his own creation, but there is a cogent warning within it:
"the "Occupy" movement [will] lose its principles, because it is a movement of the modern left, if it seeks immediate change, it will have no choice but to work within the system of the Democratic party to cut their losses by having a say...".
That may happen, but it doesn't have to happen. If a movement remains independent, it may not get a place at the table, but it can shift the places of those at the table. And since you usually have to sell out to get a place at the table, there's no reason for OWS not to remain independent, and watch while politics inclines towards its democratic voice.
As for the rest, I think it's the fantasmagoria of the libertarian posse commitatus imagination
"they have goals, those goals are economic, those goals are impossible, and the seek to carry out those goals using the coercive force of the state. In short, they intend to obtain weapons and behave irrationally."
You can see what he's been watching.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Lauren <email@example.com>
"Stop living in the 60s"?
Need to think of a better comeback but seriously, I'm not exactly
positively inspired by the man to think this is entirely deserving of
a serious response. The early analysis of the tea party I get with the
Ronulans is entirely based on an idealized view of Ron Paul which has
never been true in elections: the man has been consistently and
constantly pandering to the religious right and southern racists, gets
his endorsements from klansmen, etc.
Lower East Side Residents for Responsible Developmenthttp://savethelowereastside.blogspot.com/
622 E 11, #10