HOPE FOR AUTONOMY

There is a paranormal effect which has been called the 100th monkey effect. Where learned behavior spreads instantaneously from one group of monkeys to all related monkeys once a critical number is reached. The paranormal aspects of the effect is that even unrelated species of monkeys can find themselves doing the same actions as the others – even when those monkey’s can’t relate or even know the other monkeys. It is a paranormal and sometime debunked method of discussing and predicting change. Not just any kind of change but change that influences movement of consciousness.

Change so often happens quickly and unexpectedly and the adaptation to that change is a remarkable thing to watch on a social level. Not all things remain the same and some things reach a tipping point or a point of autonomy.
Autonomy can be broadly understood as simply rejecting any large, centralized and hierarchical structures tied to the nation-state. Autonomy should also be understood as a way to be independent from corporate influence or multinational control mechanisms that wish to contribute or support change. Change with autonomy is self starting and should be done without well known political structures that have been proven time and again as being corrupt and divisive.
Change created in a revolutionary way is change without an enabling by political opportunism or corporate support. It is change that is sought independently and it is change that is sought for a benefit of separation and freedom.
Behaviors and ideas are viral. They spread rapidly and any thought of benefit can create a social benefit that breeds empathy for a cause that is just. Anything negative, paranoid or violent breeds behaviors that are untrusting and unsupportive. In the new century it seems that people are confused about how to create an effective revolution with autonomy.
We are now seeing a trend to occupy everything as the paranormal effect of the Arab spring has spread all over Europe and as predicted manifest like some phantom over cities elsewhere in the United States.
The idea of an occupy movement is impenetrable as a cause because most of us can identify with the 99 percent. However the consensus that does not feel the need to be involved can only see the disease that will spread unless there is a breaking away from behavioral liabilities that create a bad presence that can spread like an infection.
Timing and patience for major changes is must. Things can happen so fast that a flashpoint can be just a flashpoint and after the rocks are thrown, the jackboots arrive and the body bags are carried off, many can walk away saying the point was made and a hollow effort can be placed into the history pages as a criminal attempt to circumvent the so called benefits of the empire.
In the Occupy movements there is something missing that needs to be addressed. The collective imagination is not producing anything that can be seen as a breakthrough. Marches and confrontations against police always seem to capture the attention of news crews and each news organization will paint a picture of pointless rebellion and not of progress.
How can we present any demands within a political process that we already know has been damaged? How can we say that a real movement for change is happening when the same players are always welcomed to speak, all well fed, fat and rich.
How is a true revolution making an impact when it is endorsed by the very people you are fighting against?
It is like a parent supporting a child who wants to smoke pot in the home. The rationale is that it is better the child smokes pot with parental supervision then smoke it on the streets with hell knows who.
When you hear political leaders say that they support the Occupy movement in word alone it should be officially denounced by the movement. When Michael Moore decides that he wants to speak at a gathering he should be shown a taxi and a plane ticket away from the group.
Where is the autonomy when someone like Moore is allowed to speak at a gathering?
Is he truly a neutral party to the cause? Does he exploit his political bias when creating his films? Does his well known political bias taint a so called populist and non partisan movement?
An occupation is of course a collective effort; however you cannot deny that in any organized group there is always one or more vocal or persuasive activists often determining the outcome of events. Someone or a group of activists must either enable a chaotic movement or somehow create an organized attempt to keep the movement moving towards an achieved goal. If there is no objective or projected outcome it is merely an excuse to camp, get drunk and become enabled vagrants ready to become targets by the jackbooted militarized police force.
Any movement that lacks a center runs the risk of becoming co-opted, infiltrated and lost. There are at any given moment agents that come from the outside that with good intentions dismantle any movement that sets out to bring change.
Clearly, there are numerous grievances that everyone involved has. Those grievances need to be shared in order to create the outward public empathy. The initial actions is usually running into the streets with a sign or do the equivalent of finding a window, opening it and sticking out your head yelling I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore. However where is the Occupation’s demand for autonomy from any and all personalities, politicians and religious figures that pretends to support and enable their movement, when they are literally an enemy of the philosophies that movement claims to uphold?
The political system that the Occupiers are fighting against has engaged in illegal activity , Generated false promises, and failures that seem to be habitual. There has been proven corruption, lawlessness and constitutional obstruction. This is a reason for revolution, however we are seeing that there are political leanings that allow for “permission” to give audience to the very people that represent all of these liabilities to our freedom and well being how then is this productive to a movement that says the problem is the friends of wall street? The enablers and so called supporters who reside in places of power are false friends using doublespeak as a weapon of mass deception. All of them are friends of Wall Street, support business as usual in the Apocalypse, and want to push the buttons to insure the coming eschaton.
The occupiers should reject all dominant political structures and develop a cohesive alterative to insure autonomy. Otherwise this is no longer a serious attempt at change but a mockery of anything that even appears to be revolutionary.
How can anything be taken seriously when it is seen as normal and is accepted or enabled by local and national governments? The so called support is said to be genuine only because those in power saying so are hoping that the novelty will wear off without incident.
The Occupy movements are still in an experimental stage it seems and with it comes the criticism, then the tolerance and soon the majority will sympathize. This may be the makings of a wonderful and productive revolution. However there is a conditional reward for the attempt. That however remains to be seen.