Where do we strike the balance between popularity and unpopular truths?

Question

When I see quotes from Presidents Clinton and Carter that appear to laud the Occupy movement, followed by a comment about cults, I think of the Council On Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commision, and the Bilderberg Group. (Clinton has been part of all 3, Carter's a member of Trilateral - both steered by notorious 1% crooks like David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Henry Kissinger)

Do we ignore the quite real possibility that both men were and still are puppets of the monied interests we came together to fight and risk coming off like spoilsports, ingrates, and kooks? Or do we just go with the flow, and use carefully selected quotes and soundbites  from these people to enhance our PR, while studiously ignoring certain ugly facts about the sources in order to enhance our broad appeal?

Answer 1

I used to love Clinton.  Then I learned that he repealed Glass-Steagall (separation of banking and investing by a single organization) which gave the banks the ability to cause the real estate bubble that tanked the economy.  Now i don't love him so much anymore.  I do believe that he is a puppet.   He is now a very wealthy puppet who earns millions each year from those very same bankers who made millions while destroying the economy.  These bankers include the owners of Amalgamated bank where OWS banks.

I say OWS would do well by not aligning itself too strongly with any particular politician.

Comments

Clinton has also come out in favor of the Keystone Pipeline lately.

Answer 2

I think a lot of us (I know I do) are operaitng under an obsolete idea of "Movement" and "Progress" - we think of the momentum of OWS as one big arrow that should be pointing towards a better world, and whose momentum is threatened to be blunted or stopped by co-optors, subversives, or misguided "leaders".  

Instead, we should think of our "progress" as a meshwork of autonumous actions going in all differect directions, but more or less going towards one goal (the way vines grow towards a source of light) which means we'll sometimes be going in opposite directions, and some of us are going to get hung up on one thing or another and get bypassed

Which is maybe my overcaffienated way of saying that when members of the ruling class show our support, but don't leave behind or unlearn their oppressive ways, we can just say, "Thanks, and we'll come back later to finish the job with you."  It's not like Clinton or Carter are coming out of nowhere to increase the number of shadowy rich people in the world - that remains constant - they're just shifting around what hats they're wearing.  

I'd be much, much  more worried about people using OWS as a stepping stone into the ruling class, which doesn't seem to be happening.

Answer 3

Lets not handicap ourselfs by holding hate and fundamental views.  If a potential enemy does something benficial for the movement we should encourage more of this, take advantage of it.  There's no benefit to judging people in permanent absolutes.

We have to deal with and indeed 'flourish' within the present contraints of the current system.  Some may be against the Capitalist system, but they don't turn up in rags and abstain from technology just because they would ideally only use items from an ethically producing supplier/system.

The constraints in this case are the education and awareness of society. People are highly suspectible and responsiive to populist attraction and hierachy.  Lets use this.