Thoughts About Yesterday’s Article in The Age
Ok, so most people have read that piece of garbage in yesterday’s Age, certainly won’t post the link here, do your own digging if you must.
There are two things that are quite obvious here:
1) The Age was contacted by someone who has access to the media contact list, with details about Occupy Reflects and the Silent Vigil action. It is unlikely (although admittedly not impossible) that the paper would have found out about either event without being contacted, since we are truly old news at the moment. The media is generally only interested when we are dragged and beaten by police. The reporter supposedly turned up to Sunday’s event, and although most people didn’t even know he was there, one Baron de Merxhausen ,by his own admission, spoke to him, putting a negative spin on the “funeral” action, which was supported by the vast majority. This negative view, held by only two people (Carl Scrase and Baron) was what ended up in the newspaper as “the truth”. Both these men have claimed not to be part of OM anymore, so it’s obvious that they want to destroy a movement they no longer consider relevant, mainly because OM rejects the idea of them (or anyone) being in charge. The cool kids club exerting it’s final act of revenge on OM.
2) “Occupy Reflects” turned out to be a really bad idea. Even though it contained some positive and some neutral essays , it was, for a large part, written in the condescending, pseudo-intellectual tone of undergraduate degree holders. The majority of people boycotted it when asked for contributions, as they felt that it was too soon to reflect on something that was still happening and there were more important practical things to do than whingeing in public.
What we have here is a really dirty campaign by some people who are disgruntled with OM, probably due to the fact that a number of them belonged to an exclusive club of social science graduates whose sheer arrogance and secrecy annoyed a lot of people. Maybe they should read John Steinbeck as an example of how simple language can be used in a beautiful and effective way, rather than the usual class-conscious white-man double speak they seem to favour. It is obvious from the publication that a number of them are aspiring politicians, lawyers and academics who are using their self-proclaimed death of OM as a platform for current and future careers, while running down the tireless effort of countless others. Some of the writers did not even occupy overnight frequently, about one third never occupied overnight, yet they are willing to pass lengthy judgement in public.
These people were an example of what Occupy stands against: people who do the least and want to have the loudest voice and the most influence. They continue to demand the loudest voice and will not release the media contact list, even after leaving OM. This is unacceptable , therefore we will not be gentle in our appraisal of their methods.