Forum Post: How Long Will We Be Able To Be Leaderless
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 5, 2011, 8:57 p.m. EST by TheLeader
(0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I think we already did step 1. But we need a well spoken leader that can get us what we want or we will fail!
We bitch about what the people we consider leaders like teachers, police, government officals tell us to do, but here we have no leaders tellling us what to do & we bitch because we have no leader. Will we ever make up our minds?:)
Find the guy who is holding the 500k in donations. He is your leader.
Auditions tomorrow at 11:00.
i agree but i don't think we can ever truly have a set leader, but we do need to start coming together and making written demands
I think you all speak of liberation from oppression from leaders. But the sheer fact that you refuse a leader because of what your convinced to believe shows you've just taken on new chains of oppression.
How Long Will We Be Able To Be Leaderless?
................AS LONG AS IT TAKES !!!
the people who wrote these could be leaders: http://thedeclarationofdesperation.wordpress.com/ https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/
Why were you so willing to be exploited so long? Now you want a leader immediately so you can go back to ignoring reality?
Anyone who demands a leader should have to be the leader. Sometimes the only way for a person to learn to be a good follower is to have to be the leader.
You don't need a leader right now you need to get your messages to the 63% who shit in their pants and fold every time a real conflict arise. Good luck your going to need a lot of Depends.
We have been through this a few times. Emeliano Zapata in the movie Viva Zapata said, " A weak people need a strong leader. A strong people don't need a leader." Take your pick.
Issues, we have issues. When you make demands you leave some out. People aren't satisfied with the order. Some people who would accept as valid some or most of them, are turned completely off by one of them. People who are sympathetic will acknowledge issues that seem valid to them and will ignore others that, if they were forced to confront, would be very hostile.
Real enemies will pick out a couple and demonize them and misrepresent them and ridicule them and lump them all together and say that you, not your demands are ridiculous..There is a science to getting acceptance and support from those who could easily become your enemies.
Confrontation and winning are separate and distinct choices.
I prefer winning. But you get choices, too. Violence, utopian scenarios, free pot, fascism, you make you own choices. Walk down the street, If a lot of people follow you, you might be a leader.Or, maybe somebody else organized a parade.In Oakland they were winning big until some anarchists started burning and breaking. Then they lost much of what the had built.
Then they repudiated the violence and got some, some of it back. Choices. They matter.
I feel like we are watching Groundhog Day.
interesting reading, thanks
We've got Trolls masquerading as Dwarfs, Saruman and Grima Wormtongue are reportedly up to no good, the Elves keep muttering something about ZeitGeist, and we're surrounded by these bloody Orcs!
Where the heck is Gandalf ? We need him NOW !
See http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupy-mordor-because-one-ring-should-not-rule-the/ for some fun.... with a serious undercurrent .
We already have plenty of well spoken people articulating our message very clearly (even if the media pretends this is not so.) Why do they have to be leaders? If its their intended function to speak---then why can't they simply be "speakers"?
To avoid situations like this....
http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2011/11/04/occupy-oakland-explains-the-violence-or-doesnt-video/
Not exactly well spoken but defensive and aloof. Spokespeople don't necessarily have to claim leadership roles.
I think a direct democratic process will suffice.
I nominate "you".