While most of us slept, early Saturday morning, an armada of Boston Police vehicles and personnel descended upon the somewhat diminished Occupy Boston encampment in Dewey Square. Their orders were clear: the city had decided it was time for all this to end.

Hordes of media, representing outlets from all over the Bay State, and beyond, waited in anticipation for what many feared would be a violent clash between protestors and police, but, in the end, the pre-dawn eviction went as smoothly as anyone could have hoped for, if not more so. In the final analysis, . No serious injuries were reported. With so much potential for violence, it is truly remarkable that so little occurred; both sides deserve praise for their cool-headedness and restraint. It's clear the good faith that seemed to be building between the mayor's office, police and the protestors over the past two months was more than mere lip-service. So often these things degenerate into brutal melees, as was the case in the early days of Occupy Boston.

"There's a great group of kids down there at Occupy Boston," said Boston Police Superintendent William Evans during a Saturday morning press conference. "When we needed help, I called them, they called me, and together we were able to get situations that could have gotten out of control back to normal." Now that there is no more Occupy Boston camp, however, many are asking the obvious question: ?

If there is one unassailable, absolutely immutable truth about Occupy Boston, and the Occupy movement at large, it would have to be that it is nothing if not divisive. People are either squarely for it, or steadfastly against it. There is precious little middle ground. In the interests of full disclosure, I do support the movement. That being said, I have had my doubts about the wisdom of the encampments, and, if anyone had asked, I would have advocated the group hoisting anchor and sailing off under its own steam weeks ago. Their point had been made for at least that long. The job was already done. As many protestors in New York's Zuccotti Park had yelled at police, the whole world was watching. Watching and waiting. Waiting for some kind of coherent doctrine to emerge from the movement. But the encampments were just the first part of what will need to be a multi-faceted, long-term strategy. Now is when the message becomes the focal point of Occupy. The next thing I would advise would be trimming the fat, so to speak. A concerted effort should be made to root out, or at least marginalize, the blatantly anti-authoritarian or "anarchical" elements. If you want to be effective, that's not the message that needs to be sent. The battle that Occupy is fighting is not for acreage, but rather for hearts and minds. Aggressive tactics are counterproductive. Image is everything.

That's been one of the biggest issues facing encampments nationwide—the perception that they are little more than hastily-erected shanty towns, brimming with vice and depravity, unfit for decent folks to frequent. There were several reports of drug arrests and violence that came from the Dewey Square camp, further serving to enforce such beliefs.

But anyone who has paid any attention to the movement knows such stereotypes are complete and utter bunk. While there are bad apples in every orchard, the wise fruit-grower doesn't throw away his entire crop when he finds one.

That's why, for my money, the future of Occupy, whatever your personal take on it, was on display . The group needs to fan out, state by state, city by city and organize meetings like the one Dec. 7, at the Unitarian Universalist Church on Woburn Street, where residents can get together and feel involved in this process. By focusing energy in smaller groups, on a national level, more can be gained than by larger rallies, which, let's face it, can feel somewhat off-putting and inaccessible. It's also important that the movement avoids politics as much as possible, or risk banishment to the world of the punchline, like the Tea Party.