Occupy Movement Shows Hidden Agenda of it Master's?
Two related stories have just caught my attention, and since they bolster a long standing "conspiracy theory" of mine, I'm going to analyze them a bit. First a rehash and link to my conspiracy theory, which is a synonym for a sensible guess based on rational assumptions.
"Consider political leadership as an art, and then consider that as with any art, by virtue of training or genetics, somebody else might be far better at this art than you or me. This somebody might not be anyone we would instantly recognize, but they are artists at attaining and keeping political power. These people never let a crisis go to waste. It has to do with synthesis/antithesis, problem develops, solution presented. They can't just crack down on civil liberties. They need a crisis as an excuse.
Watch Occupy Someplace. See what crisis, or problem they become known as representing. Ten to one the solution presented by our herders will result in less freedom for Americans, not more."
So, I have long thought the Occupy Movement was designed to be subverted, much as The Tea Party has been. I first started scratching my head when (see below) the Ocucupy Movement "mike-checked" Ron Paul, a maneuver meant to mock him which he immediately turned the tables on, through his natural wit and elan.
I was befuddled though. Why would any sane reform movement ridicule Ron Paul for the love of God? His status as a reformer is simply not in question. Was The Occupy Movement simply too young and uninformed to know this? But what about the older people associated with organizng and even leadin the movement? Where were they in all this?
The answer lies in the two recent news articles I referred to above.
The first describes Occupy's plans to make a statement in Iowa to disrupt the process and encourage people to vote "no preference". Fine. That is their right as citizens, although their pretext, that all the GOP candidates are "corporate owned" is risible with regards to Ron Paul, who has always been reliant on a grass roots movement of citizens to fund his campaigns through small private donations.
The second describes plan to move Iowa's vote tallying apparatus to "an undisclosed location" to avoid interference.
It has to do with synthesis/antithesis, problem develops, solution presented.
Problem-Occupy disruption threat. Solution-Private and therefore easier vote fraud. Paranoia? Is it paranoia on my part that last year in New Hampshire Ron Paul was robbed of votes in New Hampshire? (link). Is it paranoia that in 2008, the Las Vegas GOP simply closed the Nevada voting for delegates because they saw Paul voters were going to vote in Paul delegates to the GOP National Convention? For a full treatment of this, read the shocking account of it in RON PAUL:A LIFE OF IDEAS
Occupy creates a "problem" for the establishment, supposedly, but what it really is doing is helping the establishment solve a problem-Ron Paul. I find it ironic that The Occupy Movement and the Ron Paul Campaign are both smeared as "anti-semites". These anti-semites certainly are disorganized, when Occupy is going all out to trounce the only honest statesman in the world. You don't fool me Occupy, or rather, the 1.0 % of the 99.0 % who are giving the rest of you your marching orders.
What's Up With Occupy Wall Street Heckling Ron Paul?
Ron Paul gets ‘mic checked’ by New Hampshire protesters
A funny thing happened to me yesterday. and by "funny", I mean maddening, heartbreaking, infuriating, and disappointing.
Congressman and GOP Presidential candidate got heckled by Occupy Wall Street types. There is a video of it in that first link.
So far, and even now, I have been open minded about OWS (Occupy Wall Street). I have tried to ascertain their goals, and have tried to raise their Internet profile a bit. I even dedicated a website to Marine Vet Scott Olson, linked to above, as well as this one to their cause.
First and foremost, however, I am a die hard Ron Paul supporter. Ron Paul Forever. If he's not on the ticket, and doesn't endorse anyone, I'm staying home. Given a choice between voting for Hitler or Stalin, Obama or Romney, I'm not going to dignify the proceedings by voting.
So I was extremely pained to see OWS heckling Ron Paul, not because Ron Paul can't take it. He can. He's tough. I bet he won some converts yesterday from OWS. That old man is fast on his feet, physically and mentally. What pained me was to see the ignorance of these folks, who they said were affilliated with OWS, attacking the one candidate who understands their frustration and would do something to make things better.
It's just sad. What was telling though, was this avalanche of crazed anti-Ron Paul posters on the message board of the above link. All the usual bigoted canards about Paul were trotted out. Let's talk this.
Back in the 80's I think, when Paul had returned to medical practise, certain racists remarks were attributed to one of his campaign workers. Back then, nobody knew who Ron Paul was,but in 2007, a forensic journalist from The New Republic got a hold of them, and used them to discredit Paul.
Let's talk about The New Republic. It's a rag. Movies have been made about the scandals produced by this vile publication ( see: "Shattered Glass"). It's owned by Marty Peretz, who co-owns the "The Street" with Jim Kramer (or is it Larry Cramer? I would never watch that garbage.) Anyway, Kramer (or Cramer) is that loud financial butcher who herded all those investers into the Internet cattle pen for slaughter. He's the guy who admitted to manipulating stocks on his show. Does Marty Peretz and Jim Cramer represent OWS? Are they in charge?
Let's talk some more about the lies used to tarnish Ron Paul back in 2007. A man named Bill White accused Ron Paul and his campaign of conspiring with White Supremacists at a Thai restaurant in Washington D.C. Aside from the fact that White Supremacists probably don't eat Thai food (they should try it, though it's hard to find good Pad Thai. So often it's gloopy. I may have to return to NYC soon. I haven't had good Thai food since I moved out), there are several problems with Bill White's story.
First, the Thai restaurant didn't exist. Second, Bill White is a strange fellow. His father is Jewish, but Bill became a neonazi. He's instigated a couple of things, and he had a couple of followers. The point is, he's not a very credible source. Now, I think Bill White has a pretty high I.Q. Ask yourself this though-if Ron Paul wanted to be Hitler, why would a neonazi discredit him? Why did Bill White slander Paul? I know why The New Republic people would listen to him. It fit their agenda and saved them from having to lie themselves. You see, The New Republic people are liars.
I had a good friend I talked to about Ron Paul back in 2007. This guy was one of the few people I met who really understood and approved of Ron Paul, but he was voting for Obama. We parted cordially, but I would no more associate with a Black Supremacist than I would a White one. My longtime friend was African American, you see, and was voting for Obama soley because of this. He couldn't defend or support one of Obama's positions, but he was voting for him because of the color of his skin.
So what is up with OWS? 90% of African Americans who voted voted for Obama, but Ron Paul's supporters are racists?
So it's sad to see OWS attack Ron Paul, because there is no rational reason for it. I refuse to get sucked in to the Internet wars about it this time, so I'm posting this here so I don't have to.
***Disclaimer-I do not think the people who attacked Paul yesterday are indicative of the OWS Movement. I just hate to see OWS being used as the elite thugocracy's tool of enforcement, or at least being labeled as such.
I was joking around with my wife, and I said I was going to occupy Scranton. She told me people already were. The next time I was downtown, I went to investigate.
Several small but functional looking tents were set up, and a couple of rather cold looking guys in their mid-twenties (estimate) were aggregated around a small booth...........They had some literature to pass out, and in general seemed pretty helpful and forthcoming about what they were doing and why. There are a few historical examples of this type of thing that quickly come to mind.
One-WW1 veterans encamped in a park across the street from The White House during The Great Depression. They were trying to get their promised veterans bonuses early, on the premise they were starving and might not be around to collect them when officially due. They kept military discipline and procedures, digging latrines and so forth. Some of the generals who would be top players in WW2 were sent to sweep them out on trumped up pretexts. The bulldozers used back then were sent in, and several people were killed, including some kids. Tear gas was used, if I recall.
In Russia, the serfs would have spontaneous marches on occasion in which large masses of them would move towards St. Petersburg. It happened a few times. The serfs were eventually emancipated, becoming "kulaks" or land owning peasants. When the Bolsheviks weaseled their way into power, the kulaks were deemed counterrevolutionaries, and things went badly for them, especially in the Ukraine, the events of which constitute a mass murder on one of the most epic scales in history. Possibly only Mao killed more people in as a short a time. The term kulak is also used extensively in The Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn, and not in a pleasant context. These Orthodox Catholic peasants suffered terribly in Stalin's prison camps.
Occupy Scranton has every constitutional right to be there. It's in the 1st Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Occupy Scranton is peaceably assembled, or was when I was there. They have some grievances they want redressed. So far so good.
One thing I would point out though, they accuse corporations of selling their privacy, and then ask everyone to join Facebook to support them. Now, Mark Zuckerberg has made a lot of money with his site, and kudos to his corporate ethos, but he appears to me to be a hollow little man. His trillions of dollars should be enough, but is it? What does he aspire to? He has money, he goes to nightclubs and gets to be Snoop Doggy Dog's hanger-on, but is it enough? Does he have loftier aspirations, say pertaining to the incredible database he's compiled on private individuals? We've all heard of Twitter revolutions, and Facebook's role in different uprisings. Is Zuckerberg a "good" corporatist, as opposed to say a Charles Koch?
My point is, The Occupiers denounce corporations who sell their privacy, flip the page and they endorse the greatest data mining operation in the history of the world. Oh, but people who sign up for Facebook sign up voluntarily. I signed up, created a profile etc, went to log on one day and got asked for my phone number. My phone number! If I give them my landline, they can access all my information. If I give them my cell phone, they have all my info plus my location, anywhere, 24/7. Total information awareness.
One of the reasons I never get involved with anything is because I've learned that good motivations are cannon fodder for the unscrupulous. Where is the Occupy Movement going? Who is providing that roll your own tobacco and friendly media support, which is no accident if people would grow up and admit the media do nothing that does not further their master's agenda? (Note-the roll your own tobacco is a reference to Occupy Wall Street, not Occupy Scranton, where I saw no tobacco give aways. Some New Yorkers might be joining just for the cigarettes, which Bloomberg has jacked up to 12 bucks a pack now).
Anyway, this is not an official "Occupy" site. I am merely interested in what they are doing, and will link to relevant articles and try to support them in some small way. Mainly, I am disgusted by people like Sarah Palin, who endorsed the Wall Street Bailouts and now denounces the Occupy Movement as a bunch of freeloaders, while denying she supported the Wall Street bailouts. I've learned to pay attention to the paid opposition and form my opinions based on theirs, to some degree. We are revealed by our enemies. Glenn Rice would be doing everybody a favor if he gave her some more attention, maybe she would retire as Harpy Queen.
"Consider political leadership as an art, and then consider that as with any art, by virtue of training or genetics, somebody else might be far better at this art than you or me. This somebody might not be anyone we would instantly recognize, but they are artists at attaining and keeping political power. These people never let a crisis go to waste. It has to do with synthesis/antithesis, problem develops, solution presented. They can't just crack down on civil liberties. They need a crisis as an excuse.
Watch Occupy Someplace. See what crisis, or problem they become known as representing. Ten to one the solution presented by our herders will result in less freedom for Americans, not more."
So, I have long thought the Occupy Movement was designed to be subverted, much as The Tea Party has been. I first started scratching my head when (see below) the Ocucupy Movement "mike-checked" Ron Paul, a maneuver meant to mock him which he immediately turned the tables on, through his natural wit and elan.
I was befuddled though. Why would any sane reform movement ridicule Ron Paul for the love of God? His status as a reformer is simply not in question. Was The Occupy Movement simply too young and uninformed to know this? But what about the older people associated with organizng and even leadin the movement? Where were they in all this?
The answer lies in the two recent news articles I referred to above.
The first describes Occupy's plans to make a statement in Iowa to disrupt the process and encourage people to vote "no preference". Fine. That is their right as citizens, although their pretext, that all the GOP candidates are "corporate owned" is risible with regards to Ron Paul, who has always been reliant on a grass roots movement of citizens to fund his campaigns through small private donations.
The second describes plan to move Iowa's vote tallying apparatus to "an undisclosed location" to avoid interference.
It has to do with synthesis/antithesis, problem develops, solution presented.
Problem-Occupy disruption threat. Solution-Private and therefore easier vote fraud. Paranoia? Is it paranoia on my part that last year in New Hampshire Ron Paul was robbed of votes in New Hampshire? (link). Is it paranoia that in 2008, the Las Vegas GOP simply closed the Nevada voting for delegates because they saw Paul voters were going to vote in Paul delegates to the GOP National Convention? For a full treatment of this, read the shocking account of it in RON PAUL:A LIFE OF IDEAS
Occupy creates a "problem" for the establishment, supposedly, but what it really is doing is helping the establishment solve a problem-Ron Paul. I find it ironic that The Occupy Movement and the Ron Paul Campaign are both smeared as "anti-semites". These anti-semites certainly are disorganized, when Occupy is going all out to trounce the only honest statesman in the world. You don't fool me Occupy, or rather, the 1.0 % of the 99.0 % who are giving the rest of you your marching orders.
What's Up With Occupy Wall Street Heckling Ron Paul?
Ron Paul gets ‘mic checked’ by New Hampshire protesters
A funny thing happened to me yesterday. and by "funny", I mean maddening, heartbreaking, infuriating, and disappointing.
Congressman and GOP Presidential candidate got heckled by Occupy Wall Street types. There is a video of it in that first link.
So far, and even now, I have been open minded about OWS (Occupy Wall Street). I have tried to ascertain their goals, and have tried to raise their Internet profile a bit. I even dedicated a website to Marine Vet Scott Olson, linked to above, as well as this one to their cause.
First and foremost, however, I am a die hard Ron Paul supporter. Ron Paul Forever. If he's not on the ticket, and doesn't endorse anyone, I'm staying home. Given a choice between voting for Hitler or Stalin, Obama or Romney, I'm not going to dignify the proceedings by voting.
So I was extremely pained to see OWS heckling Ron Paul, not because Ron Paul can't take it. He can. He's tough. I bet he won some converts yesterday from OWS. That old man is fast on his feet, physically and mentally. What pained me was to see the ignorance of these folks, who they said were affilliated with OWS, attacking the one candidate who understands their frustration and would do something to make things better.
It's just sad. What was telling though, was this avalanche of crazed anti-Ron Paul posters on the message board of the above link. All the usual bigoted canards about Paul were trotted out. Let's talk this.
Back in the 80's I think, when Paul had returned to medical practise, certain racists remarks were attributed to one of his campaign workers. Back then, nobody knew who Ron Paul was,but in 2007, a forensic journalist from The New Republic got a hold of them, and used them to discredit Paul.
Let's talk about The New Republic. It's a rag. Movies have been made about the scandals produced by this vile publication ( see: "Shattered Glass"). It's owned by Marty Peretz, who co-owns the "The Street" with Jim Kramer (or is it Larry Cramer? I would never watch that garbage.) Anyway, Kramer (or Cramer) is that loud financial butcher who herded all those investers into the Internet cattle pen for slaughter. He's the guy who admitted to manipulating stocks on his show. Does Marty Peretz and Jim Cramer represent OWS? Are they in charge?
Let's talk some more about the lies used to tarnish Ron Paul back in 2007. A man named Bill White accused Ron Paul and his campaign of conspiring with White Supremacists at a Thai restaurant in Washington D.C. Aside from the fact that White Supremacists probably don't eat Thai food (they should try it, though it's hard to find good Pad Thai. So often it's gloopy. I may have to return to NYC soon. I haven't had good Thai food since I moved out), there are several problems with Bill White's story.
First, the Thai restaurant didn't exist. Second, Bill White is a strange fellow. His father is Jewish, but Bill became a neonazi. He's instigated a couple of things, and he had a couple of followers. The point is, he's not a very credible source. Now, I think Bill White has a pretty high I.Q. Ask yourself this though-if Ron Paul wanted to be Hitler, why would a neonazi discredit him? Why did Bill White slander Paul? I know why The New Republic people would listen to him. It fit their agenda and saved them from having to lie themselves. You see, The New Republic people are liars.
I had a good friend I talked to about Ron Paul back in 2007. This guy was one of the few people I met who really understood and approved of Ron Paul, but he was voting for Obama. We parted cordially, but I would no more associate with a Black Supremacist than I would a White one. My longtime friend was African American, you see, and was voting for Obama soley because of this. He couldn't defend or support one of Obama's positions, but he was voting for him because of the color of his skin.
So what is up with OWS? 90% of African Americans who voted voted for Obama, but Ron Paul's supporters are racists?
So it's sad to see OWS attack Ron Paul, because there is no rational reason for it. I refuse to get sucked in to the Internet wars about it this time, so I'm posting this here so I don't have to.
***Disclaimer-I do not think the people who attacked Paul yesterday are indicative of the OWS Movement. I just hate to see OWS being used as the elite thugocracy's tool of enforcement, or at least being labeled as such.
I was joking around with my wife, and I said I was going to occupy Scranton. She told me people already were. The next time I was downtown, I went to investigate.
Several small but functional looking tents were set up, and a couple of rather cold looking guys in their mid-twenties (estimate) were aggregated around a small booth...........They had some literature to pass out, and in general seemed pretty helpful and forthcoming about what they were doing and why. There are a few historical examples of this type of thing that quickly come to mind.
One-WW1 veterans encamped in a park across the street from The White House during The Great Depression. They were trying to get their promised veterans bonuses early, on the premise they were starving and might not be around to collect them when officially due. They kept military discipline and procedures, digging latrines and so forth. Some of the generals who would be top players in WW2 were sent to sweep them out on trumped up pretexts. The bulldozers used back then were sent in, and several people were killed, including some kids. Tear gas was used, if I recall.
In Russia, the serfs would have spontaneous marches on occasion in which large masses of them would move towards St. Petersburg. It happened a few times. The serfs were eventually emancipated, becoming "kulaks" or land owning peasants. When the Bolsheviks weaseled their way into power, the kulaks were deemed counterrevolutionaries, and things went badly for them, especially in the Ukraine, the events of which constitute a mass murder on one of the most epic scales in history. Possibly only Mao killed more people in as a short a time. The term kulak is also used extensively in The Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn, and not in a pleasant context. These Orthodox Catholic peasants suffered terribly in Stalin's prison camps.
Occupy Scranton has every constitutional right to be there. It's in the 1st Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Occupy Scranton is peaceably assembled, or was when I was there. They have some grievances they want redressed. So far so good.
One thing I would point out though, they accuse corporations of selling their privacy, and then ask everyone to join Facebook to support them. Now, Mark Zuckerberg has made a lot of money with his site, and kudos to his corporate ethos, but he appears to me to be a hollow little man. His trillions of dollars should be enough, but is it? What does he aspire to? He has money, he goes to nightclubs and gets to be Snoop Doggy Dog's hanger-on, but is it enough? Does he have loftier aspirations, say pertaining to the incredible database he's compiled on private individuals? We've all heard of Twitter revolutions, and Facebook's role in different uprisings. Is Zuckerberg a "good" corporatist, as opposed to say a Charles Koch?
My point is, The Occupiers denounce corporations who sell their privacy, flip the page and they endorse the greatest data mining operation in the history of the world. Oh, but people who sign up for Facebook sign up voluntarily. I signed up, created a profile etc, went to log on one day and got asked for my phone number. My phone number! If I give them my landline, they can access all my information. If I give them my cell phone, they have all my info plus my location, anywhere, 24/7. Total information awareness.
One of the reasons I never get involved with anything is because I've learned that good motivations are cannon fodder for the unscrupulous. Where is the Occupy Movement going? Who is providing that roll your own tobacco and friendly media support, which is no accident if people would grow up and admit the media do nothing that does not further their master's agenda? (Note-the roll your own tobacco is a reference to Occupy Wall Street, not Occupy Scranton, where I saw no tobacco give aways. Some New Yorkers might be joining just for the cigarettes, which Bloomberg has jacked up to 12 bucks a pack now).
Anyway, this is not an official "Occupy" site. I am merely interested in what they are doing, and will link to relevant articles and try to support them in some small way. Mainly, I am disgusted by people like Sarah Palin, who endorsed the Wall Street Bailouts and now denounces the Occupy Movement as a bunch of freeloaders, while denying she supported the Wall Street bailouts. I've learned to pay attention to the paid opposition and form my opinions based on theirs, to some degree. We are revealed by our enemies. Glenn Rice would be doing everybody a favor if he gave her some more attention, maybe she would retire as Harpy Queen.