Top Leaderboard, Site wide
September 22, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


The Coming Climate Revolt




A Chronicle of Echoes


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Finding Freedom in Handcuffs

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Nov 7, 2011
AP / Bebeto Matthews

Police arrest Occupy Wall Street protesters as they staged a sit-down at Goldman Sachs headquarters on Thursday in New York.

By Chris Hedges

Truthdig columnist Chris Hedges, an activist, an author and a member of a reporting team that won a 2002 Pulitzer Prize, wrote this article after he was released from custody following his arrest last Thursday. He and about 15 other participants in the Occupy Wall Street movement were detained as they protested outside the global headquarters of Goldman Sachs in lower Manhattan.

Faces appeared to me moments before the New York City police arrested us Thursday in front of Goldman Sachs. They were not the faces of the smug Goldman Sachs employees, who peered at us through the revolving glass doors and lobby windows, a pathetic collection of middle-aged fraternity and sorority members. They were not the faces of the blue-uniformed police with their dangling cords of white and black plastic handcuffs, or the thuggish Goldman Sachs security personnel, whose buzz cuts and dead eyes reminded me of the East German secret police, the Stasi. They were not the faces of the demonstrators around me, the ones with massive student debts and no jobs, the ones whose broken dreams weigh them down like a cross, the ones whose anger and betrayal triggered the street demonstrations and occupations for justice. They were not the faces of the onlookers—the construction workers, who seemed cheered by the march on Goldman Sachs, or the suited businessmen who did not. They were faraway faces. They were the faces of children dying. They were tiny, confused, bewildered faces I had seen in the southern Sudan, Gaza and the slums of Brazzaville, Nairobi, Cairo and Delhi and the wars I covered. They were faces with large, glassy eyes, above bloated bellies. They were the small faces of children convulsed by the ravages of starvation and disease.

I carry these faces. They do not leave me. I look at my own children and cannot forget them, these other children who never had a chance. War brings with it a host of horrors, including famine, but the worst is always the human detritus that war and famine leave behind, the small, frail bodies whose tangled limbs and vacant eyes condemn us all. The wealthy and the powerful, the ones behind the glass at Goldman Sachs, laughed and snapped pictures of us as if we were a brief and odd lunchtime diversion from commodities trading, from hoarding and profit, from this collective sickness of money worship, as if we were creatures in a cage, which in fact we soon were.

A glass tower filled with people carefully selected for the polish and self-assurance that come with having been formed in institutions of privilege, whose primary attributes are a lack of consciousness, a penchant for deception and an incapacity for empathy or remorse. The curious onlookers behind the windows and we, arms locked in a circle on the concrete outside, did not speak the same language. Profit. Globalization. War. National security. These are the words they use to justify the snuffing out of tiny lives, acts of radical evil. Goldman Sachs’ commodities index is the most heavily traded in the world. Those who trade it have, by buying up and hoarding commodities futures, doubled and tripled the costs of wheat, rice and corn. Hundreds of millions of poor across the globe are going hungry to feed this mania for profit. The technical jargon, learned in business schools and on trading floors, effectively masks the reality of what is happening—murder. These are words designed to make systems operate, even systems of death, with a cold neutrality. Peace, love and all sane affirmative speech in temples like Goldman Sachs are, as W.H. Auden understood, “soiled, profaned, debased to a horrid mechanical screech.”

We seemed to have lost, at least until the advent of the Occupy Wall Street movement, not only all personal responsibility but all capacity for personal judgment. Corporate culture absolves all of responsibility. This is part of its appeal. It relieves all from moral choice. There is an unequivocal acceptance of ruling principles such as unregulated capitalism and globalization as a kind of natural law. The steady march of corporate capitalism requires a passive acceptance of new laws and demolished regulations, of bailouts in the trillions of dollars and the systematic looting of public funds, of lies and deceit. The corporate culture, epitomized by Goldman Sachs, has seeped into our classrooms, our newsrooms, our entertainment systems and our consciousness. This corporate culture has stripped us of the right to express ourselves outside of the narrowly accepted confines of the established political order. It has turned us into compliant consumers. We are forced to surrender our voice. These corporate machines, like fraternities and sororities, also haze new recruits in company rituals, force them to adopt an unrelenting cheerfulness, a childish optimism and obsequiousness to authority. These corporate rituals, bolstered by retreats and training seminars, by grueling days that sometimes end with initiates curled up under their desks to sleep, ensure that only the most morally supine remain. The strong and independent are weeded out early so only the unquestioning advance upward. Corporate culture serves a faceless system. It is, as Hannah Arendt writes, “the rule of nobody and for this very reason perhaps the least human and most cruel form of rulership.”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Foucauldian, November 17, 2011 at 10:32 pm Link to this comment

Threat against authority, definitely.  A violent threat
against authority, no question it’s being perceived as
such.

But we all know, don’t we, that authorities fall of
their own accord, whether by violence or not.

It’s always only a matter of time.

Report this
Virginia777's avatar

By Virginia777, November 15, 2011 at 7:50 pm Link to this comment

Awesome Chris Hedges.

Breathtakingly accurate.

Powerful.

Thank you.

Report this

By ardee, November 15, 2011 at 6:36 pm Link to this comment

“Storm the Bastile” is Leftist prose for ‘a violent action against authority.’

Why, because Michael says it is, thats why. Now a reasonable person might understand it is not.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, November 14, 2011 at 11:17 pm Link to this comment

Did she say it or did someone identified as OWS?

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 14, 2011 at 9:08 pm Link to this comment

Our own Amy Goodwin said that OWS is a threat to ‘storm the Bastille’.You dont read these Truthdig articles, do you Night Gaunt?

“Storm the Bastile” is Leftist prose for ‘a violent action against authority.’

Report this

By ardee, November 14, 2011 at 4:40 pm Link to this comment

Foucauldian, November 14 at 10:34 am

tinyurl.com

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, November 14, 2011 at 3:43 pm Link to this comment

Ozark Michael not one of those groups of citizens protesting anywhere in the USA are threatening violence. Not even “Second Amendment remedies” as some Republicans did, here so where are you getting this bunk? That ideology running you again.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 14, 2011 at 12:30 pm Link to this comment

Grady said:

Occupy Charlotte is interested in
educational input from informed reformers.

Is “informed reformer” something that Leftists can just, like, you know, ‘insert’ on their resume? or is it one of those useless college majors that i havent heard about yet?

If good preparations were made a great deal of violence and suffering could be avoided next summer. Negotiations with authorities managing the
Democratic Party Convention “security” need to
begin now. Then the public can decide what matters.

Was there ever a political faction that required so much to be done for it, and demanded so many exceptions to rules which the rest of us have to live by? Was there ever a faction that held the threat of violence and suffering over our heads like this without being called out for what that is? (Its called a shakedown.)

And why cant the public decide what matters right now?

Report this

By Foucauldian, November 14, 2011 at 10:34 am Link to this comment

Sorry for incompletely highlighted url link.  Any
suggestions how to make it fit? 

Some people mentioned a tiny url.  How does one make it
“tiny”?

Report this

By Foucauldian, November 14, 2011 at 10:31 am Link to this comment

GradyLeeHoward,

Getting your feet wet, I see.

I looked for their website, but Google doesn’t
produce any results.  The only reference to it is as
per the following link:

http://clclt.com/charlotte/occupy-charlotte-charges-
onward-amid-a-movement-facing-big-challenges/Content?
oid=2524900

Do you have better info?  I was intrigued by your
comment about their perceived need of educational
input.

BTW, sent you an email yesterday.

Report this

By GradyLeeHoward, November 14, 2011 at 8:18 am Link to this comment

I visited Occupy Charlotte (location of next year’s
Democratic Party Convention) Sunday. It was a
cloudy day but the People (Daycampers and
Overnighters) were in good spirits. I was pleased
to see how they have set up infrastructure similar
to other larger Occupies. Right now there seems to
be enough room for 50 tents without killing the
grass. They are on the lawn of an old public
building on Trade Street. This is an independent
local group but I am curious what will happen when
the convention nears and thousands of protesters
show up. Occupy Charlotte is interested in
educational input from informed reformers. There is
a website. They do some marches to agitate the
public but that is about all for now. The police
and local government are mobilizing a legalistic
reaction and may soon apply violence. My appraisal
is that they are at a point where they could use
some national attention and some proposals as to
how to proceed. I wish some national figures like
Chris would get out to these smaller actions and
let then know they are important, especially
Charlotte, which has long been an extremely
repressive business oriented city. If good
preparations were made a great deal of violence and
suffering could be avoided next summer.
Negotiations with authorities managing the
Democratic Party Convention “security” need to
begin now. Then the public can decide what matters.
Clearly Occupy Charlotte is within its rights to
redress grievances under current federal and state
law, but that could change or be over-ridden as we
have witnessed so many times.

Report this

By terry p, November 13, 2011 at 10:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ardee
I got the higher meaning of the quotes.

I missed the sarcasm. Naivety I guess.

About public banks:
Thanks for the link. As it happens I’ve already read it. I get notices of all articles written by Ellen Brown - once or twice a month.
 
There is a humongous difference in public banks as opposed to private banks. Obviously private banks have one goal and that is to increase assets.

If we had a public banking system that used the same tricks private banks used we could climb out of a recession in a short time. Not only that we could get very close to 100% employment limited only by peoples desire to work. It has been proven over and over. That link you sent illustrated Germany’s public banking system success. China has a public bank system. Brazil - ditto…

Do you understand the term Fractional Reserve Banking?

It got started centuries ago when only the wealthy used banks to store their gold coins. Gold and gold coins was the primary currency. Banks issued receipts for the gold stored in their vaults and charged a fee to do so.

When a depositor needed the gold to purchase something he had to go to the bank and check out the gold.

In time, customers began trading the receipts instead of going to the bank. This is how paper money got started. It is also how trusted banksters became wealthy because they began noticing customer habits. They noticed that at no time did more than approximately 20% of the gold ever leave the vaults. So, the sly banksters issued 5 times more receipts than the amount of gold in the vaults. That was the beginning of Fractional Reserve Banking. It was against the law of course. It caused runs on banks when more receipts came back than gold in the vaults. Depressions or recessions were the result.

Fractional Reserve Banking is now legal and banks can loan up to 11 times the amount of their assets. I don’t think that is right. I think it is no different than counterfeiting. But if the people owned the banks Fractional Reserve Public Banking would be the way to add money into the system. It would be great for business and employment.

That’s one of the reasons I believe a public bank would be the solution to our problems. I don’t believe Fractional Reserve Banking is necessarily bad. But that extra money, which is just created out of thin air, could be used for our infrastructure, education and Healthcare for all with absolutely no taxation. !

Using this method and others freshly created currencies are being created anyway but divided up between Super rich executives and other private wealthy individuals instead. MasterCard and Visa has been know to issue up to 70 times(that’s close but from memory) more credit than assets on their books.   

As for reading your posts. I absolutely do. I enjoy them if your not on a revenge kick. And I’m not being sarcastic. I try to read everybody’s comments if I have time. They are usually more insightful than the articles.


If you get a chance read “The Web of Debt”. I think you would really appreciate it.

tp:?)

Report this

By ardee, November 13, 2011 at 7:24 pm Link to this comment

terry p, November 12 at 4:52 pm,

you read this:

I enjoyed learning about how the world really works, not how it would work if everyone was really really nice and listened to what you nice guys think.

and get admiration from it? All I got was sarcasm.

As to the quotes, are you kidding me? Selective reading seems to come to mind, as the quotes in question speak to a higher truth than apparently you got from them. Several in fact are blatant urgings to activism. Yes, some speak to Man’s failings, rather eloquently I offer.

What I know about banking;
I have been a member of a credit union for almost three decades.
I think banks, like other institutions of public trust, should be regulated strongly.

I hadn’t a clue as to what comprises a “public banking system” . So a bit of research unearthed this:

http://www.truth-out.org/public-option-banking-another-look-german-model/1318444344

[T]he demand isn’t simply to make a public bank, but is to treat the banks generally as a public utility, just as you treat electric companies as a public utility…. Just as there was pressure for a public option in health care, there should be a public option in banking. There should be a government bank that offers credit card rates without punitive 30% interest rates, without penalties, without raising the rate if you don’t pay your electric bill. This is how America got strong in the 19th and early 20th century, by essentially having public infrastructure, just like you’d have roads and bridges…. The idea of public infrastructure was to lower the cost of living and to lower the cost of doing business.

Sounds good as far as it goes….but Im no expert in economics. Why is my opinion about this so important to you in the first place. Did you hope to hear an advocacy for the Fed? Do you actually read what I post?

Report this

By Foucauldian, November 13, 2011 at 4:38 pm Link to this comment

ardee

Left you a message at PM

Report this

By omygodnotagain, November 12, 2011 at 5:17 pm Link to this comment

Wonderful article hopefully it will inspire some of those with the power to do something to use their wealth and privilege to effect change

Report this

By terry p, November 12, 2011 at 4:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ardee: Maybe I misunderstood. It sure wouldn’t be a first.

I’ll try to explain.

1st I read:
By zippostal, November 11 at 4:17 pm
he said this to you:
The real world is a complicated place.

ardee, thanks for your advice. My sincerity in the pursuit of knowledge has led me to a degree studying economics and politics, with a specialty in African politics. I enjoyed learning about how the world really works, not how it would work if everyone was really really nice and listened to what you nice guys think.

Anyway, aside from all these right/wrong issues, what is objectively wrong is the lamentably narcissistic way in which Hedges writes about himself. You need better people than that.
  —————

then I read:
By ZippySkippy, November 12 at 1:23 am
He quoted Hedge’s comment:

“They were the faces of children dying. They were tiny, confused, bewildered faces I had seen in the southern Sudan, Gaza and the slums of Brazzaville, Nairobi, Cairo and Delhi…”

then zippyskippy’s judgement of Hedge:

Screw Hedges and his Altruism crap! If these people weren’t so damn ignorant they would have gone to where the food was or hedged their pension funds. I own Wall Street, so what the fuck do I care!

The real world is a very scandalous and complicated place.
  ————

Then I read your post which was well written but could be understood that in general people are not worth the effort because of the quotes at the end. You didn’t expand on the quotes. They all had negative views of the constituents although they were profound and true. They were written by nice guys.

It seems that the real world was the dominant theme in all three posts. I just misunderstood how you felt about that real world in this post only.

So, putting the zippostal comment with your commentary after reading zippyskippy’s, I assumed you were in some way responsible for guiding zippostal into seeing the world as it really is instead of the altruistic nice guy fairy tale ending kind of way. But nice guys finish last if they finish at all. As a result of taking your advice of not allowing himself to be blinded by the nice guy routine he got his degree.

Adding to my confusion I was in a pissed off frame of mind after reading zippyskippy’s post then I read your comment.

So there you have it. I must have screwed up:?}

The Zippostal commentor was your admirer, as I saw it. Zippyskippy just happened in to add his hateful bit.

I’ve read many of your comments and never really came to the same conclusion. There is no doubt about your confrontational defense when you disagree with some one. But, I must have been wrong. Sorry if that is the case here.

tp

PS: You didn’t respond to my question about What you think of a Public Banking System as opposed to the private Federal Reserve Banks….....There is a book that might sway you opinion. It is called “The Web of Debt” written by Ellen Brown:?)

Report this

By ardee, November 12, 2011 at 3:14 pm Link to this comment

terry p, November 12 at 8:12 am

Are you certain you addressed the right poster? I cannot, for the life of me, understand where you arrive at your conclusions. To alleviate this confusion can I request that you cite exactly what I posted that drew you to this erroneous conclusion?

I have an admirer?

Report this

By terry p, November 12, 2011 at 8:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By ardee, November 12 at 6:02 am
———————

You are a product of this system which promotes greed as being good. Greed was worth considering at times but you can’t be serious and still be in that mode of thinking after what you’ve seen and said about the 99%ers. Greed is the nature of man but then so is sex crimes and murder. We’re all naturally greedy but civilization must be considered. Self control separates civil from savage behavior. Selfishness must be suppressed especially now as people speak out.

It seems you advocate all points of view in confusing satire at times. Humor? Maybe. But, you indicate here that you only follow your best interest regardless of what harm it might cause others. Even if the majority don’t pay attention, as some of your quotes correctly suggest, The People still deserve [nice guys] as their elected representatives doing honest work in their government.

I’m disappointed if I got your drift. Maybe you’re just pleasing your admirer with this comment.

Out of curiosity, what do you think of replacing the 12 Federal Reserve Banks with a Public Banking System? A Public bank would essentially be a government utility if implemented. It would then be our central bank, the only banks with the constitutional privilege of creating money probably through fractional reserve banking as these private banks now do and to [coin money].

tp

Report this

By terry p, November 12, 2011 at 6:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By oddsox, November 10 at 1:36 pm
(oddsox talking to What is Progress):

We’re not going to agree on a public banking system (OMG no!)

..but you also write:
“A half century before WWII, the government was trust-busting.  The period might be worth a study.”

Yep, that’s the answer!
I posted a link downthread about halfway on this page, take a look. “Too big to fail is too big to begin with!”
—————————————

I’m guessing this antitrust action should have, in your opinion, taken place after the multibillion dollar bailouts. I suppose you would then have placed executives along with their million dollar bonuses, for no good reason, at the head of the busted up smaller branches. They should been prosecuted yet for fraud, for being careless with other peoples money and for putting our country at risk. To run many smaller versions of the same monster banks would be very risky. It would be like a lethal Black Widow dropping her egg sack with a potentially thousands of the same monsters all across the world as her demise. :?(

No no no. Public banking system would eliminate that kind of profit only mentality with no moral obligations what so ever—you know the kind that put us into jeopardy to begin with:?I

Hey, What is Progress, check out Ellen’s new article @ http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27611. The rights are listed, in the article, that President Franklin D Roosevelt wanted to add to our Bill of Rights. These additions could be helpful.:?)- OWS pay attention! It is a good article - not very long and worth while.

Here is FDR’s suggestions - additions to the Bill of Rights:

1. The right to a job;

2. The right to earn enough to pay for food and clothing;

3. The right of businessmen to be free of unfair competition and domination by monopolies;

4. The right to a decent home;

5. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to enjoy good health;

6. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

7. The right to a good education.

hava great day

tp:?)

Report this

By ardee, November 12, 2011 at 6:02 am Link to this comment

zippostal, November 11 at 4:17 pm


Message from inside the parenthesis

Firstly and least relevant:

Ah asparagus, my favorite green ( or white) side dish. I currently live in the Central Valley of California, work related move from the Bay Area some five years earlier. This is relevant because I am surrounded by the peat rich soil that makes the growing of asparagus so predominant here. I look forward, with great relish, to the purchase of just picked cases of the stuff for a really good price. I supply my entire family and several friends with the just harvested and delicious veggie.

Anyway, while China grows more and more of the stuff, the asparagus market in the USA is dominated by South America product, only because they export about 94% of what they grow:
http://www.calif-asparagus-seed.com/img/2009_world_asparagus_production.pdf

Around here Chilean produce comes in shortly before the local crop is harvested. But most AA’s ( asparagus aficionados) wait the week or so until the fields are dry enough to reap.

Protectionism is what you are addressing, however obliquely,and yes it is a world wide problem, though I must contrast the situation today with what used to be called by that name. As late as our own Civil War 50% of the nations revenue came from tariffs, today, not so much at all. Tariffs are now used as economic weapons against certain nations and are not used to actually protect workers.

Today’s protectionism is in the form of mega-corporations with world wide tentacles, accompanied by price fixing and the gouging of the worker and the consumer. In agriculture I give you Archer, Daniels Midland as the trend setter.

As to your puzzling comment at the end:

ardee, thanks for your advice. My sincerity in the pursuit of knowledge has led me to a degree studying economics and politics, with a specialty in African politics. I enjoyed learning about how the world really works, not how it would work if everyone was really really nice and listened to what you nice guys think.

So then, you advocate , not for the betterment of any situation, but simply enduring what we now have? One wonders what you are talking about and why you would come to a political forum if you have no desire to make changes, simply because you see such attempts as utopian and impractical? Nice guys you say, advocates for equality and fairness I say.

I might let George Bernard Shaw speak for me, always a good decision I think:

“The reasonable man adapts to his surroundings, the unreasonable man attempts to change his surroundings to suit himself;
and all progress depends upon the unreasonable man.”

Nowhere do I see the inference of utopianism or unbridled optimism, do you?

Oh what the heck, I’m on a roll:

“We in America do not have government by the majority,we have government by the majority who participate.” Thomas (nice guy) Jefferson

“To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of us all.” Abraham (nice guy) Lincoln

Last one I promise:

“All of us are in the gutter, but some of us are staring up at stars.” Oscar (N.G.) Wilde

Report this

By ZippySkippy, November 12, 2011 at 1:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Wow! I’m impressed! Zippostal has a degree and knows how the real world works.

What’s this about Asparagus wars? Are they throwing asparagus spears at each other? Now that’s scary shit!

Scandalous protectionist measures? Quote Milton Friedman, “Oh my! That’s so SCANDALOUS!” Greenspan, “That’s fundamentally scandalous!”Blankfein was heard to say, “Scandal? What scandal?”

“They were the faces of children dying. They were tiny, confused, bewildered faces I had seen in the southern Sudan, Gaza and the slums of Brazzaville, Nairobi, Cairo and Delhi…”

Screw Hedges and his Altruism crap! If these people weren’t so damn ignorant they would have gone to where the food was or hedged their pension funds. I own Wall Street, so what the fuck do I care!

The real world is a very scandalous and complicated place.

Report this

By zippostal, November 11, 2011 at 4:17 pm Link to this comment

To C.Curtis.Dillon (and ardee)

Thanks for your thoughts. Sounds like you and Hedges are targeting the wrong guys. I think you’d be best off protesting the European Common Agricultural Policy, or any of the other scandalous protectionist measures that many first world countries have instituted which have (I completely agree with you on this one) been terrible for third world producers. Firstly though you’d have to convince American/European farmers (who personally I’d put as part of the 99%) to give up their jobs to benefit South Americans and Africans thousands of miles away (I’m sure they’re pretty altruistic guys but they’d probably still tell you to fuck off and live in the real world - have you ever read the kind of lobbying literature their trade organizations publish? It’s not exactly a utopian vision of a world where third world farmers benefit. Take the battle between American and Peruvian asparagus farmers for instance. Scary shit.) and secondly you might want to leave Wall Street out of it - you’re going to want to go straight to politicians who, ultimately, were just looking after their constituents when they made these biased agreements.

You want to scandalize the existence of food derivatives/indices/markets? Harangue Wall Street for organizing the buying and selling of food options and futures? Well, maybe you should go back to the American farmers with this one too - let them know you’d like to remove their principal way of smoothing their business models and hedging themselves against dangerous volatility in prices of grain and other food commodities. These derivatives are as essential for farmers as the food itself. You want to permanently delete Wall Street speculation in food markets (by the way have you ever considered who owns Wall Street? It’s you - the 99% - via your pension plans invested in pension funds. They’re trying to maximise returns to shareholders, in other words, you. Wow, what a mindfuck.)? Great, I’m sure that traders in Shanghai and Singapore will magically follow suit too out of the same kind of altruism I was talking about above - the non-existent kind. Or perhaps they won’t, and food price speculation will remain just as bad - perhaps, even, it’s totally out of our control. Fuck!

The real world is a complicated place.

ardee, thanks for your advice. My sincerity in the pursuit of knowledge has led me to a degree studying economics and politics, with a specialty in African politics. I enjoyed learning about how the world really works, not how it would work if everyone was really really nice and listened to what you nice guys think.

Anyway, aside from all these right/wrong issues, what is objectively wrong is the lamentably narcissistic way in which Hedges writes about himself. You need better people than that.

Report this

By rohjo, November 11, 2011 at 3:24 pm Link to this comment

ardee, November 10 at 6:57 am

Great homilies.

I hope I made my point in the remainder of my comment:

“Hundreds of protesters, and some of their children, followed an Occupy Wall Street vanguardist splinter group onto the traffic lane of Brooklyn Bridge and got arrested without knowing they had been suckered into arrest. This much-touted “largest mass arrest in U.S. history” is cited to have been a jump start to
the Occupy movement. It also provided a nice ID sweep for state intelligence agencies.

“99% of 312 million is 308,880,000 and it will take about that many to prompt any structural change within the symbolic 1%. Arrests make sensational news but bad PR. It scares some and alienates others—no more 99%. At best, promoting the arrest game offers only short-term gains, which mirrors the
mindset of our financial overlords.”

Was it arrests or the presence of thousands of protesters that postponed the Keystone XL Pipeline? Did arrests bring out the thousands? I’m disinclined to think so, but there is always that argument.

A false parallel is to transpose tactics of the Civil Rights movement onto Occupy, a movement with a much broader cause in a very different environment. Politicians and major media are much bigger whores now with hearts literally of gold.

Self-appointed leaders who favor arrests have been with OWS from the get go. David Graeber was fired from Yale for his activism. See his tale of the genesis of #OWS:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/10/david-graeber-on-playing-by-the-rules-–-the-strange-success-of-occupy-wall-street.html

The Occupy movement has mushroomed like no other. Last night, as part of Latin American Cultural Week in NYC, a folkloric band from Chile noted that “change like never before” was in the air and dedicated their songs to it. This spirit is beyond the range of the media’s arrest meters.

Report this

By terry p, November 11, 2011 at 3:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By EUA Baker, November 11 at 1:53 pm Link to this comment

Here is another conservative psychobabble. Islam is this. Muslims are that. What of Christianity and Christians?
—————————
Point well taken, but:?)

I don’t think any race, religion or region of the planet has a clean record of complete innocence in their leadership. Not even Tibet. The blame game isn’t altogether the point. The point is that the 99%ers want to see a change that would benefit the vast majority instead of the richest. They are tired of being excluded. It don’t matter what country we are talking about muslim, israeli, christian, black, white, purple or what ever. They are not blaming. They are simply occupying until their demands are met. They don’t trust any party or leadership - yet, from what I understand.

The first demand is nationalizing the Federal Reserve Banks and Banks too big to fail. This is the most important one with which I agree wholeheartedly.

Read “The Web of Debt” by Ellen Brown for many details of banking corruption and the solution to the problem - which is a Public Banking system.

tp

PS: Ellen wrote this article recently:
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27611. It is titled:

“Time for an Economic Bill of Rights”
by Ellen Brown

She starts of with a quote:

Henry Ford said, “It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

Amen:?)

Report this

By EUA Baker, November 11, 2011 at 1:53 pm Link to this comment

Here is another conservative psychobabble. Islam is this. Muslims are that. What of Christianity and Christians?

According to the conservative thugs, Congressman Keith Ellison swore an oath on a Koran and Koran says Christians and Jews are infidels. The Koran says Christians are blasphemers who should have their hands and feet cut off and that they should be crucified and killed. Do you really want someone representing you who swears an oath on a Koran, a book that undermines the Constitution and says you should be killed?

Or this: Islam advocates criminal behavior and we simply went too far with Keith Ellison. Keith Ellison simply is not a proper person to have in our federal government

The quotes or passages can be found here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/10/keith-ellison-gary-boisclair-anti-muslim-ad_n_1086531.html

Now, I ask: Who are responsible for the financial crisis in the American economy – Muslims or Christians?

Who continue up to this very moment to defraud homeowners in America – Christian banks or Muslim banks – Christians or Muslims?

According to Christian Vatican Pope,  “The ethical principles on which Islamic finance is based may bring banks closer to their clients and to the true spirit which should mark every financial service. Western banks could use tools such as the Islamic bonds, known as sukuk, as collateral. Sukuk may be used to fund the “‘car industry or the next Olympic Games in London”

Read here:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3819

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aOsOLE8uiNOg&refer=italy

The problem with conservatives is that they are thieves and they believe that the American people are dumb. They strongly believe that private firms are human beings with Christian souls. But Christian souls are exactly responsible for every problem bedeviling the American people.

Report this

By terry p, November 11, 2011 at 8:07 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Is it just me or does the internet seem constipated. I’m sure moderation isn’t the whole reason for a 10 hour delay in posting my comment, although, I’m equally sure it is in part the blame.

I was hoping for some kind of conversation with Progress. But I think it is too late now especially under the time eating moderation.

Long live OWS!! or till real change happens.

tp

Report this

By terry p, November 10, 2011 at 10:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By What Is Progress, November 10 at 11:24 am
“...will a public banking system be enough?”
——————

Hard question. It depends upon who you ask, I guess, whether a Public Bank is enough.

I’m happy you and I agree that a public bank would be best. It is the obvious answer.

I’m also optimistic that it would be enough to turn every thing around.

It would solve the most pressing problems for the average citizens of the world. It wouldn’t benefit the powerful because educated citizens would no longer be their slaves. Industry would flourish in all countries without the need for IMF which forces them to enforce austerity measures. The United States would have a power failure - talking about the rich power hungry executives who habitually flex their power muscle in the form of debt enslaving people in foreign lands. The IMF, Bank of international Settlements and The World bank would basically be powerless over small countries where the natural resources are vandalized by Wall Street using IMF loans. And the kicker is that power money is created by a simple entry by a computer. In the USA our government has the constitutional power to coin money—which I take to mean print money.

I think the transition back to that principle could be very painless if we just did it. But I’m afraid it will be painful.

I believe that defying the banks was why Abraham Lincoln and John F Kennedy were assassinated.  They both defied the Banks. John F Kennedy wanted to nationalize the Feds. Robert Kennedy would have continued John F’s work if he hadn’t been assassinated too.

Abraham Lincoln turned down the Rothschild or The Bank of England offer to finance the Union Army as they were already financing the Confederacy at 30% interest. Abe simply printed green backs instead which would be similar to an act of a public bank. He financed the Union army and built rail roads from coast to coast and from north to south. It basically kick started a blistering strong economy. You could say the greenbacks started the Industrial revolution in our country unmatched by any in history. We became the first super power because of it.

Unfortunately Monopolies sprung up. I agree that too big to fail is too big, as Sox stated. So, we have antitrust laws. We just need to use them.

The power to coin money was taken away from us in 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act giving 12 private banks that power which they used to print our money and charge us the interest rate of their choice.

The bottom line is that nationalizing the banks too big to fail or the Feds will be a dangerous thing for a President to do. But it must be done. It is the only way in my opinion, to save our country and the world for that mater. But if there is a strong enough movement like OWS then our fearless leaders would have no other choice.

So, yes, maybe a public banking system would be enough, for now. It would be a great start or restart as our original national bank was a public owned bank (The Franklin Bank).

Then there would be much government work needed to protect the planet.

Once things settle down maybe we could begin planning serious missions for visits to other planets in far away solar systems around unknown stars instead of funding the military industrial complex.

tp

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, November 10, 2011 at 3:44 pm Link to this comment

Sox,
I do agree on a public banking system. 100%, but by itself, without ‘other things’, it wouldn’t be enough.  I’m just dong the devils advocate thing in an effort to drill down to underlying attitudes that influence what’s going to work or not.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 10, 2011 at 1:55 pm Link to this comment

A definition of Rare Earth:
The common ground between Occupants and Tea Party folk.

One is fed up w/big business.
The other with big government.

I figured that the ever-enlarging intersection between the two is a mountain range of common ground, especially if you measure it in dollar bills.

Well, apparently thats only my area of concern and not yours. You win again oddsox.

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, November 10, 2011 at 1:36 pm Link to this comment

@What Is Progress:

We’re not going to agree on a public banking system (OMG no!)

..but you also write:
“A half century before WWII, the government was trust-busting.  The period might be worth a study.”

Yep, that’s the answer!
I posted a link downthread about halfway on this page, take a look. “Too big to fail is too big to begin with!”

This thread has become too long and heavy for me…
Moving to the Scheer/Reich A/V story
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/robert_reich_and_robert_scheer_occupy_la_teach_in_20111110/?ln

Give a listen to Reich especially.
Don’t give him carte blanche, but he does hits a lot of good notes.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, November 10, 2011 at 11:24 am Link to this comment

Terry P, You are probably right, but will a public banking system be enough?  Will is succeed if it is the only thing we do? 

What else is good for ‘We the People’?

Report this

By terry p, November 10, 2011 at 8:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By What Is Progress, November 10 at 7:46 am
Now, what is good for “We the People”?
———————-
ANSWER: a Public Banking system.

tp:?)
PS: Read “The Web of Debt” by Ellen Brown!

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, November 10, 2011 at 7:46 am Link to this comment

Per oddsox, “One is fed up w/big business.
The other with big government.”

Obviously more and more one in the same.  Tracing the relationship a bit, the sentiment “what’s good for GM is good for America” comes to mind.  I vaguely recall that immediately after WWII it was explicitly stated that the solution to avoiding a crash to our over-heated war economy was to promote mass consumerism.  I do not recall the exact meeting or person who suggested this, but it was a conscious decision which lead us down the path to the ‘throw-away society’, and massive consumption of, well, everything. 

A half century before WWII, the government was trust-busting.  The period might be worth a study.  Unfortunately, by the ‘roaring 20’s’, we had gotten back into a mode very much like today, rampant Wall St. speculation and perhaps the beginnings of modern consumerism? 

Of course these times need compared in the context of wood, coal and oil availability, but shouldn’t the government and business both be looking not at if to grow the economy, but what within the economy should be grown or not.  Decade after decade of short term ‘what’s good for GM’ (the balance sheets) thinking is a fundamental problem.  Perhaps we might just turn it around?  “What’s good for We the People is good for GM”? 

Now, what is good for “We the People”?

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, November 10, 2011 at 7:30 am Link to this comment

Ozark Michael:
“We might be surprised to find that we have have some overlapping goals.”

Yes, some:
A definition of Rare Earth:
The common ground between Occupants and Tea Party folk.

One is fed up w/big business.
The other with big government.

Report this

By Foucauldian, November 10, 2011 at 7:26 am Link to this comment

Project Mayhem, November 9 at 6:11 pm

Didn’t suggest it is going to be seamless or that it’ll happen overnight.  And it’s surely bound to encounter no lesser resistance at all levels that OWS now faces, only that it’s doable.

ardee,

Done!

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, November 10, 2011 at 7:22 am Link to this comment

@C.Curtis.Dillon:
re: “Job Creators.” 

It’s a case of mistaken identity.

The true Job Creators are SMALL businesses.
To turn our economy around, that’s who needs the help first.

Instead the grease has gone to the squeaking wheels:  public sector unions, the too-big-to-fails, and the unemployed. 
They won’t/can’t hire enough to make a difference.

Report this

By ardee, November 10, 2011 at 6:58 am Link to this comment

Foucauldian, November 9 at 6:01 pm

Check your messages.

Report this

By ardee, November 10, 2011 at 6:57 am Link to this comment

rohjo, November 10 at 1:01 am Link to this comment

“Freedom in Handcuffs”? Wow. That’s pretty cool, I guess, if you’re a Harvard
Nieman Fellow or Nation Institute Senior Fellow or have tenure at Princeton and
want street creds for social-activist celebrity.

But for most folks, like the thousands who do menial office work on Wall Street,
an arrest stays on record with the FBI and Homeland Security and precludes
keeping or getting a job in our corporate society.

“What should I say,
Since faith is dead,
And truth away
From you is fled?”
Sir Thomas Wyatt

“There are thousands hacking at the branches of evil for every one striking at its roots.”
Henry David Thoreau

“What we need is sustained outrage. Far too much respect is given to authority.”
Molly Ivins

“The reasonable man adapts to his surroundings,
the unreasonable man attempts to change his surroundings to suit himself;
and all progress depends upon the unreasonable man.”  George Bernard Shaw

“When great changes occur in history,
when great principles are involved, as a rule, the majority is wrong.” Eugene V. Debs

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” Margaret Mead

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
Edmund Burke

“It is more honorable to repair a wrong than to persist in it.” Thomas Jefferson

“To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men” Abraham Lincoln

I could go on but I think I’ve made my point.

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, November 10, 2011 at 6:55 am Link to this comment

@@Marietjie luyt,

..speaking of “teamwork,” leave it to Mr. Fish

http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/2009_04_19_archive.html

Report this

By terry p, November 10, 2011 at 5:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By oddsox, November 9 at 12:01 pm Link to this comment

@terryP and other Ozark-Michael critics:

Understand, respect and CELEBRATE the fact that OM represents the far-right edge of diversity on this, and other TruthDig threads.
—————————————-

I’m well aware and need no reminder of OM’s basic philosophy. Respect it? I don’t thinks so. I do appreciate him devoting so much of his time being a target on TD though:?) I don’t usually respond to obvious hacks but I was in the heat of the moment.

I agree with you that any monopoly should be busted up whether bank, insurance, coke, etc…

I don’t agree that these banks should be given territories across the country, some what like AT&T, Verizon and others phone companies now spying on all citizens under the protective umbrella of the so called patriot act(a different subject for another time).

I don’t believe big banks paid back the bailout money legitimately as you say and they boast. If you’re familiar with how ‘fractional reserve banking’ works are how the Floating exchange rate, the short sale, the PPT(Plunge Protection Team) and CRMPG(the Counterparty Risk Management Policy Group) works etc.. then you understand just how these big banks work and how unfair they are to real competition.

The solution should have been to nationalize the banks too big to fail instead of bailing them out and especially the Feds then and now. The Federal Reserve Act should never have been signed into law in 1913.

We should also eliminate the fractional reserve banking rule for private banks. Money should be created ‘ONLY’ in a bank owned by the public using the fractional reserve banking rule. A Public owned Bank could fund our infrastructure, health care and education ‘FOR ALL’ citizens without raising taxes on anybody. Private banks should operate the traditional way - collecting deposits, paying interest on savings at an interest rate smaller than the interest charged on loans leaving a profit the honest old fashioned way. Bank business should be treated just as any other business. Like, as any business that makes bad decisions it should be allowed to go out of business.

Competition should be fair in every aspect of live and Government should be there to enforce that principle. But, it has been corrupted because monopolies are now monsters eating up any resource for a profit only. Our very existence is at stake now. Chris Hedges pointed our just how heartless they are in this article.

Some here are trying to figure out a way to represent the 99%ers while others are figuring ways to continue the wild gambling spree for these banks under slightly different scenarios. Check out the Public banking push. There has been a public bank in North Dakota for about 90 years and California is on the verge. The Franklin Bank started out in 1776 or seven - I can’t remember right now -. It was our national bank owned by the citizens but it was consumed by our revolutionary enemy eventually.

The bottom line should be focused on survival then fairness to all. Profit is important but not if it means making people suffer unfairly for it.

tp

PS: Read “The Web of Debt” oddsox by Ellen Brown. It will open your eyes > 8?)

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, November 10, 2011 at 5:51 am Link to this comment

There is no need for a 3rd party. People who talk about a need for a “3rd party” are people who do not understand that the corporate-state’s 2-party system effectively has only 1 party… the corporate (R) & (D) party. What has been needed is a 2nd party — a natural persons representing 2nd party of true opposition to the corporate party’s Republican and Democrat team that malevolently works together to represent the insatiable interests of corporate persons. It is the collaboration of Republican and Democrat voters that has provided the mandates for perpetual war and ruthless global economic exploitation — the popular vote mandates for corporate persons to determine the destinies of all natural persons.

I chose to join the Green Party because I understood that the proper function of elections is to provide peaceful means to end injustices. Elections should provide alternatives that promote actual change for good, rather than just two choices to maintain every evil. People who seek change through nonviolent protest have absolutely no political leverage, if they do not have an alternative electoral party that is a true advocate of the systemic change the protesters wish to see. Its the job of the corporate party’s Democrats to ensure that either none or the least possible change results from this Occupy Movement. When a “nonviolent” movement fails to provide strong support for an alternative political party there is no nonviolent means for that movement to substantively achieve any of its goals.

When “nonviolent” people refuse to participate in and support an alternative political party of opposition to the corporate party they effectively choose violence — a continuation of the systemic structural violence, and/or the violence of the bullet that becomes the only option for change left, when ballots are discarded.

When a person casts a vote for a corporate party (Republican or Democrat) candidate, they are doing what the GameBoy Generation kids recruited to push the remote weapon drone “KILL” buttons do. It is a criminal act. It is an act of deepest depravity.

This empire is in its Caligula stage. Its descent into depravity is accelerating with every election held.

Asymmetrical war has conditioned Americans to expect a technological entitlement for Americans to be able to harm others without being proportionately harmed themselves. Americans believe that the human horrors that happen elsewhere can’t possibly occur here. They can, and apparently there’s no stopping Americans from collectively ensuring that those horrors will eventually happen here… with extreme prejudice.

Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:

http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=498&Itemid=1

Report this

By rohjo, November 10, 2011 at 1:01 am Link to this comment

“Freedom in Handcuffs”? Wow. That’s pretty cool, I guess, if you’re a Harvard
Nieman Fellow or Nation Institute Senior Fellow or have tenure at Princeton and
want street creds for social-activist celebrity.

But for most folks, like the thousands who do menial office work on Wall Street,
an arrest stays on record with the FBI and Homeland Security and precludes
keeping or getting a job in our corporate society.

Hundreds of protesters, and some of their children, followed an Occupy Wall
Street vanguardist splinter group onto the traffic lane of Brooklyn Bridge and
got arrested without knowing they had been suckered into arrest. This much-
touted “largest mass arrest in U.S. history” is cited to have been a jump start to
the Occupy movement. It also provided a nice ID sweep for state intelligence
agencies.

99% of 312 million is 308,880,000 and it will take about that many to prompt
any structural change within the symbolic 1%. Arrests make sensational news
but bad PR. It scares some and alienates others—no more 99%. At best,
promoting the arrest game offers only short-term gains, which mirrors the
mindset of our financial overlords.

Report this

By C.Curtis.Dillon, November 9, 2011 at 11:53 pm Link to this comment

OzarkMichael:

If memory serves me, wasn’t it Sharon Angle, a darling of the TeaBaggers, who suggested ‘second amendment remedies’ if she (and they) didn’t get what they wanted? Isn’t that violent rhetoric? Sure seems so to me. And I saw a whole lot more guns at TeaBag rallies than I’ve seen at any OWS gatherings. So, who’s the more violent? And who was threatening who at all those town hall meetings? I think it was TeaBaggers!

I’m sure you don’t see those things, what with the rose colored glasses you don whenever you gaze fondly on the TeaBag movement. And I don’t think you got anywhere near 500,000 at any of your rallies. 100K maybe according to the DC police who are pretty good at that stuff.

But, my real beef with the baggers is their agenda and the ‘me’ centric arguments they profess. It’s all about exclusion and keeping whats mine instead of working to help all our neighbors. I studied the TeaBag agenda carefully when they first emerged and found it lacking. And their support (you like to call it taking Koch money to help launch the movement) by all the monied men and guys like Armie make me believe it is nothing but a diversion to keep us from focusing on the real forces behind it.

America will not survive if only a few benefit from her largess. Do you really believe a country can exist let alone thrive when the vast majority are living on the edge? Today it’s 20% who are in trouble but the numbers grow every day. I hate having the government redistribute wealth but please, tell me who else will do it when those who have refuse to share with those who don’t? “Job creators”? Really? During the Bush years, all you job creators were AWOL and now, with profits higher than they have been in a long time, you’re still missing in action. There are no job creators anymore. They all moved those jobs to China, India and elsewhere but expect us to buy the crap that others build with money we no longer have.

A revolution is coming despite your best effort to change the subject. Its tenor, be it peaceful or violent, is up to you. But if you strangle off the peaceful part, only violence remains and then all bets are off. You want the OWS to disappear? What do you think will come in its place? More waiting while guys like you take even more from them? I doubt that very much. The young are holding their anger very well so far but that won’t last forever. The TeaBaggers don’t want to upset the apple cart because they already have most of the money and power. They’re quite happy with the economic part except to demand even more of the pie while throwing larger numbers of people under the bus. The young are demanding a share of the pie and opportunity. Are you prepared to deny that to them?

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, November 9, 2011 at 8:42 pm Link to this comment

To bad the ‘pro-life’ people, whom I call pro-slavery for wanting to enslave women to their biology, speak all the time about abortion being “murder” and the abortion doctors being “murderers” and such like. You know what that suggests to them without directly saying it? To kill the doctor because he is murdering. Now that is allowed under the 10 commandments and other places where murders must pay “blood for blood” what they have done.

But tell me would you vote for a Dominionist Christian? How about a Christian Reconstructionist who thinks that some of our Bill of Rights needs to be repealed if not negated? If so explain and if not please explain?

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, November 9, 2011 at 8:21 pm Link to this comment

JDMysticDJ said:

Could it be that an undetermined percentage of Occupy supporters are merely hot heads and trouble makers devoid of higher ideals or could they be narcissistic theoreticians engaged in mental masturbation and pipe dreaming in a vain effort to avoid the harsh realities and lacking the willingness to accede to the only solution that holds any real promise because such is not of their own personal design?

I am glad that someone is wondering,and i notice a operson who usually isnt very thoughtful is also wondering too. Kudos, becasue that isnt easy.

I would add two more things to wonder about.

First, wonder if OWS rhetoric is responsible for attracting such people.

Second, wonder if OWS rhetoric inflames those people to act.

The reason i ask you to wonder about those two things is because you are already so good at wondering about those two things when it pertains to conservatives, for example anti abortion protestors.

Allow me to explain. When an abortion doctor was murdered, the media(and yourself, whoever you are who reads this) wondered if anti abortion rhetoric attracts and inflames such killers.

Now it is true that the antiabortion rhetoric doesnt advise anyone to kill doctors. But maybe thats a flimsy defense if the rhetoric attracts and inflames people who kill doctors.

Antiabortion folks dont like the ‘wondering’ which is basically an accusation which comes from you and the mainstream media. But there it is, we have to deal with it. We have to reflect on ourselves and on our words, and I think its a good thing.

As a pro-life person i wish to speak passionately and plainly, exposing the abortion industry for the death machine that it is, but I am confounded by how to say it without inflaming violent people. It is difficult.

In my opinion the mainstream media and yourself have been very slow to begin wondering about OWS rhetoric. For far too long you have attributed OWS troubles to external influences, esentially dumping the blame on conservative agents.

OWS is going to have to come to grips with their rhetoric. It is not easy. The method so far has been denial, but up to this point denial didnt help, one could reckon that denial allowed the problem to get worse! Blaming conservative agents for your troubles just attracts more ‘crazy’ Leftists and gets them angrier and more violent.

But now that you have begun to wonder… and perhaps more folks will want to come to grips with it… please understand that I sympathize with the problem.

The following would be a game changer: If OWS gets treated like the rest of us, and accepts that its a good thing for them to be treated like the rest of us.

Otherwise we never really talk, since you are just dictating to lesser beings. Maybe we can turn the corner and improve our communication. If that happens, then we can talk agenda. As equals! 

We might be surprised to find that we have have some overlapping goals. Maybe something good would actually get accomplished. Maybe together we really would be the 99%.

Report this
Project Mayhem's avatar

By Project Mayhem, November 9, 2011 at 6:11 pm Link to this comment

Foucaudian wrote: “That’s not only the preferable scenario but one which is likely to develop naturally once the anarchistic principles of organization and activism take root in the local communities with the object of creating political and economic structures which not only fly in the face of the existing ones but entirely bypass them, eventually rendering them obsolete and irrelevant.”

As much as I sympathize with this statement, and support it in spirit, I just can’t see it happening as seamlessly as you seem to believe it might. I just don’t see the corporate state allowing for the sort of activism and self-sufficiency required to be free of corporate governance. Does anyone doubt the ruthlessness with which the kleptocracy would suppress any State- or region-based attempts at autonomy? The degree to which corporations, foreign and domestic, have infiltrated our institutions and way of life leads me to believe it will be a herculean task to break their control. Consider the Civil War as a precedent for what to expect should corporate rule be truly threatened. First, pols and their media mouthpieces will invoke the sacred covenant of national unity, then the Armed Services will “reluctantly” take up arms against their “treasonous” brethren, and witch hunts and kangaroo courts will follow the brutal crackdown. Media spectacles condemning the “traitorous ringleaders” will precede their executions, and, in this way, the American people will be broken of their “seditious” impulses.

I think perhaps the only way to affect a break from the Union would be to do so as a large bloc, with significant support from within the military. Even then, it occurs to me that alliances with like-minded foreign countries would most likely be necessary to forestall an ultraviolent intervention by the corporate state. I’m not sure if a precedent for such a model exists, but perhaps it is not unlike what happened among the Soviet satellite republics in Eastern Europe? Dillon might be able to speak to this better than I can, given his extensive experiences in that part of the world. At any rate, the bottom line is that it will be complicated. And very, very dangerous.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, November 9, 2011 at 6:08 pm Link to this comment

ardee, “Some of these violence prone folk will get bored and depart, others will be educated and possibly become more committed to nonviolence and change.”

-

You just spent the past week furiously and angrily denying any violence taking place. Anywhere.

What gives?

Report this

By Foucauldian, November 9, 2011 at 6:03 pm Link to this comment

... face us ...

... usual fare ...

Report this

By Foucauldian, November 9, 2011 at 6:01 pm Link to this comment

ardee,

I’m talking to some folks about creating a separate
comments space that would be more focused and devoted
to a far more incisive formulation of the issues and
problems that face are, more incisive, to say the
least, than the usual far we’re being treated to at
TD or any other, however radical a medium.

I think you would be a valuable contributor, for all
our real or apparent disagreements. 

Would you be willing to consider participating once
we iron the bugs out.  If so, then I’ll keep you
posted,

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, November 9, 2011 at 5:53 pm Link to this comment

I agree Ardee, support them, and give them criticism even if they reject it.  I’m particularly enthused about the march on DC culminating late January.  That is the sort of very specific action on which effort should be focused. 

There should be a seriously well thought media campaign to go along with it.  OWS does need to learn that groups often reach very compromised ‘lowest common denominator’ decisions.  If they don;t recognize and use the specialized individual talents effectively, they will burn their best people out, and suffer with mediocre work product. 

Basic stuff, I know.  The march on DC will buy time to think, and a victory would keep momentum going.  There are a number of foundational principles regarding the basis of fairness in taxation that could be broadcast to the public.  Getting those sort of fundamentals in a tight format, a sound bite, might help OWS get a victory.  That is the sort of thing which perhaps can be done well in a format such as TD. 

just a thought.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, November 9, 2011 at 5:49 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ,

I cannot subscribe to the underlying methods of the Tea Party at achieving our common goals. But, Wholly Shit, they did it right. Including, yes including, taking the Koch money to grow on. Labor (teamsters, pipe fitters, OHIO FIRE AND POLICE:) is just as wealthy as the Koch Brothers.

The Tea movement protested in huge numbers (500,000 in a day). This is even more incredible when considering most had never protested before. These people then left most protest cities cleaner than when they arrived. No explosives! No chunks of cement! No glass bottles, urine and feces! No one bent on destruction as a method or viable tool to be wielded. And, after a series of protests, the ‘Tea’ people returned home and got extremely busy in local and State politics. They actually got out of their chairs and went to Town Hall meetings. While many meetings were raucous and heated, yes, they were also very much PARTICIPATING in real and tangible electoral change.

The last election was a Tea Party tsunami and the effects in Washington and State Houses continues even today. A minority voting block did all that.

Occupy changed the conversation in our direction. It’s now past time to take a lesson and stop trying to break things to make change. It’s time to get to the hard work for lasting changes in each of the 50 States and Washington.

-

Project Mayhem: In a globally connected market “breaking the U.S.” will only cause misery to, very possibly, billions of people. Liberal and conservative -the ‘99’- will never buy what you’re selling. You are truly butting your head against a solid wall. - I’m sorry but I am just as passionate as you are.

Report this

By ardee, November 9, 2011 at 5:20 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ, November 9 at 4:48 pm

I’m beginning to have my doubts about the motives and virtue of an undetermined percentage of Occupy supporters.

Fine, so do I ,in fact. My doubts are not ,however, leading me to spurn the movement itself.

Could it be that an undetermined percentage of Occupy supporters are merely hot heads and trouble makers devoid of higher ideals or could they be narcissistic theoreticians engaged in mental masturbation and pipe dreaming in a vain effort to avoid the harsh realities and lacking the willingness to accede to the only solution that holds any real promise because such is not of their own personal design?

Yes, and yes. Demonstrations attract a cross section of ideologies and an unspecified number of rash and foolish folks who haven’t sufficient grounding in protest to understand that what they do is counter productive. There very well may be a number of government agitators making mischief as well, frankly I do not know.

OWS deserves our support, and our hopes. Some of these violence prone folk will get bored and depart, others will be educated and possibly become more committed to nonviolence and change. Give it a chance, what other choice do we have to date?

Report this

By Foucauldian, November 9, 2011 at 4:57 pm Link to this comment

“At this point, though, it really does seem to me
that the only viable route for repairing the damage
that’s been done is to bust up the country into
smaller, independent governing bodies.

That’s not only the preferable scenario but one which
is likely to develop naturally once the anarchistic
principles of organization and activism take root in
the local communities with the object of creating
political and economic structures which not only fly
in the face of the existing ones but entirely bypass
them, eventually rendering them obsolete and
irrelevant.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 9, 2011 at 4:48 pm Link to this comment

“Copies of an “informational” letter were left on a table for protestors pick up [sic] and read during the “Occupy Phoenix” event at Cesar Chavez Park.  The presence of the letter was reported to the ACTIC by a Maricopa County Sheriff’s Deputy who had responded to an unrelated call and was alerted to it by another deputy working the event.

Occupy has proven unable, or unwilling, to contain the violence these crowds seed. Stop these Occupations and let us get to doing the real work that’s now needed.”

**************************************************************

It appears that Occupy Phoenix was “unable, or unwilling” to censure the document in question, which is an illustration of one of the problems associated with an organization without any hierarchical organization or policing. I would have admired an individual who took it upon his or her self to unilaterally trash all copies of the document in question found at the communal table.  A document of that sort if given credence would only be the conduit for tragedy.

I would agree that the anonymous placing of copies on the communal table in Phoenix of the document in question serves to discredit, or even condemn the Occupy movement in the eyes of some. Is it at all possible that the purpose of placing the document in question at the communal table was to discredit Occupy Phoenix and the Occupy Movement? The question is rhetorical and I’ll answer by saying yes it is possible that anonymously placing the document in question at the communal table was intended to discredit Occupy Phoenix and the Occupy movement. Possible yes, but such can not be claimed without evidence to support that claim; I only offer this possibility as a possibility.

Much to my dismay I’ve seen a picture of two women protesting at Occupy Phoenix; one with what looks like a semi-automatic pistol holstered and another with a rifle of undetermined type hanging from her shoulder. Such elicits memories of Tea Party gatherings where guns were openly displayed. I condemned the display of guns at Tea Party gatherings and I can only condemn the display of guns by Occupiers. People from the Right here at truthdig argued that Tea Partiers had every right to display guns at public gatherings and that those displays were not threatening; I did not agree with such comments then and I would not agree with such comments in reference to Occupiers. It’s clear to me that there are crazies with a propensity for violence from both ends of the political spectrum, but I still believe that the Right is more inclined towards violence than the Left; institutionally and personally. See “The Insurrection Timeline” for the many documented accounts of right-wing violence since Obama was elected. See from which end of the political spectrum opposition to war comes from.

I’m beginning to have my doubts about the motives and virtue of an undetermined percentage of Occupy supporters. Could it be that an undetermined percentage of Occupy supporters are merely hot heads and trouble makers devoid of higher ideals or could they be narcissistic theoreticians engaged in mental masturbation and pipe dreaming in a vain effort to avoid the harsh realities and lacking the willingness to accede to the only solution that holds any real promise because such is not of their own personal design? “Here me vassals or we are doomed” they declare, while others declare, “All is lost, we are doomed.”

In the final analysis only one of we citizens will be cursed with the burden of being the elected leader assigned with the task of bringing order and prosperity out of chaos. We on the other hand are cursed with the burden of selecting that king and his court. Pray that we have the wisdom to make the best choices; be they ever so humble.

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, November 9, 2011 at 4:17 pm Link to this comment

@Marietjie luyt,
Jawohl, zeitgeist!

Report this
Project Mayhem's avatar

By Project Mayhem, November 9, 2011 at 3:05 pm Link to this comment

Dillon,

You stated: “Maybe big countries just are too cumbersome to be democratic and need to break up into more manageable pieces.”

This is exactly what I was driving at with my question, though I guess it wasn’t entirely clear. In my estimation, China’s cohesion “works” because of an authoritarian centralized government, along with the relatively successful “Chinafication” of extant states like Mongolia and Xinjiang. The USSR functioned as well as it did for similar reasons.

That sort of coerced cohesion doesn’t work in a democracy, which requires, as Cyr suggests, time, willingness, and a capacity to work toward the best interests of natural persons. This would seem to require that an unequivocable, tangible consensus be reached on all relevant national issues, and that only natural persons be considered in arriving at them. I think you’re right to suggest that there currently exist irreconcible differences between the interests of natural persons and corporate persons, and that a divorce of sorts has become an absolute necessity. Also correctly, you point out that this cannot happen in the existing system.

You suggest that OWS is working with possible solutions to the untenable ascendency of corporate personhood, but this is a problem that others have been working on for decades. Richard Grossman, for instance, has made careful studies of the history of corporations and the law, and seems of the opinion that most, if not all, corporate entities are in violation of the charters that allow for their existence. He argues that corporations which work against the interests of natural persons are de facto in violation of their charters - they are only allowed to exist in order to better serve the needs of natural persons - and must be dissolved immediately. He likens this process to excising a cancerous tumor from its host, a comparison that seems increasingly more apt with each passing day. I realize such action seems far-fetched in present times, but a campaign to educate people on the history and raison d’etre of the incorporated company could be an effective element in a larger campaign to raise awareness of the perversions of neoliberalism and corporate statehood.

At this point, though, it really does seem to me that the only viable route for repairing the damage that’s been done is to bust up the country into smaller, independent governing bodies. That is, if we’re really interested in democracy, which is another matter entirely.

Report this

By Foucauldian, November 9, 2011 at 2:41 pm Link to this comment

However powerful the third party, be they the Greens
or the People’s party, it won’t change the dynamics
(by much).  All you’ll get is another coalition
government and gridlock.  The corporate interests
will still have their say, and it will be more of the
same except for the illusion.  The vary paradigm of
statism, presumably in conflict with corporate
interests, is defunct and has got to go. 

Capitalism must be made irrelevant by the people
pulling together their skills, energies and resources
so as to altogether bypass it.  Even as we speak,
it’s already doing its best to self-destroy itself,
its role delimited to that of “harvesting” this
nation and the rest of the world.  Well, we mustn’t
let it.  Let it feed itself on its own carcass
instead until it eventually starves itself to death.

Report this

By C.Curtis.Dillon, November 9, 2011 at 2:21 pm Link to this comment

mayhem:

Why should size determine viability? Is a smaller state any better equipped to deal with the diversity of it’s population? China seems to do a pretty good job dealing with diversity (in a way we in the West might, at first glance, feel is a bet heavy handed) while a small country like Yugoslavia was unable to find resolution to its intractable divisions. America flounders today because we think far too much about self and not enough about the shared destiny we face. We are all so busy drilling holes in our shared boat that we can’t see that it’s sinking.

Cyr:

Your commitment to Greens is commendable but I don’t think that a new political party will greatly change the landscape. I’ve watched the German Greens, now that they’ve achieved respectability, struggle with their new found power and influence. They just lost their biggest campaign issue (nuclear power) and seem lost and adrift. It will be interesting how they cope with this change in direction.

Assume for one minute you manage to field a candidate who gets into the WH. How effective do you really think that person will be? It’s a given that neither major party will give any support so we can be assured that a stalemate will ensue. In 4 years, he/she will be gone because nothing will have changed. But, more importantly, once your party achieves power, it will need to raise a lot of money to maintain its position and, just like the R and D, will be forced into a marriage of convenience with the big money folk. Once that happens you will be just like them. More parties isn’t the answer ...

We need a fundamental change in the whole system. I don’t know what the answer is but there has to be a way. OWS is trying a different approach but it’s too early to say it will work on a grand scale. Maybe big countries just are too cumbersome to be democratic and need to break up into more manageable pieces. What we have isn’t working so we must try something. Whatever it is, we need a way of insuring the people have a voice and influence. Without that basic ideal, the whole thing is too easily corrupted.

Report this

By James M. de Laurier, November 9, 2011 at 2:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Chris Hedges,    11/09/2011
    A particular political/social/economic school of
thought goes - We are not related to each other!
Thanking you for this opportunity to comment -
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK !
James M. de Laurier

Report this

By terry p, November 9, 2011 at 2:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By What Is Progress,

The question is: What is so good about this corrupt system that would make the the people of the Occupation want to accept it and go home? You, What Is Progress, must have everything going your way. In which case you are fortunate. But there is a growing number of people who don’t have things going their way and the opportunities are getting slimmer for their children who will not have it as good as they do or did.

You seem to think that we can fix things with the same crooks that got us in the fix we are in. It takes time to organize. What ever leader materializes will be in a different system hopefully. The system we have now is owned lock stock and barrel by Wall Street. As Ralph Nader said, “Tear down that Wall”! Who ever appears as our spokesperson on the scene can’t be connected to that Wall but to the people instead.

There is a list of demands that OWS laid out in the beginning of their occupation. To further your understanding Check First with http://occupywallst.org/ for that list. I remember the first thing on the list of demands was to nationalize the Feds. The Federal Reserve Act should never have been signed into law By President Woodrow Wilson back in 1913. In remorse he later confessed that he gave our country away. OWS movement must not go home until that is accomplished.

Read “The Web of Debt”, What is Progress. You will see just how corrupt our system is and learn how to fix it. Do you understand the term - ‘fractional reserve banking’?

Before banks evolved into something more than mere vaults, several hundred years ago they simply stored gold and valuables in well guarded and secured fortresses. Gold coins and gold ingots became currency taking the place of the tally system of the Renaissance period. When gold was stored in the bank it would issue a receipt. Only when the receipt came back was the gold released. The bank took payment for this service. But, after dealing this way for a time the sly banksters began noticing their costumers habits. They noticed that no more than 20% of the gold ever left the vaults at any one time. So, what do you think the Banksters did? They issued 5 times the receipt amounts as gold stored in the banks. The Banksters were instantly wealthy. It has been against the law for obvious reasons to use Fractional Reserve banking. At times there would be a run on the banks when more receipts came back than gold. The banks would loose the reputations and a depression would be the result. But since the Savings and Loan Crisis in the late 1980’s it has been made legal for large banks to issue 11 times more credit than assets they have in the bank. So, the banksters can now legally loan money that they don’t actually have. It is counterfeiting pure and simple, in my book. It has been revealed that Morgan Chase and Bank of America has issued as much as 70 times more credit than assets they own.

There is much more to the banking stories!


I don’t really have a problem with Fractional Reserve Banking as long as the practice is carried out for the public good in a publicly owned banking system. The profits could be used to fix our infrastructure or pay for our healthcare and education systems. The Bank could be like a public utility as it was intended when Benjamin Franklin establish the Franklin Bank in the late 1700’s. Find out more about it @ http://PublicBankingInstitute.org. Ellen Brown is the founder and President. She is also the author of “The Web of Debt”.  Check it out.

tp

Report this

By Jerome, November 9, 2011 at 1:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dear Truthdiggers,

Hedges is a self-defined conservative. Meaning he would like the rule of Law restored. Radical leftists are the ones roaming the halls of Goldman and Sachs that wish to erode the rule of Law to the point that only Corporations have rights.

Report this
Marietjie Luyt's avatar

By Marietjie Luyt, November 9, 2011 at 1:13 pm Link to this comment

Ermmm oddsox, die word is ‘zeitgeist’. But think for a moment about those oh so NOT ‘out of the box’ terms ‘leadership’, ‘teamwork’, and ‘staying with the agenda’ -just a few of the moronic cliche’s heard all the time ‘in the boardroom’.

First of all - these words have become quite meaningless - except, of course, to indicate that ‘I’m the boss and you had better do my bidding.’ Every ‘leader’, whether it be the local office tyrant, or Mr Big Shot himself, fondly thinks of himself (herself?) as the Big Leader. Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! You get my point.

And obviously, who is The Leader if there isn’t ‘a team’ to do his/her bidding? (A clue: Think Reichsmarshall. Think SS. Think troops.) Show any independent thought, or, heaven forbid, a disinclination to fawn and flatter, and you may well hear soon enough that you’re ‘not a team player’!

An as for some radical thinking - in other words thinking that goes to the root of the facade presented as real - or that calls all the easy assumptions into question - well, of course, you’ll be chucked out because you refuse to ‘stay with the agenda’.

Freedom is preferable.

Report this
Project Mayhem's avatar

By Project Mayhem, November 9, 2011 at 1:03 pm Link to this comment

Cyr,

The parental metaphor in your latest contribution is an interesting one, and nicely sets up your contention that Americans have become largely dependent on the corporate state for what passes as “nurturing” and “sustenance” in a societal sense. This, together with your description of the time and energy necessary in maintaining a functional democracy, raises an interesting question, at least to me. Do you suppose, given the size of the country and the seemingly intractable regional/ideological differences among its citizens, that a democracy such as you describe is even remotely possible in the United States, as it exists presently? In other words, even with a strong showing of Greens and/or other alternative parties, would the sheer fractuousness of the population at large effectively check reform at a national level? And, if this is the case, might the dissolution of the country be the only hope for the sort of systemic change you write about?

Interesting food for thought, as always. I hope you’ll consider my questions when time presents itself.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, November 9, 2011 at 12:17 pm Link to this comment

QUOTE, C.Curtis.Dillon:

“Government exists for the people. When it no longer represents the people’s will, it no longer has a reason or right to exist.”
__________________

Would that that were actually true.

The governments of all existing modern complex industrial societies exist for just one purpose — to allow some relatively few people to aggregate power unto themselves, in order for those few to accumulate greater wealth, and to control the lives and determine what the fortunes and misfortunes of all others will be. In the USA, corporate persons decide what government will do, to whom, when, and how. Those who have chosen to collaborate with the corporate persons sociopathic agenda vote for the corporate party’s Republicans and Democrats.

In some so-called “simple” indigenous societies, forms of true democracy flourished, with full assembled society participation in decisions often taking days or weeks — a process enabled by their not being engaged in time and energy consuming destruction of the environment in order to develop disposable ecosystem perpetual growth consumer economies… nor engaged in the costly waging of wars of constant conquest upon distant continents.

The fundamental “democracy” problem that is generally conveniently ignored is that participatory democracy requires citizens to devote an enormous amount of their time responsibly assembling for serious deliberation over all manner of decisions — something that too few Americans have much competency in, and most Americans haven’t any desire to do.

Americans have been “educated” into a conditioned dependency upon corporations that’s as strong as the dependency an unborn fetus has upon its mother. That is why the “normal” 99% of the current participatory electorate is irreversibly loyal to the sociopathic corporate (R) & (D) party… restricted themselves to choosing only between a “democratic representation” dependency upon a corporate party manufactured strict father, or a corporate party manufactured (D)evil falsely perceived to be a nurturing mommy.

The complex sustainable society policies needed — for future generations to even be able to survive, let alone prosper — won’t come from government here, as long as most people continue to free-will choose to support the corporate (R) & (D) party, and too few stand in direct opposition to that supermajority’s sociopathic corporate control collaboration.

Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:

http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=498&Itemid=1

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, November 9, 2011 at 12:01 pm Link to this comment

@terryP and other Ozark-Michael critics:

Understand, respect and CELEBRATE the fact that OM represents the far-right edge of diversity on this, and other TruthDig threads. 
Know, too, that there are many others out there who think exactly as he does.

OzarkM’s been called a paid troll, but, in truth, no one from the right would pay him to post on TruthDig, as they have likely not heard of it. 
Those few who have would know better than to imagine his comments would change any minds here.

For the sake of continued diversity of thought, it would make more sense for TruthDig to pay Ozark- Michael a small honorarium for his continued input.

OM, have you checked today’s mail?

Report this
Project Mayhem's avatar

By Project Mayhem, November 9, 2011 at 11:58 am Link to this comment

I originally posted this in the Scott Olsen thread, but I feel it appropriate to re-post it here, as well:

In the interest of full disclosure, and to defuse the sensationalism of ITroll’s latest hysterical linking, here is the flyer in question, in its entirety:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/alleged-flyer-at-occupy-phoenix-ponders-when-should-you-shoot-a-cop/

It is provocative and strongly worded, without doubt, but it raises many important questions about the relationship between law enforcement and the imposition of tyranny. It seems to me that people on both sides of the police cordon would benefit from a close reading and careful consideration of its argumentation. It must be noted that the flyer is by no means a blanket indictment of the police, nor is it an uncritical call to arms against them. It is also important, I think, to consider this document in the context of the place in which it was distributed; Arizona has a reputation for unsavory and unconstitutional abuses of police power, as personified in the form of uberthug, Sherriff Joe Arpaio.

It is not my intent to make excuses for Occupy Phoenix, but rather to call attention to the actual document in question and to the relationship that presently exists between law enforcement and the people of Arizona. As usual, there is little to be gleaned from the biased, sensational, and reductionist presentation of the retrograde hack who made initial reference to it.

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, November 9, 2011 at 11:27 am Link to this comment

@Marietjie luyt, you write:

“You won’t hear words like ‘leadership’, ‘team work’, ‘team player’,‘staying with the agenda’ etc etc coming out of (Hedges’) mouth.”

LOL, well, of course not. 
As you wrote, that’s MBA-speak.

Today’s far-left buzzword is “Zeitgiest.”

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, November 9, 2011 at 11:19 am Link to this comment

To Zippostal, L.Evator & other critics of Chris Hedges:

I’m with you to a point:
This column, like much of Hedges’ work, is long-winded and self-aggrandizing.  I winced reading how being arrested assuaged his survivor’s guilt. 
And the MLK-like finish smacked of an attempt at self-martyrdom. 

The OWS movement needs something more than Chris Hedges getting arrested and writing about it, then flying off to Oakland in time to gather material for his next column.

But, then, that’s his job. 
And the man can write!

TruthDig is Hedges’ home court, but look at the range of discussion he provokes. 
Like him or not, he is thought-provoking and a true leader of the far-left.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 9, 2011 at 11:02 am Link to this comment

I personally am all in favor of Occupy Wall Street as an outside strategy to bring issues to the forefront of political debate, but I fear the elements; minority elements seemingly within Occupy Wall Street that will discredit Occupy Wall Street, and thus discredit the message. It only takes a minority within a movement to discredit that movement. Reports, true or untrue, of protestors throwing excrement, blood, Molotov cocktails, can only serve to turn the uninformed and apathetic away from Occupy Wall Street and its objectives. Reports that Occupy Wall Street has developed the tactic of non-violently surrounding and isolating the violent within their midst are drowned out by the more sensational reports of thrown excrement etc. The U.S. is not Greece and video of burning barricades that goes viral in the media can only serve to discredit Occupy Wall Street and its objectives. (It’s also questionable as to how representative the violence in Greece was representative of Greek protestors. The videos of violence in Greece were broadcast globally.)

The concept of agents provocateur requires conspiratorial thinking but the tactic of infiltrating agents provocateur into movements and organizations has been a documented reality in the past (See the “Lavon Affair” as just one example,) and I’m quite sure that such activities will continue into the future. Secrecy is the first rule of provocateurs, so the exposing of agents provocateur seldom occurs. Homeland Security and other government agencies are busily engaged in “investigating” Occupy Wall Street, which brings to mind the activities of COINTELPRO during the sixties. I am averse to making allegations of conspiracy; factual evidence being the only means of validating suspicions, but I will proffer that Occupy Wall Street is vulnerable to such activities. Be that as it may, violent or objectionable acts that are associated with Occupy Wall Street, regardless of source, serve to discredit Occupy Wall Street, its objectives, and in the final analysis its effectiveness.

(More below)

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, November 9, 2011 at 11:01 am Link to this comment

Flier at Occupy Phoenix asks, “When should you shoot a cop?”
Copies of an “informational” letter were left on a table for protestors pick up [sic] and read during the “Occupy Phoenix” event at Cesar Chavez Park.  The presence of the letter was reported to the ACTIC by a Maricopa County Sheriff’s Deputy who had responded to an unrelated call and was alerted to it by another deputy working the event.

Occupy has proven unable, or unwilling, to contain the violence these crowds seed. Stop these Occupations and let us get to doing the real work that’s now needed.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 9, 2011 at 10:55 am Link to this comment

Hedges writes:

“It is vital that the occupation movements direct attention away from their encampments and tent cities, beset with the usual problems of hastily formed open societies where no one is turned away.”

I agree with Hedges in this respect. It is “vital” to the growth and continued success of Occupy Wall Street that Occupy Wall Street progress beyond encampments, though I do believe that the encampments have the potential for having a continued positive impact. Whether that potential will be realized is another matter and is dependent on many factors, not the least of which is the behavior of those who inhabit those encampments.  If the behavior of Occupy Wall Street’s encampment inhabitants becomes so objectionable, or is perceived as being so objectionable that its numbers of supporters are diminished, within and without, then the movement will not be well served, quite the contrary. I believe it is “vital” that Occupy Wall Street focus on creating other fronts for activism in order to achieve objectives. What I am suggesting here is that there is a need for additional political activism. Yes, nasty evil politics. I’m not at all suggesting that Occupy Wall Street should practice “Nasty evil politics,” but that Occupy Wall Street needs to become involved in politics; politics that are considered nasty and evil, and to be avoided, by some. Those who have an aversion to politics and government must admit that Occupy Wall Street which is concerned with political issues, is involved in politics, like it or not. As it now stands, Occupy Wall Street is an outside political organization which has political objectives. Having objectives, it is assumed that Occupy Wall Street would like to see those objectives achieved; any other interpretation would mean that Occupy Wall Street is made up of the angry and dissatisfied who are only concerned with expressing their anger and dissatisfaction. It is obvious that anger and/or dissatisfaction are manifest within Occupy Wall Street. Alleviating that anger and eliminating that dissatisfaction will necessitate inside politics. Politicians from within the political system i.e. government will need to legislate in order to achieve Occupy Wall Street objectives. The potential for Occupy Wall Street becoming an inside political organization with the necessary political power to achieve objectives is worthy of consideration. If Occupy Wall Street is perceived to be incapable of becoming an inside political organization with sufficient political power any time in the near future, it becomes an imperative, in order to achieve objectives, that Occupy Wall Street give its support to existing inside political entities that most share Occupy Wall Street’s objectives. It is obvious that Occupy Wall Street, and the American populace, are dissatisfied with the current political realities and with existing political entities to one degree or another from all political perspectives. I continue to believe that incremental improvements in regard to desired objectives are all that we can expect or rationally hope for at the present time and that choosing political entities most inclined towards legislating those objectives is the most rational course of action while continuing to agitate for reform with the ultimate goal being the creation of a viable inside political organization with the political power to achieve objectives, whether that viable inside political organization is created from the inside or the outside will be irrelevant as long as desired objectives are achieved. I suggest that in order to achieve shared objectives it would be logical to take the path of least resistance.

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, November 9, 2011 at 10:49 am Link to this comment

@cclauson, What Is Progress, many others:

OWS needs focus. It also needs a win. 
Something of substance.

Restricting campaign contributions to breathing US citizens only (no corporations, no unions, no PACs) should gather wide support & succeed—it’s so common-sense. 

There is time enough before the 2012 elections to make this a wedge issue. 

—-

Personally, I’d also like to see a wedge issue made of using Anti-Trust law to break up the too-big-to-fails.  Not just reinstating Glass-Steagall, but regionalizing the banks, as was done w/ATT in 1985.
I’ve posted this idea on many threads, but if you haven’t already read details,
http://open.salon.com/blog/oddsox/2011/10/10/too_big_to_fail_too_big_to_begin_with

Report this

By C.Curtis.Dillon, November 9, 2011 at 10:47 am Link to this comment

What is progress and others:

There is always this demand to ‘name your terms’ as if writing a list of demands changes anything. There are lists and more lists of demands from other groups and they get nowhere. There was a demand for single payer health care (supported by a large majority of those surveyed) and what did we get? Obamacare? A very weak attempt and ultimately gives the insurance companies more power, not less. Name any issue and the people have expressed their desires clearly and forcefully but the powers that be, beholden to their own constituency or their ‘base’, ignore everyone to pass whatever they want. Need more proof of this? Just look at the results of the various referendum votes yesterday and how the people voted down law after law passed by the Republican majorities. Representative government was thrown in the trash in these states.

What OWS is saying is very clear ... the system, as it presently exists, is broken. There is no connection between our elected representatives and their constituents (and ultimate employers). That has been a problem throughout this country’s existence and it never really changes. We have revolts and, for a while, the system corrects but it soon returns to the same old corrupt ways. So OWS wants something more fundamental. What they want is hard to articulate but I assume they will soon have to say something. I don’t expect it to be a set of legislative demands given the current situation with our politics.

So, if you are waiting for a specific list of demands, I expect you’ll be disappointed. We need to fix, permanently, this broken system and find something better. One that more closely connects those who ‘represent’ us and us, the people. Money has no say in government despite what is written in the constitution. The framers were landowners and they made sure that their interests were supreme above all others. That translated to a privately selected senate and the electoral college which was originally designed to erect a wall between the popular vote and the final selection. Electors are not required to vote the popular vote ... that is just a convention adopted early on. So start by eliminating the electoral college and make the selection based on the total popular vote. But even that doesn’t really change anything.

What the occupation is trying to do is experiment with other forms of direct government. The assemblies are an attempt to give everyone an equal vote in the decision process. It’s not perfect. And the ‘human mic’ is not some catchy idea but born of necessity since Mayor Mike refuses to let them have a microphone and the assemblies can be very large and it’s noisy in NYC. It’s the only way people can hear what the speaker is saying. Forget about the human mic ... it means nothing in the greater scheme.

Government exists for the people. When it no longer represents the people’s will, it no longer has a reason or right to exist. This government is corrupt and almost worthless. It does whatever it wants and we all suffer. I would think both sides want a robust, accountable government. Why not work together to get one?

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, November 9, 2011 at 9:59 am Link to this comment

Grokker and TerryP, OWS reflects it;s demographic, it thinks it can learn everything anew.  There have been numerous positive comments, but they seem to go nowhere.  Objective criticism seems not to be tolerated, at least by some of you on TD.  These are not good signs at all. 

Fine, love of money is the root, blah, blah.  How does that get incorporated into some tax and trade policy?  At what point shall we expect OWS to publish their ‘new enlightened’ positions, and the policies (laws) which will get us there. 

We, the 99% can storm the gates of our capitols, but we can’t go empty handed.  We need specific laws to abolish, revise or enact.  Otherwise, we are empowering what exactly? 

So this is positive advice: get quiet, serious, reflective, and study everything closely.  Yes, you have idiots among you like the right does, and they will waste an enormous amount of every-bodies time.  People are dying out there, literally.  So, yes, acknowledge the fact that procedural inefficiencies like the stupid ‘peoples mic’ waste time which is needed to produce a higher quality work product.  If people are going to really, really get behind something, it has to be better than what we’ve got.   

What?  You want blind support based on faith?  Been there, done that.  Show me what you got, no more pig-in-a-poke.

Report this

By Foucauldian, November 9, 2011 at 9:42 am Link to this comment

One of Chris’s best.  Aside from the lyrical prose, he
makes all the rarely-discussed conceptual connections
between corporatism and statism and greed on the one
hand and morality, justice, Immanuel Kant, and so
forth.  The West doesn’t just experience or goes
through a financial crisis but just as importantly, a
moral crisis.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, November 9, 2011 at 9:41 am Link to this comment

ardee,

What prevents you from simply making your point and not being an ass with everyone you disagree with?

You feel yourself as very small. We all clearly get that. Are you simply unable to control yourself?

Report this
Edward Ellis's avatar

By Edward Ellis, November 9, 2011 at 8:34 am Link to this comment

You stole my thunder mrfreeze! smile

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, November 9, 2011 at 8:06 am Link to this comment

QUOTE,  C.Curtis.Dillon:

“But, these countries went to the WTO or the World Bank or the IMF for loans and, guess what, each of these organizations (heavily influenced by the US of A and beholden to our politicians for their money) demanded that the countries remove all obstructions to “free trade” in agricultural commodities”
___________________

There’s an excellent film that well documents how neoliberal policies create the misfortunes of others.

Life & Debt (2001)
http://www.lifeanddebt.org/

The DVD has bonus features including an extended interview with the former prime minister of Jamaica, Michael Manley, in which he discusses the failure of imagination he confronted when he attempted to get affluent non-white nations to economically assist the “developing” nations that were being targeted by the predation of Clinton era “aid” policies and the global bankers.

Report this

By C.Curtis.Dillon, November 9, 2011 at 7:24 am Link to this comment

zippostal:

I’ll do one better than Ardee - I’ll try to explain the connection between rich bankers and starving children. Even with all that corruption, for much of this century Africa has been able to feed its people because there were indigenous farmers working small farms that produced much if not all of the continent’s food needs. But, these countries went to the WTO or the World Bank or the IMF for loans and, guess what, each of these organizations (heavily influenced by the US of A and beholden to our politicians for their money) demanded that the countries remove all obstructions to “free trade” in agricultural commodities so the playing field was flat ... with me so far? Except the US of A and Europe heavily subsidize their agricultural products (especially basics like grain and dairy) so they are unfairly priced and drive the local farmers out of business. Now, when there’s a drought (like there was last year in Europe and Russia) or floods (every year somewhere in the world these days), there is a shortage of grain in the world and these African countries can no longer afford to buy the now very expensive commodities and, because of the unfair competition with the Americans and Europeans, they no longer have local farmers to pick up the losses. So people starve.

Add to that, these bankers in NYC speculate on the prices of grain and other basics, driving prices higher and making food more expensive. If you are poor, rising grain prices can push you and your family over the edge. Goldman Sachs is the largest speculator in grains in the world (along with major grain consolidators like Cargill and ADM). Those people Hedges writes about are very complicit in the mass starvation we see happening around the world. If you were listening (or reading something other than the crap spewed out by the right wing) you would know all of this. Ardee is right in that regard ... open your browser and start reading for a change.

Report this

By terry p, November 9, 2011 at 7:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ozark-Michael wins the stupid award.

There are several runners up but he has proven himself.

OWS has done precisely what was necessary to bring about change. It got our attention. It must continue to occupy if for no other reason than to say we don’t like what is being done in our name.

As the movement grows participants become more educated and unified. The 99% know they are neglected by our reps who pay attention only to their sponsors on Wall Street and/or the Banksters to big to jail.

The 99% simply say “we won’t go away until the problems are fixed.” They know they can’t count on elections but they can count on their own actions. 

Party affiliations, the GOP or the DOPES(Democrats) don’t matter any more because we know they are completely compromised by Wall Street and therefore interchangeable and negated.

So,What Is Progress, November 8 at 7:13 you and that Grumpy old man state the depressing obvious instead of offering beneficial input. Your going inside to work on our problems behind closed doors will benefit the business as usual buzzards on Wall Street. Ozark W., another self serving idiot, will be your boss.

By cclauson, November 7 at 6:53 pm offers ideas that will help this movement. That’s what we need now—- more ideas. Let’s have more strikes:?) I hear there’s one planned in Dallas, TX! (details: http://occupywallst.org)

Ozark-Michael aren’t you supposed to be deer hunting or settin’ up camp for your betters or something that don’t give you a head ache? Leave the thinking to the 99% with a heart and understanding that people everywhere deserve much much better.

Thanks Chris Hedges for putting yourself in harms way bringing attention to the doorsteps of a Wall Street Bank, Goldman Sachs in lower Manhattan, a house of worship for the IMF funded world dictators.


LONG LIVE OWS!!!

tp:?)

PS:For insight read “The Web of Debt” by Ellen Brown
Also: stay tuned to Wikileaks tweets:?]

Report this

By grokker, November 9, 2011 at 6:57 am Link to this comment

@What Is Progress   Money is not the root of all evil but love and obsession with money probably is, at this stage of the game, and that is a human fallibility. By my suggesting that you start your own movement I was referring to all of the people that are so hyper critical of what’s happening with OWS, but have no solutions of their own other than involving themselves in impotent electoral politics, or going to town meetings or the like. I say we let these OWS people alone to make their own mistakes, one of them being the claim that they represent the 99%. The questions being raised by OWS are critical. Why do we need constant economic growth? - why do we assume expansion is always the goal of everything we do?. Why is bigger always better?; why the constant acquisition of resources to make ever larger piles of garbage goods and trinkets?. Why work yourself to death when the amount of work that we need to do to survive and thrive is actually is lot less?. These are some of the questions that are being tossed around. Frankly, most of the 99% will not ask these questions and are not psychologically ready for true freedom. Most of the 99% will be content with jobs and leaders and procreating. The OWS, I sense, is a large percentage of younger people who have largely socialized via gadgets and play dates arranged by their boomer parents as they were growing up. I get the feeling many are, for the first time, getting a sense of true community that they won’t get in American suburban isolation. Perhaps OWS is only an adventure, like college can be for many, but many things of a social and philosophical nature are being learned here, regardless of whether the mass of society will be changed by them

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, November 9, 2011 at 6:06 am Link to this comment

grokker, this amorphous blob ‘flat democracy’ is obviously some formative stage of re-inventing the wheel.  You’re eating food grown by a farmer in a tractor who can’t hear the ‘peoples mic’ over the din.  How are you going to scale OWS up to include all 300 odd millions of us?  You already have a representative government because you claim to represent 99% of us, but I didn’t elect you.

So your answer will be to ‘get off my but’ and come to an occupy ‘movement’?  Sorry to inform you, if I don’t produce at my factory every day, my family suffers, and those who don’t produce have no production. 

I don;t see much coming out of OWS yet which adresses very, very fundamental problems, namely adequate production (in a way that doesn;t trash the eco-system of course), and alternative mechanisms to the so-called ‘free market’.

Practical things aside, how about answering this question, “WHY, is money the root of all evil?”.  I’m not saying there are no evils outside those attributable to money, but that old saying is there for a reason.  Some of us know more-or-less why money is a two edges sword, and this is a very fundamental human conundrum.  It is the basis for the abuses on Wall St. But, I see no indication that you OWS folks actually understand what you’re moving against. 

I’m not saying all this to hurt the ‘movement’,  rather, you people have to start thinking on different levels.  I’m not seeing any ‘new enlightenment’ shining out from the big city.

Report this

By ardee, November 9, 2011 at 5:56 am Link to this comment

zippostal, November 9 at 5:41 am

Your post indicates a stunning lack of understanding of what factors cause and contribute to the growing problems of poverty, inequality, starvation and disease.

If you are sincere in seeking knowledge I see no such evidence of that in this effort.

Report this

By zippostal, November 9, 2011 at 5:41 am Link to this comment

Sorry Chris, but this is so full of your ego it almost made me choke. What right do you have to enlist poor African children in your middle-class gripes against bankers in America? At least do it in a way which doesn’t stink of purple prose, of false heroics, of ‘by-the-way-I’ve-been-to-Africa’. Truly pathetic. Somehow you’ve managed to blame a bunch of people working in New York for the poverty of millions across a continent appallingly managed by its own corrupt politicians. Go and do some serious academic research into poverty in Africa, please. And also take a step back and look at what you’ve written. Truly appalling prose.

Report this

By Marietjie luyt, November 9, 2011 at 4:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I really like Chris Hedges for his perfectly ordinary decency, which has somehow become such a scarce commodity (pardon the pun!). He talks and writes like a human being, not like a robot spouting MBA-speak. You won’t hear words like ‘leadership’, ‘team work’, ‘team player’,‘staying with the agenda’ etc etc coming out of his mouth, as I very recently did when listening to the chairman of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange addressing a seemingly impressed crowd at the University of Pretoria. I think some of the negative comments here come from people who have been thoroughly brainwashed into thinking that these concepts are normal, even noble. But we are people, having one precious life to live. What a waste, then, to live out that life like a poor, cooped up battery hen! Rather embrace freedom. For as one pundit said: It’s so liberating!

Report this

By L. Evator, November 8, 2011 at 10:59 pm Link to this comment

Dear God, seldom have I read such dismal prose.

It starts with ad hominem attacks (“a pathetic collection of middle-aged fraternity
and sorority members”) and it’s downhill from there.

It’s portentous, tendentious and sententious - it’s got it all! You don’t think it can
get any worse and the you get to the tubercular lung thing. After wiping tears of
laughter from your eyes you reach the climax as the heroic Mr Hedges compares
himself to MLK.

With “leaders” like this OWS is surely doomed.

Report this

By grokker, November 8, 2011 at 9:29 pm Link to this comment

IMax:So that this message doesn’t get completely lost in spectacle we need stop these Occupations and move ourselves to doing the real work.

What is Progress: I’d say it’s about time to leave a ‘very small manageable token occupation group’ at the park, and move indoors to re-think the whole thing from the ground up.  Elect big thinking leaders in a new way.  This experimental ‘leaderless democracy’ looks pretty damn weak.

Lots of big talk here. IMax, what do you say we continue with our occupation and you go “move yourself to doing the real work”, whatever the fuck that is.
What is Progress, Yeah, let’s elect leaders and hierarchies and lots of managers and shit so it can all fail just like you want it to. Go away and form your own “movement”, if you can get off the couch.

Report this

By cclauson, November 8, 2011 at 8:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

@What Is Progress

Agree.  I think that the current challenge is going to be to convince a group of people who are deeply skeptical of any authority to establish some kind of centralized power structure.  The revolution needs less Bakunin, less Durruti, more Hamilton, Madison and Jay.

As a sidenote, TYT is doing something like this:
http://www.wolf-pac.com/

The goal is clear and well-defined, and there’s no entrenched ideology as far as approach, heirarchy is used as appropriate.  At the moment they’re just smaller and less visible than OWS.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, November 8, 2011 at 7:17 pm Link to this comment

@IMax “It’s time for a plan.”  Uh, yup.  OWS are sitting ducks for any number of discreditation campaigns, but they seem to be doing a fine job themselves.  They claim to represent the 99%, and in this regard they do: they have brilliant ideas as individuals, but lo and behold, some how the ‘Democracy’ they’ve implemented implements some lowest common denominator idiocy which is unpalatable to 98% of us. 

And, I’ll charge that except for a few bells and whistles like the ‘peoples mic’ and the ‘bicycle generators’ and the ‘jump-able stack’, and the library, they have nothing that is substantial or fundamental which is adequately improved or even different enough to get excited over.  This ‘leaderless movement’, is that in name only, and really, does it appear to look like it might evolve into something that might govern? 

I’d say it’s about time to leave a ‘very small manageable token occupation group’ at the park, and move indoors to re-think the whole thing from the ground up.  Elect big thinking leaders in a new way.  This experimental ‘leaderless democracy’ looks pretty damn weak.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, November 8, 2011 at 6:38 pm Link to this comment

SoCal Street Cart Vendors Hurting After ‘Occupy’ Group Splatters Blood, Urine
“Coffee cart owner Linda Jenson and hot dog cart operators Letty and Pete Soto said they initially provided free food and drink to demonstrators, but when they stopped, the protesters became violent.”

L.A., Boston, Detroit, Oakland, New York, Denver and Lincoln. I keep seeing how ‘Occupy’ has proven unable to contain the violence these crowds seed. So that this message doesn’t get completely lost in spectacle we need stop these Occupations and move ourselves to doing the real work.

It’s time for a plan.

Report this

By tjmax116, November 8, 2011 at 6:36 pm Link to this comment

Notice that your local newspapers are being bought by big Corporations. Herst Corp. bought 5 local papers in 5 cities near me. They told the editor, no more investigative reporting on corporations. We want you to cover Paris Hilton, Brittany Spears etc. The dumbing of America. One of the reasons people are so dumb in the US, is that they read the LOCAL PAPER.

Report this
Peter Knopfler's avatar

By Peter Knopfler, November 8, 2011 at 5:44 pm Link to this comment

And again THANK YOU CHRIS AND ENDING THE ARTICLE WITH
THE KING`S OWN WORDS “FREE AT LAST”:WHILE BINDING
YOUR HANDS: GEORGE ORWELL`S DOUBLE SPEAK: VERY
GOOD!HOLDING two Opposite ideas At same time,ETC.
AS for myself coming from parents that survived the
Nazi Camps, KNOWS that Jews were called cowards for
protesting non-violent, thought more should fight
back!
I WAS BORN AUSTRIA 1949, I was born angry.Non-violent
protesting JEWS were still pushed into the furnace
for one final scream.How far and long, will the
Public take police beatings.When will American`s take
their GUNS out of the closet of Time and become
useful once more!America the light onto the world,
Global Leadership OR Drone killings, Sell Arms and
later attack those who bought your arms FAST&FURIOUS;
ARMS TO KILL 45,000 Mexicans at doorstep of USA!SELL
ARMS HONDURAS AND WEAPONS COME TO MEX. BACK DOOR!
HOW LONG WILL NON-VIOLENCE REMAIN EFFECTIVE AND THEN
WHAT?  CHRIS KNOWS THE ANSWERS
      HAVEN`t WE seen it ALL!

Report this

By wantrealdemocracy, November 8, 2011 at 5:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Chris says we should focus on the banks and insurance companies that are carrying out assaults on the 99%—-but I think we need to focus on the Congress who made all this crime legal.  Our Representatives are the ones who are causing all the trouble our nation is in now.  They voted to deregulate the banks.  They vote funding for all the wars.  They did not vote for health care for all not in the control of the for profit insurance companies.  Congress voted the tax breaks for the rich and are now voting to cut our domestic programs while the plunder by Wall St. goes on as does the endless wars.

We need to get in the face of our elected officials and DEMAND that they vote as their constituents say and not to please their contributors.  We need to tell these so called Representatives that they vote against the wars, for more taxes on the rich and to maintain our domestic programs for the needs of the people and to protect the environment.  If they don’t follow your advice YOU MUST NOT SEND THEM BACK FOR ANOTHER TERM.  Give them a warning of your intent to kick out the corrupt in Congress or you will not vote for them again—-and then FOLLOW THROUGH.  Don’t vote for the corrupt.  Forget that trash about the other party being even worse.  If your rep is not voting as you say kick him.her out!  If the replacement is bad too, kick that one out too.  At some point we may be able to have a person with ethics, morals and compassion in our Congress.  And wouldn’t that be luv er ly!

Report this

By girlnextdoor, November 8, 2011 at 5:09 pm Link to this comment

Those who exploit and those whom endlessly consume without thought are collectively guilty of continued destruction of the biosphere and all creatures who rely on it. They/we have been infected with the Wetiko Disease that Jack D. Forbes describes in his book:
 
    “I have come to the conclusion that imperialism and exploitation are forms of cannibalism and, in fact, are precisely those forms of cannibalism which are most diabolical or evil…. Cannibalism, as I define it, is the consuming of another’s life for one’s own private purpose or profit.”

Columbus and Other Cannibals: The Wetiko Disease of Exploitation, Imperialism and Terrorism - Jack D. Forbes

Report this

By girlnextdoor, November 8, 2011 at 5:04 pm Link to this comment

Those who exploit and those whom endlessly/mindlessly consume without thought are collectively guilty of continued destruction of the biosphere and all creatures who rely on it. They/we have been infected with the Wetiko Disease that Jack D. Forbes describes in his book:
 
    “I have come to the conclusion that imperialism and exploitation are forms of cannibalism and, in fact, are precisely those forms of cannibalism which are most diabolical or evil…. Cannibalism, as I define it, is the consuming of another’s life for one’s own private purpose or profit.”

Columbus and Other Cannibals: The Wetiko Disease of Exploitation, Imperialism and Terrorism - Jack D. Forbes

Report this

By objective observer, November 8, 2011 at 4:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Grady:

small minded - possibly/probably
objective - absolutely

i’m seeing this without any preconceptions.  most of the commenters on this thread are “pie-in-the-sky” dreamers who don’t seem to have a plan B, should the power behind the power decide they’ve had a belly full and unleash the unthinkable.

i’ve posted before that the only change comes from the ballot box or the bullet box.  ask those in the “Arab Spring”, esp in Egypt or in China years back.  if the ballot box, those elected become what they campaigned against, ask President Obama.  if the bullet box, those in the movement are hardly more than targets and tank tread lubricant.  this will indeed end, hopefully for the best, meaning the powers that be are neutered, but as an objective observer, i don’t think so.  thanks for the thoughtful response.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, November 8, 2011 at 4:02 pm Link to this comment

No good purpose can be served by voting for the corporate party’s depraved Democrats to just get what their retrograde Republican partners want.

Isn’t it curious theater that their Republican partners can so easily regularly “obstruct” the corporate party’s advertised as being allegedly “righteous” Democrat legislation, whether the Democrats have a minority or a majority?

The corporate party’s Democrats have no “good intentions” credibility because they didn’t do the good they could have when they could have.

In this time of Obamanable transparency in Democrat duplicity, it is time for people to wake up and step away from the corporate party… forever!

Elections can serve no good purpose if natural persons use them merely to subserviently provide popular vote mandates to protect and preserve the corporate person policies of cancerous perpetual growth… leading to certain global collapse of ecosystems, and inevitably to our specie’s self-extermination.

Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:

http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=498&Itemid=1

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 8, 2011 at 3:28 pm Link to this comment

The “corporate party” as defined by the dissentious green dissenter has the support of vast numbers of the American people be they [D] or be they [R]. A majority of the American people are angry at Wall Street, the overwhelming majority of the majority angry at Wall Street are [D]. According to the latest poll done by CBS News and the New York Times - 54% of Democrats and 19% of Republicans agree with Occupy Wall Street. Occupy Wall Street has performed a valuable function but Occupy Wall Street as it now exists can not do anything other than influence public opinion, best case scenario to the good, but Occupy Wall Street also has the potential for influencing public opinion to the bad, contingent on behavior and how they are perceived by the American public.

Gallup

February 4, 2010

by Frank Newport

“PRINCETON, NJ—More than one-third of Americans (36%) have a positive image of “socialism,” while 58% have a negative image. Views differ by party and ideology, with a majority of Democrats and liberals saying they have a positive view of socialism, compared to a minority of Republicans and conservatives.

“Democrats and Republicans agree in their ratings of several of the terms, but differ significantly in their ratings of others—in particular, capitalism, the federal government, and socialism.”

Americans are almost uniformly positive in their reactions to three terms: small business, free enterprise, and entrepreneurs. They are divided on big business and the federal government, with roughly as many Americans saying their view is positive as say it is negative. Americans are more positive than negative on capitalism (61% versus 33%) and more negative than positive on socialism (36% to 58%).”

The dichotomy above is clear. One might ask which political perspective is most likely to embrace reforms advocated by Occupy Wall Street? The answer is clear, and has been clear to all but the ideologically myopic. The clear answer is obstinately and irrationally disputed by the dissentious dissenters.

Fear based demagoguery from a dissentious dissenter:

“The young do not have another half-century of human habitable planet time to waste, like their parents did, foolishly expecting the corporate party’s Republicans and Democrats to provide solutions for the existential (eco-system and species exterminating) problems that their Greatest Generation created, and their My Generation perpetuated.
There’s no time left to be wasted politically upon the purposeful procrastination of limp liberal incrementalists. Seriously systemic change is necessary now, because the opportunity to provide sustainable species survival will not be available later, when all the “normal” people have eventually reluctantly reached a consensus accepting the objective realities… too late. Either systemic change will come soon, or human extinction will certainly come much sooner than expected.”

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. March 19-21, 2010.

“With which one of these statements about the environment and the economy do you most agree? Protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth. OR, Economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent.” N=501 (Form A), MoE ± 4.5

59% of Democrats believe the environment should be given first priority, while 70% of Republicans believe that economic growth should be given first priority (Actually, Republicans in Congress believe that the environment should not be a priority at all. I have no data to support that contention, only the actions of Republicans in Congress support that contention.)

(More below)

Report this

By GradyLeeHoward, November 8, 2011 at 3:19 pm Link to this comment

objective?: Clearly Ted is speaking figuratively and
not advocating immediate violence. Even I see this as
a “hearts and minds” thing. Considering the
destructive power of our military and law enforcement
anything else is counter-productive. Small minded
creatures seek to label all revolution, even urgently
needed, as violent because they are not ripe to do
their thang. If you were an “objective observer” you
would see the big wave on the way.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 8, 2011 at 3:07 pm Link to this comment

“Appearing in the key presidential campaign state of Iowa, potential Republican candidate Newt Gingrich called for the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency ...”

“Many[R], including freshmen Reps. Joe Walsh (R-IL) and Rich Nugent (R-FL), vigorously joined Gingrich in his anti-EPA mission.”

“House Republicans this week will take their first step in a process that many on the right hope will end with the complete dismantling of the EPA. The House is considering amendments to the 2011 Continuing Resolution (H.R. 1), including dozens of proposals to prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse pollution, coal ash, water pollutants, and pesticide cleanup. Rep. Mike Pompeo’s (R-KS) amendment to cut $8.5 million from the EPA passed last night, and a vote on slashing 33 percent from the EPA is forthcoming.”

6 May 2011 3:40 PM

“Senate Republicans have introduced legislation to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency,”

More dissentious dissention:

“We must begin to heal our sick society — now!”

“I note that the dissentious dissenter wrote ‘begin’ to heal our sick society – now!” rather than heal our sick society – now. I’m concerned with our environment, but more concerned with our ‘sick society.’ A ‘sick society’ can not begin to deal with environmental issues or anything else. A nay saying sick bunch of [R] in Congress are obstructing all beginnings environmental and otherwise. Due to the [R] obstruction in Congress incremental i.e. beginnings are all that are available to us now, but even incremental beginnings will not be begun if the [R] take power once again, the [R] have made they’re priorities clear in all respects foreign and domestic. The [R] will take power once again if the [D] are abandoned by their former supporters, which is what the sick dissentious dissenter advocates.

Dissentious votes by dissenters:

“If the Occupy Movement votes, its votes will only serve a good purpose if they are protest votes… votes against all of the corporate (R) & (D) party’s candidates.”

If the Occupy Movement votes, its votes will only serve a good purpose if they are protest votes for the [D] and against the [R] dissenters; any other vote will serve the interests of [R] dissenters, who are the real and authentic corporate party and who are in blind obedience to each and every corporate interest in every aspect.

Simplistic nonsense from the dissentious dissenter”

“Voter Consent Wastes Dissent”:

Dissent is wasted by allowing unrighteous dissenters, whose dissent is dissention to the goals of righteous dissenters, to take power.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook