Occupy Wall Street - a first hand assessment

246 posts / 0 new
Last post
frobn's picture
frobn
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 28 2010
Posts: 184
Damnthematrix Thanks for the

Damnthematrix

Thanks for the updates on Australia. This is definitely a global phenomenon.

It's only a matter of time before OWS becomes worldwide. The weekend pledges from Germany and France for massive bank bail outs will be a prime mover of OWS spreading throughout Europe.

LONDON (Dow Jones)...traders welcomed a weekend pledge from German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy to recapitalize banks shaken by the euro zone's debt crisis and news troubled French-Belgian bank Dexia is to be nationalized.

tom.'s picture
tom.
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 345
xraymike79 wrote: Right

xraymike79 wrote:

Right Wing Media Infiltrates Occupy Wall Street To Discredit It
 


Howley with others rushed the entrance of the museum despite warnings from the guards causing them to fire pepper spray to the groups. It wasn’t until bloggers at Fire Dog Lake identified Howley and labeled him an “agent provocateur” did he come clean in his column and admit the mission.

The image of Howley posted at FDL looks altered to me - The guy wearing the cargo shorts seems to disappear to make room for Howley's hands and camera .. also to the right, another person's hand seems to be disappearing into Howley's left arm.

tom.'s picture
tom.
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 345
Bad Link ...

xraymike79 wrote:

Patrick Howley is an assistant editor and set about disrupting the protest by instigating violence to discredit the movement and to presumably mine material for his column in the Spectator.

His column details how he took part in Saturday’s demonstrations at the Smithsonian Institute’s Air and Space Museum (the Spectator has now removed that column). Approximately 100 to 200 anti-war demonstrators arrived at an exhibit about the drone aircraft the American military uses for spying and even targeted killings.

The posted link to Howley's column was ...

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/10/08/standoff-in-dc

which comes up as an error because "archives" was used instead of "blog"

The original correct link to the column (which has not been removed) should have been ...

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/10/08/standoff-in-dc

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1110
Is there any more to this?

xraymike79 wrote:

Right Wing Media Infiltrates Occupy Wall Street To Discredit It
 

Care2.com (blog) - 2 hours ago 10-9-2011
 

This time the infiltration of a legitimate grassroots movement in Occupy Wall Street didn’t come from Dick Armey and his astroturfing FreedomWorks, but from the right-wing media. An assistant editor with the conservative American Spectator admitted in a column to posing as part of the 99 Percent Movement in D.C. to “mock and undermine” it. Classy.

Patrick Howley is an assistant editor and set about disrupting the protest by instigating violence to discredit the movement and to presumably mine material for his column in the Spectator.

His column details how he took part in Saturday’s demonstrations at the Smithsonian Institute’s Air and Space Museum (the Spectator has now removed that column). Approximately 100 to 200 anti-war demonstrators arrived at an exhibit about the drone aircraft the American military uses for spying and even targeted killings.

Howley with others rushed the entrance of the museum despite warnings from the guards causing them to fire pepper spray to the groups. It wasn’t until bloggers at Fire Dog Lake identified Howley and labeled him an “agent provocateur” did he come clean in his column and admit the mission.

Howley’s stunt shows a few telling things about the current state of the conservative movement. One, they are terrified of legitimate political discourse, which we can assume is the natural consequence of successfully manipulating the political narrative for the past decade and more. Two, they have little, if any ethics.

And three, this movement has them worried.
 

Unless there is more to this I certainly would not call him an "agent provocateur" or claim that he came clean about  "disrupting the protest by instigating violence to discredit the movement".   If he did, that is a completely shameful action and should be condemed by people on all sides of the issue.

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/10/08/standoff-in-dc

I assume there were also many progressives (persons and media) that attended Tea Party events to see what was going on.  How else would they have known about all the racism, sexism, bigotry....?

frobn's picture
frobn
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 28 2010
Posts: 184
goes211 wrote: xraymike79

goes211 wrote:

xraymike79 wrote:

Right Wing Media Infiltrates Occupy Wall Street To Discredit It

And three, this movement has them worried.
 

Unless there is more to this I certainly would not call him an "agent provocateur" or claim that he came clean about  "disrupting the protest by instigating violence to discredit the movement".   If he did, that is a completely shameful action and should be condemed by people on all sides of the issue.

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/10/08/standoff-in-dc

I assume there were also many progressives (persons and media) that attended Tea Party events to see what was going on.  How else would they have known about all the racism, sexism, bigotry....?

The original article has been removed. Google sectator + standoff-in-dc, there are several links to the article which result in a 404 Error. Here is the catched version... where Howley openly admits his intentions. Seems you can run but you can't hide from google.

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1110
What makes you think it was removed?

frobn wrote:

goes211 wrote:

xraymike79 wrote:

Right Wing Media Infiltrates Occupy Wall Street To Discredit It

And three, this movement has them worried.
 

Unless there is more to this I certainly would not call him an "agent provocateur" or claim that he came clean about  "disrupting the protest by instigating violence to discredit the movement".   If he did, that is a completely shameful action and should be condemed by people on all sides of the issue.

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/10/08/standoff-in-dc

I assume there were also many progressives (persons and media) that attended Tea Party events to see what was going on.  How else would they have known about all the racism, sexism, bigotry....?

The original article has been removed. Google sectator + standoff-in-dc, there are several links to the article which result in a 404 Error. Here is the catched version... where Howley openly admits his intentions. Seems you can run but you can't hide from google.

Your cached version looks identical to the link that I posted that is still active on the spectator.org.  Not that I trust the American Spectator but your take on this story seems entirely fabricated unless you have something more to add?

Please show the quotes where he is an "agent provocateur" or claims to have come clean about  "disrupting the protest by instigating violence to discredit the movement".  There is no doubt that he did not have their best interests in mind when he went there but do you really believe that progressives did their reporting of the Tea Party with an open mind?

xraymike79's picture
xraymike79
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 24 2008
Posts: 2040
This just in

The Guardian - 54 minutes ago
Patrick Howley, an assistant editor at the American Spectator, wrote over the weekend that he had infiltrated the protest group in order to discredit it. ...

...However, Howley's breathless account of his role as provocateur – which goes on to condemn the protesters' "lack of nerve to confront authority", and his own determination to escalate the protest further as he rushed past security guards into the museum – has since been altered. The magazine appears to have taken down the story, although it has been reported in the Washington Post and on the Firedoglake and Daily Kos blogs.

Removed from the new story is any mention of Howley's motive to "mock and undermine" the protesters, or his disdain for their "lack of nerve". Instead, he says his involvement was intended for journalistic purposes, and that he rushed inside the museum "to find a place to observe."

Charlie Grapski, a citizen journalist and activist, accused the American Spectator and Howley of breaching journalistic integrity, and of criminal acts – and called for them to be investigated and charged.

Grapski said: "It is not journalism. This goes against every tenet of ethical journalism. Howley was doing it in order to 'mock and undermine'. His actions shows that the protesters were not out to disrupt, but that chaos and disruption followed his actions. Not only has he distorted the story to discredit others, he has engaged in criminal acts."

"They should be charged with criminal acts and inciting a riot."...

frobn's picture
frobn
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 28 2010
Posts: 184
goes211 wrote:frobn

goes211 wrote:

frobn wrote:

goes211 wrote:

xraymike79 wrote:

Right Wing Media Infiltrates Occupy Wall Street To Discredit It

And three, this movement has them worried.
 

Unless there is more to this I certainly would not call him an "agent provocateur" or claim that he came clean about  "disrupting the protest by instigating violence to discredit the movement".   If he did, that is a completely shameful action and should be condemed by people on all sides of the issue.

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/10/08/standoff-in-dc

I assume there were also many progressives (persons and media) that attended Tea Party events to see what was going on.  How else would they have known about all the racism, sexism, bigotry....?

The original article has been removed. Google sectator + standoff-in-dc, there are several links to the article which result in a 404 Error. Here is the catched version... where Howley openly admits his intentions. Seems you can run but you can't hide from google.

Your cached version looks identical to the link that I posted that is still active on the spectator.org.  Not that I trust the American Spectator but your take on this story seems entirely fabricated unless you have something more to add?

Please show the quotes where he is an "agent provocateur" or claims to have come clean about  "disrupting the protest by instigating violence to discredit the movement".  There is no doubt that he did not have their best interests in mind when he went there but do you really believe that progressives did their reporting of the Tea Party with an open mind?

The catched page has been changed and recatched. There is no way to prove what I and others had seen in the original text. I don't believe that the page giving a 404 error for a period of time is in question. I admit my error that I was too quick and proven wrong when I said you can't hide from google.

You have made up your mind that my take was fabricated. Unfortunately I was not wise enough to capture the original version, but even if I had you would go on believing that FDL, Care2, DailyKos, myself and many others fabricated the story. I would not be so quick to call someone a liar. Regardless, whatever you say or think it is not going to slow the spread and mounting influence of OWS symbolism.

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1110
I will try again.

Can someone point to the difference between the original story and the one that still exists on spectator.org.  I don't see much, if any difference.  Is there some other original more inflamatory wording available somewhere?  Also it seems he posted the original story before being "outed" in the progressive blogosphere so I am not exactly seeing the conspiracy. 

Linking to articles that quote each other and make claims that he admited to inciting violence is significatly different than him actually admiting to inciting violence. If you don't understand the difference, maybe you can tell me when it was that you stopped beating your wife.

As far as I can tell what he admitted to was "But as far as anyone knew I was part of this cause -- a cause that I had infiltrated the day before -- and I wasn't giving up before I had my story."   I am sure that he did not do this to help the cause but I am still waiting for the his admission that he was an "agent provocateur" or claims to have come clean about  "disrupting the protest by instigating violence to discredit the movement".  

Or is this just hyperbole?  Unless there is more to this, any talks of illegality is silly.

xraymike79's picture
xraymike79
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 24 2008
Posts: 2040
goes211 wrote: Can someone please help me

goes211 wrote:

Can someone point to the difference between the original story and the one that still exists on spectator.org.  I don't see much, if any difference.  Is there some other original more inflamatory wording available somewhere?  Also it seems he posted the original story before being "outed" in the progressive blogosphere so I am not exactly seeing the conspiracy. 

Linking to articles that quote each other and make claims that he admited to inciting violence is significatly different than him actually admiting to inciting violence. If you don't understand the difference, maybe you can tell me when it was that you stopped beating your wife.

As far as I can tell what he admitted to was "But as far as anyone knew I was part of this cause -- a cause that I had infiltrated the day before -- and I wasn't giving up before I had my story."   I am sure that he did not do this to help the cause but I am still waiting for the his admission that he was an "agent provocateur" or claims to have come clean about  "disrupting the protest by instigating violence to discredit the movement".  

Or is this just hyperbole?  Unless there is more to this, any talks of illegality is silly.

Gotcha!!!!!!!

Here is the original piece by Howley in a screengrab I took when I first started exposing this expecting it to be changed or taken down. 
 
http://i789.photobucket.com/albums/yy178/cgrapski/StandoffinDC2011-10-0901-42-38.png

frobn's picture
frobn
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 28 2010
Posts: 184
xraymike79 wrote: goes211

xraymike79 wrote:

goes211 wrote:

Can someone point to the difference between the original story and the one that still exists on spectator.org.  I don't see much, if any difference.  Is there some other original more inflamatory wording available somewhere?  Also it seems he posted the original story before being "outed" in the progressive blogosphere so I am not exactly seeing the conspiracy. 

Linking to articles that quote each other and make claims that he admited to inciting violence is significatly different than him actually admiting to inciting violence. If you don't understand the difference, maybe you can tell me when it was that you stopped beating your wife.

As far as I can tell what he admitted to was "But as far as anyone knew I was part of this cause -- a cause that I had infiltrated the day before -- and I wasn't giving up before I had my story."   I am sure that he did not do this to help the cause but I am still waiting for the his admission that he was an "agent provocateur" or claims to have come clean about  "disrupting the protest by instigating violence to discredit the movement".  

Or is this just hyperbole?  Unless there is more to this, any talks of illegality is silly.

Gotcha!!!!!!!

Here is the original piece by Howley in a screengrab I took when I first started exposing this expecting it to be changed or taken down. 
 
http://i789.photobucket.com/albums/yy178/cgrapski/StandoffinDC2011-10-0901-42-38.png

Brilliant!!!!!

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1110
Asking for substantiation is not calling you a liar...

frobn wrote:

You have made up your mind that my take was fabricated. I would not be so quick to call someone a liar. Regardless, whatever either you or I do or say is not going to slow the spread and mounting influence of the OWS process.

Several sites including the links given by XRM claim to have copies of the original.  I am asking what exactly was the difference in the two versions?  I never said your take was fabricated but sometimes one sees what one wants to see.  If you don't realize how easy it is in the internet age to create fake stories, I don't know what to say. 

It would not be the first time that someone has overreacted to a story because it fits their narrative.  Just realize that jumping on fake (or exaggerated) stories is also an easy way of discrediting what someone is saying.  Remember Dan Rather?

trwiley's picture
trwiley
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 11 2009
Posts: 78
Zeitgeist Movement Foresight - Occupy Everything

Sylq wrote:

OWS is beginning to look a lot like the end of the third movie in this series where masses of people start throwing there money back at the fed(or is it wall street...Now I have to go find that clip somewhere) to inspire a global phenomenon. When watching the movie I could not grasp the concept but having participated in 2 marches now I am beginning to.

Sylq

Here's a short youtube video about the end scene...

"And the end scene depicts something really interesting...the beginning"

The Zeitgeist Movement Foresight | Occupy Everything | Peter Joseph - Michael Ruppert

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1110
So the difference is ...

Original quote was

But as far as anyone knew I was part of this cause -- a cause that I had infiltrated the day before in order to mock and undermine in the pages of The American Spectator -- and I wasn't giving up before I had my story.

Changed to

But as far as anyone knew I was part of this cause -- a cause that I had infiltrated the day before -- and I wasn't giving up before I had my story.

Ok.  Now we are getting somewhere.  Was there any other differences I did not see?

So the reprint dropped the more damning "in order to mock and undermine in the pages of The American Spectator".  That certainly call his motives into question but I never would have thought that a conservative rag like The American Spectator was there to do objective reporting on the OWS movement.

I still think it is a bit of hyperbole to say to call him an agent provocateur or accuse him of insighting violence but good catch.

tom.'s picture
tom.
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 345
  xraymike79 wrote: Right

xraymike79 wrote:

Right Wing Media Infiltrates Occupy Wall Street To Discredit It
 


Howley with others rushed the entrance of the museum despite warnings from the guards causing them to fire pepper spray to the groups. It wasn’t until bloggers at Fire Dog Lake identified Howley and labeled him an “agent provocateur” did he come clean in his column and admit the mission.

The image of Howley posted at FDL looks altered to me - The guy wearing the cargo shorts seems to disappear to make room for Howley's hands and camera .. also to the right, another person's hand seems to be disappearing into Howley's left arm.

Xray, you did not address the authenticity of the picture - another thing I am now seeing is that Howley's  left forearm appears to be about 4 feet long, as his left shoulder is not arched forward - the reason I ask is that I know you have some photoshop experience, and I would like to hear your critique - Thank you in advance,

Tom

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1110
It looks real to me.

tom. wrote:

The image of Howley posted at FDL looks altered to me - The guy wearing the cargo shorts seems to disappear to make room for Howley's hands and camera .. also to the right, another person's hand seems to be disappearing into Howley's left arm.

Xray, you did not address the authenticity of the picture - another thing I am now seeing is that Howley's  left forearm appears to be about 4 feet long, as his left shoulder is not arched forward - the reason I ask is that I know you have some photoshop experience, and I would like to hear your critique - Thank you in advance,

Tom

I assume it is real.  Here is that same pic without the zoom.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Reporter-and-Occupy-Wash-D-by-Rob-Kall-...

Poet's picture
Poet
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2009
Posts: 1844
Thread's Dead, Baby.

Does anyone else here feel like this thread has degenerated into argumentation, and that the initial excitement over OccupyWallStreet has given way to petty disagreements over ideology?

Poet

Johnny Oxygen's picture
Johnny Oxygen
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 9 2009
Posts: 1441
Hmmmm

Here is another pic taken just outside at the same time. I think this is totally faked.

I mean where is the Vietnam Memorial?

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
buy buy American Pie

frobn's picture
frobn
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 28 2010
Posts: 184
Occupy Everything

Occupy Everything - Kunstler

This is the funniest part to me: that leaders of a nation incapable of  constructing a coherent consensus about reality can accuse its youth of not having a clear program. If the OWS movement stands for anything, it's a dire protest against the country's leaders' lack of a clear program.

#OccupyWallStreet Publishes First Issues of “The Occupied Wall Street Journal” - Yves Smith

There is a very clear “Editorial Note” in the paper

No list of demands
We are speaking to each other, and listening.
This occupation is first about participation.

Gallery: Anti-Wall Street protests coast-to-coast (85 pictures in the gallery)

Wall Street Demonstrators Jailed

Tall's picture
Tall
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 18 2010
Posts: 289
Panic of the Plutocrats

It remains to be seen whether the Occupy Wall Street protests will change America’s direction. Yet the protests have already elicited a remarkably hysterical reaction from Wall Street, the super-rich in general, and politicians and pundits who reliably serve the interests of the wealthiest hundredth of a percent.

And this reaction tells you something important — namely, that the extremists threatening American values are what F.D.R. called “economic royalists,” not the people camping in Zuccotti Park.

Consider first how Republican politicians have portrayed the modest-sized if growing demonstrations, which have involved some confrontations with the police — confrontations that seem to have involved a lot of police overreaction — but nothing one could call a riot. And there has in fact been nothing so far to match the behavior of Tea Party crowds in the summer of 2009.

Nonetheless, Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, has denounced “mobs” and “the pitting of Americans against Americans.” The G.O.P. presidential candidates have weighed in, with Mitt Romney accusing the protesters of waging “class warfare,” while Herman Cain calls them “anti-American.” My favorite, however, is Senator Rand Paul, who for some reason worries that the protesters will start seizing iPads, because they believe rich people don’t deserve to have them.

Michael Bloomberg, New York’s mayor and a financial-industry titan in his own right, was a bit more moderate, but still accused the protesters of trying to “take the jobs away from people working in this city,” a statement that bears no resemblance to the movement’s actual goals.

And if you were listening to talking heads on CNBC, you learned that the protesters “let their freak flags fly,” and are “aligned with Lenin.”

The way to understand all of this is to realize that it’s part of a broader syndrome, in which wealthy Americans who benefit hugely from a system rigged in their favor react with hysteria to anyone who points out just how rigged the system is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/opinion/panic-of-the-plutocrats.html?_r=1&src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB

OK it's Krugman. I was surprised. I guess he is jumping on the bandwagon.

xraymike79's picture
xraymike79
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 24 2008
Posts: 2040
Pictures of devious little snakes

tom. wrote:

Xray, you did not address the authenticity of the picture - another thing I am now seeing is that Howley's  left forearm appears to be about 4 feet long, as his left shoulder is not arched forward - the reason I ask is that I know you have some photoshop experience, and I would like to hear your critique - Thank you in advance,

Tom

It's real. I can see how it may appear that his arm is not extended outward, but if one were to draw what we cannot see:

frobn's picture
frobn
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 28 2010
Posts: 184
Private Police

On Wall Street’s Private Police in NYPD Uniforms - moving further down the path towards becoming a Mussolini-style corpocracy - Yves Smith

We reported a bit more than a week ago on how JP Morgan had given a troublingly large donation of $4.6 million to the New York City Police Foundation.

...Pam Martens in Counterpunch (hat tip reader 1sk) describes a program which allows private firms to pay the city to put a cop on the street to police for them. I am not making this up. Oh, and the white shirted cops that seem to be more aggressive in going after protestors (most notably, the one that infamously maced a group of women?) The assumption has been that they are supervisors. Martens suggests they are in the employ of businesses:

Martens also describes how the suit over the arrest of 700 OWS protestors on Brooklyn Bridge 30 members of the NYPD and 10 “law enforcement officers not employed by the NYPD”.

#OccupyBoston, Breaking Up Encampment

The police decided to clear out the OccupyBoston crowd overnight. - Video

The video footage shows the police moving in, then about 90 seconds of crowd unhappiness, and then it gets a bit chaotic. It looks like some veterans were forced to the ground with the crowd calling “Shame”.

Boston Police Attack Veterans for Peace by @haveyoumetter for @DigBoston

 

frobn's picture
frobn
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 28 2010
Posts: 184
Cantor is right.

Tall wrote:
Nonetheless, Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, has denounced “mobs” and “the pitting of Americans against Americans.” The G.O.P. presidential candidates have weighed in, with Mitt Romney accusing the protesters of waging “class warfare,” while Herman Cain calls them “anti-American.” My favorite, however, is Senator Rand Paul, who for some reason worries that the protesters will start seizing iPads, because they believe rich people don’t deserve to have them.

Eric Cantor is right, Americans, practicing democracy, are being pitted against the oligarchs and financial elites, who are also American, but wrong about who is doing the 'pitting'.

Mitt Romney is right about 'class warfare but its Wall Street who is waging it.

Heramn Cain is right about calling out "anti-American' but fails to see its his own projections.

Rand Paul must live in some alternate universe. The protesters have their own iPhones.

tom.'s picture
tom.
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 345
xraymike79 wrote: It's real.

xraymike79 wrote:

It's real. I can see how it may appear that his arm is not extended outward, but if one were to draw what we cannot see:

OK, that's cool - thanks Mike

gregroberts's picture
gregroberts
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 6 2008
Posts: 1024
Tom Woods on OWS

darbikrash's picture
darbikrash
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 573
Woods AND Molyneux?

LOL!

Many thanks for the morning entertainment, these two are a match made in heaven. The dynamic duo of Libertarianism! I guess things are slow over at Mises.org, Woods must have got the day off from re-writing the history of the American capitalism to suit his ideology, and Molyneux, he looks like a kid who has just been told there is no Santa Claus.

Usually, I try and watch the movies with either of these two canards presenting, but in this case I gave up after only 10 minutes. In that ten minutes however I learned:

-         that OWS is really just about re-electing Obama.

-         That businesses of the ‘20’s as well as today are praying for more regulation, so they may continue to profit from these measures.

-         And that what we are seeing in fact is the Gubymint pitting citizens against citizens (yes really!) and that all this is a prelude for the state to come rolling in with billy clubs and mace. (Perhaps Molyneux should read the posts on JP Morgan funding the NYPD and adjust his theology accordingly.)

And I am quite sure that had I hung in the full 45 minutes, I would have been regaled with circular arguments on how the free market system is best solution to Statism, and that the poor addled protestors will one day wake up to see the light.

Talk about a ideology that has expired, watching these two try and convince viewers that they are relevant is high order comedy.

Note to Molyneux and Woods: The train has left the station and you aren't on it!

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1110
Woods and Molyneux on OWS

Thanks Greg.  Some might not find it as enlightening as a David Harvey Marxist Lecture but I enjoyed the discussion.

rhare's picture
rhare
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 30 2009
Posts: 1271
Tom Woods on OWS - a message to "trust in yourself"

Greg, thanks for posting the Tom Woods interview.  I did watch it all and find it lays out the Libertarian view point quite well.  It actually does not talk much about the Wall Street protests.  I would be curious how  many people here find his discussions relevant since I find they fit in quite well with the message of community and self resiliency that Chris and the Crash Course advocate.

Many people on this site talk about taking the red pill, but continue to advocate statism (Democrat, Republican, Marxist, Communist) as opposed to looking at the system of government control as the larger problem.  At about 39:30 I think he hit a key point while discussing the argument that government must exist to save the poor.

Quote:

What it boils down to is do you really think that your fellow man is so evil; that you and your neignbors are so evil that you wouldn't help some guy out.  Even if you don't have a lot of money you can help people out in kind. You can help somebody build a shed,or what ever needs to be done.  Don't you trust yourself to do these things? And if you don't, how have you allowed yourself to be talked into this idea that you are that evil?  Maybe your not.

We are told by the state and those who promote it over and over that we are all evil, that we have to fear one another.  That we can't take care of ourselves.  Why do so many believe these things?  The message of the statists is to "Trust in government" versus the message "Trust in yourself and your community".

Here is another good quote from the video:

Quote:

... it's these type of things that need to be thought of, instead of just thinking that our options are Ben Bernanke hands out money to AIG or we have a socialist planned economy. This again, your choosing different types of enslavement. Isn't there something to the dignity of mankind that demands a more humane solution?

Wendy S. Delmater's picture
Wendy S. Delmater
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 13 2009
Posts: 1587
to rhare

+1 Brother, plus one.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments