Five dangerous questions to Occupy the occupied.

Lets put the kibosh on some dangerously misleading questions that are occupying the minds of people preoccupied by those Occupying Wall Street, and other cities across America.

1 - “Where did the Occupy Wall Street protesters come from?”
I've heard this question often and I find it hard to take it seriously that they are seriously asking it, because it is the easiest question to answer. Here’s a clue from the Missouri University system, our own Professor of communism, violence and rioting (aka Labor Studies), Judy Ancel, as she made a comment to a crowd of Occupy squatters in Kansas City,

“It is so great to see that so many of you are outraged,” Judy Ancel, a labor studies professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, told the crowd. “I’ve been waiting for this for a long time.”

Yes, she certainly has been waiting a long time. She’s been agitating for mass riot and revolt since the Seattle WTO riots, and even earlier. If you remember Prof. Ancel, she co-led the UMSL/UMKC class that indoctrinated college kids in the uses of violence, or the threat of violence, in order to get favorable bargaining positions.

Those were the class examples which she, and fellow communist organizer, Don Giljum, used in their class instruction, but the point of the instruction was to drive home the lesson that the 'Ends Justify the Means', that no matter what levels you have to sink to, however violent or debauched you behavior may become, it is ok, as long as your ends, your goals, are 'noble' and well intentioned.

And were their lessons learned? What do you think?

"Among the hardcore of well-intentioned protesters sleeping rough in Zuccotti Park are also the children of the wealthiest ‘one per cent’ – taking a break from classes at private schools to show their solidarity… and join the fun.

As millionaire celebrities pledged allegiance to the protesters despite very healthy bank balances, MailOnline spoke to youngsters who have joined the movement, many of whom study at colleges which cost their parents up to $200,000."

Yeah. They learned it all right. And whaddayawanna bet that Mom & Pop, are proud of their little investments? These parents, and their children, are prime examples of what our educational system is designed to produce, and if Professors like Judy Ancel get their way, no child will be left behind.

2 - 'But I'm sure they mean well... don't they?' - What remains after assenting to the 'Ends Justify the Means'
Not surprisingly this was also Stalin’s excuse for starving millions of Ukranians to death in order to reform the agricultural system. Mao’s too. It was also Hitler’s excuse for slaughtering millions of Jews, Slavs and others, to improve Germany, for the greater good, because, after all, 'Ends Justify the Means'. Same with Robespierre, who in the French Revolution, began cutting off the heads of not just the Royals, but of everyone who disagreed with him… for the betterment of the movement, for the betterment of France, for the greater good.

Why?

Because the Ends Justify the Means. It is a lesson our society has been teaching with, an American slant, for over a century now.

From this position on the (presumed, by them) moral high ground, it’s ok to presume

• ... that businesses would be guilty of doing the wrong thing if allowed the freedom to make their own decisions, so we'd better to regulate their every action (unless politically well-connected enough to get a loophole) before they can, to ensure ‘acceptable’ behavior for the greater good. IOW, their rights to think, act and assemble are abridged, because those in power think it'll benefit the greater good... and they are ok doing that because - the Ends Justify the Means.
• ...Affirmative Action says it is ok to discriminate against some people, because others were discriminated against before. It is ok to violate the rights of businessmen and force them to deal with a union, because they only want what’s best for their workers.
• ...It’s ok to forbid smoking in your own establishment, for the greater good. It’s okay to forbid you from using ‘too much salt’, it’s for the greater good. “Imposing Cap & Trade would necessarily cause power plants to fail and energy costs to skyrocket”, but it advances a ‘good’ green agenda… for the greater good.
• ...It’s okay to take the wealth of the nation to bail out politically well-connected banks and corporations, because they are ‘too big to fail”, it’s all for the greater good, and as we’ve all been taught so well, the Ends Justify The Means.

That is in fact nearly the only lesson that our schools, through vermin like Professor Ancel, have succeeded in teaching American children for well over a century… which is how it finally came to be accepted in America, a nation which was founded in opposition to that very notion.

Fairness is the ‘End’ which is used to justify their means, and Rights are no longer taught, except as a word pasted over goodies you hope to be given.

3 - Isn't this about Freedom of Speech and Assembly?
Even boneheads like Ron Paul, are falling for this one,

" what he made of the ongoing Occupy Wall Street protests, which have included a noticeable contingency of Paul supporters. On Thursday night, for example, a group of young men assembled at Liberty Plaza in Lower Manhattan were wielding anti-Federal Reserve placards and promoting Paul's presidential campaign. "If they were demonstrating peacefully," Paul told me, "and making a point, and arguing our case, and drawing attention to the Fed–I would say, good!""

This is not about their freedom of assembly or free speech – I’ve no doubt that most Tea Party people would defend their right to that, because we understand that all of our rights would be in jeopardy – if some people unjustly lose their rights, then all of us do.



They are violating the rights of all of us... for the greater good, and they can feel morally satisfied and oh so superior, because...- their Ends Justify their Means.

So with that in mind, have another look at our protesters.

Have a look at that wistful gaze at the image of a CEO’s head on a pike. What do you suppose will follow from that? Today the Occupiers are planning to march past the homes of 'the rich' - if there happens to be no violence, do you think that will be because of, or in spite of, such sentiments?

Think about it.

Something else you really should understand about the philosophy of “The Ends Justify the Means”, there is nothing in those ends, that says they must be attainable. That’s right. You only have to intend that they be good, fair, etc. That intent, your desire that it be good and fair, is enough. When in the 2008 Democrat Primary Debates, Obama was pressed that cutting capital gains taxes would raise more taxes than increasing them, Obama answered twice, that it was more important to impose fairness upon all (and by that he meant raising taxes on those who earn more than (then) $200k), even if it meant possibly losing the revenue you were raising the taxes to achieve.

With a deft twist, their Intentions take precedence over their stated ends, and any means 'reasonably necessary' become justifiable in the pursuit of them, even if they are understood to be unattainable.
Those of you rattling on about 'Don't be ridiculous, no one is saying that!' or 'It couldn't go that far' are mistakenly reasoning that their intention is to achieve their ends. It is not. It is to act on their intentions to achieve their ends. Whether or not they will, or even can, is immaterial to them.

This OWS person tries to evade the issue, tries to clothe herself in 'reasonableness'

“We aren’t arguing for socialism, we aren’t arguing for capitalism”

But it's a good idea to remember that the New York Times declared that 'Reason is no longer a tool for truth, but a weapon to win arguments - logically or illogically doesn't matter, only winning does'.

Why? Go on - guess.

The real focus for us should be what they say they are for, and what they say they are for are unattainable Utopian ideals. It doesn't matter in the least what good intentions they tell themselves they desire to attain, what matters is that they ARE unattainable, and that the only way to attempt to attain them, is the same way that people have attempted to attain them since Robespierre, by depriving others of their Rights – and they will destroy the rights – and lives - of everyone else in the process of pursuing them.

If they gain the least bit of momentum, all of their good intentions will mean nothing at all, they will lead to nothing but death and destruction in fact.

IOW, the unintelligible, fractious message, and the angry sense that someone has somehow wronged them...IS their message, they believe that those actions advance their intentions... and that is all they need to feel morally satisfied and superior. Even as they crap on police cars, or the flag... or [insert anything near and dear to you that might be in their way or just serve as a convenient excuse for making a 'statement'].
Others have even said that we shouldn't indict the entire movement for the unwise actions of a few.

That isn’t the issue. And indicting the 'movement' for the actions of a few isn't either. The real issue is in what they say they are for - unattainable Utopian ideals. It doesn't matter in the least what good intentions they tell themselves they desire to attain, what matters is that they ARE unattainable, and that the only way to attempt to attain them, is the same way that people have attempted to attain them since Robespierre, by depriving others of their Rights – and they will destroy the rights – and lives - of everyone else in the process.

If they gain the least bit of momentum, all of their good intentions will mean nothing at all, they will lead to nothing but death and destruction in fact.

4 - This is about the Govt/Business partnership! It's about the bailouts!
Really? Who has done more to mingle and unite the government with corporations, than this congress and this administration? What are the stated aims of these protesters, Bill Ayers, and everyone else?

They want to pass laws and regulations which will involve the government, and its agencies and its regulatory bureaucracy, in the intimate details of not only the largest corporations in America, but the smallest of businesses.

Have you looked at Obama care? Have you looked at who is getting exemptions from it? Do you think they are the smallest, or the largest, of businesses? The largest corporations, friends of Obama, G.E., AFL-CIO (yeah, that's a BIG business), have received exemptions because they have the wealth on hand to influence those who make the rules, and the aim of those who make the rules is the famous proregressive third way - to combine government and corporations!

These people are NOT for getting govt out of business, but for uniting them into a single, seamless whole, socialization by other means, is socialization all the same.

5 - So then what is your answer?!
As I said in my last post, if you want a useful answer, make sure you are asking a useful question, then you have a chance of getting an answer that's worth considering. My answer is to ask the right questions - Do you want to live your own life? If so, what will that require?

• Is your goal to ensure that corporations do not have power over you?
  * There is only one system which can take that power away from them.
• Do you want to put an end to government granting favors to corporations?
  * There is only one system which can prevent the government from granting favors to corporations.
• Do you want to live your own life without interference from either the government or from corporations?
  * There is only one system which can ensure you of that.

The only answer is to bring real, radical change to America, not by transforming it, but by fulfilling it! That can only be accomplished by bringing America home to the Free Market.

How?

The Free Market requires establishing a wall of separation between business and state.

In a free market, those who infringe upon, negligently endanger, violate the rights of, or take the property of another, are subject to the swift and severe long arm of the law and the hand of Justice.

It is only when you begin to merge them, 'for the greater good', that you make politicians financially useful tools for the rich and powerful, and it is only through mingling the interests of business and state, that businesses can become vulnerable prey for corrupt politicians.

Do not fool yourself - if you are arguing for more regulations, then you are arguing for giving government access to corporate power and influence, and you are giving the biggest, most corruption friendly corporations, direct access to the power of the government. If you are advocating taking the property from anyone, then you are arguing for the elimination of Individual Rights, and advocating for giving the politically powerful the ability to grant favors to it's friends... and take them from those they dislike.

If you are arguing for taking away the right of people to make their own choices, and keep the results of those choices, you are arguing against the Free Market.

The Free Market is nothing other than a society where people are free to live their own lives, make their own decisions, and count on the government and rule of law to uphold and defend their rights and property from crooks and thieves.

Btw, if you are arguing against, or for, ‘Capitalism’, then what you are arguing upon, is the playing field Karl Marx arranged for you.

Why?

Ever try to argue with an American, even one of these OWS idiots, that they should NOT be Free to make their own choices? That’s a losing strategy. But if you can get them to argue about a financial technique, the management of capital, then even the ones defending it, secretly feels guilty about it.

That was Marx’s most brilliant, and most successful move.

But remember, we are fighting for the Free Market, so that you, your family, friends and neighbors, will be free to make those choices and agreements which they choose as being worthwhile, and that no one should be able to prevent them from making their own choices, or from keeping the results of those choices, their property.

That is the Free Market.

If you are truly for fairness, for true justice and true liberty, then that is what you should be protesting for... anything else is only a direct, or indirect, assault upon your own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness - and allowing irrelevant questions to distract you from that core truth, is dangerous.