portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article creative united states

actions & protests | political theory

Occupy The Library

America's majority who supported the Occupy Wall Street movement (OWS), within the 99% of all Americans, are being smeared by agent propagandists within the punditry of mainstream media (MSM). For example, Michael Gerson's black demagoguery, of the closet-right-wing Washington Post, is a good example. In one of his recent columns he declared the OWS movement seems little more than a "... confused set of grievances... " and paints the movement to have little ideological coherence save Marxist socialism and anarchy. Equally he attempts to blame the Democratic Party (that he claims is their "desperate" political calculation) for this phenomenon of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement.
Occupy The Library

By Red Raven

America's majority who supported the Occupy Wall Street movement (OWS), that is a large majority within 99% of all Americans, have been smeared by agent propagandists of mainstream media's (MSM) punditry.

For example, Michael Gerson's demagoguery, of the thinly-veiled-closet-right-wing Washington Post is a good example. In one of his fairly recent columns (in the second week of November) he declared the OWS movement seems little more than a "... confused set of grievances... " as he paints the movement to have "little ideological coherence save Marxist socialism and anarchy"—referring to a "Paris Commune" in Oakland constructing barricades, setting fires, throwing concrete blocks and explosives. He also says city governments now begin to "... look hapless for their accommodation of squalor, robberies, sexual attacks, drug use, vagrancy, and vigilantism."

Equally he attempted to blame the Democratic Party (which he claims is "their" desperate political calculation) for the phenomenon of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement.

Yet in actuality this movement exploded precisely because the Democratic Party has been, more or less, in lock step, (save some domestic quibbles here and there), with the equally corrupt Republican Party—that is by protecting and serving powerful interest groups and especially those on Wall Street.

Nevertheless Gerson's smear campaign is a better than average (after all he writes for the Washington Post). Or at least he is some part of a step up from the "satanic," and ghoulish Ann Coulter with her anemic and bare-shouldered Halloween persona as frigid Nordic Hel of Scandinavian myth).

Nevertheless Gerson whined: "News coverage of the movement has been both disproportionate and fawning... " claiming Occupy DC encampments has less people that a small, retail convention at a nearby hotel for the American Apparel and Footwear Association. But what is he really implied with such a statement is the aftermath encampments are the "core" of persons who represent the movement and represent its values and issues (as he also exposes "... reports of sexual assault in Zuccotti Park and a penchant for public urination". (Obviously there was little fawning in his own opinion of the OWS movement that he derided now as laughable).

Assume for a moment the movement represented 51% of Americans (which polls verify over 50%) rather than 99%. (And 51% would naturally encompass even some within the socioeconomic realities of journalists who work for corporate controlled mainstream media—so there bound to be "some" pockets of sanity therein somewhere). 51% is still many millions of people more than "any" convention could contain—and far larger than the democratic or republican parties (let alone their staged events).

But apparently this movement really was a threat or why would Gerson use so much effort to maim it? In his first paragraph he quipped: "At what point is utopianism discredited by the seedy, dangerous, derelict fun fair it creates?"

Yes clean-cut, high-healed, defamation artists of the mainstream media, want the homeless to go back to their off-off-Broadway niches—that is back into the hinter alleys of society where they can continue to be not just homeless but powerless and voiceless. Supposedly then we wouldn't bother to talk about the fact that most cities don't bother to provide enough bathroom facilities for their homeless (but perhaps we can then tolerate public urination and other seedy features in such neighborhoods?).

However, you really needed to compare Gerson's previous opinion column via his "selected" economist opinions, where he managed to argue that both the rich and the middle class have higher incomes, and that inequality can be justified in a fluid society, etc. In another words his take was that the status quo has been just "normal" capitalism at its finest.

And one could argue that Gerson was just playing to what the rest of the lame stream media focused on and since they "focused" on police, anarchist clashes, then he was merely doing his job. But this really was one perfect example of a mainstream media pundit doing his weasel-best to continue to argue against any tax hikes for the wealthy. And despite the opinion piece as one example of this kind of sliming the entire movement—still "who" was acting low-life as being the judgmental ideologue?

Fascist intellectuals at the Washington Post, which includes the likes of one crap-hammer hammering home his crap to wherever it might stick, believe one major social problem of OWS is that some of the homeless have come out of their passivity (a very small percentage to be sure) to try to be part of a democratic process of protesting, via civil disobedience, they too are "not" represented by this government nor served by "vast" corporate and governmental corruption. Heaven forbid the hoi polloi of the vulgar class were up to demonstrating—even if not so "refined" in judgment as Washington Post columnists.

But then again opinion pages, as we have learned over the decades, have little to do with fact, and have much more to do with fabrication and dissimulation of impression. Far too often such bloviaters are bullshitting their readers—that is engaging in them with various forms of demagoguery, such as manipulating their prejudices. They write as if they think their readers dumber then they themselves (as they obviously presume themselves not to be too dumb—at least when comparing their "erudite" learning and common sense to that of the "silly" masses).

Yet, to one's surprise and dismay, many other newspapers still carry such "syndicated" daily diarrheic diatribe as if such stuff still passed the smell test? No wonder people are rushing to the Internet for alternative explanations on reality. And hopefully they will continue to do so—because the MSM is one of the "major" problems in this corrupted political culture.

Still you have to admire the tactic. What better way of using this kind of impression management then by smearing the Democratic Party for the OWS movement as a "... dangerous, derelict, fun fair... " so he could foment about "anarchist" clashes with police departments (as most of the "regular" news coverage in print "equally" focused on such clashes as "thee" common theme about the protests the MSM covered).

Although some news writers and opinion columnist have given a more balanced and supportive account of this movement, and righteously so—after all how corrupt does a government, media, and corporate culture have to become before some of its insiders start to question it? You need to remember the MSM ignored the movement until it occupied the Brooklyn Bridge as crisis. Editors didn't even want to cover it and so when forced to they would naturally focus on alienated elements such as spirited youth, homeless campers and anarchists. (Not that they didn't exist as they too most certainly do.)

Yet another rather obvious indication the Democratic Party did not come up with the OWS movement is the fact it is true socialists have been passing out anti-capitalist literature. This was equally true over the last years, such as during demonstrations against invasion of Iraq back in 2002 and 2003. There were few high power democratic groups directly involved in organizing such protests and the Democratic Party distanced itself from those protests. After all history shows us the Democratic Party for a long time has been a war party.

Yes unions were quick to be involved with OWS and have strong loyalty to the Democratic Party. They bring in numbers of protesters. Their ox is being gored. And, yes, poor, minority and disadvantaged have traditionally sided with democrats, but this combustion of a movement had more to do with these peoples' frustration with the Dems in power as "not" working for The People.

Nevertheless there are those party leaders and affiliate groups now trying to "coral" this movement back "into" the traditional Democratic Party fold, as far as votes go, to make it seem like some kind of equivalent to the Tea Party, which became "occupied" by some Republican Party presidential candidates claiming to speak to the broad concerns of those people. Yet if either of these movements had any brains they will realize "both" parties need to be dumped—as far too corrupt and toxic to either trust or deal with.

Still the kibbutz game-plan of radical democracy with everyone supposedly having an equal voice, and no supposed leadership, at general assemblies, against a backdrop of anarchistic insurrection (likely agent provocateurs), did seem somewhat amateurish and almost insincere (even if many would typically expect some young people to be naïve and idealistic). Meanwhile MSM painted pictures, by the likes of Hannity, Coulter, and Gerson, who "projected" this movement as full of "anarchists" defying order and law—and therefore one was suppose to conclude the OWS movement did "not" represent any kind of mass movement or awareness of America's citizenry—just some disaffected minority.

Yet most Americans still believe in a "regulated" capitalism that includes some socialist programs—and not either an extreme of socialist utopianism nor a law-less anarchy. Besides how could anarchism (that recognizes no authority or values save the self's priorities) collaborate with the idea of utopian democracy of peaceful assembly? They do not reconcile—they are different personality structures and value sets.

And yet one way or another some kinds of anarchistic personality types, or "paid" agent actors have infiltrated some of these movements (likely as the result of "covert" operations deliberately meant to create opportunity for negative press) but equally by some personalities who have anti-authority issues, drug issues, personality disorders, etc. (again a small minority the MSM now can continue to focus on as primarily a homeless or dregs-of-society problem camping in non-designated spaces).

But what is particularly disturbing about this Washington Post attack dog smear campaign is that it is exactly some within the 1% of the wealthiest and within the government, corporations, and even the new-media-complex, who have acted the most anarchistic—that is who have recognized no laws or rules while, committing enormous crimes, and creating the legal means, supposedly, to steal taxpayer money—and then depriving them of important programs. (Read Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.)

Regulation of business—that is actually having laws and norms that businesses are expected to operate—goes against crybaby corporate power that still believes in the right to operate in the psychopathic sense of honoring no value save profit. (Watch Mark Akbar's "The Corporation The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power to really get a feel of what the people around the world are up against—a very important primer).

Maybe banisters don't urinate in public (unless you think some of their angst waste product) but they do much worst. In fact some within their ranks are the most parasitic of all in society—let alone their advocating of corporate welfare. Still plenty of the MSM minions toady to them as if they had some claim to speak for the nation's sanity. Still more and more people are realizing the editorial pages of MSM newspapers are a scam—not just the likes of Rupert Murdock but also pretty much the entire punditry of the mainstream media.

There is more than ample opportunity for the "vast" majority of republican and democratic voters to be "highly" upset with the status quo in Washington D.C., Wall Street and the media—that is "if" a majority of citizens were better informed of just how corrupt this culture really has become.

Yet there is a "need" for more education on the part of citizen to become more self-resourceful, so as to "articulate" exactly why this movement has evolved. (In fact there are even people on the Supreme Court too dense to get it).

And what better way, for example, for such public education then by "airing" live, and quite loudly, audio books like Joseph Stiglitz's "Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy" (11 CDs masterfully read by Dick Hill). If there was ever a book that defined the OWS movement it is this book. (And what a great educational work for the American people to learn about economics in real life—rather than just staid theory.) Freefall is very well written and highly understandable (even as it goes into much economic detail such as failed and corrupted White House policies).

Freefall is a "real" ear opener. And it does not pull any punches, as it is critical of both democratic and republican leadership. It is a "must" read or listen as very worthy for anyone who really "cares" to understand. (And yet the audio version is a must because it is so well read and user-friendly to people who normally do not read.) Reading much, and reading well, is one of our culture's problems.

We don't have enough sophisticated readers doing good analysis. And when good analyses exists not enough people read them to make much of a difference. So therefore we, as a culture, can continue to be duped, such as being fed "pseudo" questions and answers as red herrings as to how to deal with America's problems—like in candidate debates that focus on who has the hottest air about being tough on terrorists or Iranians. Not to mention few if any realize how many put in Guantanomo were actually innocent.

The fact is that a "lot" of politicians do not understand the complications of economics—which is why this audio book is so fabulous—it is perfect for this kind of occupy movement and it demonstrates a "high" level of awareness about what this movement could be projected to be about. (After all how much technology does it take to amplify a boom box playing CDs? to all who care to listen in the public square?) Nevertheless it seems that in this culture—regardless of economic illiteracy everyone has an opinion on such related topics.

All kinds of people who are affected by this OWS movement in one way or another—bankers, media people (thank goodness for independent and alternative journalism), politicians, police, and of course protesters and activists, as well as the curious and side-sitters, etc. All of them could become familiar with Stiglitz's "very" important and detailed book. I could almost guarantee that if police officers on duty listened to it as this book blasted from speakers, while they stood around on patrol, they "too" would realize that if anything—such a protest is under-represented and should be larger. (And even people at the Justice Department would be doing "more" white-collar crime investigation as their way of warding off revolution—yes them doing their job at tax payer expense—rather than having hundreds of police officers standing around watching mostly peaceful people.) But such an idea sounds like too much sanity for the likes of the United States to endure!

Also Freefall should be either read or listened to by republicans and tea partiers. For too long people have "settled" for simplistic clichés about how to deal with complex economic issues. America's problems are not just about cutting or raising taxes or eliminating or adding budget items. Reality is far more nuanced than sound bites and ideological slogans that sound good and make one's psyche feel better.

But you don't just want to play 11 CDs back to back. There is such a thing as mental fatigue that requires a break from time to time. Nevertheless there is "whole" bunch of very "worthy" books to listen to, and be educated by, while being in any occupation. James Wolcott's "Attack Poodles: and Other Media Mutants" is another great example of a highly worthy and interesting book (very witty and insightful—as a masterpiece equally read with perfection by a truly great reader—and good to blast at mainstream media as if holding a cross to a vampire (and by the way where is the paparazzi?)).

Then of course there are books by Kevin Phillips ("Bad Money" "American Theocracy" etc.) and other worthies such as Adrianna Huffington's "The Pigs At the Trough" as such a list of possibilities is long. (Not to mention radio interviews from the Internet such as Scott Horton doing radio at AntiWar.com—his interviews are often with people who really are in the know and spreading reality-based awareness as opposed to state approved and sometimes created propaganda and misinformation).

Or how about Mohamed Elbaradei's "The Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times" (recent release) as getting an important view from a "real" insider who was treated as an outsider by U.S. foreigner policy—that is the so-called experts. (And it's not like they, and Israeli hardliners, are not trying to fob another pattern of lies on the American people to go to war against Iran).

Such ideas as Stiglitz's Freefall need to be articulated at the street level, and in coffee shops, and all around colleges and at various protests. Audio books are the way to go in a society that does not like to read much in the way of complicated things. There are great information sources available!! SUPPORT YOUR PUBLIC LIBRARY BY USING SOURCES AVAILABLE THERE NOW !!! (While such libraries still exist as more than homeless shelters—even as they are forced to cut hours and service as to also increase the likeliness of public urination).

Show those bastards that you are not a bunch of naïve idealists and lawless anarchists playing some romantic role of Rebel Without a Cause. And don't just follow ancestral footsteps as if "... well my grand-parents were socialist anarchists... so I should be too". Walk your own path. If this movement gets side-kicked as a bunch of unruly kids with un-civic attitudes then the Democratic Party gets to maintain its hold on its majority—and nothing truly gets changed. Teach them truth by having intelligent readings speak to power. Bring in more light than what MSM punditry offers.

America needs more "readers" performing "oral" renditions of quality writing in coffee shops and public platforms. Why is there no audio version of, say, the Nation magazine (selected articles even if they too are still expecting Obama to have some kind of change of enlightenment)? If UC Berkeley is endowed with intellectual fervor it ought have a few good readers at a microphone. Why not get more of those well-crafted arguments already in print spoken to others as the "art" of oral interpretation (especially in this society that requires more of learning curve)?

The Democratic Party is not coming to save the poor people. They get their funding elsewhere. They don't especially care if some cannot afford college or others cannot pay their student loans. Don't bother to read their lip service—Obama and his administration has proven rhetoric does not mean anything.

We must become "smarter" than the current status quo of mediocre professionals who have helped corrupt this culture. We need to become the next generation of lawyers, economists, journalists, business people, etc. Just being upset and resentful isn't going to make it. Just sucking up simplistic clichés about capitalism versus socialism isn't going to make it. Simplistic sound bites might work for Tea Party cowboys but it cannot work as viability in this complicated culture.

If you have listened to some of Republican Presidential Debates you can realize how much trouble this country is in. Many of their candidates argue from naïve or misinformed perspectives. They act as if the few in the American public as awakened. If more people understood Stiglitz's Freefall (including Tea Party people) we would not see as much of their debate on false foreign policy presumptions and militarism, deliberately "sold" to the American people as present suppositions by MSM and right-wing Zionists with their questions to candidates. After all it is not just Egyptians that need to tell their military power to step down—the U.S. too is a military budget dictatorship.

Republican candidate don't really know if Iran really has a nuclear weapons program—as even the latest IAEA Report is being misrepresented by some in the MSM and dished to the American sheeple as fact. Read, for example, "Iran: Five Minutes to Zero Hour Tehran in the crosshairs" by Justin Raimondo, November 09, 2011. Read also: "Using Fake Intelligence to Justify War on Iran" by Michel Chossudovsky at Global Research, November 9, 2011.

Yhe mainstream media "willingly" brought the elite's deceit to the American people when we were being told about Saddam Hussein. Now these same people are bringing a similar set of "creative" intelligence and interpretation to us about Iran. This is why we need to reject the mainstream media and find websites that offer more truth and broader range of opinions to be expressed.

Nevertheless change starts with quality education—and why not use resources available in your local library. There is a difference between getting an education and being chained to student loans. (And if college administrations do not want to support students than stop attending those colleges—stop sending them revenues.)

The tyrant Socrates (and he was more or less a tyrant) still revealed something very profound about civilization. His insightful theory about blind masses of people who live in a metaphor of a cave watch "projected" falsehoods being played on the cave walls—as if Kabuki theatre from a fire's shadows. Socrates claimed that if one were to leave the cave and see the "real" day light and come back and tell the blind they might not take it well.

Nevertheless Socrates, according to Plato, argued that a Republican form of government should be represented by society's "best" people (aristocracy). He was against that the idea that the average Joe was qualified or inclined to make decision on complex issues (and yet ancient Greece did not have much in the way of public libraries and public education back then, and most philosophers were privately paid to teach kids of the wealthy).

Whereas our current governments, both local and national, and many corporate leaders do "not" represent the best of anything—except a corrupt and corroding plutocracy—and this status quo gets more putrid and disgusting by the day—even as "... seedy, dangerous, derelicts have a fun-fair".

Surely there are some misguided, so-called miscreants, who act as anarchists in the street. But how do you think NeoCon-Artists like William Kristol, David Horowitz and their ilk started their youthful careers (David Brock syndrome—author of Blinded by the Right—another worthy read to the underpinning of the right wing spin machine)? Funny how some rabid left-wingers so easily switch over to become rabid right-wingers? Apparently some people just need to escape their ding-bat personalities and join any old seemingly promising program of whatever flavor revolution of the month. But society needs more grounded people.

Therefore bring more of the sun's light to from the Library to The People. Occupy. Occupy. Occupy as you regroup to see the "long-term" project that this change must become.