Incoherent, Clueless Occupy Movement (and a home-grown reaction to it)

Much has been made over the “fact” that the Occupy movement is generally non-violent. And, while many of the protesters may have condemned the outright violence that occurred in Oakland, the same protesters have also shut down the port of Oakland. I’m sorry, but shutting down a port is not “non-violent.” On the international scale, a blockade is considered to be an act of war. On the micro level, if I barricade you in your own house and stop you from leaving, this is an act of aggression. This is aside from the fact that shutting down the port will inevitably cost jobs and harm the so-called 99% of us who benefit from free trade and the economic activity associated with the port.

Recently, for a Reason.TV video, Peter Schiff went out and tried to have a discussion with some protesters in New York. He too found that they were intellectually inconsistent, often ignorant, and all over the place when it comes to an agenda.

Lastly, to counteract the “Occupy” movement and its muddled/socialistic messages, the New Mexico Conservative Republicans are putting on a “teach in” at UNM next Tuesday, November 8. I’ll be taking part and information is as follows:


University of New Mexico
Tuesday, November 8, from 11 AM to 1:30 PM, in the SUB Atrium

11:00 AM – Introduction
11:10 AM – Donald Gluck, UNM Conservative Republicans
11:40 AM – Conrad James, Representative House District 24
12:10 PM – Greg Sowards, Republican Candidate for U.S. Senate
12:30 PM – Mike Blessing, President Libertarian Party of Bernalillo County
1:00 PM – Paul Gessing, President Rio Grande Foundation

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

9 Replies to “Incoherent, Clueless Occupy Movement (and a home-grown reaction to it)”

  1. Real conservatism is to “conserve”, that is, to value the environment and the people that constitute real “capital”.
    This country was not founded to support the greed of capitalists who desire to control all living beings, and every atom of this planet. This vicious form of capitalism was imported from Europe. A true conservative movement would have “conserved” those first people, and found a way to live peacefully alongside them. The first villages in New England had a town commons, and all the forest around the village was owned by the people. One person was not allowed to own the forest and go and cut trees; the village met together to make these decisions. The first corporations in America were formed as temporary corporations for specific purposes, and the charters had to show that they would provide a service to the community. As money and power have concentrated more and more into the hands of a few, how can natives of New Mexico, and the old Hispanic communities benefit at all from the rapacious policies that serve only to destroy traditional society and the land and water upon which we all depend? Perhaps the protest movement is inarticulate as to how to solve the problems: the problems at this point are huge, and require the collective will and intelligence of us all, as well as a revolution in the capitalist system and a more equitable distribution of wealth. What is needed is dialogue and collective action; to patronize and pretend to know more than someone else is a childish approach to very serious problems. Perhaps you are unaware that our present course of action is unsustainable in regards to sustaining food supply, healthy air, healthy water, and healthy oceans. Human greed is responsible: anyone can see when they open their eyes.

    1. Forrest, your comments are a bit muddled and rambling although you make some reasonable points. Certainly, the killing and destruction of Native communities for the first 100 years of this nation’s history are horrible, but I’m not sure how much can be done at this point.

      I think the worst thing for Natives at this point is to stick them on federally-controlled reservations. There are a lot of issues, but the “OWS” movement is so incoherent that it is hard to tell what issues they really care about.

  2. One point from this video upon which I agree is that Washington needs to share the blame. Power is concentrated in the hands of less than 1% of the people, and that power controls the money. Those that control the money also control the government. Wall Street is a casino for the weatlhy; others play the game, but they wealthy are the house and always win. Washington is currently pursuing policies that give more power to international corporations that have no regard for the well being of America and the American people. Peter Schiff is an arrogant person who is not among the power brokers of our world, who is content to watch our environment and the people be destroyed. Capitalism with restraints and a government with restraints is a healthy goal: both have a place in our world, but are currently controlled by an elite few that are sociopathic.

  3. Perhaps conservatives and capitalists will do well to study their terms. What is conservatism? It began with English politicians who supported the hierarchy including the divine right of the king. What are you conserving? And why? As for capitalists, it is the wanton spending of capital which is destroying our society, and making our lives poorer as we preside over the extinction of species and the pollution of our home. Is not dirt capital? Water? Air? When these are spent, where will you go? How about the extracting of oil, in a short period of man’s history, we have completely spent all of that capital, created over eons? What about the most valuable capital of all, the intelligence and collective work of people? Are not people capital? Yet they are treated in the current misguided society as “consumer”, and workers, to do the bidding of a few so called capitalists. Know that about which you speak, before you wave the flag. Capitalism and conservatism are not inherently evil, but their current misuse is indeed evil, and destructive in the highest degree.

  4. We all should remember that a basic law of physics applys to everything we do in life. “For every action there is an equal and opposit reaction” Congress never considers this when they pass mandates, the Unions raised labor costs and accelerated automation. The teachers union made private nonunion schooling more desirable. Entry level jobs that used to hire many for typing pools, cardex entry etc are now done by $500 desktop computers. Switchboard operaters, the’re gone! Entry level jobs were the gateway to prosperity. It’s strange but folks that the occupiers would hate like Carnegie, Ford, Vanderbilt etc created millions of jobs. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs brilliant inventions eliminated millions of jobs even though their politics are in line with the occupiers. Life is strange!

  5. Forrest (Gump?) needs to learn his terminology as well. For instance, what is “wealth”? Wealth is nothing more than the increase in value in a natural resource due to a change made in it or work done on it by the labor of some individual. That increase in value is the property of the individual that input the labor. The goal of the progressive movement is to eliminate that property right through the deliberate muddling of terms and definitions to make you think that somehow wealth is held “in common” and that someone having more than another is the result of anything other than a more efficient or effective application of labor in one way or another.
    Forrest also seems to want to ignore the history of capitalism providing more good to more people than any other economic system in the history of mankind, and that in spite of having a mixed, but capitalist-based economy here in the United States, the air and water have gotten cleaner, the life expectancy has increased, and the standard of living has been the envy of the world for the last century.
    Somehow the socialists and progressives think that dragging everyone’s standard of living down to equal that of the poorest is a rational solution to economic disparity. I believe that the answer is to legally allow anyone to compete against anyone else for their success. One last thing. Corporations have no power that consumers do not give them. No one is required to do business with any corporation that is not a government-granted monopoly (think utilities here), and in that case government is, once again, the problem.

  6. My name is not Gump, and the opening of your message shows you are not interested in an intelligent dialogue. I am neither socialist nor a progressive, I belong to no party, and I am interested in intelligent dialogue that includes those that currently have power, those that do not have power, scientists and artists, those that profess to faith in a God, and atheists. These divisions are not conducive to a reality based conversation, that is directed towards solutions and not being “right.”
    You speak as if you know what wealth means, and that I am uneducated and do not know my terminology.
    Here is Wikipedia on wealth: “Wealth is the abundance of valuable resources or material possessions. The word wealth is derived from the old English wela, which is from an Indo-European word stem.[1] An individual, community, region or country that possesses an abundance of such possessions or resources is known as wealthy.”
    This article defines wealth in terms closer to the one you prefer,
    How did you arrive at the conclusion that because of capitalism, the air and water have gotten cleaner? It is a matter of fact that our air and water quality have been seriously degraded. Look at this state, New Mexico, and tell me that in the last three hundred years, water and air quality have improved. Yes, we have had a high standard of living. At what cost? It is also a matter of indisputable fact that were the rest of the world to consume as flagrantly and immaturely as we have done, this earth will be severely damaged.
    In a fairy tale world, the idea that allowing anyone to compete against anyone will bring positive results may be true. In the real world, this has never been the case. Do you prefer that cigarette companies still market to teenagers? Shall we legalize drugs and allow free competition in that marketplace? What about the warning of General Eisenhower, who both led our country in war, and led our country as President? Was it not he that warned of the military industrial complex that indeed has gained control of our country? To rant against government without understanding the complexity of the problems that we face, will never deliver the solutions that are needed. In the event that you do care about free competition and a free marketplace, then take away the miltary support that is dispatched to foreign countries to protect the interests of oil interests. To wean ourselves from government is a noble idea, but to replace the government of our forefathers with a rapacious group of profiteers and soulless corporations will not bring us back to a Golden Age. In fact it is the speeding up of the destruction of our country, one that my great grandfather and father fought for. They did not fight for Chevron and BP: they fought for America. In the twisted landscape that passes for politics today you can call yourself conservative perhaps. Then rather than tear down, make it your mission to conserve. And know what and who you are serving, who are you con”serving”.
    Study one corporation, Monsanto, and see whether their mission is to increase prosperity in the world, or to increase the prosperity of their shareholders pockets. They have systematically made it their corporate mission to destroy all the seeds that farmers have been conserving, from season to season, for eons. We will never become wealthy as long as our sole motive is profit. And you can say that we are not forced to buy Monsanto products. Then try not to find food that is not tainted with Monsanto and their terminator seeds.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.