|
Occupy Wall Street: The Agent Provocateur’s Guide by Steve Jonas |
|
|
|
December 8, 2011
You’ve heard of Wikileaks? Well, this document comes from an old Richard Nixon playbook called “Trickileaks.” I received it by a route that I cannot reveal, and indeed I cannot attest fully to its veracity. But it sure sounds like it might be genuine, don’t you think? On the other hand, it is awfully conversational in a way, which does make one doubt its provenance. Maybe it’s just an agent provocateur from the Left making up something about agents provocateurs from the Right. But be that as it may . . .
To: Our Provoking Agents (cannot use the customary French term for you, now can we.)
From: The Defenders of all that is good and true, and Exceptional, about the U.S. of A., and its truly exceptional occupiers of the Top Drawer.
As unorganized as it is right now, this “Occupy Wall Street” thing does present a real threat to us, for two reasons. We can read the data on us rich getting richer (which we deserve, down to the very last penny, of course, just because we are so much better than everyone else) just as well as those who aren’t getting rich (and are actually getting poorer, which is why we are getting richer, but that’s another story). And the last thing we want is to become un-rich. Second, as unorganized as they are now, who knows what might happen if they ever do get organized. So, better to go after them now than later.
So why do we want you folks? First, because the last thing we want to do is take them on the merits of the case that they claim to be raising. To argue with them that the policies that we just love, that have made us rich and have given our political, economic, and media lackeys so much power, are really good for everyone is something that is becoming less and less good at holding water. Second, because if somehow or other they, or some significant chunk of them, do manage to get organized and get into the political arena, say by becoming the Democratic Party’s Tea Party, or worse yet, take part in a split of the Democratic Party producing a party that would really fight us, then we might very well have a real battle on our hands. That’s something we don’t want.
So what do we want you to do? Three things. First, most if not all of the OWS groups seem to have played into our hands by adopting a “consensus rule” for doing anything. In effect that means that just one person can stop an action. Like if a street-wise Democratic politician (and there are some) wants to get involved, at the street level, and begin organizing something that could become political, he/she needs to be turned away. So that’s one task. Make sure that anything that would really be against our real interests really gets stopped, in its tracks.
Second is to make it very difficult for any of the OWS groups to come up with any kind of “manifesto” for a real political program of change. Washington, DC OWS, led by someone named Kevin Zeese, actually did this (1). And certain other total Lefties, like Robert Reich and Michael Moore, are coming up with their versions. Very dangerous. We’ve got to do everything we can to divert and distract, to make the “movement,” or whatever you want to call it, focus on the side issues of “free speech” and “free assembly,” as if they are rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Well they aren’t. The First Amendment only talks about “Congress shall make no law . . .” But as long as they are fighting on these issues of process, they are not fighting on issues of substance, like what Zeese wrote about. So let’s make sure that they stay there, on the process side of the street.
Third, just as we had our propaganda channel (oops, we mean our Fox”News”Channel) screaming for the Tea Party 24/7 so do we have the propaganda channel out in force screaming against OWS, 24/7.
Hey, you know, protest is fine, just as long as it’s our kind of protest. So, we’ve got to give them some raw meat, the more of it the better. So go to it, guys and gals. Defecate in the street. Work to keep the camp-sites messy. Bring in some druggies if you can find them (making sure to give them their drugs for their trouble) and if you can’t, just make the stuff up. Have sex and enjoy it, loudly. Pass around rumors about rape. So what if none are ever reported to the police. Just as long as you-know-who on our side can yell ”rape,” that’s all we need. If you can stir up violence, especially anti-police violence, without being too obvious about it, the more the better (although our police are starting to do a pretty good job of that themselves in certain locations). In some locations OWS does have their own security details. If you can get on them and mess them up, go to it. Start fights, again without being too obvious about it. Even though there are plenty of employed people participating on a rotating basis, advertise yourselves as unemployed. That just gives more ammunition to our men Newt and Sean. And then, just use your imagination.
Winter is coming. If they have any level of organization and if they or some faction of them starts to get politically organized, they will make it through the winter and come out in the spring in a position to really influence the 2012 elections, nationally, regionally, and locally, by focusing on what we just don‘t want them to focus on: how we got where we are, what we will do to stay here, what this country really needs to use taxpayer money for, and why it really needs a lot more of it, not a lot less of it, if anyone but us is going to make out OK. We have got to keep them for now focusing as much as we can on the “free speech” stuff and the “no, we aren’t dirty druggies” stuff and by all means, the “rule by consensus” stuff. Then we will have them just where they want them. So just go to it.
References:
1. “The 99% Deficit Proposal Published: Occupy Washington DC Shows How to Create Jobs, Reduce the Wealth Divide and Control Spending,” by Kevin Zeese.
Author’s Note: Of course I wrote this as part speculation, part satire. Now, in a widely circulated piece, the GOTP phrase-maker/cover-up-our-real-intent evil genius Frank Luntz has actually prepared a guide for right-wing attackers of the Occupy Wall Street movement. He delivered it at a recent meeting of The Republican Governors Association in Florida. Likely for at least some the reasons outlined above, he actually said: “I’m so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I’m frightened to death. . . . They’re having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism.” In his message he in no way talked about sending in agents provocateurs. But he did talk very much about distorting language to make it play into GOTP hands.
|
|
|
It's the Consumers, Stupid! by Robert Merriam |
|
|
|
November 28, 2011
Since Reagan’s tax-cutting
in the 1980’s until 2009, while the national wealth created by the
economy increased 128%, ninety percent of American workers have seen
their incomes stagnate, or even decline with inflation. The wealth
produced by the economic expansion has gone to the top 20% of earners,
an incredible 21.4% to just the top 1%.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
In God We Trust: Historical and Definitional Issues by Steve Jonas |
|
|
|
November 27, 2011
According to Politics of Nov. 1 (1) “The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday [Nov. 1] passed, 396-9, a concurrent resolution reaffirming ‘In God We Trust’ as the national motto.
The resolution was introduced by Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), co-chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus. It is a concurrent resolution because the Senate already passed a similar resolution in 2006 for the 50th anniversary of “In God We Trust” as the nation's motto.
Resolutions do not carry the force of law and do not require the president's signature. ‘Tomorrow, the House of Representatives will have the same opportunity to reaffirm our national motto and directly confront a disturbing trend of inaccuracies and omissions, misunderstandings of church and state, rogue court challenges, and efforts to remove God from the public domain by unelected bureaucrats.
As our nation faces challenging times, it is appropriate for Members of Congress and our nation – like our predecessors – to firmly declare our trust in God, believing that it will sustain us for generations to come,’ Forbes said in a statement Monday.” Forbes also said “without God, there could be no American form of government. Nor, an American way of life" (2).
Now there are a series of questions that could be raised about Rep. Forbes’ statement. For example, let us for a moment take a look at its history. According to Wikipedia (3), “The phrase was conceived by Salmon P. Chase, the U.S. Treasury Secretary under President Abraham Lincoln.[1] Chase wrote in an 1861 letter to James Pollock, then Director of the Mint in Philadelphia, that no ‘nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.’[3]
Aspirations for the motto arose surrounding the trauma and heightened religious sentiment that existed during the Civil War. ‘Both [sides] read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other,’ echoed President Lincoln during his Second Inaugural Address, as the Civil War continued.[4] The Reverend M. R. Watkinson, in a letter dated 13 November 1861, petitioned the Treasury Department to add a statement recognising ‘Almighty God in some form in our coins.’[5] However Treasury Secretary Chase did not submit the motto with the words ‘In God We Trust’ until December 9, 1863.[1]”
First one might point out the nation did just fine, except for the scourge of slavery and the ever-increasing genocide against the Native Americans, without “In God We Trust” on our coinage, from the time of the Founding until 1861. Indeed, unless one is mistaken, we did have an “American form of government and an American way of life” during that period.
Then there is the problem that President Lincoln raised that in the Civil War both sides prayed to the same God. One side won and one side lost (at least for the time-being). One wonders just which side God was on in that case, and how could the other side have any trust at all in him, her or it.
Then, it wasn’t until 1954 that the phrase was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance (which of course has no official standing itself), and until 1956 that the Congress made it into the national motto. One must wonder just how the nation got along not “under God,” for all of the years preceding. Then there is the further little matter of the Constitution, which, one should think, defines what the “American form of government” is. The word “God” does not appear in it, Article VI prohibits any religious test for candidates for office and there is the First Amendment’s prohibition of the establishment of religion by Congress. Ah well, these are such troublesome details.
Now let us turn briefly to the matter of definitions. One might spend some time discussing exactly what is meant by "in" when it comes to "God," which, for example, might or might not, be corporeal. Then one might concern oneself with the matter of "trust." For example, given what Lincoln himself had to say about the matter, during the Civil War, as noted above, as the fortunes of the two sides waxed and waned, why should either of them have trusted "God," or for that matter why should the victims of Katrina, the Great Depression or the current one (whatever you want to call it), 9/11, the Holocaust, Curtis LeMay’s firestorm raid of Tokyo on March 9, 1945 (120,000 dead), or the opponents of the major US political party that routinely labels them as "Godless."
But the most important definitional problems concern "God" and "We." When it comes to religions the United States is a polyglot nation. Just whose "God" are we talking about? Within Christianity alone there are many different concepts of God, very tripartite, not-so tripartite, uni-partite. A God who/which appears before some Christians embodied in a wafer and wine, not so for others. And so on and so forth. Then there are the other two main religions in the U.S., Judaism, and Islam. Each has its several denominations, and each of those has a rather different concept of God. (For Secular Humanistic Jews, of which I am one, there is no concept of "God" at all). Then there is a major world religion, Hinduism, which counts about 900,000,000 adherents, with 1.5 million of them in the U.S. (4). Its concept of God/Gods pre-dates in form that of the three major monotheistic religions. Who is indeed to say that there is not a group of Gods, and that perhaps, if there is, they are not the Hindu group, but rather the Greco-Roman or the Egyptian one. One might ask how can one put one's trust in any non-substantive being if one cannot be sure just which one or one's one is talking about.
Finally, there is the “we” problem. To just which “we“ does the phrase refer? There are an estimated 30,000,000 people in the United States who do not believe in any the forms of divinity listed above, or any other for that matter.
References:
1. The Christian Post, Politics, Nov. 2, 2011
2. Secular Coalition for America, Letter, Nov. 15, 2011.
3. Wikipedia, “In God We Trust,” Notes, References: 1.U.S. Department of the Treasury. (2011) "History of 'In God We Trust'" www.treasury.gov. 2. As shown on the Córdoba (bank notes and coins); see for example Banco Central de Nicaragua. 3 Duncan, Ann W. (2008). Religion, Rhetoric, and Ritual in the U.S. Government," Church-state Issues in America Today. Westport CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, pp. 77., 4. Wikisource. "Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaguaral Address"; http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln's_Second_Inaugural_Address. Retrieved 18 October 2011; 5. United States (1897). Congressional Serial Set. US: Government Printing Office, p. 260.
|
|
|
A Fateful Day in November by Uri Avnery |
|
|
|
November 25, 2011
THIS TUESDAY will be the 64th anniversary of a fateful day for our lives.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Planetary Update - Friday 18th November 2011 |
|
|
|
|
Planetary Update
Breaking News
Friday 18 November 2011
The Guardian
Aung San Suu Kyi party to register for Burmese elections
The US president, Barack Obama, said he saw "flickers of progress" in Burma and would dispatch Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, to explore new ties. He said the recent release of political prisoners, the relaxing of media restrictions and signs of legislative change were "the most important steps toward reform in Burma that we've seen in years". Obama, in Indonesia for the Association of South-East Asian Nations summit, said he had spoken to Aung San Suu Kyi for the first time and she had told him she supported more US engagement with Burma.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/18/aung-san-suu-kyi-elections
Huffington Post
Hillary Clinton To Visit Myanmar
First Secretary Of State To Travel To Long-Shunned Nation In Over 50 Years
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/18/hillary-clinton-myanmar_n_1100822.html
Jerusalem Post
Condoleezza Rice: Time for regime change in Tehran
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=246037
Jerusalem Post
Leon Panetta: Strike on Iran could hurt world economy
http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=246047
Haaretz
U.S. Defense Secretary: Iran strike will hurt world economy
Panetta speaks on eve of talks with Defense Minister Ehud Barak in Canada; says world should focus on diplomatic pressure, sanctions over Iran nuclear program.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-defense-secretary-iran-strike-will-hurt-world-economy-1.396316
Huffington Post
America's New Cold War With China by Tom Hayden
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/america-china-foreign-policy_b_1100748.html
Haaretz
Jews won’t mind Romney’s Mormonism – but Christians might.
'Baptism of the dead' controversy that plagued Jewish-Mormon relations was finally put to rest a year ago, just in time for Republican Mitt Romney to reap the rewards among Jewish voters.
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/jews-won-t-mind-romney-s-mormonism-but-christians-might-1.396337
Haaretz
Kissinger in Nixon-era document: Jews are self serving 'bastards'
(Planetary observes: Kissinger's colleagues back Romney as does K himself.)
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/kissinger-in-nixon-era-document-jews-are-self-serving-bastards-1.396343
Huffington Post
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, Former Philippine President, Charged With Electoral Fraud
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/18/gloria-macapagal-arroyo-poll-fraud_n_1100895.html
Jewish Telegraph Agency
Man with ‘Israel’ tattoo charged with attempting to assassinate Obama
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/11/17/3090327/man-wanted-in-dc-shooting-has-israel-tattoo
The Guardian
Brazil census shows African-Brazilians in the majority for the first time
Preliminary results show 50.7% of Brazilians now define themselves as black or mixed race compared with 47.7% whites
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/17/brazil-census-african-brazilians-majority
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
|
| Results 28 - 36 of 412 |
