Where has the Irish right wing been for this crisis? Invisible, and now complaining about those who actually are doing something. This “story” is just a longer version of the trolling the author has been doing on twitter.

Change the Government, in Ireland we have done precisely that, and that has managed to find 3.2 billion of mislaid money and handed out over 700 million to unguaranteed investors. If I invested a tenner in something that was unguaranteed and the project went belly up, I would lose my tenner. If these fat cat bankers invested without guaranteeing their investments, why or loaned money without guaranteeing their loans, WHY, should they get it back? There is gross inequality, the political route is so corrupt, that the fair few have no voice. What else is left…. the rest of us being trampled down by the greed and the mistakes of the ’1%’, and then sitting by helplessly, while taxes are raised, benefits are decreased, whilst the majority of those who created, or were complicit in the creation of the mess, sit comfortably. While I agree, there is opportunity for the whack jobs here, the majority are not whack jobs, and one would hope would have the common sense to look out for the whack jobs. If the police did their job, which is to ‘protect and serve’, then they should have no bias, either for Government, Bankers or Occupiers, so the Occupiers should be able to allow them in to deal with the ‘whack job’ disruptive element. Unfortunately, recent events have shown no such lack of bias on the part of the police.

and this is less naive than the protesters how? You are basically arguing American capitalism and that has not worked. No actual redistribuion of wealth on a Scandinavian model. Because even the opportunity to accrue wealth hinges on that. The US and the UK are the two countries with the least vertical mobility in the western world. by a fair margin even.

As for the list system – yes it does away with clientele politics and that may be a good thing. I am German, we have a list system. What it does not do away with is the intermeshing of government and big business. And three strike rule? you gotta be joking. Company employs say 1k people and fouls up three times and you are going to put 1000 people out of a job? Get real. Jail the managers? Sure. There is not enough accountability. But the idea of simply closing down a big company is ludicrous.

While i accept that the #occupy protesters are naive and unfocussed they are working on remedying both. Your naive trust in the market has been disproved in those countries that have done so before. Social inequality and opportunity is lower in those countries compared to countries that take a more socialist approach. In Sweden if i fail as an entrepreneur I can go on the dole as could somebody who just got laid off. This sense of security leads to Sweden having way more small companies than a lot of other countries. Why? Because the personal risk is lower.

As for the nutcase accusations? see the comments above.

«Across the numerous #Occupy movements there are placards demanding debt forgiveness. There is no such thing.» Can someone remind that to the irish banks ? What is the bailout if not debt forgiveness. Something the author confirm a sentence later: «If someone forgives you your debt, someone else will end up paying for it. ». Isn’t that what we are doing right now ? Paying for it…
And talking about the feeling of entitlement… So it’s ok that the banks feel entitled and rip the countries (this is in no way an irish specific situation), but the tax payers should only feel entitled to shut up and throw away whatever they managed to save ?

And those comments have nothing for or against #occupy… But reading such biased arguments is just …

Whatever…

And how do you know if a business break the law? Oh yeah you put regulations in place so you can control their natural instincts.

The fact that government wasn’t involved in business was what caused a lot of the problems. Without control from the government then big business runs amok with little concern for anyone or any thing but themselves. To have enforcement government has to get involved in business, they go hand in hand.

There is so much wrong in this piece but hey, that it is just Evert being his hilariously curmudgeonly cartoonish self :-)

That Evert starts his piece by quoting the demands of the occupy movement and concludes it by pretty much re-iterating those same demands is beyond parody and shows you how muddled his thinking is.

Never mind that some of the great achievements of the 20th century, such as The New Deal in the 30s, an end to racism in the 60s with the civil rights movement in the US or the collapse of the Berlin Wall in ’89 were all due to people assembling peacefully on the streets in large numbers.

A lot of people in the Occupy movement would of course be what’s called ‘declasse’ and not the term ‘entitled’, which is an emotionally loaded term and is a condescending sneer.
Declasse means that group of intelligent, smart, ambitious, capable middle class people who were educated and groomed to participate in a system that they were told had a place for them and that it could deliver a reasonable standard of living and but then they realised the system was broken beyond repair and their only options were the dole or emigration.

You invoke the spectre of “wealth-redistribution” as if it is a bad thing.
Aside from countless evidence and research being cited showing how more equal societies have a higher quality of life, see the Spirit Level, at the moment in the Anglo-Saxon financial world there is massive wealth redistribution happening in the form of looting of public money for the benefit of private banks.

Society should be structured along the lines of improving the quality of life for all of the citizens, not to facilitate the plundering of public money by a corrupt cartel of broken banks so that the 1% can continue to enrich themselves on the public purse.

Talking about US protesters bearing arms is irrelevant when they have the right to bear arms in their constitution, it is a very gun orientated culture and compared to the quasi-fascist Tea Party movement, there are a lot less firearms on view.

Invoking the anti-semitism canard is a crude smear tactic that devalues the word and has to be challenged and it is disgraceful to play it. For this remark alone, you should hang your head in abject shame and apologise.

From The Jewish Journal:
Exploiting anti-Semitism to destroy Occupy Wall Street
“An ugly old tradition is back: exploiting anti-Semitism to break the backs of popular movements that threaten the power of the wealthiest 1 percent of our population. It is being used to undermine the Occupy Wall Street movement, which has conservatives in a state of near panic…….
Linking a progressive movement to the Jews would destroy progressive movements and preserve the power of those in control.Perhaps not surprisingly, a bizarre variant of this phenomenon is now being deployed against Occupy Wall Street.
http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/exploiting_anti-semitism_to_destroy_occupy_wall_street_20111014/
Because utilizing anti-Semitism directly would not succeed in this country today, the reactionary defenders of the economic status quo are using the flip side of the coin: the fear of being labeled anti-Semitic. T
hey are accusing Occupy Wall Street of anti-Semitism, relying on the old myth that Wall Street is Jewish and hence that opposition to Wall Street’s agenda is just opposition to Jews”.

The occupy supporters are highly regarded intellectuals, Nobel winning economists, politicians with integrity, novelists and acclaimed writers who have spent a lot of their career investigating corporate corruption such as :
Noam Chomsky, Slavoj Zizek, Jeffrey Sachs, Paul Krugman, Nouriel Rouibini, Joe Stieglitz, Matt Taibbi, Max Keiser, Tariq Ali, Alexander Cockburn, Chris Hedges, Naomi Klein, Salman Rushdie, Jon Stewart, Jesse Jackson, Naomi Wolfe and John Pilger to name a few.

I am sure the hysterical, ignorant, ranting, lunatic extreme right-wing fringe like Bill O’ Reilly, Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck will be happy to welcome Evert into their increasingly isolated madhouse.

I think for the debate to move on we need to start moving beyond the simple slogans. The author takes exception, with some justification, to the mantra of the “99%” but then goes on to talk about “smaller” government. This is almost meaningless.

It has to be recognised that the elected representatives of the people are better at doing certain things than businesses and vice versa. The trick for a stable democratic society is to correctly identify which area is which and demarcate appropriately. Free market theorists extoll the extent to which the market solves and do so with some accuracy but the truth is that no capitalist society works without a strong security and infrastructural framework provided by the government. These frameworks must be paid for and companies must bear a share of the cost for that which maintains them. To protect its own security the government must also perform at least some regulation of the market (as well as other sectors). The idea that government and business can be completely separate is unrealistic.

If you are a free market theorist who genuinely believes in small government go to Mogadishu and see how well businesses flourish there.

I agree with some of your sentiments however once you start the small government, less regulation, flat tax mantra you lose me. And elections? We had them earlier this year, what makes you think another set now are going to improve anything.

Ok some fair points but extremely naive…”Big business doesn’t work for the people, government does”
I don’t think so! Governments have never worked for the people ever in the history of modern government… Big business are responsible because it is for them that the government truly works and the ‘democratic’ system that we have is a paltry facsimile of true democracy…

What utter gibberish! Equality of opportunity is a nonsense, if everyone had equal opportunity then what would be the motivation for accumulating wealth other than an improvement in lifestyle? People will often state as part of their persona that they are earning this much money in order to give their offspring the best chance in life, multi-millionaires on dragon’s den will often spout the line “why should I give you my children’s inheritance…” when looking at projects. Having money confers an evolutionary advantage to your offspring, that’s the whole point of why people wish to accumulate it. Without the intervention of the state the rich will get even richer the poor poorer and you have a society that is more and more unstable, a big state is precisely the instrument which through healthcare, laws and regulation, housing and education can help in assuring people have an equal chance, this is simply not the case with free market and small government. In a free market system an individual has one motivation, make as much money as possible, if they can hire a Chinese worker for two euro a day instead of an Irish worker for eighty euro a day then they will do that, of course they still expect the Irish worker to buy the goods (and with what, social welfare payments?), so essentially you get to a point where the system can’t sustain itself. And don’t even get me started on the financial services!

Just the same old selfish, right-wing, I’m-alright-Jack social Darwinism. Yawn.

And by the way if this ‘ article’ was posted as a comment people would see it as trolling.

“Across the numerous #Occupy movements there are placards demanding debt forgiveness. There is no such thing. If someone forgives you your debt, someone else will end up paying for it. That’s basic economics.”

Wait… so it’s okay if we forgive the debt of privately owned corporations by bailing them out with public funds, but not bailing out the very people who pay into those funds or requiring that those corporations pay their fair share? I’m confused.

If there is no such thing as debt forgiveness, why were the banks bailed out when they went broke? If capitalism is good enough for the ordinary mortgagee, it’s good enough for the system as a whole. What we have actually is not capitalism per se–it’s a witches’ brew of casino capitalism and plutosocialism–socialism for the rich. The banks play roulette with our money, and when they lose, the government bails them out. The economic and political system is broken–it doesn’t work any more. You can’t put new wine in old bottles. What is needed–and will probably happen–is a radical, root-and-branch change of the Western political-economic system: for example, an alternative to fractional reserve banking, to our current ways of creating money and credit, to reliance on bondholders to fund our daily lives, to the present social welfare and tax systems, and maybe to our current dysfunctional form of democracy as well. And getting there won’t be pleasant–such events seldom are. The banksterocracy know that they are opposed by Left, Right and centre, so they will use the usual methods of divide-and-conquer to oppose the changes they see coming down the road.

Let’s leave Evert alone now lads. He’s done his best to defend the indefensible. I’ve never seen an author having to defend his position so much before.

Give it up Evert and come over to our side. We’re much better craic and don’t care how much you earn we’ll just care about you. You fought a good fight but it’s over now.

Evert, you missed the whole point because the sense of entitlement comes from the 1%. They expect low taxes, tx breaks, bailouts and of course no accountability for their abysmal performances, in other words, fuck it all up, but no pain whene the brown stuff hits the fan!! That is a pathetic sense of entitlement and its why people are mad as hell!

the article has more confusion than than that being leveled against the #Occupy Movement. ‘Protests, blockades, occupy government buildings, tax strikes you name it. But aim your protests against the government because that’s where the real fault lies. Big business doesn’t work for the people government does.’ What nonsense! What about the gun wielding anarchists that might see the opportunity in those actions.
Government in itself is not the problem it is the electoral system and how it has been twisted and abused by big business – banks included. Our democracy has been hijacked by self interest groups that financially support political parties and individual election candidates – brown envelope favours to be returned when in power. The presidential election has highlighted this and the bank bailout is a case in point – bought politics minding the minders – the banks again! And we pay, we do the debt forgiveness bit. The Galway tent may have been wrapped up but the system is still the same and the previous occupants are still part of the political establishment and still doing the same thing. Not one question was asked or answered about the source of contributions to presidential election campaigns. Oh! sorry FG remortgaged their headquaters. Which bank was that with?

The article is clearly an attack on the Occupy protests firstly (‘nutter; Nazi; Communist; firearm; anti-semetism; rape and violence’ (!) etc.), so that anyone unsure of the particulars of the movement may form their opinion based on these buzz words. The author then indignantly attempts his own form of ‘What are you doing about it?’ by proposing pretty much another form of Capitalism, with a few more buzz words thrown in, holding governments accountable and ignoring the responsibilities of ‘Big Businesses’ to society.

Whatever the opinion on the Occupy movement, it has people talking and suggesting solutions to the current situation, which is positive whichever way you look at it.

This makes no sense to me.
Lack of regulations allowed the banks/corporations to run wild, causing these problems. But the author wants LESS regulation and also to blame the government for these actions.
If you have lack lustre laws, and someone robs you, do you first blame the thief or the police man who failed to stop it? Both are culpable, but the thief is the direct cause of the action.
Blame both – protest both. Direct our anger at both. But as its becoming increasingly clear – let’s focus on who really runs the show. And its not the government.

I suggest people Google this guy Evert Bopp and have a read…

Government should stay out of the affairs of business? Are you mental?

Flat taxes are fair???? you don’t think millionaires have a social and moral obligation to give back to the community? And nobody give me that BS argument of ‘oh they worked hard all their life’, bus-drivers work hard all their life and nobody would expect them to make the kind of money the bankers etc. do..

There’s another occupy movement going on. It’s called #Occupy Germany’s bum.

The eu was originally formed to prevent Germany getting up their own bottoms again but instead france seems to be taking their place.

Who do sarkozy and merkel think they are summoning papandreou over to explain his decision to democratically ask his people whether or not to opt for the bailout. Then they go and tell him that the referendum will be about whether or not they want to stay in the euro.

Our european public representatives are representing the Markets not us and our fellow Europeans.

Occupy anywhere except the aforementioned I say.

I think there is an overwhelming entitlement of the 1%. I think demanding things like a society that guarantees housing, work, health care, education is the least that the occupy movement should be demanding, it is because of the overwhelming culture of entitlement of the 1% that we don’t have these things guaranteed, it is because they see them as commodities to be bought and sold on the market, they see them as a source of profit.

Look where this culture of entitlement got us with the housing market, we look down on property developers now (and quite rightly), but the truth is the entire system that treats these necessities as commodities is wrong.

Lastly, the only people to bring weapons to the Occupy protests were the police; and the only people to get injured with weapons at occupy protests were protesters; with one soldier in hospital with brain damage after a policeman threw a stun grenade in his face.

Nothing to see here but the author’s self-promotion.

The author misses the whole point! Please reaqd Joe Nocera in the NYT of Nov 1 2011, po-ed page. It speaks of Jon Corzine, former Gov of NJ who destroyed MF Global and yet expected $12.1million! This is the absurd greed which has so many people really angrey. The simple facts are: Banks bought power through bribing(sorry, campaign contributions) to pol;iticans who in turn loosened regulation on banks to allow them to make osbcene amounts of money and pay no heed to the risks. When the brown stuff hit the fan, we the taxpayer got to bail them out and allow them to go back to the same behaviour again!! “Occupy” is saying ENOUGH!”

Starts well, then loses the plot…

I agree with the authors sentiment but I also support the occupy movement. The present government believe themselves to be untouchable and unless the unions take action the people will be squeezed to within an inch of their lives. Debt forgiveness it not the answer we borrowed the money why would we expect others to pay on our behalf?

I am desperate to see society change for our future generations, it was we who paid over inflated prices for our homes and purchased the obligatory four wheel drive. We must take responsibility for our madness, look at ourselves and how we got here then and only then can we begin to effect societal change.

Capitalism has failed yet it has its place but must never again stand alone. A truly democratic society allows business to thrive and taxes to be paid to provide healthcare, education and welfare to protect the vulnerable. Fianna Fail allowed business to rule and demanded little or no return for society, few complained and regulation was a dirty word. Its time to learn from our mistakes and move on.

I believe the Budget will be the final straw and when we take to the streets we must ensure we know what we want and how we will achieve it, until then I am happy to support the occupy movement at least they are out there doing something.

evert, there is a difference between equal opportunity and equality of outcome – the former is dangled in front of people by a system driven by the enmeshment of capitalism and democracy, liberal democracy, now neo-liberal democracy – you can be what you want in life just go out there and get it, the opportunities are there. however, the latter points out that the former is flawed – in order to analyse equality one has to look at the end of the process, not the beginning or middle of it – the need to strive for “equality of outcome”, wherein the outcome of the equality policies process points to an actual “equality” is lost in your argument. thus i would say that you are blinded by the promise of what the system offers if you think that a policy of equality of opportunity offers the promise of greater equality for all of society

1. “No such thing as debt forgiveness” All forgiveness depends on whoever is doing the forgiving taking a loss (of one sort or another) and accepting that the forgiven person/entity will never be able to make good the loss, that’s what forgineness means. And yes it does happen, companies go broke, get liquidated, their directors create new companies and do business with the same people they’ve been doing it with before. There are personal bankruptcy laws that allow people to be debt free, whithout clearing their debts, after some time. the amount of time varies from country to country. Sometimes the debt that’s being forgiven is partly the promise to pay interest at a level that was effectively unwarranted profit and the loss being accepted is un-achieved profit.

2.”There is an overwhelming sense of entitlement”. I agree that some imagined society that consists of everyone else cannot “guarantee housing, work, culture, health care, education, political participation and a fulfilled life”. But certainly we shoud all, as a society, strive to make these things available to as many people as possible.

3″What you should demand is an opportunity for people to achieve these goals themselves” The critical part of this sentence is “an opportunity”, I note you don’t say “an equal opportunity”, possibly an oversight, or possibly a snese of entitlement that intelligent highly motivated people are entitled to better or more opportunities than less intelligent or less highly motivated people are. The second point of view might seem reasonable enough, but think how you would react if it was expressed in terms of physical ability rather than Intellectual, or emotional ability. Many who start out with a circumstantial advantage, shudder at the thoughts of any societal or governmental system that would deprive them of this advantage, thus equalising the opportunity for all.

4.”Wealth shouldn’t be redistributed. What we do need is an equal opportunity to achieve wealth” Here you do speak of “an equal opportunity” and I welcome that. My understanding of society/government providing an equal opportuniy is that the child of one or two long term unemployed parents who live in a local authority housing in an unemployment blacspot would have the same likelyhood of securing a given level of wealth, an meaningful employment as the child of proffesionally qualified parents who live in an affluent location, and are part of the influential circles in their town, city or area. That would be real equality, obviously not easily achievable, but worth working towards. If wealth is not to be redistributed why do we need government and a tax and social welfare system? Maybe we need the government to prevent the wealth being re-distributed?.
5. “There is also a worrying trend among some of the groups coming out publicly in support of the protests”. There are always nasty elements on both sides of an argument, I wouldn’t change my opinion because there are people who I am very suspicious of who hold the same view, Concentrating on the actual merits points being debated is all we can do.

6. I agree about the 99% vs 1% issue, it can’t be stood up without some serious in depth research. Lots of people of all socio/political hues are convinced they are i touch with “the real feelings of the majority of people”. Elections tell us differently.

7 “The best way to do this is to force an election” I fear an election will be a substitute for change rather than a catalyst. The last election, not that long ago was heralded as the biggest change to Irelands democratic system in years, or words to that effect. Does anyone believe that now? It feels like more of the same to me.

8. “Introduce a list system” I agree 100%, this is the crucial piece as far as I’m concerned. We need National poloticians, not local councillors in our Dail. But don’t waste another election on the way, agitate and pressurise for it now!

9. “Business stays out of government but government should also stay out of business” Business funds and seeks to influence government all the time so I don’t believe the first half. I have no objection to Government running certain businesses. For a start they may be the only ones with a truly long term goal in sight that isn’t about maximising short term profit. Secondly they may be the only ones with the funding required for certain infrastructural projects or services. But there shouuld be a clear logical reason why Government is involved.

10.”Less interference will also result in more opportunity” I’m not sure what this assertion is based on. Interference is a very negative sounding word, regulation and/or support are more positive sounding, depending on you perspective. but I doubt any feels that regulation and support are not needed.

11. “Let’s create a government which takes care of the basics: healthcare, education, infrastructure and security” I agree, though I suspect you mean “..which exclusivley takes care…”. are these the businesses you want the Government to get involved in, the ones you don’t mind them interfering with. Why not others?

12. “Let’s introduce a fairer and more equitable flat tax system” This sounds fine but without detail it’s really hard to know waht it means.

In short the most important at the moment is to organise and pressurise for a list system, and asignificantly smaller number of TD’s, and then for system/society that is truly dedicated to providing everyone with equal opportunities to have helathy, rewarding, secure lives.

This article is completely intellectually confused. On the one hand, Evert wants government to stay out of business. On the other he wants fewer, more strongly enforced regulations. On the one hand he wants equality of opportunity, on the other he appears to want people to provide this for themselves, as he opposes state provision of healthcare and education – the very things that would help to create the basic conditions for equality of opportunity – which under the current system of grossly unequal distribution of wealth is a fantasy in any case.

He is also peddling the usual ideological guff about the rich having earned their wealth through simple hard work, ignoring the fact that the vaast majority of the rich come from privileged backgrounds or inherited their wealth and the number of truly self-made millionaires is so tiny that we can practically list them all by name.

I also doubt if his non-inteference in business mantra extends to removing all government subsidies to business (which as the example of ‘entrepreneur’ Sean Gallagher durng the election demonstrates appear to largely dependent on government handouts) and refusing to provide businesses with basic infrastructure such as electricity, roads and ann educated workforce – which they would have to provide for themselves under a truly ‘free market’ system.

There has never been a ‘free market’ – from the very origins of capitalism it has needed a state to support it and the fundamental purpose of the state has been to provide the conditions for business to flourish – not the population as whole. This is why elections alone make no fundamental difference and only mass people power can truly transform the system.

I agree that the #occupy movement is incoherent and lacks a clear programme. It is an encouraging start however for the kind of mass participation that would be needed to fundamentally transform the system in the interests of the vast majority in society, in whose interests neither business nor government currently works. But to do this, it needs to become much bigger and to link up with existing organisations of the 99%, such as the trade unions – the members not the corrupt, sold-out leadership – and other campaigns and leftwing polkiticall parties that seek radical transformation of the system and are not wedded to minor reformism that leaves the essentially unjust nature of the system intact.

It will need a total overhaul.

As long as you believe that you are an alien individual living in an aggressive world you will attack and defend everything that you feel represents yourself which includes your house and your wealth. The average person doesn’t want anything to change because it might mean giving up some of their wealth. You have to remember that the average person’s sense of self is derived from what they have, what they know and what they have achieved. Take that away and it means death in a small way. Survival instinct is greater than you might think. Now imagine how strong this sense of defend and attack is in the 1%. of course perhaps their identity could be formed out of being really charitable. But in the end absolutely nothing matters. Life does not care for creed or colour, status or stature it keeps on dancing. The hardest thing to do is point your finger back to that which is pointing. There is the mystery despite all your thoughts to the contrary.You have no control over the weather, over the harvests, over when the sun sets or rises, you have no control over the heart beating, the hair growing, the blood flowing, the mind racing and yet you are still certain you are in control of everything. Life does not care though whether you see or you don’t see. It keeps on dancing. Until suddenly….

I think the occupy movement is a glorious reflection of the fact that apathy is starting to go asleep again.

very good article and a good call to action. Indeed, if you want to change life, get up and do it. I’m not sure an election will do the trick though.

Some fair points made but you’ve stretched the truth a few too many times for my liking….

I took one look at the headline and decided this wasn’t worth reading. See, I can do prejudice too.

“Big business doesn’t work for the people”

There’s your problem right there.

I’d like http://www.journal.ie to offer us a POLL about our yes/no/don’t know vote for the Occupy Protests – or has there been one that I’ve missed?!

You’re losing credibility by reacting Evert!

Makes a lot of sense. Occupy offer no real alternative bar extremism. As usual most protests attract far left which have their own vested interest in not accepting austerity. Their policies of buying votes through over generous social welfare and corrupt benchmarking has played large part in where we are today.

The occupy movement is gaining momentum as we can see by the journalists vain attempts to associate it with extremist groups. Successive elected governments have failed us, we only need to look at the headlines from yesterday to see that. I for one have had enough, I support the occupy movement as part of the 99% and you are right it its time we came out from behind our keyboards and joined them.

Here’s someone doing the work of the 1%. Trying to smear a global movement in the hopes it doesn’t catch on here in Ireland like in Egypt, Greece, America, UK etc etc. To those that think revolutions aren’t the solution then ask an Egyptian or a Greek. Look who just got a referendum! Did they get it by the list system or voting? No They took to the streets and went on strike.

This is a blatant smear article. The author (propagandist) manage to associate the movement with all the usual bogey men ( commies, nazis, antisemites) before I could read it no more. Absolute rubbish.

Some fair points but you’ve made a few too many sensationalist claims with no evidence to back them up for my liking!

Speaking of entitlement have you seen today’s Phoenix?

Evert, earlier today.

http://edge.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/1022869/81496066.gif

The only thing the #occupymovement will change (if it actually does manage to change anything) is the make-up of the people in the 1% and 99% groups.

For every person displaced from the 1% group there is a person in the 99% group more than willing to take they’re place.

A sad fact of life: Humans are inherently greedy.

Here’s someone doing the work of the 1%. Trying to smear a global movement in the hopes it doesn’t catch on like in Egypt, Greece, America, UK etc etc. To those that think revolutions aren’t the solution then ask an Egyptian or a Greek. Look who just got a referendum! Did they get it by the list system or voting? No They took to the streets and went on strike.

Yes love this. totally in agreement. About time someone has exposed these. As I’ve said here before on Naomi Wolf’s beauty queen slagging cum drama queen antics in New York – they are misguided, attention seeking, misinformed morons. Pack up your smelly tents and go home and do something positive.

I think that a lot of people commenting would be helped by reading the article again and taking a few deep breaths to oxygenise their brains before commenting…

here are some links to support my statement about all kind of loonies supporting the #occupy movement:

http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/10/31/the-99-the-official-list-of-occupywallstreets-supporters-sponsors-and-sympathizers/

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/17/red-white-and-angry%E2%80%A8-communist-nazi-parties-endorse-occupy-protests/#ixzz1bCk7Rr5L

Note: I do not state anywhere that #Occupy supports these idiots but my point is that the movement is at risk of being hijacked by extremist groups. If the #occupy movement had any sense it would repeatedly and strongly “disown” such statements of support.
Same goes for my statement about someone smuggling a firearms. Nowhere do I suggest that legitimate protesters would bring firearms or start shooting. However by it’s nature of being totally disorganised combined with it’s size it is a perfect operating ground for someone intent to escalate manners in a violent way.