Tag Archives: Occupy Wall Street

Is America Being Played? Vic Biorseth thinks so…

The End Game?

By Vic Biorseth, Friday, September 14, 2012

Thinking Catholic Strategic Center

Could the end game have begun already, so soon after the great Tea Party awakening, and the general realization of what the game is about? Before the whole population is even aware that there is a game?

“Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts and minds of men?” was the line deeply intoned by the voice over the radio in an old, old, but much beloved regular radio show from a bygone era. We might well ask that very question about what’s going on in the geopolitical world today, at this moment in time. Nothing is what it appears to be. I don’t know for certain all that’s going on behind the scenes, but I do know this:

We are being played.

We have spoken elsewhere in this site about the sneaky, underhanded linkup between Marxism and Islam to cooperate in the cause of increasing global chaos and instability. In a bygone era Islam quietly shook hands with National Socialism and stood with them to oppose the civilized world, so no one should be surprised by this newer uneasy alliance between more sophisticated forms of Marxism, and more sophisticated forms of Islam.

But, Marxism is rabidly atheistic, and Islam is ferociously theocratic, you say; close alliance between them is therefore impossible. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” say both Marxism and Islam. They will work out their religious differences later, after they have cooperated in destroying all other opposition. When their common enemies are no more, then they may turn their guns on each other; but that is for tomorrow, not today. One step at a time.

Some clues have been dropped in the embassy attacks in Egypt and in Libya:

Masks used in the Occupy Wall Street activities were used in the storming of the embassies; what’s the linkage between the OWS movement and the American embassy attacks in North Africa? What were those American OWS masks doing over there?
It is reported and pretended that some movie disrespectful of Mohammed incited the “spontaneous” mob action, but it has been shown that the most important parts of the action was a very carefully planned, timed, choreographed and orchestrated attack, and not spontaneous at all.

The attacks are reported and pretended to be anti-movie and not anti-USA mob action; but what the rioters chanted for the cameras was “Obama, Obama, we are all Osama!” Indicating vengeful bloodthirst for Obama, over Obama and Biden publicly spiking the football over the killing of Osama.

Most of the claims for the movie causing all of this, rather than any planned event or series of events planned to begin on September 11, seem to come from our side of the ocean, not theirs. Most of the Moslems had never seen the movie or any trailer, although some had heard of it; could some Marxists have whispered in their ears?

I smell the tactics of Saul Alinsky in all of this.

The current upper echelons of American government are permeated with Alinskyites. (Alinskyites are the sneakiest, most treacherous forms of Marxists, who always work under deep cover, and who are never what they appear to be.) For example, our Secretary of State, Madam Hillary, wrote her college thesis on Saul Alinsky. For another example, our President, Comrade Obama, peace be upon him, is another Alinskyite. The only non-academic job he ever held was with an Alinskyite organization called the Deveolping Communities Project, where he was employed as a Communist Agitator. Excuse me, I meant to say Community Organizer. (The two terms are synonymous.) You might say that Madam Hillary and Comrade Obama majored in Alinsky.

And what, exactly, did Professor Saul Alinsky (RIP) teach?

  • How to bring down America and topple the American government, from the inside, using deep treachery.

In Refuting Marx we said that Karl Marx, influenced by the evil and treacherous writings of Machiavelli and by the Hegelian Dialectic, sought to incite and induce chaos and revolution on a global scale, to bring down governments using armies of mal-informed “useful idiots” incited by committed agent provocateurs, all of whom were expendable for the cause of the Revolution. This is the evil “The Ends Justify The Means” idea advancing into Western, supposedly Judao-Christian, mainstream thought. And there it continues to grow and spread. “All is fair in love and war” is an example commonplace derivative notion, seen in song, literature and entertainment. But all is Not fair, in anything. The Ends do not justify any and all means.

But after suffering so many failures and set-backs in attempts at direct “popular” revolution, Marxism survived – and thrived – as a strategy of world conquest by going largely underground and becoming even more treacherous, and even more deceptive, and even more evil. Advances in strategy and tactics included Alinsky’s get on the inside and destroy the system from within, in which the revolutionary or his recruited agent-provoacateur would put on a suit and tie, act civilized, play the game according to the rules, by all appearances, but maintain the revolutionary destructive zeal. The Cloward-Piven strategy was developed and deployed, by which armies of Useful-Idiots would be recruited and “Community Organized” into large groups that might

  • apply in massive application submissions for various government and/or corporate programs – disability; college tuition grants; rent subsidies; more benefits; higher pay; retirement; better insurance; any large government or large corporation “charitable” program, in order to overload the system and cause it to break down.
  • find and put into practice large-scale voter fraud prgrams at various elections around the country.
  • incite hostility toward “the system” and/or “the man” and/or the sitting government in various targeted minority groups, and identify new groups ripe for infiltration and recruitment to the cause.
  • organize seemingly disorganized public spectacles, such as the OWS movement, and provide some loose organization, targets and incentives to anarchists.

“Popular” revolution is quite impossible in America; therefore, Marxism has had to become far more treacherous, sneaky and underhanded here than anywhere else on earth. But the goal remains the same: to bring down the government and replace it with a typical Marxist dictatorship.

In Refuting Mohammed we said that Islam declared war on us, and on the whole of the non-Islamic world, long before we existed as a nation. Before Columbus sailed. Before the Reformation. Mainstream, mainline Islam declared war on the whole non-Islamic world somewhere around the year of our Lord 600. Read here what the Moslem is instructed – by the irrevocable word of Allah, spoken through the lips of his prophet Mohammed, recorded forever in the Koran – to do to us non-Moslems:

  • So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. – Koran Sura 9:5.
  • Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. – Koran Sura 9:29.

Again, this is mainstream Islam. It is not the Moslem Brotherhood, or any of the groups they gave birth to, such as Al Queda. It is Islam. That is to say, the Moslem Brotherhood is absolutely mainstream, in Islam. It is not a matter of interpretation. No Moslem may oppose or disagree with those words. That is what they are instructed to do, and how they are instructed to behave toward us.

Now, Islam is a theocracy; a radical combination of Church and state, in which ecclesial law and civil law are all contained in one book: the Koran. No law – including our own Constitution – is above the Koran, in the house of Islam. Islam thus seeks not only to convert us out of our own religions, but to rule us via the Koran, and to hell with our Constitution. Others may argue and quibble about Sharia law, and different manifestations of it in different lands – but I’m telling you that the real threat is not Sharia, and not any terrorist group coming out of Islam; the real threat to America, to Israel, and to the whole world, is Islam itself.

Once Islam was militarily beaten back and driven out of Europe, it never recovered its former military capabilities of conquest; nevertheless, the imperative to grow itself and conquer the world remained a vital commandment in the Koran. So, Islam, like Marxism, found other ways.

As we said in Refuting Mohammed, Islam has never changed it’s commitment to continue the march to Ummah. In WWII Islam aligned with the Nazi-Fascist branch of Marxism because of its treatment of the Jews. Over time, Moslems have become Machiavellian in nature. They have adopted The Ends Justify The Means, and become underhanded, sneaky and treacherous, just like the Marxists. In dar al-harb, where we infidels live, Moslems are the most peaceful, wonderful, loving examples of people to be found in the Islamic faith. Until they gain a little more population and a little more power. The Islamic attitude changes, radically and brutally, when and where Islam is in control.

The final goal of Islam is the same as the final goal of Marxism: Borderless, nation-less, one world global government, which is to say, a world dictatorship.

The history of Islam is a history of war and of conquest; the ideology/religion of Islam is one of brutal domination, subjugation, forced submission, misogyny, abuse, torture and murder.

When they gain a strong control of an area of total or near total Islamic population, such as in Dearborn Michigan, they become increasingly beligerent toward the non-Islamic host government, to the point that the host nation may actually have to fight to regain legal control of its own territory. It has become, for them, Dar Al-Islam – the house of Islam – and they will not give it up without a fight to the death. There, so long as they are the occupiers, the only law that may be applied is Islamic law.

If you think it is not the same in Dearborn Michigan as in the various Islamic controlled areas in the environs of Paris France, you are very sadly mistaken.

In Refuting Obama we indicated that Comrade Obama, peace be upon him, is not like us, and is not even like the most rabidly Marxist of his American compatriots and allies. He wasn’t raised here, and he doesn’t really understand America or Americans. He is, by instinct, much more of a raw Marxian than an Alinskyite. Where the Clintons masterfully work the slow, steady Progressive method of advancing the Revolution, Comrade Obama wants all chaos, all instability, all break-down, right now. He wants to bring it on. He is more the old-time Revolutionary, and much less the Progressive or the mere Liberal. While the ultimate goal for all of them is the same, he wants to achieve it all, right now.

Many are puzzled as to why he seems so embarrassingly stupid in his approach to American politics; lately he seems to be committing political suicide almost every time he opens his mouth, or when he does not speak when he clearly should speak. But I don’t think he cares too much about whether he wins the 2012 election; he’ll take it if that’s all he can get, but he would much rather be dictator than President. He will do whatever he thinks he has to do to win the election, but that is not the first thing on his agenda. He would much rather be dictator over a ruined, empoverished, destroyed, burning and warring America than a properly elected President over a strong and prosperous American nation that he loathes and despises.

To that end, he is spending us into economic collapse, printing money to make it worthless, cutting defense and interfering with military effectiveness, insulting and alienating allies, encouraging and befriending enemies, saddling us with impossible and nonsensical law, overriding the Constitution and bypassing Congress at every turn, and generally making a shambles of the American system of government. He is pissing us off, on purpose. Agitation is the name of the game. Instability, anger, chaos and hostility are the necessary ingredients of a radical transformation of the system, which is what he intended from the beginning.

Expanding our view to encompass the geopolitical situation, we see that the rest of the world is in a much more precarious state than America, even as bad as our own situtation is. While we are well along the way down the increasingly steep economic slippery slope, many European nations are now over the cliff. Every time they get some sort of bail-out – which is to say, every time they stupidly try to borrow their way out of debt – the stock market goes up, proving again that the stock market condition has no real world relationship to the state of the world economy, or to any nation’s economy. Each bail-out makes the condition worse, not better, and makes the inevitable crash even more unbearable for the population. There is not enough money existing in the world to pay off all that debt, and they keep trying to borrow more just to continue to exist as nations. (And so do we, with all of our ideological Marxists in high office.)

How will all those nations ever get out from under the collapsing Euro? How will they all reestablish their own currencies, and their own national identities? Will European nations, and even the European Union itself, descend into civil war?

When we look to the Obama inspired and encouraged Arab Spring, or Moslem Spring, or Springtime of Democracy all across North Africa and the Middle East, we, for the most part, miss the similarity to the Springtime of Revolution ushered in by the publication of Marx’s Communist Manifesto in 1848, when some 50 nations experienced violent Communist revolution. The ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. We miss, or miss-interpret, the growing relationship between Marxism and Islam at our own mortal peril.

The more recent violence involving the storming of American embassies, the murder of an American ambassador and other Americans, the burning of American flags, the raising of Al Queda flags, and the trashing of American property is blamed, by our government, on a movie trailer that very few people have ever seen.

Again, I smell Alinsky.

I have little doubt that this movie trailer, or some description of it, was used to incite some Moslem useful idiots to violence; but these were planned attacks, perhaps part of a larger strategy, timed to begin on September 11. It would not surprise me to learn that the movie itself was made, or made available, or somehow abrogated by Alinskyites as an excuse to be used by our predominantly Alinskyite government leadership to both condemn Judao-Christianity and excuse outraged Moslems. It’s a double whammy for them. It’s a more sophisitcated advance of the revolutionary cause.

At any rate, civil war and broader war is ongoing, or on the brink, in the world of Islam.

The risky business of revolution is what this is all about, and Comrade Obama, peace be upon him, is a greater risk taker than any of his fellow Democrats. He is more of a Lenin than an Alinsky. The risks are high; they always are; but so are the potential rewards.

The Egyptian chant “Obama, Obama, we are all Osama!” would indicate that there are some Moslems who would like Obama’s head on a pike. No big deal; revolution is risky business. There are other Moslems who find him useful. Among Democrats, the Clintons would probably like his head on a pike; and he would like theirs on a pike. But at the moment, they work together in the greater interest of the common cause.

Among the Moslems, the Shia and the Sunni despise each other; yet, they will join together against the rest of the world, just as they did under Saladin. When the rest of the world is under submission, they may turn back to war with each other; but first, they will obey the Koran and conquer the non-Islamic world.

So it has always been in the world of Marxism. Stalin is credited with personally signing millions of death warrants of fellow Communist Party faithful in his purges. There can be only one dictator.

Dictatorship requires revolution; when revolution is not popularly supported, it requires subterfuge, chaos, destabilization and perhaps war. The bigger the war the bigger the opportunity. World War would offer the grand prize. Always, after such grand, multiple-nation conflagrations – the Islamic Conquest; the Crusades; the Reformation; World War I; World War II; there is a major reshuffling of power in the world. Marxist would-be dictators and Moslem would-be Caliphs all hope to capitalize on the situation and make themselves the one who winds up on top.

Failing that, they might become a lesser dictator of a lesser country, or, a high-ranking bureaucrat, or politiocrat, or close adviser to the grand high leader. Chaos, disorder and terror must come first. Out of chaos comes opportunity. Out of chaos comes the Machiavellian champion to restore order and assume the throne. Marxism and Islam, both, see that as the path to dictatorship. They will cooperate, for a time, to achieve it. And Comrade Obama, peace be upon him, is prepared to go either way in the end. He can play the Marxist, and he can play the Moslem; what he actually is, is what they all are: the Selfist.

They make fools of the world. While many followers of Marxist ideology, and many followers of Islam, may believe in God, or at least in some higher ideal, none of their leaders do. It’s all a sham. They believe only in themselves. Everyone beneath them are merely different layers and types of useful idiots; mere expendable tools to be manipulated and used for special purposes and then discarded.

What are we to do about all this? Steady as she goes.
do Not keep your head down; keep your eye on the ball. Do not be distracted from the fact that Comrade Obama, peace be upon him, intends the destruction of all that we hold dear. This predictable election year “October Surprise” may be a war; perhaps even a world war. Historically American voters rally round the President in any such national emergency.

Don’t do it. Don’t be fooled.

We have got to get through this next election in the normal way; even if he suspends the Constitution and declares martial law; even if he suspends the election on an emergency basis; somehow, we have got to make it through this next election, or America is lost forever.

He doesn’t really know what’s going to happen any more than we do. Chaos is unpredictable. His only leg up is that he is the chief instigator of the chaos, but he cannot predict what that chaos will ultimately bring about.

Steady as she goes; keep your eye on the ball.

Fast; pray; prepare.

The Lord will sustain us.

Reference Material/TCSC

OCCUPY: An Imaginary Society

I don’t hate or even envy the rich; what I do hate are materialist philosophies telling me I MUST in order to be socially just. Seems to me that in too many cases a certain disinterestedness (in the spiritual life of man) is shared by both, making each the poorer in those things that truly matter: the treasures of heaven. And it is the things of heaven that supernaturally draws one toward a healthy contempt for riches, and so a more just and merciful world. I’m thinking St. Francis of Assisi would agree.

Below is a great article on the inherit weaknesses of the Occupy movement. Enjoy.

The Occupy Movement’s Vacuous Critique of Inequality
by Carson Holloway
April 16, 2012

*************************************************

The Occupy Movement should be an occasion for the American left to rethink its own moral crusades, which turn out to be morally corrosive and hence incompatible with any serious commitment to social justice.
The so-called “occupy movement”—which began with Occupy Wall Street and then spread to other cities—is back. After a period of relative calm during the winter months, the movement reappeared in mid-March to celebrate the passage of six months since its initial protests in New York City. While the encampments themselves may come and go depending on the weather and resolve of city officials, the movement enjoys a persistent influence on our public discourse. The movement’s complaint about the inequality between the upper 1% and the lower 99% of American society has become a powerful rhetorical tool of the American left.

But the complaint, whatever its rhetorical power, is intellectually groundless. As a mere lament about inequality it is unrelated to any sober appreciation of human realities. As a complaint about injustice, or about the abuse of social power and influence, it is undermined by the left’s own moral crusades of the last two generations. An inquiry into the vacuity of the Occupy Movement’s critique of American society reveals two serious failings of the contemporary left: its utopianism, on the one hand, and its tendency to devour the very moral principles necessary for an effective defense of social justice, on the other.

To some extent, the movement’s invocation of the 99% against the 1% is meant to convey, without further argument, a sense of injustice: it is wrong that the 1% should have more wealth and political influence than the vast majority of the society, or at least it is wrong that the inequalities should be so large. In other words, the complaint assumes that inequality is injustice, or at least that extreme inequalities amount to injustice. While this certainly sounds reasonable, a moment’s reflection reveals that the fact of inequality itself, even extreme inequality, is not a sufficient basis on which to criticize a society—at any rate if we are applying realistic and non-utopian standards.

Machiavelli famously dismissed earlier classical and Christian political thought, with its belief that politics should aim to make men good and noble, as idle talk of “imaginary republics and principates.” That is not, he suggested, how political societies really are. Liberals are inclined to agree with that critique, but then they fall into a similar mistake by pressing too hard their complaint about inequality. To insist on a large scale society that is free from political and economic inequalities, or even free from extreme inequalities, is to demand an imaginary society. Experience teaches us that all human societies are characterized by inequalities: some people enjoy more benefits, status, and power than other people. The larger and more complex the society, the more extreme the inequalities become. Even modern societies that make equality their explicit aim fail to achieve it and in fact maintain extreme inequalities. Most people in the Soviet Union were not members of the Communist Party, and most Party members were not high-ranking enough to have significant influence compared to those at the peak of the pyramid.

Inequality, therefore, is simply a fact of human social life. To be sure, it may reasonably become a matter of complaint if it turns out to be an impediment to people’s enjoying other goods that they are due. Despite what the Occupy Movement wants us to believe, however, it is far from clear that this is the case in contemporary America. Certainly the elevation of the 1% is compatible with the life of the 99%. Starvation in America is not a widespread problem. Inequality is even compatible with the positive material flourishing of the 99%, who enjoy access to all manner of consumer goods and services, as well as higher things like education, far in excess of what was available in earlier societies, even societies characterized by less extreme inequalities of wealth. This generally rosy view may indeed conceal very real abuses and evils that should be remedied through political or economic reforms. But to speak in this way is already to surrender the moralistic utopianism of the left’s simple complaint that the 1% has more wealth and influence than the 99%.

Ultimately the Occupy critique goes beyond a simple complaint about the fact of inequality. The argument is pressed further, not merely that inequality is presumptively unjust, but that the 1% use their superior influence to rig the game of American life in their favor, at the expense of the 99%. We have a problem not just of inequality but also of exploitation. Given man’s fallen condition, some measure of such exploitation is probably inseparable from social life; and we might therefore respond to this complaint with reflections similar to those above. Why, we might ask, should we get so excited about such exploitation if it is compatible, as it evidently is, with an unprecedentedly high standard of living for all members of society? To raise this response is not necessarily to endorse or acquiesce in such injustices. It is merely to observe that they are part of the normal course of events, inevitable in any society, and therefore that their existence in ours does not constitute a justification for a radical reconstitution of society, as some of the Occupy protestors seem to desire, but rather for specific, limited reforms aimed at specific ills.

But why should we even care about such injustices, if they do exist? Put another way, why shouldn’t the 1% exploit the 99% if they think they can get away with it? In raising this question we move beyond the utopianism of the Occupy Movement and expose the moral bankruptcy into which the American left has spent itself over the last half-century.

The exploitation of the poor by the rich, and the moral condemnation of such abuse, is a common theme of the Bible. To that extent, our civilization has—or had—access to a widely respected moral tradition through which we could question such exploitation. For the last sixty years, however, the American left has dedicated considerable energy to undermining the social and cultural authority of biblical religion. They have tried, and succeeded to a considerable extent, to convince Americans that any appeals to religious morality are illegitimate in a pluralist democracy. The left’s full-court press against religion was really intended to advance specific aims: for example, the advancement of sexual liberation, which is impeded by conceptions of sexual morality held by traditional religions. But now they find that their effort to marginalize religious morality leaves them without an important source of support in their quest to evaluate inequality and exploitation.

Moreover, the American left has, by its own political example, repeatedly undermined the public sense that it is wrong for a small minority to use superior social power to impose its views or interests on the majority. It has done this most obviously by its persistent use of the judicial power to achieve aims that could not win popular political support. This is the mode by which the left has imposed extreme secularism in government, a liberal abortion regime, and is the mode by which it is trying to redefine marriage. In each of these cases the judicial victory was awarded to a position representing a minority of the population and was based upon constitutional principles that were transparently invented simply to achieve a desired outcome. If the left is willing not merely to tolerate but in fact to celebrate such maneuvers, on what principled basis can they complain that a wealthy minority manipulates law and policy to its own advantage? Complaints about the power of the 1% ring hollow in the mouths of those who have shown themselves willing to govern contrary to popular consent.

Finally, the left’s insistent promotion of a right to abortion further undercuts the capacity for indignation about the exploitation with which the Occupy Movement is now concerned. Abortion necessarily involves the exploitation of weak human beings by strong ones. This conclusion is unavoidable unless we adopt the claim that the being whose life is ended by abortion is not human. This claim, however, is hardly credible on its own terms and was proposed precisely in order to obscure the exploitation in question. Furthermore, this exploitation, done in the name of individual autonomy, necessarily involves a denial of moral bonds that are essential to social solidarity. According to the reigning pro-abortion ideology, individual autonomy is more important than a mother’s natural obligation to protect her particular child’s life, and also more important than the physician’s obligation to preserve and not destroy life in general. Contrary to what the left would like to believe, a society that, in the name of individual autonomy, authorizes mothers to pay doctors to destroy unborn children has already in principle authorized the wealthy to exploit the rest of us, if they can get away with it.

The Occupy Movement is a tool by which the American left wishes to compel America to rethink the question of social justice. It should instead be an occasion for the American left itself to rethink its own moral crusades, which turn out to be morally corrosive and hence incompatible with any serious commitment to social justice. Physician, first heal thyself.

Carson Holloway is a political scientist and the author of The Way of Life: John Paul II and the Challenge of Liberal Modernity (Baylor University Press).

Receive Public Discourse by email, become a fan of Public Discourse on Facebook, follow Public Discourse on Twitter, and sign up for the Public Discourse RSS feed.

Support the work of Public Discourse by making a secure donation to The Witherspoon Institute.

Santa and Chomsky Visit Occupy Portland…

Checking his list?

CLICK PIC TO ENLARGE

Seen at the #opdx march: Santa Claus eating a cheese burger. Also a cute dog named “Chomsky“… (Right on photo).

END OF POST

Photo Credit: Twitpic — Sara Mirk @sarahmirk

@OWSatanic

This photo is from the “Occupy Wall Street” inspired riots in Rome. At one point rioters from the “Indignant” movement stormed into a Catholic church, tore down a crucifix and smashed that statue. Damages were around $1.4 million. HT/GUY C. STEVENSON

Fr. Berrigan watches the golden calf go by…

Fr. Dan Berrigan watches the golden calf go by

As reported here, George Soros, a Wall Street billionaire criminally charged with insider trading, and MoveOn.org, a front group for the Wall Street-financed Obama administration, are now joining forces to voice their “support” for an anti-Wall Street movement Occupy Wall Street.

Lo and behold, “Catholic” political group Catholics United (Financed by George Soros during the 2008 presidential election) promoted their own participation in Occupy Wall Street this week on Facebook… Wonder if Fr. Berrigan knows that these Soros-funded outfits want to turn the OWS protest into an Obama campaign re-election tool?

Here’s a video clip of the political religious deception.

END OF POST

@OWS: We Are Anonymous… .. … We hate greed… .. … ‘Buy it now’ on eBay… ..

COrpoRaTe pIgs hAve doNe tHis!

There are currently 513 results for “Guido” Fawkes masks and other apparel found on eBay.

You can even ask for origami!!!