Mike Malloy Forum Index Mike Malloy
Welcome Truthseekers!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Naomi Wolf: The shocking truth about the crackdown on Occupy

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Mike Malloy Forum Index -> Occupy Wall Street and Beyond
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Yuri
- MASTER TRUTHSEEKER -


Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Posts: 6964
Location: Vancouver, B.C.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:05 pm    Post subject: Naomi Wolf: The shocking truth about the crackdown on Occupy Reply with quote

The shocking truth about the crackdown on Occupy
The violent police assaults across the US are no coincidence. Occupy has touched the third rail of our political class's venality
By Naomi Wolf
guardian.co.uk, Friday 25 November 2011 17.25 GMT

US citizens of all political persuasions are still reeling from images of unparallelled police brutality in a coordinated crackdown against peaceful OWS protesters in cities across the nation this past week. An elderly woman was pepper-sprayed in the face; the scene of unresisting, supine students at UC Davis being pepper-sprayed by phalanxes of riot police went viral online; images proliferated of young women – targeted seemingly for their gender – screaming, dragged by the hair by police in riot gear; and the pictures of a young man, stunned and bleeding profusely from the head, emerged in the record of the middle-of-the-night clearing of Zuccotti Park.

But just when Americans thought we had the picture – was this crazy police and mayoral overkill, on a municipal level, in many different cities? – the picture darkened. The National Union of Journalists and the Committee to Protect Journalists issued a Freedom of Information Act request to investigate possible federal involvement with law enforcement practices that appeared to target journalists. The New York Times reported that "New York cops have arrested, punched, whacked, shoved to the ground and tossed a barrier at reporters and photographers" covering protests. Reporters were asked by NYPD to raise their hands to prove they had credentials: when many dutifully did so, they were taken, upon threat of arrest, away from the story they were covering, and penned far from the site in which the news was unfolding. Other reporters wearing press passes were arrested and roughed up by cops, after being – falsely – informed by police that "It is illegal to take pictures on the sidewalk."

In New York, a state supreme court justice and a New York City council member were beaten up; in Berkeley, California, one of our greatest national poets, Robert Hass, was beaten with batons. The picture darkened still further when Wonkette and Washingtonsblog.com reported that the Mayor of Oakland acknowledged that the Department of Homeland Security had participated in an 18-city mayor conference call advising mayors on "how to suppress" Occupy protests.

To Europeans, the enormity of this breach may not be obvious at first. Our system of government prohibits the creation of a federalised police force, and forbids federal or militarised involvement in municipal peacekeeping.

I noticed that rightwing pundits and politicians on the TV shows on which I was appearing were all on-message against OWS. Journalist Chris Hayes reported on a leaked memo that revealed lobbyists vying for an $850,000 contract to smear Occupy. Message coordination of this kind is impossible without a full-court press at the top. This was clearly not simply a case of a freaked-out mayors', city-by-city municipal overreaction against mess in the parks and cranky campers. As the puzzle pieces fit together, they began to show coordination against OWS at the highest national levels.

Why this massive mobilisation against these not-yet-fully-articulated, unarmed, inchoate people? After all, protesters against the war in Iraq, Tea Party rallies and others have all proceeded without this coordinated crackdown. Is it really the camping? As I write, two hundred young people, with sleeping bags, suitcases and even folding chairs, are still camping out all night and day outside of NBC on public sidewalks – under the benevolent eye of an NYPD cop – awaiting Saturday Night Live tickets, so surely the camping is not the issue. I was still deeply puzzled as to why OWS, this hapless, hopeful band, would call out a violent federal response.

That is, until I found out what it was that OWS actually wanted.

The mainstream media was declaring continually "OWS has no message". Frustrated, I simply asked them. I began soliciting online "What is it you want?" answers from Occupy. In the first 15 minutes, I received 100 answers. These were truly eye-opening.

The No 1 agenda item: get the money out of politics. Most often cited was legislation to blunt the effect of the Citizens United ruling, which lets boundless sums enter the campaign process. No 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act – the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks. This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create kale derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks.

No 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors.

When I saw this list – and especially the last agenda item – the scales fell from my eyes. Of course, these unarmed people would be having the sh!t kicked out of them.

For the terrible insight to take away from news that the Department of Homeland Security coordinated a violent crackdown is that the DHS does not freelance. The DHS cannot say, on its own initiative, "we are going after these scruffy hippies". Rather, DHS is answerable up a chain of command: first, to New York Representative Peter King, head of the House homeland security subcommittee, who naturally is influenced by his fellow congressmen and women's wishes and interests. And the DHS answers directly, above King, to the president (who was conveniently in Australia at the time).

In other words, for the DHS to be on a call with mayors, the logic of its chain of command and accountability implies that congressional overseers, with the blessing of the White House, told the DHS to authorise mayors to order their police forces – pumped up with millions of dollars of hardware and training from the DHS – to make war on peaceful citizens.

But wait: why on earth would Congress advise violent militarised reactions against its own peaceful constituents? The answer is straightforward: in recent years, members of Congress have started entering the system as members of the middle class (or upper middle class) – but they are leaving DC privy to vast personal wealth, as we see from the "scandal" of presidential contender Newt Gingrich's having been paid $1.8m for a few hours' "consulting" to special interests. The inflated fees to lawmakers who turn lobbyists are common knowledge, but the notion that congressmen and women are legislating their own companies' profitsis less widely known – and if the books were to be opened, they would surely reveal corruption on a Wall Street spectrum. Indeed, we do already know that congresspeople are massively profiting from trading on non-public information they have on companies about which they are legislating – a form of insider trading that sent Martha Stewart to jail.

Since Occupy is heavily surveilled and infiltrated, it is likely that the DHS and police informers are aware, before Occupy itself is, what its emerging agenda is going to look like. If legislating away lobbyists' privileges to earn boundless fees once they are close to the legislative process, reforming the banks so they can't suck money out of fake derivatives products, and, most critically, opening the books on a system that allowed members of Congress to profit personally – and immensely – from their own legislation, are two beats away from the grasp of an electorally organised Occupy movement … well, you will call out the troops on stopping that advance.

So, when you connect the dots, properly understood, what happened this week is the first battle in a civil war; a civil war in which, for now, only one side is choosing violence. It is a battle in which members of Congress, with the collusion of the American president, sent violent, organised suppression against the people they are supposed to represent. Occupy has touched the third rail: personal congressional profits streams. Even though they are, as yet, unaware of what the implications of their movement are, those threatened by the stirrings of their dreams of reform are not.

Sadly, Americans this week have come one step closer to being true brothers and sisters of the protesters in Tahrir Square. Like them, our own national leaders, who likely see their own personal wealth under threat from transparency and reform, are now making war upon us.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy

[See Guardian article for a number of hyperlinks to referenced items]
_________________

      This space for rent


Last edited by Yuri on Sat Nov 26, 2011 8:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yuri
- MASTER TRUTHSEEKER -


Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Posts: 6964
Location: Vancouver, B.C.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For years Malloy has been warning that, once the capitalist predators and their political and media whores (no offense etc.) got their murderous and exploitative fangs solidly into the affairs/citizens of developing countries, our turn would come too. And now here it is. The words of Martin Niemöller spring easily to mind.

I had dismissed, since the 1970s, dire warnings about the collusion between international bankers to establish a New World Order - mostly because the rhetoric was laced with xenophobia, antisemitism, and Holocaust-denial. It may very well be that their movement, just like the Truthers, was infiltrated by 'crazies' in order to discredit it. We should be on guard that the same does not happen with OWS.

It's somewhat reassuring that the Tea Baggers are coming to realize/remember that they're part of the 99%, but they need to drop the loco-pony theories, right-libertarian dumbassery, and blatant racism if they want to be taken seriously in OWS. There's enough overt, provable injustice to address without having to go all kooky and conspiratorial. IMHO.


Left/Right Libertarianism?

When I'm not self-identifying as a democratic socialist, I go as a left-libertarian (Chomsky, Nader, etc.) To see where you fit on the bi-axial spectrum, Take the Political Compass Test
_________________

      This space for rent
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yuri
- MASTER TRUTHSEEKER -


Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Posts: 6964
Location: Vancouver, B.C.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naomi Wolf counters critics in detailed response:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/dec/02/crackdown-occupy-controversy-rebuttal-naomi-wolf
_________________

      This space for rent
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Don Smith
VETERAN TRUTHSEEKER


Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 3277
Location: Puget Sound

PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wrote in the Guardian piece that a possible congressional motivator for cracking down on OWS is that when the people of OWS get their hands on the books, a great deal of fraud is likely to be exposed. Some critics called this wild speculation. One of the issues that came up often in my informal survey of OWS is the goal of auditing the Federal Reserve. An audit has revealed $16tn in unaccountable disbursements. Another point to consider in terms of the potential threat posed to Congress by OWS demands about Glass-Steagall is that nine of the 12 members of the congressional supercommittee had voted to repeal that legislation (for Senate, see here; for House of Representatives, see here).
16 trillions is the tip of the iceberg.
The amounts of "money" being thrown away are so large as to be almost without meaning. From the banksters to the Fed, the amounts guarantee a Weimar type melt down. Those paying attention will remember ten years ago when the Fed quit publishing the amounts of available money being printed and from there on, the presses roll night and day.
Even under the fantasy "scientific" rules of economics, too much cash will devalue monies and this is clear now, despite the lies being put about denying inflation-anyone buying a bag of food knows that costs are skyrocketting.
As to collusion between Homeland Security and local "law enforcement", this will be ignored under the blanket of "security"-as usual. Those needing to retain faith in George Washington and the cherry tree will do so, the rest will go to Gitmo.
_________________
" A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends."- Lenin
Patriotism is a manifestation of the Stockholm Syndrome.
"How does it become a man to behave toward this American government to-day? I answer that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it."
-Thoreau
"Information is the currency of Democracy." Jefferson
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Mike Malloy Forum Index -> Occupy Wall Street and Beyond All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group