There’s just something…weird about the Occupy Wall Street stuff

What do you call someone who hates capitalism and all it supposedly stands for, but yet has all the modern technological goodies one could ask for?


Maybe just “kid”?

They “hate” capitalism, but avail themselves of all its trappings.

…like expensive cameras made by large corporations?

Corporate foodstuffs like “Cheez-Its”

Cool fedoras and backpacks, and Halloween makeup from China…

Really? The Founding Fathers “warned us about Capitalism”??

Because, like, Bono is busy making money and using it to really help people, instead of donating his time to spoiled brats?

You can find out more about who’s really behind all this, and it’s not so hard. In fact it’s all over the place. The labor movement is throwing in with the rabble, as are Socialists like Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Meanwhile, people who hate Capitalism are lining up at booths; “That’ll be $20 for the ‘Corporations Suck’ t-shirt, and yes we do take all major credit cards.”

And somehow the “real” media is clueless as to what the protesters want;

They sleep on air mattresses, use Mac laptops and play drums. They go to the bathroom at the local McDonald’s. A few times a day, they march down to Wall Street, yelling, “This is what democracy looks like!”

It all has the feel of a classic street protest with one exception: It’s unclear exactly what the demonstrators want:

Why is it “unclear”? Because they’re kids! They don’t know what they want. They want to hang out with friends, be “cool” and accepted by the crowd as they pretend to be individualistic and trendy at the same time.

Perfect fodder, in other words, for real socialists, Marxists, and Communists like Van Jones.

If they do ever somehow “crash the system” they pretend to hate, they’ll see all the stuff that used to be fun suddenly move out of reach, suddenly become unavailable.

Fun stuff…like bread

…and meat

Crossposted to Unified Patriots


About Erick Brockway

Living in Camarillo, CA, about 45 miles North of LA. I have a son, and two daughters. Working two jobs (welcome to California life), plus a (now retired) reservist in the US Navy Seabees so life is busy!
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to There’s just something…weird about the Occupy Wall Street stuff

  1. Pingback: There’s just something…weird about the Occupy Wall Street stuff

  2. Pingback: There’s just something…weird about the Occupy Wall Street stuff | Nice Messages

  3. Daniel says:

    Excessive corporate greed is destroying capitalism itself and taking society with it. Is that so hard to understand? You only have to go back three years to see how close we got.

    • It’s political greed, the greedy politicians hungry for power and control.

      Remember three years back? Yea I do. Yep, caused in part by politicians forcing and otherwise incentivizing lenders to make loans to people who had no hope of paying them back except that the housing market had to forever go up. They created the bubble, then watched it pop and blamed the lenders.

      “Excessive corporate greed” you define as what? Wanting to succeed excessively? Doesn’t the guy selling newspapers on the corner want to do that? Is he greedy if he stays longer than others to sell more papers? In doing so, is he taking food from the mouths of his competition and therefore need to be punished?

      • Daniel says:

        The 400 richest Americans have more wealth than the poorest 155,000,000 combined. I call that excessive. What do you call it?

        • I call it “success” and the realization of the American Dream. Any stats on how many of those Americans worked hard to get where they are? Any stats on how many jobs those same Americans created?

          Let’s pick just one; Bill Gates. How many people have worked for Microsoft over the years? How many families were provided for by those employed?

          So, do you think there’s some arbitrary amount where 100% of someone’s hard earned pay gets taken from them? Just how much is “enough” exactly?

          Take Steve Jobs; if he was penalized for “making too much”, would he have had the resources to re-invest his money and come up with the iPod, iPhone, or MacBook? And what about all the people HE employed? Just can’t ignore the fact that corporations (and yes a few are mismanaged or corrupt, but definitely not anywhere near most or all) provide jobs and stability for families across the globe. Compared to governments, which are collapsing under their own weight across the globe, I think the #OccupyWallSt is backing the wrong horse. Should Occupy DC and help kick the maggots out (both sides) instead.

          • Daniel says:

            Yes, as a matter of fact, there are stats.

            Half of the top ten half have inherited wealth. It was Adam Smith, the greatest and most-revered capitalist philosopher (with the possible exception of Ronald Reagan) who wrote this on inherited wealth: “A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural.”

            Jefferson, as you might know, also argued against the unfettered inheritance of wealth. He also was unrestrained in his belief that corporate power was bad for democracy: “I hope we shall . . . crush in [its] birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations.”

            Of course Jefferson was a well-known radical hothead. Certainly the more sober Alexander Hamilton will uphold the value of wealth concentrating at the top, which you remind us is the American Dream. You’re on Mr. Hamilton: “As riches increase and accumulate in few hands . . . the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard.” Aw, well, what the hell did Hamilton know about the American Dream. Or democracy.

            Well at least John Adams will recognize the American Dream when he sees it. Right? Wrong: “When economic power became concentrated in a few hands, then political power flowed to those possessors and away from the citizens, ultimately resulting in an oligarchy or tyranny.”

            But back to the notion that 400 people having as much wealth as 155 million other people is a good because everyone knows the rich create jobs. It’s in their DNA. It’s like they can’t help themselves. Put a couple of billion in their pockets and it’s jobs, jobs, jobs.

            The list shows around half of the people on the list who actually didn’t get rich because of their last names got rich through finance. I don’t question the value of investment for the economy, but one thing people who make money with money don’t do is create jobs. They don’t create wealth, they leverage it. Saith Wiki: “A hedge fund itself has no employees and no assets other than its investments.” I suppose I shouldn’t forget of all the gardeners with leaf blowers these billionaires employ. Those are jobs. America will not be outshone in the number of leaf-blowing jobs it maintains.

            Here’s what a Roosevelt had to say about all this. His objection was aesthetic: “(O)f all the forms of tyranny the least attractive and most vulgar is the tyranny of wealth.” Aside from the bit about it being tyranny, it’s just so not done. That was the Republican Roosevelt, by the way, not his socialist cousin.

            • Erick Brockway says:

              In a dump truck at the moment so can’t get too involved, but something jumps out at me; “Half of the top ten have inherited wealth”. So five? Out of your original 400? What am I missing in your point? You made mine.

              Another thing jumping out is the “leaf blower” jobs; I don’t know about where you live, but around here the gardeners are bringing in $1000-2000 a week if they have a truck and hire a crew. And yes I’m guessing most of their crews are illegal, but still the money flows downhill, doesn’t it?

              As to Adam Smith, no clue who he is but that position hardly seems “conservative”.

              Interesting to dig into when I get the chance.

              • Daniel says:

                In the list of the richest 400, half of the ten richest have inherited wealth. Not five out of 400, five out of the top ten. The point is it’s wrong to suggest that being a multi-billionaire in this country is a reward for hard work. Half the time it may be a reward for having the luck to have been carried in the right uterus.

                The point about leaf blower jobs is a hedge fund billionaire may hire a few people to blow leaves but he’s not creating jobs in a meaningful way. And that half the people on the list of 400 are involved in playing one market or another, not creating jobs.

                I’m sure you know who Adam Smith is. He was not only conservative he’s a conservative god. Every free market advocate in the world worships at his shrine. Over 200 years ago he came up with the theory of the “invisible hand”, which every libertarian believes guides markets, making government regulation not only unnecessary but unnatural.

                When you get a chance, I’ll be interested in hearing what you make of Jefferson, Hamilton and Adams preaching against the concentration of wealth at the top. Were the founders Marxists? Spoiled brats? Or naive? Or just too backward to understand what the American Dream is all about?

  4. Pingback: Cavuto and the FOX News Folks « Love it or Leave it!!

Comments are closed.