Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Rumble from the People
Inside the barricading bubbles surrounding the Wall Street plutocrats and the Washington oligarchs who service them, there must be worry. After three years of disclosed “lying, cheating and stealing” as one prosecutor put it, with nary a visible stir from the masses, suddenly the barricades are beginning to quiver.
Could this “Occupy Wall Street” challenge in New York City that is spreading to hundreds of communities from Prescott, Arizona to Hartford, Connecticut, be the real thing they have dreaded? Could this be the revolt of the multitudes, the “reserve army of the unemployed?”
After three years of disclosed “lying, cheating and stealing” as one prosecutor put it, with nary a visible stir from the masses, suddenly the barricades are beginning to quiver. (photo: EJP Photo)
It is remarkable what a little more than 100,000 Americans, showing up and staying awhile have done in three weeks.
They’re rattling the corporate supremacists. They have become a mass media story with columnists, editorials and cartoonists grinding out the ever increasing commentary.
There is fascination and curiosity about people who call themselves “The 99 percent!” People are organizing their little societies and 24/7 necessities - food, first aid, shelter, legal advice, music, posters - all without leaders.
The demonstrators are deliberately nonviolent but are angry over deep inequities and entrenched greed and power that are impoverishing and harming millions in need, including hungry children and those without health care. The protesters are keeping the pundits and pontificators guessing about their “real agenda.”
Perfect, so far! Keep expanding the numbers of Americans who show up all over, who stay, who discover each other’s talents and the emerging power of the powerless. Go to 300,000, then 800,000, then 2 million and onward. There are 25 million Americans who want work but cannot get it to pay their rent, their debts, their mortgages and their multiplying student loans. While big corporate profits, bosses’ bonuses and tax loopholes for the wealthy proliferate.
Sparked by an urging from the culture-jamming ADBUSTERS magazine from Vancouver, Canada in July, the Occupy Wall Street effort gets more remarkable by the day. It carries the moral outrage and the moral authority of the vast majority of Americans who are excluded, disrespected, defrauded, unrepresented, underpaid and unemployed. The American dream has turned into a nightmare. They are taught to trust as school children the very public and business institutions that have betrayed them, looted or drained their pensions, their tax dollars and their common properties.
Those protesters at the renamed Liberty Park in New York are going into the nearby stores, with other consumers, and paying nearly 9 percent sales tax on their purchases. While the Wall Streeters are buying trillions of derivatives and stocks without paying a penny in sales tax. Taxing Wall Street speculators could produce hundreds of billions of overdue dollars a year from just a ½ percent sales tax on financial speculation.
The Wall Street “occupiers” and their offspring have good picks for their demonstrations. In Washington, D.C. they chose the insidious corporatists at the Chamber of Commerce building opposite the White House. They went before the building that houses part of the military-industrial complex devouring our public budget that President Eisenhower warned us about in his remarkable farewell address in January 1961. (Read it here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm)
It will be only a short time before these resisters point to these multinational corporations’ abandonment of America by shipping jobs and industries to dictatorial regimes abroad that repress their 80 cents an hour workers.
Reporters write with some surprise about this new human energy. Look at all the bystanders in suits or uniforms nodding in support at the posters, the signs and the chants. Washington Post columnist, Patula Dvorak was astonished and observed:
“Every Washingtonian I talked to who stepped out to watch the action in Freedom Plaza - from the security guards to the suits - felt a solidarity with the message.
“The banks. The banks are taking all of us for a ride,” one security guard told me. “And they’re in the right place now, because Congress is behind that.”
Though the Occupy surge is going in the right direction - flipping our corporate government from our masters to our servants - no one knows how far it will go, whether it will retain its burgeoning energy and what the backlash will be from the ruling power structures.
Back in October 2008, when Wall Street was crashing on American investors, workers and taxpayers -- in that order -- our independent presidential campaign held a major rally at Wall Street.
Addressing the New York Stock Exchange, with our participators and their signs, I proposed specific recommendations for law enforcement, a financial transaction tax and accountability for those handling “other peoples’ money.” Few listened.
Now the powers-that-be are starting to listen, because instead of a one day event, they see day-after-day aroused citizens rallying back home and before the perpetrators of the predatory abuses.
When the corporate and political bosses hear the rising roar from the people, they start sweating. Now is time to turn up the heat without pausing.
Visit http://occupywallst.org/ for more information on how to join the movement.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


118 Comments so far
Show All"Now is time to turn up the heat without pausing."
AMEN
getmoneyout.com
That line caught my eye too. It's not only time to turn up the heat, it's time to give them a preview of the Hell they will inherit if the rules of karma are true.
Burn baby burn!!!
Truthseeker58
"Now is time to turn up the heat without pausing."
Another AMEN and a Prayer for strength to do what we can wherever we can.
The best thing Ralph Nader has said in years!
I agree. I'm inclined to like Nader anyhow, but now it's extremely touching to see the respect Nader pays to the OWS movement. The old hand has no pointers or suggestions for these kids, only encouragement and kudos for their leaderless style. Like Naomi Klein, Ralph gets it!
In the inverted pedagogy of genuine revolutions, the young become teachers of the old. What an inspiration to see a graybeard like Nader who is open to that lesson.
Nader strikes me as a realist who had probably pretty much given up on anything like this ever happening.
You have to take into account where he is coming from.
At times over the years, he must really have felt like he was talking to a brick wall when he pointed out ad nauseam that our government and both parties were being taken over by the corporations.
And he has really been treated like crap by pretty much everyone.
It's an absolute disgrace that Nader -- who has done so much for "ordinary" people in this country (many of whom owe their very lives to the legislation resulting from his "Unsafe at Any Speed") -- has been treated as he has. And that the Democrats have treated him with such contempt (even blaming him for Gore's loss -- which Gore has only himself to blame for) is extra shameful.
I think Nader must be gratified to see that someone finally gets it and that he is no longer alone.
.
How true, Jimbojangles. Well stated. Ralph Nader has been saying this for years, to no avail, until now. He is no longer alone.
Bill in Dubuque
I agree, Jimbojangles. I had the honor to meet him once. It was like meeting a combination Confucius, Cicero, George Mason at the height of the anti-federalist debates and Eleanor Roosevelt all rolled into one. Men like him come along exceedingly rarely in human history.
Love you, Ralph, but the OWS crowds know more about challenging the Dim Party and its president than you do.
corvo, your comment may turn out to be quite ...... wrong.
Ralph Nader has been challenging the status quo elite for as long as I can remember, at least 50 years. Nader's Raiders filed suit against them (sometimes winning!), hounded them, exposed them. Nader did everything he could to rally Americans to rise up against the rising corporate power structure, while the 99% remained willfully ignorant, easily manipulated, and quite frankly un-interested in critical thinking and independence.
You can show the horses where the water is but you can't make them drink it. Up until this movement, the 99% was quite happy with an American idol. Take Barack Obama's base, for example - pure idol worship, pure un-critical in-crowd group-think. So, time will tell whether those who were so easily duped yesterday are somehow immune now and that just because OWS is approaching its second month, there's no turning back. As I have said time and time again: the empire's psyops technicians are - historically, certifiably - way ahead of us. This isn't an attempt to rain on anyone's parade. I'm taking part in OWS, too, and am truly excited. Still, I know full well the power of professional mind benders, co-opters of movements, and the lure of a refreshing glass of cool, sweet kool-aid. To take a phrase from the late author, Ken Kesey: Watch Out!
This is all quite true. I was, of course, referring to his proposed call for non-candidate primary challenges in the upcoming Dim primaries.
Good to see your clarification. I agree, that particular proposal is pretty lame.
buh bye.
Yes he has & yes he did. I helped campaign for him in 2008 Presidential election.
He deserves the respect of everyone @ OW. He warned us, fought for our safety and much to many things to list them all but here's a few
1) OSHA
2)Clean Air Act
3)Clean Water Act
4) Safe Drinking Water Act
5)Safe Mining Act
6) seat belts & air bags in cars
There are hundreds at least: He could have been rich but did everything for our betterment, rights & safety- to say the least. Everything he warned us about was right & true. He is a hero to me.
Corvo, please, don't be stupid.
I assume that most OWS posters are ALSO less likely to fantasize about salvation in the form of a coterie of altruistic billionaires than Ralph Nader is.
The guy has done more good for this country than all of us put together several hundred times over. He is not, however, infallible.
"The guy has done more good for this country than all of us put together"--corvo
really?
when i latch my
one-size-fits-all
six foot, 210 lb guy
i get all choked up
thanks ralph!
Hi Corvo ...
.
I believe Nader's appeal for noble altrustic billionaires to come save us was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek ironic jest.
.
Infallible he is not ... but then again, I never heard anyone claim that he was.
Posted by corvo: "Love you, Ralph"
Nuff said...
Standing behind you while delivering your remarks to the thousands in Freedom Plaza, two members of the event's steering committee (and its driving force) watched with satisfaction, beaming broadly, as you articulated beautifully... scolding corporate America while cautioning the "movement" against being co-opted. Months of hard work and careful planning, along with the many hands who pitched in... Thanks for coming, Ralph. Hurry back.
We dream of having someone of his caliber come speak at our Occupy movement, but it's still comparatively small.
Thanks to Ralph. You can't count the number of times that he's stood up to all the crap that this country has become and is foisting on the world. Often alone. And he organized numerous groups that continue. Though I disagree with his politics as being too entrepeneurial-capitalist oriented, and though I am fully aware that he took part in a union bust in his own shop, in the end Ralph Nader is always there and reaching for what is right and just. He can never be thanked or credited enough.
Thanks Ralph.
SOLIDARITY
Another aspect of OWS must be noted: It's a direct refutation of Nader and others's abysmal letter calling for Obama to be sort-of challenged during the Democrat Party Primary and nominating process and thus somehow pushed leftward--a direction he's never before taken in his political career. Instead, Nader and the other signees ought to select a city and join its OWS offshoot for the duration as many of those signees have assets that would rank them in the 1%.
Good point. What an embarrassment that damn thing was! Maybe we can let it slide if Nader and the others just forget about it. I already have.
Ralph Nader, Cornel West, and others went with the correct assumption that during presidential elections people are glued to their tv sets and paying more attention to politics than at any other time. Their thinking was that, unless challenged, there would be no conversation about what is - and has been for decades - taking place in our country. The only voices would be Obama's and some loony Republican, both pretending - and getting paid handsomely for it! - to be in opposition. Nader, et al wanted to open up a conversation, for Kris sakes! It's not about winning, it's about educating the seemingly un-educable masses who watch TV - get it? I think it was a fine idea. Problem is, as far as I know, they had no luck recruiting a single Dimocrat to challenge BO, the Chosen One.
They're also assuming, falsely, that Oblahblah will debate noncandidates, and that even if he did, there would be media coverage.
"Their thinking was that, unless challenged, there would be no conversation about what is - and has been for decades - taking place in our country."
The massive problem with this line of thinking is that someone had already mounted a challenge, had initiated that somewhat onesided conversation--Ron Paul. To many, particularly here, he is an enigma. There may be an (R) attached to his name, but listen to his speeches, interviews and how his positions are so opposite from his antagonists during debates, and it becomes clear he is Left of everyone, which easily includes Obama, who is no better than Romney. And since he's vowed to end the wars, rollback the overseas Empire of Bases, attack the Money Power via close regulation of the Fed and Financial System, and has stated Obama ought to be impeached ought to make him a hero, until he destroys his Libertarian credentials by denying women their right to control their own body along with several other enigmatic policy positions. At some point, people must confront the reality that Paul is the ONLY electible Peace Candidate.
Hey, if you want more war and continuation of the status quo, vote for Obama, or don't vote at all. The logic of OWS is to draw attention to the tyranny of the Money Power, and only one candidate speaks out against it--Paul, In a recent speech, Paul vowed to use the Golden Rule to guide his foreign and domestic policy goals; so, given that ennunciation, it's rather difficult to paint him as anti-people/pro-corporation. As I said, Paul's an enigma, but far more civil than Obama, the proven Barbarian.
Ron Paul's idea of "close regulation of the Fed and financial system" is closer to Ayn Rand's than any other current pres. candidate. He basically believes that the elimination of the Fed, all anti-poverty welfare and corporate welfare, public education and the entire cabinet level regulatory agency apparatus will miraculously solve everything by restoring the mythical "free market."
He endorses "free trade" but prefers it directly between government and corporate players instead of via the secretive WTO. That still won't do jack to halt offshoring of middle-class and, increasingly, upper-middle-class jobs from the U.S. along with their tax revenue, GDP and domestic consumer demand.
If Ron had his way, you'd see how much more barbaric this country would be very rapidly. Be careful what you wish for.
None of the above candidates are worth squat. We've got to concentrate on building an entirely new system from the Occupy Together movement out and grit our teeth until we can replace the globalized neo-liberal "corporate personhood" tri-partisan fascist State as fast as possible by bringing enough people into the movement to do so.
The spirit of Ron Paul and Libertarianism is a pure (even absurd) distillation of individualism - every man for himself alone - which is tearing the world apart.
The spirit of OWS is collectivism, the diametric opposite of Ron Paul's Libertarian poison.
BAM!
vanity and greed vs selfless harmony
Excuse me, but Paul just made the case for a form of Christian communalism that resides at the heart of the Golden Rule ideal, thus my calling him an enigma. You see, people like yourself go and make comments without having done any prior due diligence, and thus disgrace yourselves when it's clear from the body of your commentary that you would never do that if the subject were different, as with Global Warming. When it comes to Paul, everyone kneejerks like Rush Limbaugh, and that's really too bad as it shows similar rigidity as portrayed by Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc. I promise it won't hurt to read the transcript at the following link, http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-10-08/ron-pauls-speech-at-the-value-voters-summit/
You promised it wouldn't hurt. I'll never rely on your assurances again! Paul's theocratically-infused spinoff of Libertarianism, from the exquisitely painful transcript you link, is even more repellent than the garden variety. "Christian communalism" my ass.
"The goal of a free society, from my viewpoint, is to seek virtue and excellence. And only we as individuals can do that. When we turn this over to the government, when we seek our king and depend on our king, it can only be done at the sacrifice of liberty."
The Libertarian equation is that to pursue collective action, to structure a society on concepts of fairness or general welfare, is to "seek our king." Public school, public health care, and public roads represent tyranny to Libertarian nutcases like Ron Paul. Only rich people have a right to education, health, or travel. That's the "liberty" in "Libertarianism" - the liberty of oligarchs to own everything in sight.
Who do you think you're kidding with this "enigma" stuff? Are you saying Ron Paul is an unusual Libertarian? Cosmetically, it might be a novelty to wrap Libertarianism is Christian garments, but it's the same virtue-of-selfishness insanity underneath the robe, no question about it. What is it about Paul's theocratic opportunism that you find enigmatic?
Gosh, did you ever get that wrong. Paul is saying we must NOT seek a king, that reliance on the King is at the root of our failing. Since you got what he said SO wrong, the remainder of your commentary is also false. I post what you failed to comprehend:
"Unfortunately, our families have been under attack. And I have a few ideas about why that has occurred and what we might do about it. But the value of the family was something that was early described in the Bible. And there’s one reference to the family that I thought was very important. That was in Samuel, 1 Samuel, chapter eight. And this is when the people, not the elders, came to Samuel when he was very old and they knew he would be passing on, so the people came and said to Samuel, what we need is a king. We need a king to take care of us. We want to be safe and secure.
"And Samuel, although he knew he wasn’t going to be around long, he advised the people of Israel not to accept the king, because the king, he warned, would not be generous. He would undermine their liberties. There would be more wars. There would be more taxes. And besides, accepting the notion of a king would reject the notion that, up until that time, since they had left Egypt, their true king was their God and the guidance from their God.
But the governing body was the family. And they did not have kings, but they had judges. And that’s what Samuel was. But this was the time there was a shift away from the judges and the family into a king. ****And I think a lot of that has happened to us in this country. We have too often relied on our king in Washington, and we have to change that.**** (Cheers, applause.)
You miss the point. A king will take over whether or not he is "accepted" - unless he is effectively opposed by collective action. Paul's argument opposes tyranny on the surface, while facilitating tyranny in substance - for if the collective is suppressed, the ascendance of tyranny is practically guaranteed.
Paul said "The goal of a free society... is to seek virtue and excellence. And only we as individuals can do that." Paul's notion is that if we seek virtue and excellence through collective (rather than individual) means, we are seeking a king, we are investing in tyranny.
The leaderless OWS movement is not vulnerable to this fatuous notion, though it plays well with fundamentalist lunkheads. (Cheers, applause.)
"if the collective is suppressed, the ascendance of tyranny is practically guaranteed."
Exactly. Paul's general outlook is fascist. The idea of seeking virtue and excellence was fundamental to Nazi ideology. Nazis assumed virtue and excellence could only be found among the Aryan race. The Riefenstahl film "Triumph of the Will" gives a powerful sense of this.
"Gosh, did you ever get that wrong. Paul is saying we must NOT seek a king, that reliance on the King is at the root of our failing. Since you got what he said SO wrong, the remainder of your commentary is also false. I post what you failed to comprehend."
Aleph quoted Paul thusly:
When we turn this over to the government, when we seek our king and depend on our king, it can only be done at the sacrifice of liberty."
He then paraphrased this idea:
"The Libertarian equation is that to pursue collective action, to structure a society on concepts of fairness or general welfare, is to "seek our king." "
That means Paul is saying we must not seek a king. Ergo, Aleph understands what you're saying just fine.
Paul is equating the federal gov't with a king, which is nonsense. He wants to abolish almost all fed gov't activity in favor of individual liberties, which is also nonsense. Maybe the "enigma" of Paul is whether he really believes this shit. But in the absence of gov't safeguards in maintaining a civil society (or as much of that as we have left), the little guy, the individual, liberties and all, would be swallowed up by the corporate juggernaut, or whatever form of force majeure took its place.
The only difference between Paul and Reagan is that Raygun was a war mongerer.
"The only difference between Paul and Reagan is that Raygun was a war mongerer."
Ron Paul voted in favor of the Afghanistan AUMF. The difference isn't as great as one might think.
So even the Paul lovers' contentions about him being anti-war are lies. What does he have going for him then? Zilch.
All of this Ron Paul stuff is really another form of divide and conquer: try to get progressives on the Paul bandwagon. Some will, but many self identified progressive/liberals will not. We must be wary of attempts to dilute the left progressive movement - it's been done many times before. Perhaps we're finally getting wise to this.
Tell me again - why do Americans only have two choices to vote for in a presidential election? In Canada, we have a 3rd party - NDP, to the left of the Liberal Party (corporate sell-outs like your Democrats) which has moved to the far right over the past decade or two.
In theory, Canadians could turn up the heat on the corporatocracy a lot quicker than Americans by electing a NDP government.
Yeah, I know how unresponsive most governments are to what average citizens want but since the NDP has never formed a federal government in Canada - one does not really know what they would be like.
I was shocked my first presidential election at the number of candidates I had never heard of. I've since made it a point to know something about every candidate on the ballot, and there is always one that represents my views almost entirely (often Green, sometimes Ralph). N.B. I did this before the internet, now there is absolutely no excuse not to. To answer your question: 1) because we know nothing about the other candidates, but rather are told by the media that a vote for any "third" party is a wasted vote and 2) Americans are slow to figure out that if everyone were an informed voter and voted for the best candidate instead of the lesser of two evils, the system would work a lot better.
RickOshea aks: "Tell me again - why do Americans only have two choices to vote for in a presidential election?"
Duh. Cause it's cheaper to run two puppets than three.
;-)
Or maybe it's that Geppetto (Alan Greenspan) only has two hands (and sometimes only one, when he's diddling himself to an old photo of Ayn Rand)
Yes, yes, yes, and long overdue : )
★ - ♥ - ☆ We are an army of consumer/ citizen advocates★ - ♥ - ☆ We are no longer Dicksonian afraid to ask for "more"-- Hero-4-PEACE
hey! i think of you as a hero, hero-4-☮, but i'm not born to just to consume stuff. i seek sustainability, not "more"
OWS is not an example of citizens becoming active in politics, it's an outpouring of disgust for the political system. A genuine rebellion.
The "Tea Party" is not an example of citizens becoming active in politics, it's a ruse cooked up by the Kock brothers and their Focks News whores. A refuge for xenophobic suckers.
The contrast could not be more vivid.
Please remember, Obama's candidacy was also touted as a rebellion of sorts. Just reminding people to be very careful, to dig in our heels and refuse to back down! Ralph Nader has always encouraged us to challenge the power structures, to make demands and mean it, and follow through. In fact, it was his most prominent message: "Why do you not make demands, why do you simply jump on a band wagon before you know where it's headed and who is driving it?" (essentially)
Great article today, Ralph! Onward!
Obama's candidacy was "touted" as a rebellion of sorts. OWS was "touted" as a miserable failure, a gaggle of hippies, and a headless chicken. Big difference between being touted and being.
What tangible differences to the running of the country and economy have the OWS made?
Depends on how long it continues.