24 November 2011

Institutional Academia, The Tea Party & Occupy Wall Street

Academia, via government, has become so aggrandized that it assumes the right to direct all human arguments. Citizens are to become the obedient students of a more knowing and politically correct class of elites. Washington's adversarial lawyer-politicians, like neo-monarchists of a new American Royal Academy, have been deployed as warring vassals to seize power and wealth with legislative, judicial, and now presidential authority.  ~ John Kelly

As is so often the case these days, common sense, average Americans have proven to be much more astute at analyzing facts and applying them than are the high priests of academia and other political hacks posing as historians. The Tea Party movement, made up of primarily middle-class Americans fed up with Washington's bloated, over-spending, over-reaching nannyism rose to prominence soon after Rick Santelli spontaneously went off on national television with a rant about the bail outs and the government's first "stimulus." Santelli's spontaneous reference to a Tea Party was the spark that lit the fuze. Now comes the left's AstroTurf response to the Tea Party (TP) - Occupy Wall Street (OWS).

Let's contrast the two movements. Both movements are angry--and rightfully so--at the current state of affairs (brought about by politicians and ruling class elites in academia) in the United States. But that is where the similarities end. The TP, generally well-behaved, working-class, flag-waving, patriotic Americans, were protesting the government. Their goals and list of grievances are supported by a majority of Americans. Yet they were condemned by most academic historians, history bloggers, leftists, and elitists who made all kinds of unsubstantiated and false charges of potential violence and racism against them. The mainstream media also coined the "tea-bagger" phrase (a crude, juvenile, gutter-level reference to a sexual act) in an attempt to disparage the movement. The media, along with their pals in academia and their masters in government, tried to paint the TP as "out of the mainstream", blah, blah, blah. Actually, they were simply projecting for it is they who are actually out of the mainstream.

The OWS crowd, in contrast, has focused most of their anger and protests on corporations and financial institutions. Moreover, as a recent article at the American Thinker noted, the OWS folks, for the most part, are the ones who seem to be motivated by "greed and hatred": "Pay my bills" and "Eat the rich." Greed and hatred - precisely what the left constantly accuses the TP of. Again, they're projecting.

Furthermore, unlike the TP, there is a mountain of substantiated evidence that the OWS is anything but mainstream, despite what a recent blogger said here in some comments. This same blogger was hyper-critical of the TP. No need to name him, he's just following the lead of other non-thinking, agenda-driven "historians."


 A recent USA Today poll showed that 64% of Americans blame the federal government for the poor economy while only 30% blame financial institutions. This is further evidence that the "mainstream" supports the goals and philosophy of the TP, not OWS.  

As I've already pointed out, the OWS is supported by the American Nazi Party and the Communist USA Party. The movement is also rife with anti-semitism and there have been numerous incidents of crime and violence including drug use and dealing, throwing Molotov cocktails, murders, rapes and increased crime rates wherever the OWS crowd happens to congregate. You can follow their ever-growing rap sheet here which includes, by the way, defecating on a police car. (Funny, no such rap sheet for the TP exists.) Ah yes, gotta love pooping on the cop cars - certainly a mainstream activity if I ever heard of one. Yet hardly a peep from academia and the TP critics. Frauds.

Now what you'll also hear from the pseudo-historians is that the TP ostensibly used bad history to support their cause and the OWS folks aren't doing that. That's nothing more than a cover for academia's hatred of the TP's politics. For example, you have some of the protestors  (including communists) claiming America's founding principles for support. We also have historians suggesting that the OWS crowd is "channeling Thomas Jefferson." And we have former Clintonista, John Podesta claiming that the "Constitution is inherently progressive" and claims the founders were "radicals." Yes, they were certainly radical - radically anti-abusive government; not radically pro big government as modern progressives are. Talk about twisting history! We have others evidently channeling the Founding Fathers and suggesting that they would "be standing on the front lines of the Occupy Wall Street movement." Perhaps the funniest perversion is the OWS folks comparing their winter vagrancy to Valley Forge. More twisting of history and getting the facts wrong by the OWS soul-mates. But isn't it quite instructive that the "objective historians" who were so critical of the Tea Party ONLY because they were using history to promote their agenda, obediently zip their lips over the OWS vagrants and their history fantasies. Once again, institutional academia's actions reveals the truth.

Tim Slagle over at BigGovernment.com further distinguishes the two movements and their base political philosophies. He very succinctly puts it all into a historical context:

This explains why there is such a vast difference between the two. The Occupy movement is not only mostly Democrat; it is also democratic. Likewise, the Tea Parties are both a republic and Republican. They are microcosms of the political philosophies they each represent. Tea parties are controlled by the rule of law and are planned in advance. They acquire proper permits, rent PA systems, Porti-Potties, and Tents. When they’re over, people pick up the trash and go home. Occupy is famous for creepy chanting after every speaker finishes a sentence and a guy relieving himself against the side of a police car.  Some of the Occupy residents have, ironically, used the facilities of McDonalds and Starbucks and even took ironic shelter from the rain in a Bank of America ATM kiosk (I’m sure the irony is lost on them, though).  They loudly proclaim that “this is what Democracy looks like!” Constitutional author James Madison would agree. In Federalist # 10 he wrote: “Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.“
Slagle concludes: "We are certainly in trouble if these people [the OWS crowd] get hold of a guillotine." Indeed.

But again, I ask: Where, pray tell, is the objective criticism from academia in regards to the OWS-related history twisting? No where. Why? They're complicit at best, supportive at worst. Not that they don't have a right to support the movement, just that they're less than honest in hiding behind their "objectivity" in doing so. Of course, they're also proven themselves wrong on most of the issues being discussed.

But the majority of the American people, in this case, happens to be right. They agree with the basic goals of the TP. Academia and the rest of the ruling class is wrong - as usual. As former Clinton pollster, Douglas Shoen recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

The Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people . . . The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies . . . it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda. [You can read the rest of Shoen's piece here.] 

Moreover, if the OWS folks want to "eat the rich", they should move the best feeding would be: The beltway and areas surrounding DC - where most federal employees work and live.

Federal employees whose compensation averages more than $126,000 and the nation’s greatest concentration of lawyers helped Washington edge out San Jose as the wealthiest U.S. metropolitan area, government data show . . . “There’s a gap that’s isolating Washington from the reality of the rest of the country . . . They just get more and more out of touch.” [Source.]

This proves that all the Marxist influenced talk about the disparity of wealth is actually being directed at the wrong crowd. Again, the TP is right, institutional academia is wrong. There is so much more that could be said about the OWS movement and its philosophical footsie playing with the extreme, out of touch ideas that are entrenched in institutional academia. Suffice it to say that the facts surrounding these two distinct movements and how academia has responded to each them--rejecting the traditional Americanism viewpoint while embracing the extremist, lawless one--are simply more evidence that institutional academia is on the wrong side of history and is not to be trusted. The masks are off and the mainstream knows it.


21 comments:

Brock Townsend said...

Guaranteed: OWS and Gunwalker were directly orchestrated from the White House, no ifs, ands or buts.

Dom said...

TIME magazine begs to differ: http://swampland.time.com/2011/10/13/why-occupy-wall-street-s-more-popular-than-the-tea-party/

And has nominated 'The 99%' for person of the year: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2098471_2098472_2098498,00.html

AND The 99% is currently leading the polls: http://consumerist.com/2011/11/the-99-lead-times-person-of-the-year-poll.html

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Time magazine? Stenographers for the regime.

"Person" of the year? Big whoop. Hitler was the choice in 1938.

Thomas said...

Let us not forget TIME chose Stalin as "man of the year" in 1940.

99%? I don't think so. Maybe 15% at most. It includes some public sector unions (mostly SEIU), radical professors and their brain-washed students. The usual American hating suspects. Even if you take their "99%" premise, this herd mentality notion would command a bigger presence. It doesn't and it never will. It is and always will be a "fringe" movement...easily defined by their numbers and anti- American behavior.
George "Soros" Schwartz should demand his money back from the OWS Serbian organizers "Otpor". It might have worked in Serbia and some Arab nations, but it will never work here in the USA. OWS is NOT an AMERICAN movement and real patriots see it as such.
Explore Otpor and the so-called "Arab Spring" and you'll meet the puppet masters pulling the strings. They can't even come up with new slogans. "Arab Spring" was a misplaced reference to the "Prague Spring"(and a bad one at that, the Czechs really wanted freedom, not something like Sharia, which is taking place now in Egypt, Libya...etc.), "Days of Rage" and "A Day of Action"....even "Occupy" itself (Think Mark Rudd & Columbia University) ALL from 1968 and mostly stolen from the old SDS. To the aging hippie bureaucrats who support OWS and find themselves in a position of power (hence no anger at government, just rantings at an abstract idea such as "Wall Street")and the retro-hippies & anarchists who form most of their shock troops, it will always be forever 1968.

Brock Townsend said...

OWS & Hitler are/were both Collectivist.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/11/sunday-reflection-americans-want-more-tea-party-or-occupy-wall-street-can?utm_source=11/20:%20Opinion%20Digest%20-%2011/20/2011&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20Opinion%20Digest
Big hat tip to Hot Air headlines for this one. Doug Schoen did a survey of 400 likely voters and found that the Tea Party, despite a long decline in popularity, is far more popular than OWS:

Overall, 31 percent of likely voters say the Tea Party movement comes closer to their views, while only 19 percent are more in line with the position of the OWS movement.

Voters are favorable to the Tea Party movement by a narrow plurality (42-39 percent) while they have an unfavorable impression of the Occupy Wall Street movement (43-35 percent).

It’s a bit confusing how they’ve worded that. Just to be clear the Tea Party is 42-39 favorable/unfavorable and OWS is 35-43. And it’s not just likability, it’s also impact:

By a margin of 44-36 percent, voters say the Tea Party movement has had a real effect on the political process. Meanwhile, half (50 percent) say that OWS has not had a real effect on the political process, while only 21 percent disagree.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

"the aging hippie bureaucrats who support OWS and find themselves in a position of power (hence no anger at government"

Perfect Thomas. As I noted in a previous post, Botox for the brain.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Thanks Brock. For "Dom" to suggest that the majority of the American people align themselves with a bunch of lice-infested anti-American revolutionaries insults my intelligence. It's in the same category as the blogger who suggested they are a "mainstream" organization.

Brock Townsend said...

The Marxist tried this one generation too soon. They might have gotten away with it later on, but there are too many of my generation who will do what it takes to stop this traitorous takeover.

Thomas said...

What the "Mainstream Media" thinks is "mainstream". Here's an irony button reset link:

http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2011/11/zuccotti-utopia-portraits-of-revolutionaries/

Michael Lynch said...

I guess I could sum up my opinion of OWS like this: some perfectly legitimate grievances, but not the slightest notion of how to properly address them.

Personally, though, I don't presume to say what "real patriots" do and do not think about OWS, since combat vets have been among those involved in the protests. I'm not going lecture somebody about patriotism when he's served two tours in Iraq, but that's just me.

--ML

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

You're missing the forest for the trees Michael. As a movement,OWS is about as anti-
American as you can get. Were it not, I doubt you'd have Nazis, Communists, and Hugo Chavez signing on as supporters.

Brock Townsend said...

Never fear as "Miley Cyrus" who I thought might have been brought up rite' by her father has released a music video,

“It’s A Liberty Walk, to praise those calling for Communism and HER money! Hey Miley, that guy on the t shirts wearing a beret wasn’t one of the Founding Fathers!" (AWD)

Pathetic.

Thomas said...

I presume a lot and I'll act on those presumptions. I'll say what I please. I'm not just entitled to that opinion. I've earned it. It's up to owner of this blog whether or not if he wants to publish it.
A real patriot knows a sham when he/she sees one too. Just like Sgt. "Fubar" Shamar Thomas, wearing his jumbled fruit salad on his BDU/fatigues/camo/blouse/tunic. Take your pick. A total staged disgrace. If you don't believe me, ask a Marine. They'll cite chapter and verse. At first I honestly thought he had PTSD. I was a sucker.
Or better yet, like the idiot in Oakland, Scott Olsen, out on Admin discharge. Go figure that one out. I don't have to.
I seriously hope these two aren't the examples of my mistaken "presumption", but if there are valid, real to life combat vets showing up for these "events" I have yet to see one, so would you please enlighten me, Mr. Lynch?

Michael Lynch said...

I'm not defending the movement. Just suggesting that it might not be a good idea to deny the patriotism of all its individual members. I mean, the fact that both Communists and Nazis can endorse OWS indicates that it's something other than a monolith. Nazis and Commies haven't been in the habit of getting along too well since that whole business back in the forties.

In any case, I predict that we'll see a decrease in OWS activity over the coming weeks, as the weather gets colder. Most of the dabblers will go home, and what you'll have left will be the more hardcore devotees. Smaller in numbers but heavier in nuttiness.

--ML

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Michael:

"Nazis and Commies haven't been in the habit of getting along too well"

Unless they have a common enemy. They'll fight over the spoils later.

Dom said...

You said "OWS is about as anti-
American as you can get"

That is a pretty bold statement. Please explain.

Brock Townsend said...

Unless they have a common enemy. They'll fight over the spoils later.

Sound familiar?:)

=========

knows a sham when he/she sees one too

Or at least checks out everything doubtful in the least.

POW Network is a good place to go and where I had a small part in busting the fake warrior/artist/Indian Churchill.
http://www.pownetwork.org/

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Dom - if, after reading the post, you still need me to explain, then you're reading the wrong blog.

Chaps said...

Michael- Communism and Nazism are two sides of the same coin, both are leftist totalitarian system. They differ only in who owns the means of production. They have, in the past, put aside differences for a common goal, i.e. dismemberment of Poland. BTW, it is a lot easier to SAY you are a vet, for political effect, than to actually serve a hitch in the armed forces,

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Thanks Chaps. A lot of professional historians seem to lack that distinction.

Brock Townsend said...

"professional" historians

That's the problem.:)