From the Daily Paul, a blast from the past:

“Email this Dolt Matt Taibbi and tell him what for matt.taibbi@rollingstone.com

This guy is making a living by marginalizing our movement and claiming every one of us are racists. Hes completely misinformed and some establishment shill. He completely dogs Rand Paul in one column and in his latest he claims the tea party is full of hypocrites. (I dont consider myself “tea party” but every one of us on this forum was around during the tea party fund raising record) and he hates and demonizes the movement that spawned as a result. I am sick of this clown. Feel free to give him what for or if you’re so inclined (I cant see why) give him praise. I cant stand his columns myself and want as much email headed his way as possible to hopefully educate and perhaps shut him up.”

Comment:

Yep.  There speaks authentic history. The Tea-Party, of course, began much much before 2010. In 2007. And the MSM did its best to quash it until by 2008 things boiled over with the bail-outs.  Matt was on the case by then. His buddies followed. By 2009, the story was wrested from the Tea-Party which was painted as a Koch-snorting bunch of middle-class racists. Rolling Stone’s circulation shot up. The MSM were once again “truth-tellers” and the lefty activists, instead of having to listen to economics from what they considered their inferiors, got back their more familiar role of mandarins for the yokels.

Yawn. All attempts to change this history must be relegated to the dustbin of history along with the flat earth society and the platypus.

“Human rights” is the mantra behind the civil society network that constitutes groups like George Soros’ Open Society Institute. Human rights, however,  is a very open-ended term that, without checks and balances, can easily turn into an excuse for endless war and interventions into other countries’ national sovereignty – this is what “liberventionism” is. And liberventionism is just what George Soros promotes.

Most of these civil societies groups, thus, act as simply legitimizers of imperial/state violence, first providing the human rights justification for intervention by compiling dossiers of “rights violations”; then by surveilling the target and destabilizing it; next, by funding insurgencies or revolutionary movements, thus creating the pretext for ongoing international interference and mediagenic confrontations; then, by covert assistance to the war, including propagation of disinformation, by providing fora for the distribution of pysops material as well as by assisting in the cover up of real atrocities committed by their parent country; then, the civil society group, under the guise of aid, allows the aggressor to continue to monitor the post-war situation and create the most advantageous situation for the aggressor’s cronies, both strategically and economically, by policing and by looting; finally, these outfits assist in pursuing rights litigation against the target nations, creating a convenient justification for the impoverishment of any remaining centers of local power or autonomy, and not unintentionally, setting up the region for more Balkanization and lucrative interventions in the future.

Thus one commenter writes in “Why Human Rights are Wrong”:

“A human right is an ethical construction used to justify a harmful act against another person, by claiming that undergoing the harmful act is an absolute moral entitlement, and that accordingly the harmful action can not be judged morally wrong. For instance, a man who wants to rape a woman would say, that women have a ‘right to sex’, and that his action was beyond moral judgment, because in raping the woman he was respecting a universal right. Rights are not intended to improve the conditions of the person who gets the rights, but to legitimise the actions of the person who declares them. In practice, it is not individuals but states which declare rights, and they are used to justify state policy………It is obvious, even from this summary, that the logic of rights interferes with the principle of moral autonomy.

Formally, what happens when a right is declared? The standard answer is: it creates a moral duty to respect it. But that is not all that happens. A right, once its existence is recognised, effectively divides all possible human actions into three categories: actions which respect that right, violations of the right, and actions which are neutral with respect to that right. Declaring a right is a declaration of a desired course of action, not necessarily action by the holders of the right. Implicitly, the declaration of a right promotes and legitimises actions to enforce that right. The ‘right not to be tortured’ is at first sight a classic claim right of torture victims. It appears to create en entitlement for the victim, the entitlement that the torture stops. But the present political reality is that it is interpreted as an entitlement to prevent torture. This entitlement is claimed to legitimise a wide variety of acts, usually hostile acts by one state against another state. In other words, although the ‘right not to be tortured’ appears to be a concession by states to individuals, in reality it is a power claim by states. It is the creation of an entitlement to make war and impose sanctions. The formal declaration may say “right not to be tortured”, but the Pentagon reads this as ‘”right to bomb torturers” – including a right to cause collateral damage.”

Update:

And to confirm my take,  take a look at the team that’s going to “reform the Fed”: Bernie Sanders, Joseph Stiglitz,  William Black, Dean Baker,  etc. and then, get this, Jeffrey Sachs.  Democrat “homies,” in other words.

ORIGINAL POST

I am tired of the comparisons of OWS to the Tea Party.

The Tea-Party was an original and genuinely intellectual movement (yes, the initial Tea Party was driven by ideas) that essentially came out of the conservative Christian old right. It ideological core came out of the old John Birch Society, the Patriot movement, home-schoolers and such like.

Occupy Wall Street, on the other hand,  comes out of the same old media elites, think-tanks, foundation activists and Hollywood-MSM complex that rejected and smeared the Tea Party in the most vicious way, co-opted whatever part of the message it could put to its own use, and, starting from 2008, has, with its vast global network of civil society activists and its unparalleled media clout, come up with its own movement, one that will offer nothing more than what the same elites who run foundation activism, want.

The real template for Occupy Wall Street is not the Tea Party, but “Yes We Can”, the “grass-roots” movement that elected another “dark knight”, Obama…and that has continued to be used in the civil society and human rights community, world wide.

Since I resumed blogging (mainly, to help figure out what OWS was all about), I’ve been suspicious of OWS. Granted, dissecting the media’s seemingly endless capacity for subverting, distorting, and plain lying, is an occupation that tends toward cynicism, and granted that our own experience of  activism, right and left, has left us disenchanted. Even so, the evidence of stage management and planning seems to leap out at one.

Take this report on OWS posted at Forbes this morning (October 19) that tells us that, just by happenstance, of course, the third and final episode of Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy, “Dark Knight Rising” is set to film in Manhattan, New York in two weeks time, thus bringing OWS into the film as backdrop.  I will for now, just point out that “Knight” and “Night” are homophones, and both convey messages that the mainstream media would like to impress on our collective consciousness”

Night (darkness, fear, the abyss, barbarism, collapse)

and

Knight (savior, messiah, nobility,  rescue, war, battle).

I  will also point out that the plot of the movie centers around Batman’s fight against the criminal underground of the city of Gotham, and one of the messages of the movie (I got this only from a cursory glance of reviews) is that the citizens “need” their dark knight. There is just too much other symbolism being evoked around this movement for me to accept it at face value.

Libertarians and Tea-Partiers can join all day long, but I doubt they will be the leading voices when action is taken, and they will simply serve as props to legitimize the movement, confuse people as to what libertarianism is, fool the naive into thinking that “End the Fed” is the end of tyranny rather than just the end of one phase of it – the end of the Fed as a semi-private institution and its nationalization.

“Perhaps they will be portrayed as citizens demanding the truth about Harvey Dent’s actions in the previous movie The Dark Knight (Batman, of course, famously took the blame for Dent’s crimes in that film, and there’s a lot of speculation that the secret about Harvey Dent will be revealed to Gotham in the new film).

Then again, maybe there’s just some unspecified background protest going on at City Hall or elsewhere in Gotham City, and the protests won’t factor into the main plot at all. That’s doubtful, though, since we know the film involves the city being overrun with chaos and massive battles taking place all around town. So it would seem to make sense that the protests will be related to the storyline, in some fashion or another.

Warner Bros. has tried to keep a tight lid on the filming for The Dark Knight Rises, but they haven’t seemed able to stop a constant flow of on-set photos and amateur videotaping of location shoots from hitting the Internet. Meaning it’s likely that if the Occupy Wall Street protesters are indeed part of the movie’s shooting schedule, we’ll find out just as soon as the filming begins.”

George Soros is a front, allegedly, for the extraordinarily powerful Rothschild banking family and its British circle (Club of Isles), which occupy the apex of the New World Order of transnational corporations and finance.The NWO has its right wing and its left, but, as someone has written, it takes two wings for this bird to fly.

Soros’ story has multiple ties to the dirty intersection of drugs, arms-trading and economic warfare. It links to figures high in the British establishment, like Margaret Thatcher and James Goldsmith; to the American establishment in the form of Henry Kissinger; to shady deal makers like Marc Rich, Rafi Eytan, and Shaul Eisenberg; to crony capitalist ideologues like Jeffrey Sachs; to corrupt bureaucrats like Larry Summers and Stanley Fish; and to criminal enterprises like the  Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).

It’s a story of ruined economies, devastated populations, plundered treasuries, and black secrets.

Part I can (and should) be read here.

The Secret Financial Network Behind George Soros:

[Part II of a long and very detailed description of the financial networks of George Soros, by Executive Intelligence Review writer Bill Engdahl, well-known anti-NWO activist]

“But what has never been identified in a single major Western press investigation, was that the Rothschild group was at the heart of the vast illegal web of BCCI. The key figure was Dr. Alfred Hartmann, the managing director of the BCCI Swiss subsidiary, Banque de Commerce et de Placement SA; at the same time, he ran the Zurich Rothschild Bank AG, and sat in London as a member of the board of N.M. Rothschild and Sons, Hartmann was also a business partner of Helmut Raiser, friend of de Picciotto, and linked to Nordex.

Hartmann was also chairman of the Swiss affiliate of the Italian BNL bank, which was implicated in the Bush administration illegal transfers to Iraq prior to the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The Atlanta branch of BNL, with the knowledge of George Bush when he was vice president, conduited funds to Helmut Raiser’s Zug, Switzerland company, Consen, for development of the Condor II missile program by Iraq, Egypt, and Argentina, during the Iran-Iraq War. Hartmann was vice-chairman of another secretive private Geneva bank, the Bank of NY-Inter-Maritime Bank, a bank whose chairman, Bruce Rappaport, was one of the illegal financial conduits for Col. Oliver North’s Contra drugs-for-weapons network during the late 1980. North also used the BCCI as one of his preferred banks to hide his illegal funds.

Rich, Reichmann, and Soros’s Israeli links

According to reports of former U.S. State Department intelligence officers familiar with the Soros case, Soros’s Quantum Fund amassed a war chest of well over $10 billion, with the help of a powerful group of “silent” investors who let Soros deploy the capital to demolish European monetary stability in September 1992.

Among Soros’s silent investors, these sources say, are the fugitive metals and oil trader Marc Rich, based in Zug, Switzerland; and Shaul Eisenberg, a decades-long member of Israeli Mossad intelligence, who functions as a major arms merchant throughout Asia and the Near East. Eisenberg was recently banned from doing business in Uzbekistan, where he had been accused by the government of massive fraud and corruption. A third Soros partner is Israel’s “Dirty Rafi” Eytan, who served in London previously as Mossad liaison to British intelligence.

Rich was one of the most active western traders in oil, aluminum, and other commodities in the Soviet Union and Russia between 1989 and 1993. This, not coincidentally, is just the period when Grigori Luchansky’s Nordex Group became a multibillion-dollar company selling Russian oil, aluminum, and other commodities.

Canadian real estate entrepreneur Paul Reichmann, formerly of Olympia and York notoriety, a Hungarian-born Jew like Soros, is a business partner in Soros’s Quantum Realty, a $525-million real estate investment fund.

The Reichmann tie links Soros as well with Henry Kissinger and former Tory Foreign Minister Lord Carrington (who is also a member of Kissinger Associates, Inc. of New York). Reichmann sits with both Kissinger and Carrington on the board of the influential British-Canadian publishing group, Hollinger, Inc. Hollinger owns a large number of newspapers in Canada and the United States, the London Daily Telegraph, and the largest English-language daily in Israel, the Jerusalem Post. Hollinger has been attacking President Clinton and the Middle East peace process ever since Clinton’s election in November 1992.

Soros and geopolitics

Soros is little more than one of several significant vehicles for economic and financial warfare by the Club of the Isles faction. Because his affiliations to these interests have not previously been spotlighted, he serves extremely useful functions for the oligarchy, as in 1992 and 1993, when he launched his attack on the European Rate Mechanism.

Although Soros’s speculation played a role in finally taking the British pound out of the ERM currency group entirely, it would be a mistake to view that action as “anti-British.” Soros went for the first time to London, where he studied under Karl Popper and Friedrich von Hayek at the London School of Economics.

Soros’s business ties to Sir James Goldsmith and Lord Rothschild place him in the inner circles of the Thatcher wing of the British establishment. By helping the “anti-Europe” Thatcherites pull Britain out of the ERM in September 1992 (and making more than $1 billion in the process at British taxpayer expense), Soros helped the long-term goal of the Thatcherites in weakening continental Europe’s economic stability. Since 1904 , it has been British geopolitical strategy to prevent by all means any successful economic linkage between western continental European economies, especially that of Germany, with Russia and the countries of eastern Europe.

Soros’s personal outlook is consonant with that of the Thatcher wing of the Tory Party, those who three years ago launched the “Germany, the Fourth Reich” hate campaign against unified Germany, comparing Chancellor Helmut Kohl with Adolf Hitler. Soros is personally extremely anti-German. In his 191 autobiography, Underwriting Democracy, Soros warned that a reunited Germany would “upset the balance of Europe …. It is easy to see how the interwar scenario could be replayed. A united Germany becomes the strongest economic power and develops Eastern Europe as its Lebensraum … a potent witches’ brew.” Soros’s recent public attacks on the German economy and the deutsche mark are fundamentally motivated by this geopolitical view.

Soros is quite close to the circles of George Bush in the U.S. intelligence community and finance. His principal bank custodian, and reputed major lender in the 1992 assault on Europe’s ERM, is Citicorp NA, the nation’s largest bank. Citicorp is more than a lending institution; it is a core part of the American liberal establishment. In 1989, as it became clear that German unification was a real possibility, a senior official at Citicorp, a former adviser to Michael Dukakis’s Presidential campaign, told a European business associate that “German unity will be a disaster for our interests; we must take measures to ensure a sharp D-Mark collapse on the order of 30%, so that she will not have the capability to reconstruct East Germany into the economic engine of a new Europe.”

While Soros was calling on world investors to pull down the deutsche mark in 1993, he had been making a strong play in the French media, since late 1992, to portray himself as a “friend of French interests.” Soros is reported to be close to senior figures of the French establishment, the Treasury, and in particular, Bank of France head Jean-Claude Trichet. In effect, Soros is echoing the old Entente Cordiale alliance against Germany, which helped precipitate World War 1.

Soros admits that he survived in Nazi Hungary during the war, as a Jew, by adopting what he calls a double personality. “I have lived with a double personality practically all my life,” Soros recently stated. “It started at age fourteen in Hungary, when I assumed a false identity in order to escape persecution as a Jew.” Soros admitted in a radio interview that his father gave him Nazi credentials in Hungary during the war, and he looted wealthy Jewish estates. Further research showed that this operation was probably run by the SS.

Soros did not leave the country until two years after the war. Though he and his friends in the media are quick to attack any policy opponent of Soros, especially in eastern Europe, as being “anti-Semitic,” Soros’s Jewish identity apparently has only utilitarian value for him, rather than providing moral foundations. In short, the young Soros was a cynical, ambitious person, the ideal recruit for the British postwar intelligence network.

Soros savages eastern Europe

Soros has established no fewer than 19 “charitable” foundations across eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. He has sponsored “peace” concerts in former Yugoslavia with such performers as Joan Baez. He is helping send young east Europeans to Oxford University. A model citizen, is the image he broadcasts.

The reality is something else. Soros has been personally responsible for introducing shock therapy into the emerging economies of eastern Europe since 1989. He has deliberately fostered on fragile new governments in the east the most draconian economic madness, policies which have allowed Soros and his financial predator friends, such as Marc Rich and Shaul Eisenberg, to loot the resources of large parts of eastern Europe at dirt-cheap prices. Here are illustrative case histories of Soros’s eastern “charity”:

Poland: In late 1989, Soros organized a secret meeting between the “reform” communist government of Prime Minister Mieczyslaw Rakowski and the leaders of the then-illegal Solidarnosc trade union organization. According to well-informed Polish sources, at that 1989 meeting, Soros unveiled his “plan” for Poland: The communists must let Solidarnosc take over the government, so as to gain the confidence of the population. Then, said Soros, the state must act to bankrupt its own industrial and agricultural enterprises, using astronomical interest rates, withholding state credits, and burdening firms with unpayable debt. Once thie were done, Soros promised that he would encourage his wealthy international business friends to come into Poland, as prospective buyers of the privatized state enterprises. A recent example of this privatization plan is the case of the large steel facility Huta Warsawa. According to steel experts, this modern complex would cost $3-4 billion for a western company to build new. Several months ago, the Polish government agreed to assume the debts of Huta Warsawa, and to sell the debt-free enterprise to a Milan company, Lucchini, for $30 million!.

Soros recruited his friend, Harvard University economist Jeffery Sachs, who had previously advised the Bolivian government in economic policy, leading to the takeover of that nation’s economy by the cocaine trade. To further his plan in Poland, Soros set up one of his numerous foundations, the Stefan Batory Foundation, the official sponsor of Sach’s work in Poland in 1989-90.

Soros boasts, “I established close personal contact with Walesa’s chief adviser, Bronislaw Geremek. I was also received by [President Gen Wojciech] Jaruzelski, the head of State, to obtain his blessing for my foundation.” He worked closely with the eminence gris of Polish shock therapy, Witold Trzeciakowski, a shadow adviser to Finance Minister Leszek Balcerowicz. Soros also cultivated relations with Balcerowicz, the man who would first impose Sach’s shock therapy on Poland. Soros says when Walesa was elected President, that “largely because of western pressure, Walesa retained Balcerowicz as minister.” Balcerowicz imposed a freeze on wages while industry was to be bankrupted by a cutoff of state credits. Industrial output fell by more than 30% over two years.

Soros admits he knew in advance that his shock therapy would cause huge unemployment, closing of factories, and social unrest. For this reason, he insisted that Solidarnosc be brought into the government, to help deal with the unrest. Through the Batory Foundation, Soros coopted key media opinion makers such as Adam Michnik, and through cooperation with the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw, imposed a media censorship favorable to Soros’s shock therapy, and hostile to all critics.

Russia and the Community of Independent States (CIS): Soros headed a delegation to Russia, where he had worked together with Raisa Gorbachova since the late 1980s, to establish the Cultural Initiative Foundation. As with his other “charitable foundations,” this was a tax-free vehicle for Soros and his influential Western friends to enter the top policymaking levels of the country, and for tiny sums of scarce hard currency, buy up important political and intellectual figures. After a false start under Mikhail Gorbachov in 1988-91, Soros shifted to the new Yeltsin circle. It was Soros who introduced Jeffery Sachs and shock therapy into Russia, in late 1991. Soros describes his effort: “I started mobilizing a group of economists to take to the Soviet Union (July 1990). Professor Jeffery Sachs, with whom I had worked in Poland, was ready and eager to participate. He suggested a number of other participants: Romano Prodi from Italy; David Finch, a retired official from the IMF [International Monetary Fund]. I wanted to include Stanley Fischer and Jacob Frenkel, heads of research of the World Bank and IMF, respectively; Larry Summers from Harvard and Michael Bruno of the Central Bank of Israel.”

Since Jan. 2, 1992, shock therapy has introduced chaos and hyperinflation into Russia. Irreplaceable groups from advanced scientific research institutes have fled in pursuit of jobs in the West. Yegor Gaidar and the Yeltsin government imposed draconian cuts in state spending to industry and agriculture, even though the entire economy was state-owned. A goal of a zero deficit budget within three months was announced. Credit to industry was ended, and enterprises piled up astronomical debts, as inflation of the ruble went out of control.

The friends of Soros lost no time in capitalizing on this situation. Marc Rich began buying Russian aluminum at absurdly cheap prices, with his hard currency. Rich then dumped the aluminum onto western industrial markets last year, causing a 30% collapse in the price of the metal, as western industry had no way to compete. There was such an outflow of aluminum last year from Russia, that there were shortages of aluminum for Russian fish canneries. At the same time, Rich reportedly moved in to secure export control over the supply of most West Siberian crude oil to western markets. Rich’s companies have been under investigation for fraud in Russia, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal of May 13, 1993.

Another Soros silent partner who has moved in to exploit the chaos in the former Soviet Union, is Shaul Eisenberg. Eisenberg, reportedly with a letter of introduction from then-European Bank chief Jacques Attali, managed to secure an exclusive concession for textiles and other trade in Uzbekistan. When Uzbek officials confirmed defrauding of the government by Eisenberg, his concessions were summarily abrogated. The incident has reportedly caused a major loss for Israeli Mossad strategic interests throughout the Central Asian republics.

Soros has extensive influence in Hungary. When nationalist opposition parliamentarian Istvan Csurka tried to protest what was being done to ruin the Hungarian economy, under the policies of Soros and friends, Csurka was labeled an “anti-Semite,” and in June 1993, he was forced out of the governing Democratic Forum, as a result of pressure from Soros-linked circles in Hungary and abroad, including Soros’s close friend, U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos.

Lighting the Balkan Fuse

In early 1990, in what was then still Yugoslavia, Soros’s intervention with shock therapy, in cooperation with the IMF, helped light the economic fuse that led to the outbreak of war in June 1991. Soros boasted at that time, “Yugoslavia is a particularly interesting case. Even as national rivalries have brought the country to the verge of a breakup, a radical monetary stabilization program, which was introduced on the same date as in Poland—January 1, 1990—–has begun to change the political landscape. The program is very much along the Polish lines, and it had greater initial success. By the middle of the year, people were beginning to think Yugoslav again.”

Soros is friends with former Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, the former U.S. ambassador to Belgrade and the patron of Serbian Communist leader Slobodan Milosevic. Eagleburger is a past president of Kissinger Associates, on whose board sits Lord Carrington, whose Balkan mediations supported Serbian aggression into Croatia and Bosnia.

Today, Soros has established his Foundation centers in Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, and a Soros Yugoslavia Foundation in Belgrade, Serbia. In Croatia, he has tried to use his foundation monies to woo influential journalists or to slander opponents of his shock therapy, by labeling them variously “anti-Semitic” or “neo-Nazi.” The head of Soros’s Open Society Fund—Croatia, Prof. Zarko Puhovski, is a man who has reportedly made a recent dramatic conversion from orthodox Marxism to Soros’s radical free market. Only seven years ago, according to one of his former students, as professor of philosophy at the University of Zagreb, Puhovski attacked students trying to articulate a critique of communism, by insisting, “It is unprincipled to criticize Marxism from a liberal standpoint.” His work for the Soros Foundation in Zagreb has promoted an anti-nationalist “global culture,” hiring a network of anti-Croatian journalists to propagandize, in effect, for the Serbian cause.

These examples can be elaborated for each of the other 19 locations across eastern Europe where George Soros operates. The political agenda of Soros and this group of financial “globalists” will create the conditions for a new outbreak of war, even world war, if it continues to be tolerated.”

Note: In the interests of full disclosure, I should state that I was affiliated for a year and a half to financial publisher Agora Inc. some of whose members have ties to Soros-related entities and figures. I had no connection to any of them and did not know about the ties at the time I was affiliated.

Reason Magazine’s Michael Tracey on OWS:

(Hat-tip to Michael Rozeff, LRC blog)

“Many cited Saturday’s mass arrest of 700 nonviolent protesters on the Brooklyn Bridge as a galvanizing moment. Among those taken into custody were New York Times reporter Natasha Lennard and a member of the National Lawyers Guild, who was wearing a green hat to signify his status as a legal observer. Shockingly, multi-billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg said police “did exactly what they are supposed to do” in carrying out this mass arrest operation. But unfortunately, Mayor Mike has not yet commented on why officers initially escorted and guided demonstrators across the bridge, giving dozens of people I interviewed the misleading impression that entry onto the roadway portion was being permitted. Once protesters made it about halfway across, they were suddenly cordoned off by rows of officers on both the Manhattan and Brooklyn ends.”

Comment:

Some say there’s more to OccupyWallStreet than the picture being drawn by the right, which is of communist agitators.  These are just ordinary folks protesting gigantic corruption in the markets, they say. Maybe so. I do believe the right is indulging in a bit of demonization.  And I do think there are ordinary people marching out there, with legitimate grievances. No question of it.

But my eyes are peeled wide open on this blog, not for the baptists who’ve joined the mob from righteous motives, but for boot-leggers making a killing off the fixes they’re prescribing to the baptists.

One of those boot-leggers is George Soros, financier and position trader, who stands to gain from the introduction of a Tobin Tax on speculative trading. The Tobin tax is one of the proposals being advocated by  members of the OWS like Arun Gupta, of the Indypendant.**

And as I read, I think I spot another boot-legger’s hand.

In the passage I just quoted, which is from a mainly favorable piece on OWS by Reason Magazine, there is a reference to one of the galvanizing moments for the OWS, the mass arrest of some 700 protestors on Brooklyn Bridge.  Surely a case of police brutality, right? Doesn’t this bolster the case for OWS being just a bunch of disaffected regular people?

Maybe. But then notice that the article mentions that elite bank JP Morgan  has been making enormous donations to the NY Police Dept:

“Wall Street’s own JP Morgan Chase made a $4.6 million donation to the New York Police Department, slated to cover future expenditures on things like “security monitoring software.” It was the largest donation in New York City Police Foundation history,:

Notice that according to the website of JPM, the donations have been made starting in 2010, which means they were made over the period of a year. However, the news was reported on October 1, on a number of blogs, as being “recent”.  Just a hasty error, multiplied by the blogosphere, or something deliberate?

It seems legitimate to wonder if JP Morgan didn’t make  the donation way back in 2010, anticipating some violence.

Obviously, Reason Magazine is mentioning it to show the influence the financial industry has over  the NY police department. That also goes to undermine Breitbart’s email revelations,  apparently procured via infiltration, and in alliance with professional security, if not with the police and FBI themselves.

But is Reason Magazine warning us in this piece, or setting the stage for more polarized debate?

I ask this because there’s an element of pre-planning to the whole thing:

First. If you go back to the passage about the arrests and read the description of what happened, it looks like the protesters were explicitly permitted to do what they did, when they were suddenly cordoned off. Sounds like some kind of entrapment,  just from the reports of the incident, like this one at Cityroom blogs at The New York Times.

Next. The emails that Andrew Breitbart and Thomas Ryan (the security pro Breitbart hired) got by infiltrating the demonstration (I’ve deleted the link to the mails, since they were private), show there was some staging going on by the protesters themselves. They were trying to put women and children in front and were actively looking for non-whites to join them.

Three. Why would the police arrest a prominently placed free-lance reporter for the New York Times, who is also a graduate of the hedge-fund industry (and Soros)- funded Columbia Journalism Review, (which is a big supporter of the speculator-bank mafia), and a graduate of Cambridge, home of the globalist think-tank “civil society” brigade?

Are the police that dumb? Are they being provocative? Doesn’t this make for just the kind of outrage that generates media attention, public outcries, more sound and fury, and, eventually, demands for expanded security and police?

Could it be that there is some kind of staging of resistance and opposition going on, which will enable the intelligence and security services to both monitor who joins OWS as well as provoke clashes that will enable reactive legislation? All that will most likely increase central control, and may even provide the excuse for the deployment of drones to kill American citizens on American soil.

Four. Read the passage above and notice how some of these concerns emerge in the article. The drone killing of Anwar al-Awlaki is referenced, as well as the arrival of a SWAT team during the execution of a man in Georgia whose guilt had not been established.

Five Breitbart reports that three months ago, the CIA began working at the New York Police department, in a move that is unprecedented, since by law, the CIA cannot spy on Americans. The officer is an experienced officer who ran operations in Jordan and Pakistan, a bizarre work history for assignment to a municipal department, says Breitbart. The last time the CIA was used on American soil, he adds, was just after 9-11, where they created a furor by monitoring large sections of the population based on ethnicity, rather than on credible evidence of wrong-doing.

At Wired, Spencer Ackerman reports the government’s development of a miniature drone called Switchblade that is big enough to fit into a backpack. Instead of carrying a missile, the mini-drone will be deployed as a missile.

Reason Magazine has a history of infiltration and use by the CIA (Operation Mockingbird). Are they just reporting here, or are they setting the stage for something?

I believe the second interpretation is the right one.

My guess is that OccupyWall Street is intended to be the backdrop against which the world, watching it unfold on its TV screens, will witness the globalist regime turn on its own citizens with the threat of violence.

A kind of Homeland shock-and-awe.

[Added: I’m not saying there will necessarily be violence. I am saying the imagery is intended to show the “fist” and evoke a sense of awe toward the globalist regime]

During the course of the unfolding, it will become clear that American empire is only  part of the globalist regime, and that that part is being prepared for its end.

___________________________________________________

**Notice that Arun Gupta is under no illusion about which side of OWS he should locate the middle-class. The opposite side.

Richard Poe (from a III part series on the Velvet Revolution in the US):

“Not only does Soros lie, but he lies fluently, frequently, pointedly and with a master’s virtuosity.

Following the November 2003 uprising that toppled Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze, Soros categorically denied press reports linking him to the coup.

“Everything in Georgia was done by its people, not by me. I had nothing to do with it,” Soros told reporters on March 31, 2004. On July 5, however, he told the Los Angeles Times, “I’m delighted by what happened in Georgia, and I take great pride in having contributed to it.”

Whatever.

Soros evinces, at times, what can only be called a professional pride in his skill at deception. In a 1995 profile in The New Yorker, Soros told journalist Connie Bruck that the “subversive” mission of his Open Society foundations  which have supported coups and rebellions in many lands, required him to wear a variety of masks through the years.

In some countries, Soros might adopt a pro-communist pose while in others he would play the anti-communist. Only Soros himself knew where he stood — and perhaps not even Soros.

“I would say one thing in one country, and another thing in another country,” Soros boasted, with a laugh.

The Father of McCain-Feingold

Soros still wears many masks. In a June 3 speech at the Democrats’ Take Back America conference, he played the role of political neophyte, claiming that he had only recently involved himself in U.S. politics, due to his outrage over Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

“[I]t is the first time that I feel that I need to stand up and become really engaged in the electoral process in this country,” Soros said.

This was a lie. Soros has been neck-deep in Democrat intrigue since at least 1994. Three weeks after Republicans swept Congress that year, Soros announced in a November 30, 1994 speech that he wished to “do something about the distortion of our electoral process by the excessive use of TV advertising.”

Eight months later, Democrat Senator Russ Feingold obligingly rose on the Senate floor to denounce soft money abuses, thus setting in motion the juggernaut that would ultimately give us the McCain-Feingold Act of March 27, 2002.

Few Americans realize that it was George Soros who bankrolled the seven-year lobbying effort without which McCain-Feingold never would have seen the light of day.

“Combine the $1.7 million that Mr. Soros gave the Center for Public Integrity, the $1.3 million he gave Public Campaign, the $300,000 to Democracy 21, the $625,000 to Common Cause, and the $275,000 to Public Citizen  and you can be forgiven for believing Mr. Soros got campaign finance passed all by himself,” notes a Wall Street Journal editorial.

McCain-Feingold neatly accomplishes Soros goal of regulating political discourse on the airwaves. It bars “special interest groups” from placing ads for or against any candidate for federal office on TV or radio 60 days before a general election, and 30 days before a primary. These “special interest groups” can be anything from corporations to grassroots networks of concerned citizens.

Big Media networks, on the other hand, are exempted from the blackout. Unlike other corporations, they are not classified as “special interest groups.” During the blackout period, Big Media networks may say whatever they like about any candidate on their news reports and talk shows.

McCain-Feingold thus grants to Viacom (which owns CBS); Disney (which owns ABC); GE (which owns NBC); Time Warner (which owns CNN) and to other multibillion-dollar media conglomerates what amounts to a government-enforced monopoly on political speech during election season. Curiously, wealthy individuals such as George Soros are also exempt from the TV and radio blackout.”

Robert Mackey, writing in the Lede:

(Note, Mackey is defending Soros)

“The Open Society Institute spokeswoman, Ms. Silber, told The Lede that Mr. Soros did provide financial support to both the Czech pro-democracy group Charter 77 and Poland’s Solidarity movement, which eventually brought democracy to that country too, in the early 1980s. During the same period, Mr. Soros also, “set up foundations in Communist Hungary and the Soviet Union that worked to undermine the repressive regimes there,” Ms. Silber added.

Last year Mr. Soros himself explained, in an article on his work published on CNN’s Web site, what his aim was:

I set up my first foundation in Hungary in 1984. The idea behind it was simple. The state dogma, promoted by the ruling communists, was false and by providing an alternative we could expose its falsehood. Accordingly we supported every cultural initiative that was not an expression of the established dogma.

I was guided by the concept of the “open society,” which I adopted from the philosopher Karl Popper. I saw the open society as a more sophisticated form of social organization than the totalitarian closed societies of the Soviet bloc.”

Comment:

Julian Assange’s theory of  busting open systems that are based on conspiracies through revealing the conspiracies that motivate them fits right into Soros’ own thinking.

Of course, since it’s pretty much the thinking behind my own weblog, I don’t think I can point a finger just on that score.  Changing people’s thinking does involve revealing aspects of the current ideology that have been hidden from them “in plain view” .

But there’s a difference between subverting ideology and fraudulently or forcibly subverting institutions or harming people, and that difference can only be observed by taking care to respect other people’s rights to form their own groups and think their own thoughts free of propaganda and mind control. For that, you need to adhere more strictly to property rights, not subvert them, and you need to have a stricter standard of objective truth, not debates in which partisanship and ideology take precedence.

Pat Buchanan succumbs to a severe case of white man blues, often found among people who don’t get out enough:

“Can Western civilization survive the passing of the European peoples whose ancestors created it and their replacement by Third World immigrants? Probably not, for the new arrivals seem uninterested in preserving the old culture they have found.

Those who hold the white race responsible for the mortal sins of mankind – slavery, racism, imperialism, genocide – may welcome its departure from history. Those who believe that the civilization that came out of Jerusalem, Athens, Rome and London to be the crowning achievement of mankind will mourn its passing.”

Comment:

Of course, those dreadful changes that so frighten Buchanan are laid at the door of colored immigrants who actually had very little to do with bringing them about.

You thought the changes in society today reflect the efforts of  militant atheists (white), anti-Christian activists (usually and originally white), Darwinists and atheists (white), atheist Marxists (whites), modern gender feminists ( white), the gay liberation activists (white), communists (white), global pornographers (the most powerful groups of which are white), the Cold Warriors (white), Hollywood (white), the Wall Street criminal cabal (white), the military-industrial-intelligence leviathan (white); university and establishment liberal activism (white)?

No, no.

The colored folk did it all.

Of course, if we really wanted to be picky, we’d ask Buchanan if he thought Jesus Christ was “white” and “European,” or Middle Eastern.

And we’d ask whether a large part of Christ’s teaching derives originally from Greece or from the Near East, which is not white.

And we’d like to add too that without Muslim civilization (non-white) and Byzantine (half-white), we doubt if the Greco-Roman heritage, which owed much to the Egyptians (half-white?) would ever have passed on to the Europeans in the first place.

And without the Jewish (which Buchanan appropriates as white, whereas it is Middle Eastern genetically), we doubt modern Europe would have ever come into being.

White Judeo-Christian and humanist civilization are something I greatly admire, have studied for a life time, and have benefited from.

But having had the privilege of living in two countries, one ruined by (white) Fabian socialism but enduring because of (brown) religious and holistic traditions, I am amazed and saddened by the small horizons of a man I have long respected for his unabashed love for his traditions and people.

Indeed, we think the West is only kept alive at all by the misplaced adulation and semi-slavery of its global mercantilist plantation.  The problem is actually philo-Americanism of the wrong kind.

Recently, I thought about this when I had the good fortune to walk through the mansion of one of the richest men in America in the 1920s. I spent a day enjoying his art collection, amassed from Europe during the years before the collapse of the stock market.

Europe’s glory, at least measured in terms of art, was five centuries. Rising with the Gothic and setting in the nineteenth century, where, already, the forces of decline were evident.

That would be a long time before those barbarians Buchanan deplores came upon the scene. If Europe is dying, and it is, don’t blame the crowd gathered around the corpse.

Blame the children of the house, who in broad daylight, with weapons forged under their own roof, rose up   and slew their own father.

Only to find they had not yet learned to live without him.