Both sides of the media are reporting that the movement known as Occupy Wall Street is a serendipitous event, something that just sprung up naturally from a garden of discontent. But did it?
On September 17, 2011 a few students sat on the sidewalk in lower Manhattan and called their little protest group Days of Rage (DoR). Supposedly this was the genesis of the larger movement now known as Occupy Wall Street (OWS). If OWS was a spontaneous outgrowth from DoR how do you account for the fact that occupywallst.org was registered as a website domain on July 14, 2011, a full two months prior to the first day of the Wall St Days of Rage sit in ?
OWS appears to be a well planned fully orchestrated program in response to the Tea Party. Make no mistake, OWS is a national operation. Just days into the launch at the Brooklyn Bridge nearly 900 local community organizations from Florida to the State of Washington are up and running with event dates and websites.
A long list of supporters was posted on the website at www.occupywallst.org on Oct 4th but the page appears to have been taken down. The SEIU and a NY Local of the American Federation of Teachers were among a list of ten to 15 unions. MoveOn.org was one of the well known names on the longer list of advocacy groups behind the movement.
OWS is developing as a mirror image of the Tea Party, well dressed non-violent, heavily middle class and united behind a cause. The Tea Party argues for less intrusive government and for getting federal spending under control. The Tea Party is a force moving the country to the right. OWS demonstrates against the rich, against the banks and against the financial foundations of capitalism. OWS is a force that would move the country to the left. At this nascent stage they appear to have a great deal of popular support, particularly from the middle class.
Socialist leaders have long known that a large and satisfied middle class is the greatest obstacle to gaining control in a democratic nation as prosperous as the U.S. As long as the middle class is content with their status they will reject the appropriation and redistribution of their assets that socialism requires, supposedly for the common good. One answer is force, i.e. violent revolution. The other, and far better answer, is to foment unrest, build anger to the point where there is widespread dissatisfaction within the middle class. And then present free markets as the cause and socialism as the cure. The voters will do the rest.
Anger requires a target. The rich, the banks and Wall Street suit the bill perfectly. The rich are a defenseless minority that engender very little sympathy. All that’s needed is a strong community organizer to set them up as the target, someone with some clout, someone with a bully pulpit. Enter stage left – Barack Obama.
Saul Alinsky taught that socialism’s path to power is like a three act play.
Act I is join the crowd, gain respect, gain acceptance and legitimacy.
Barack Obama has done that.
Act II is the development of anger and the spreading of discontent to enroll as many supporters as possible for Act III.
By intent or not, Barack Obama is doing that.
Act III is the final wresting of control of the government from the establishment.
Barack Obama won’t be doing that, but it’s not for lack of trying.
There is no way to know the President’s real goal, but if it is the establishment of a socialist state he’s doing everything just right; and that includes Occupy Wall Street.
Thanks, Bob, for this great article and information.
I think most of us expected a “counter movement” by the Far Left once the Tea Party gained traction.
It is here.