United in Hatred: Occupy and Ferguson

August 29 2014

United in Hatred: Occupy and Ferguson


Towhall

Charlotte Hays

A Washington Post story headlined “Not Their Grandfather’s Protest” sought to depict the Ferguson riots, triggered by the fatal shooting of a black youth by a white police officer, as a new generation of the Civil Rights movement. Not so.

As much as we mourn the tragic death of Michael Brown, we can’t help noticing that the mob in Ferguson was destructive, hateful, and only too eager to liquidate small businesses that provided a livelihood for people whose only sin was doing business in Ferguson, Mo.

Watching the Ferguson riots on TV, I spotted a sign that said, “Begin the Class War Now.” This was a sentiment not from the Civil Rights movement, which sought to spread the promise of America, but from Occupy Wall Street, which exists to sow the seeds of envy and hatred. Lionized in the media, Ferguson–like Occupy–is a movement of fact-challenged bullies. This is not to say that we have an opinion or even would dare to theorize about guilt or innocence in the matter of the sad death of Michael Brown. The facts of that night are not yet known. The vicious aftermath can be known by anyone who has a TV.

Not surprisingly, Occupy retreads reportedly flocked to Ferguson, while Occupy websites have heaped fulsome praise on their less upscale compatriots. Oakland Occupy—last seen terrorizing shoppers, shutting down the port of Oakland, burning American flags, and trashing ATMs—even hosted a protest in solidarity with Ferguson. “Protesters broke windows and damaged property in both cities,” the San Francisco Gate reported. Now, that’s solidarity.

The Ferguson mob, like its spiritual forebear Occupy, has no respect for normal, decent, ordinary people who go to work every day to support their families. The looting and vandalism in Ferguson put more than a hundred small businesses on the brink of financial ruin. The surveillance video allegedly of Michael Brown shortly before his death committing a strong-arm robbery of a cigar store, pushing and shoving a much smaller clerk, was but a prelude to the two week’s rioting.

The Washington Post reporter who compared the Ferguson mob to the honorable and heroic Civil Rights movement diligently tried not to see what was before her very eyes, but she couldn’t avoid exposing the hollowness of what’s there: “They are fueled by rage, mobilized by social media and sometimes, or so it seems to the old guard, capable of a bit of disrespect.”

You’ve got to love that “capable of a bit of disrespect.”

Like Occupy, which was praised by Nancy Pelosi and sympathized with by President Obama, the Ferguson mob has friends in high places. The Rev. Al Sharpton, the well-known racial opportunist, who is advising the White House on Ferguson, was Ferguson’s Mark Antony, the orator of this mob, who stoked passions while ostensibly innocently praising the dead. Likewise, our Attorney General Eric Holder, who was dispatched to Ferguson by the President, appeared on the scene.

Holder’s mere presence seems to have had a calming effect—which is certainly a very good thing—but probably only temporarily, if the legal case doesn’t go entirely against the police. Like Sharpton, Holder stoked hatred, suggesting that the shooting of Michael Brown was rooted in our troubled racial history.

Certainly that history is an important backdrop to the story today in Ferguson—the suspicion which seeps into too many interactions between those of different races, and particularly when they involve law enforcement. But that history doesn’t play at all into determining what happened between Officer Darren Wilson and Michal Brown before Brown’s final breath.

Couldn’t Holder, our nation’s top legal executive and defender of our legal system, have talked about impartial justice and prepared the crowd for a just verdict, whatever that is? But waiting for facts is not a mob’s way.

But the rest of America should face the facts, whatever they may be, and should not close our eyes to what is happening today. This isn’t the next step in the civil rights movement, but a sad testimony to a crumbling culture and rage that pervades too much of America society.

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.blog comments powered by Disqus

Occupy Television Vows to Keep Flailing Movement Alive

The Occupy Wall Street movement, which blazed brightly two years ago amid a sea of arrests, vandalism and attacks against the wealthy, is coming back in the form of an online TV channel.

Occupy Television, in conjunction with FilmOn Networks, the National Convention PBC and a new union of the groups Occupy Television, ArticleV.org, and the National General Assembly, vows to bring the group’s mission to the masses.

The channel’s backers say in a press release that recent events in Ferguson, MO, despite the public not knowing the details behind the death of 18-year-old Michael Brown, are proof that the culture needs this outlet.

The channel’s mission, according to its press release:

Occupy Television’s goal is to circumvent mainstream media, with its multitude of conflicts of interests, in order to break out of the echo chambers of conventional political discussion.  The station is based on the work of Occupy community members and citizen journalists—it is TV for the 99%.

Expect OWS-friendly documentaries like Internet’s Own BoyOccupy Love and Pots, Pans and Other Solutions to be part of the programming package.

Chances are viewers won’t see Occupy Unmasked, director Stephen K. Bannon’s documentary featuring Andrew Breitbart and several colleagues revealing the true nature of the movement.

Occupy Central Or Not? Hong Kong Won’t Accept China’s ‘Sham’ Elections

A showdown is looming in this city. This week, Hong Kongers and other interested parties are likely to find out if the “Occupy Central” movement will go ahead or not. The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress is currently holding a seven-day meeting in Beijing to make what seems likely to be the final decision on how the people of Hong Kong will pick their next top leader.

At the heart of the debate is a fear held by many that Chinese leaders won’t uphold their promise to allow genuine elections for the city’s next chief executive in 2017. Those concerns are founded on a steady stream of comments by mainland officials extolling the need for future candidates to be prescreened by a nominating committee stacked with Beijing loyalists. Critics have labeled the requirement as a filtering mechanism that’ll result in “fake democracy.” They believe the public should have the right to select the candidates as well.

Occupy Central’s co-organizer Benny Tai, a law professor at the University of Hong Kong, has been one of the main proponents for a civil disobedience movement if Beijing insists on sticking with its apparent plan of “electing” Hong Kong’s next leader. Tai believes the city’s resident are entitled to go through a genuine democratic process to choose the chief executive under the “one country, two systems” principle.

Hong Kong’s political system has stagnated since the former British colony returned to Chinese sovereignty in 1997. All three of the city’s chief executives have lacked a popular mandate and generally failed to gain approval from the city’s lawmakers for any policies of significance.

The name “Occupy Central” will most likely stir up memories of “Occupy Wall Street” in New York for most readers. They have similar names and ideas, but the purpose of the actions do indeed differ markedly.

English: Protesters at the Occupy Wall Street ...

English: Protesters at the Occupy Wall Street protest in New York. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

About three years ago was the first time I had heard of a movement that used the word “Occupy.” Back then, I was in New York City studying for my master’s, and Occupy Wall Street was heating up in the city that never sleeps. The activists mainly gathered at Wall Street, but sometimes they would also hold rallies at Washington Square Park – the NYU campus – and elsewhere to raise awareness of social inequality, i.e. the 1% versus the 99%.

As Occupy Wall Street is winding down, a new wave of Occupy-something is hopefully brewing in Hong Kong. Under the banner Occupy Central – the financial heart of the city – the organizers are calling on the public for a mass assembly of humanity to convey the message to the Chinese government that Hong Kongers should be able to choose their leader without interference. “Hong Kong people running Hong Kong,” as we were promised before the handover.

Comparing Occupy Wall Street that basically sought to draw attention to the longstanding economic problem of wealth disproportionately accumulating in the hands of a tiny minority, Occupy Central in Hong Kong is first and foremost a political cause. And from its very inception in January 2013, there has been an incessant debate in Hong Kong on the pros and cons of the potential movement.

Some of the voices coming out against Occupy Central see it as a reckless attempt to issue an ultimatum to Beijing when it seems more productive to aim for dialogue instead. A fair number of local officials and business tycoons have also been warning the protests would have a negative affect on the economy. While on the other side of the political divide, some radical elements from the democratic camp said there’s too much discussion, we should just storm the government.

In spite of the rhetoric and shrill warnings, the organizers of Occupy Central are merely hopeful of giving people a platform for their voices to be heard in defense of city’s core values – something many have come to conclude is being eroded under the current political system. They’ve also said that they’re ready to be arrested by the police for their planned “illegal gathering” under the current legal framework.

Whether you view Occupy Central as good or bad, history tells us that political power is almost never given away without a long and difficult struggle. The decisions reached in Beijing over the course of this week will be a signal to its neighbors and the rest of Asia as to whether it can be relied upon to keep its promises.

Follow me on Twitter and on Forbes.

What should really get you mad about Wall Street’s overpaid 22-year-olds

The young money is about to get more of it. That’s unlikely to make the Occupy Wall Street crowd happy. But maybe it should.

Goldman Sachs


GS



, Bank of America


BAC



and JPMorgan Chase


JPM



have announced or are reportedly set to give as much as a 20% raise to their junior bankers. The latest round of announcements came this week after Morgan Stanley


MS



kicked off the pay war for junior employees a few weeks ago. That means 22-year-old Wall Streeters, who only used to make $120,000, will now be justly compensated. Ahmen.

In a good year, those same 22-year-olds may now make as much as $175,000, according to Wall Street compensation firm Johnson Associates.

Oddly enough, the current round of pay raises seems to have been sparked by cries that Wall Street’s youngins were being mistreated. Earlier this year, Kevin Roose, a journalist at New York magazine, wrote a book about how miserable life is for Wall Street junior employees. (Read Fortune‘s review of Roose’s Young Money.) Spoiler alert: all of the bankers in Roose’s book chose to flee Wall Street. Their bucks full of money didn’t have room for their tears as well, I guess.

And perhaps that’s good for the rest of us. Smart, talented people should do a variety of things, not just what pays them most. But here’s the thing: Wall Street firms, just a few months later, are reacting. Say what you will about Wall Street, but its willingness to share profits with employees is much better than the rest of corporate America.

Nickel and Dimed, the famous book by Barbara Ehrenreich about poor pay and work conditions across the country, came out over a decade ago. How did corporate America respond? It didn’t. Wages have stagnated for the past decade. And Washington has only voted to raise the minimum wage once — in 2009.

Sure, Wall Streeters work a lot of hours. But the average American worker isn’t living a cushy life. Starbucks, responding to an article in The New York Times about workers’ hours, recently said it would no longer force workers to do so called “clopening” shifts, when they have to work back-to-back shifts that end at 11 PM and start at 5AM. But it’s still going on elsewhere.

Wall Street has a pay culture where most of the profits of the firms go to the employees. The reason is a bit historical. Wall Street firms were partnerships, and partnerships by definition tend to pay out all of their profits to their workers. Also, finance firms tend to be low-capital businesses, so they can invest much of their profits in their workers. But the pay practices on Wall Street have generally continued even after the firms have gone public, and as the firms have grown and added bank branches and things that do require some capital.

There’s no reason Wall Street’s pay practices couldn’t be exported elsewhere. Wal-Mart, for instance, generally runs a low capital business as well, yet it has long paid its workers much less than it could afford to. Wal-Mart


WMT



could learn a lot from Goldman.

Here’s the explanation in finance speak: Companies should generate enough profits to justify the price that shareholders are willing to pay for its shares. Once shareholders are no longer willing to pay up for those profits, they should invest that money elsewhere.

Wall Street firms get this. A few years ago, shareholders of Wall Street stocks traded for high valuations. Investors are no longer willing to pay up. So banks are shifting more of their capital to workers. And yes that will make it easier for them to recruit and keep workers and hopefully make them happier and more productive. That makes sense.

Likewise, Wal-Mart’s shares have faltered over the past few years. The retailer, however, continues to generate returns that are much higher than shareholders are willing to pay for. Yet, there have been no announcements of large pay raises for Walmart employees.

I have argued that Wal-Mart could increase its salaries without hurting its stock price. Shares of Goldman have not dropped on the news that it will pay thousands of employees tens of thousands of dollars more. Neither have any of the other banks.

At a time of growing concern that income inequality is doing serious damage to America — it is at least a part of what’s fueling the anger in Ferguson — there are reasons to be weary of the news that Wall Street is paying its junior banks around three times the salary of the average worker in America. But only part of the problem, and perhaps smaller than we think, that Wall Street pays too much. It’s the rest of corporate America that continues to pay too little.

Protests Rise Again in Oakland, Initially over Ferguson, MO Shooting

Protests in Oakland, California, involving arrests and vandalism have been planned and executed, occurring initially in connection with those in Ferguson, Missouri. Protest announcements from Occupy Oakland and related groups have also been tying in accusations of past alleged police misconduct in California.

A crowd exceeding 100 protesters made its way through the streets of Oakland and Berkeley and on the UC Berkeley campus Friday night under the banner of “solidarity” with protests in Ferguson, Missouri, and opposition to claims of police brutality there and in the Bay Area, according to the San Francisco Gate.

Reports relayed some protesters taking part in vandalism, anti-police graffiti, and altercations with police. Other protesters were reported as remaining peaceful.

Two arrests were reported in Oakland and two in Berkeley Friday in connection with the protest. Arrests were made on allegations of assaulting an officer, resisting arrest, obstructing police, and trying to remove a weapon from an officer. One officer was briefly hospitalized.

A post on an Occupy Oakland website from August 11 listed information for Friday’s protest event, giving instructions and information. Twice the heading “[expletive] the Police March” was used. A Twitter hashtag created under the same moniker reads #FTP. Another portion of the message referred to the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, blaming police for deaths in that and other incidents. The message wraps up with, “stay in the streets until we are totally victorious in all our demands.”

Video of the Oakland protest shows a large crowd moving together. Online posts such as the one mentioned above communicated detailed plans to protest days ahead of the event.

The Associated Press reported, “Another Ferguson-related protest was planned in Oakland Saturday evening.”

A similar protest has been planned for Sunday in Los Angeles and posted to an Occupy LA Twitter account, and an event page has been set up on Facebook that has received approximately 1,700 responses. This event will apparently be held in connection with an incident taking place between a man named Ezell Ford and police, echoing events in Ferguson.

Oakland was the site of Occupy protests in 2011, stemming from the Occupy Wall Street protests that saw hundreds of arrests. Protesters threw “threw chunks of concrete and metal pipes as well as lit roman candles and firebombs, police said,” reported Fox News. The protests shut down the port in Oakland for a period of time.

Breitbart columnist Ben Shapiro recently wrote regarding 2009 riots surrounding a police officer shooting a black transit passenger, Oscar Grant, in Oakland. “While Mehserle was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in 2010, rioters took advantage of the situation anyway, trashing police cars and forcing Mayor Ron Dellums to take shelter in City Hall. Local businesses were vandalized. In the end, some 120 arrests were made,” reported Shapiro.

The Occupy L.A. Twitter account also posted a call to protest the L.A. City Council last Friday for considering “A Resolution Supporting Israel.” Video of the demonstration showed a modest group of protesters with large anti-Israel signs.

The Occupy Oakland Twitter account has also been posting calls to block an Israeli ship from coming into the port, posting on Saturday, “Ship is Blocked for the day. It is now diverted. Too far from Oakland to reach port in time to unload tonight. Success. ?#Blocktheboat ?#gaza.” However, Breitbart Senior Editor-at-Large Joel Pollak reported on the incident, noting, “the ship was still far away from the port at the time of the protest.”

Why Occupy Wall Street is connected to Palestine

10614127_1451255695145673_4907426003436789480_nAmin Husain grew up in Palestine, just outside of Ramallah, and is a veteran Occupy organizer, activist, artist, writer and lawyer. Now, he is one of the key organizers behind #NYC2Gaza, an ad-hoc collective of activists in New York organizing solidarity actions for Palestine. On August 20, he and many others will be marching in solidarity with Gaza and occupied Palestine. I got a chance to catch up with him about the importance of continuous collective action and civil disobedience to end the Israeli occupation of Palestine and break the siege on Gaza.

To start with, tell me a little bit about #NYC2Gaza.

It is a loose group of individual organizers, activists and people that are moved by what is going on and recognized that there was a space. We had come together with a call to put out saying that this is a direct action front for Palestine.

Many of us knew each other from Occupy, so we wanted to create a hashtag that symbolizes what we think we’re trying to do, which is create that bridge between New York and Palestine, recognizing that this is the center of empire and the people here have a responsibility to escalate in ways that reflect how bad the situation has become in Palestine.

Recently there have been other Palestine solidarity activists that have questioned the need for civil disobedience if there is, in fact, a ceasefire brokered between Israel and Hamas. What do you think about this?

Of course it is still needed. The situation in Palestine is so dire; I think people are moved by the fact that they see these bodies on television and they see bombs falling, but the killing is happening on a daily basis because of the structural violence of the Israeli occupation, the apartheid-like regime and the siege that has been put on the people of Gaza for over seven years. There is no way for these people to rebuild. There are no medical supplies, there is no electricity, there is no water and there is a temporary ceasefire right now that is likely to fall through.

So, I think these calls to halt civil disobedience, even if they are well intentioned, are out of touch. It points to a bigger problem with the type of solidarity work and the challenges that we have to understand about this work. It does not begin and end with whether you see a bomb or not; it begins and ends with whether the occupation goes away or not.

Right now Israel‘s atrocities are all over the news, but it isn’t always like this. How can activists maintain pressure on Israel to end the occupation of Palestine and break the siege on Gaza when it isn’t necessarily in the headlines?

Number one, the issue of Palestine is something that relates to empire, and our struggles being connected. The NYPD has something to do with the Israeli occupation. The bombs that are being experimented with on the Palestinian people are part of an industry that we are promoting in our country. Our tax dollars are going over there.

Number two: part of the way you avoid actions starting and ending with whether or not there are bombs on television is if the person who is organizing is closer to the activity or not. It is very important for people who do solidarity work, for example, with Palestine to actually see and wonder and ask who is in the room with them. Are there any Palestinians? Are there any Muslims? Are there any people of color? Because the privileged white male position, although welcome, could be dominating and out of touch.

There has been a lot of talk lately about representations of Palestine and Palestinians in the media improving recently. Do you think this is the case? Do you think that it matters?

I think no one can deny that the front page of the New York Times featuring a picture that shows the humanity of Palestinians is significant. But the language and the ideology surrounding [media depictions] still hasn’t changed. Why do people talk about Hamas as if it is a terrorist organization, not a resistance organization? Why is the focus always on two parties in conflict — this sterilized way of thinking about things — when in fact there is an occupier and a people who are occupied, there is an oppressor and a people who are being oppressed. The voices that are always quoted tend to be the voices of those who are powerful. To me, that is what has not changed much.

But I think that there is also this media opening, and I think it is facilitated by social media. I think a lot of people have become this other kind of journalist which has allowed us to stay more informed than we normally would.

What are the connections between the struggle for economic justice and equality and justice for Palestine?

To me, I have always said that my involvement in Occupy Wall Street was what I could do for Palestine from here. When we were doing Occupy Wall Street, my dad came and visited me in the park. He came, he sat down, and he looked around, and he’s like, “Amin, this makes sense.”

What we were doing in the park made sense because we know who funds Israel. We know that it’s not just about funding. We know why the project that the state of Israel — and I want to be clear, I am not talking about Jews or Jewish-Americans — serves the national security interests of the United States today. I think we know that those national interests are not the people’s interests. Three billion dollars per year going to Israel, with $220 million extra for the Iron Dome, is money that could be allocated for things over here and is definitely not money that should fund another people’s oppression.

What about the Arab Spring?

If you look at the history of Occupy, which actually was inspired by the Arab Spring, you can understand why what is happening in Gaza, that resistance, is another iteration or promise of an Arab Spring that all of these large powers have tried to extinguish. Ultimately democracy is about freedom and liberation. That’s exactly what the people in Gaza and the West Bank are fighting for.

What do you think about the pro-Palestine and pro-Israel labels? Are they outdated?

I think they are used so that we can legitimize both sides. So if you’re not in this camp, you’re in that other camp. Games are like that. Competitions are like that. But that is not the issue. It’s not a soccer match! Don’t talk to me about peace. Peace is a white man’s word that actually white washes the whole damn thing. Talk about liberation. Talk about freedom. Think about freedom not as something to be attained, but something to be exercised daily.

Hong Kong’s Pro-Beijing Groups March to Oppose Occupy Central

Tens of thousands of pro-Beijing demonstrators marched in Hong Kong on Sunday to protest the Occupy Central movement. Video: AP

HONG KONG—Pro-Beijing groups in Hong Kong mobilized thousands in a march to oppose Occupy Central, a democratic group that has threatened mass civil disobedience if China doesn’t offer the city a real choice in the next election for its leader.

The counter-rally, dubbed a “march for peace,” was meant to overshadow this year’s July 1 pro-democracy march, and to undermine the Occupy movement, which opponents have accused of putting Hong Kong’s economy at risk.

For months, Occupy Central’s organizers, led by two college professors and a Baptist minister, said they would assemble thousands of protesters to paralyze the city’s financial district if they judge China’s proposal on electing Hong Kong’s chief executive to be insufficiently democratic.

Their cause gained strength in June when an unofficial poll on democratic reform drew nearly 800,000 votes, followed by the large pro-democracy march. But public support for the civil disobedience appears to be waning, while the movement itself has been marred by internal discord over when to take to the streets.

A Look at the Turnout for the Pro-Democracy and Pro-Beijing Rallies in Hong Kong

In recent weeks, a countermovement backed by the business community and Beijing-friendly groups, the Alliance for Peace and Democracy, started its own petition drive to denounce civil disobedience and Occupy Central in particular.

The group says it has collected over 1.3 million signatures, far more than Occupy Central’s poll on democracy in June. Those who signed the petition include Hong Kong Chief Executive

Leung Chun-ying

and other senior officials.

“They didn’t suddenly speak up; there’s no magic in this,” said

Robert Chow,

a former Hong Kong radio host and the public face of the Alliance for Peace and Democracy. “Occupy Central screwed up. This is a group of people saying they want one step less than a riot.”

Mr. Chow said he is confident that a critical mass of Hong Kong people won’t sympathize with the civil-disobedience movement, especially if their economic interests are at stake.

Pro-Beijing protesters gather ahead of a march against the Occupy Central movement in Hong Kong on Sunday.
Tyrone Siu/Reuters

Hong Kong, a former British colony, continues to observe British common law under the doctrine of “one country, two systems” established when the city was returned to Chinese rule in 1997. The city is governed by the Basic Law, a mini-constitution that guarantees a “high degree of autonomy” for Hong Kong’s internal affairs.

On Sunday, the pro-Beijing group rallied in downtown Hong Kong with what local police said was a crowd of 110,600 people at its peak, though researchers at the University of Hong Kong estimated that between 79,000 and 88,000 participated. The university estimated the July 1 pro-democracy march drew between 154,000 and 172,000 protesters.

The next test will come later this month when China’s top legislative body, the National People’s Congress, issues its position on democracy in Hong Kong, which is expected to all eligible residents to vote, but only for approved candidates.

The anti-Occupy Central campaign’s focus on the impact of civil disobedience has appealed to the pragmatism of many Hong Kong people. While many support democracy, they also just want to live their lives and go to work unimpeded.

Thousands marched in Hong Kong on Sunday in opposition of the Occupy Central movement.
Getty Images

“I don’t care if you want democracy, even if you protest and have demonstrations. But why do you have to stop people from making a living?” said

Bill Chan,

a taxi driver, referring to the Occupy movement.

Despite Occupy’s threats, lawmakers and political analysts expect the National People’s Congress to require prospective nominees to overcome a committee stacked with Beijing loyalists.

“We can’t be optimistic at all—the pro-Beijing camp will control the entire list of candidates,” said

Joseph Cheng,

a political-science professor and convener of the Alliance for True Democracy, a coalition of democratic parties supporting Occupy Central.

“This is our worst fear, our worst-case scenario,” he said.

In a last-ditch attempt to negotiate,

Emily Lau,

chairwoman of the Democratic Party, and other pro-democracy legislators met Friday with Beijing’s top representative in Hong Kong, but they left with no clear promises from the Chinese government.

“We left him under no illusions,” said Ms. Lau. “We will under no circumstances accept an electoral method that is fake and dressed up as one person, one vote.”

Demonstrators carried a Chinese national flag during a rally Sunday in Hong Kong. Pro-Beijing groups mobilized thousands for a march to oppose Occupy Central, a group that has threatened mass civil disobedience if China doesn’t offer the city a real choice in the next election for its leader.
Reuters

To achieve universal suffrage in 2017, the Hong Kong government must broker a reform package that will garner both the support of Beijing and two-thirds of the Hong Kong legislature. The government’s final proposal is expected to be released at the end of the year.

Universal suffrage for the chief executive was codified in Hong Kong’s de facto constitution. But so was a nominating committee to select candidates for office. Occupy Central demands that the committee won’t be able to screen candidates for political reasons.

Organizers of the Occupy campaign recognize that garnering support for civil disobedience is an uphill battle. Some moderate democrats have already signaled that they may be willing to accept a compromise that would keep Beijing’s plan intact.

Still, pro-democracy activists hope that the democrats will stay united and reject any electoral reforms that include political screening.

“Hong Kong people don’t want North Korean-style democracy,” said

Joshua Wong,

the 17 year-old convener of Scholarism, in reference to illiberal elections with severe candidate restrictions. The high-school activist group gained attention in its role to scuttle plans to impose pro-Chinese patriotism classes in local schools in 2012.

“If we are buying fruit, don’t give us three rotten oranges to choose from,” he said.

—Chester Yung contributed to this article.

C-SPAN Caller Proves Theory on Occupy Wall Street and the Ferguson Looters

RUSH: A couple of sound bites.  I want to play for you something I said on the program a couple of days ago. On Tuesday, I was describing Occupy Wall Street. 

I was explaining it, reminding people how it began, what it consisted of — the people in it, what they hoped to achieve, their mindset, their worldview — and all of that.  It was to illustrate a point, and the point that I was making, which you will hear, was confirmed in a phone call to C-SPAN. But for the phone call to C-SPAN that happened today to be fully understood in full context, you have to hear this

RUSH ARCHIVE:  The Occupy Wall Street people basically attempted to convey that things, the stuff that you get in life does not come from work. That that’s a fool’s errand, and people who buy into the notion that you have to work to get your stuff are victims of a big con game.  The 1% never worked.  They have all the money and they share it only with themselves, and it’s all a giant trick to get everybody toiling away for meager wages to benefit the already rich 1%. 

It was built on resentment of capitalism, anger at the unfairness of the distribution of resources and all of that crap.  … Well, I think, using the Snerdley Doctrine, when it comes to explaining looters, I think looters have much the same kind of thought process. That stuff, things, houses, cars, what have you, that work is not gonna give you those things, ’cause it’s stacked deck.  If you engage in work, you’re just working for the man.

You’re working for the 1%. You’re toiling away to make him richer, but you ain’t getting any of it.  You aren’t seeing any of it.  And, indeed, social justice pretty much teaches this exact thing.  And, therefore, social justice tells people who don’t have things that they are entitled to take whatever the hell they want when they can and when they want it because they are entitled to it, because it’s being purposely denied them

END ARCHIVE CLIP

RUSH:  Now, I can imagine, as is always the case, some of you listening on Tuesday when I said this replied, “Come on, Rush! That’s a little bit over the top, don’t you think?”  Listen, don’t doubt me.  Here’s a caller on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal today.  They were taking call-ins on the riots in Ferguson, Missouri.  This is Rick from Ohio.

C-SPAN CALLER:  The number one tool for the top 1% to control all the wealth is divide and conquer.  Divide and conquer!  This goes back to the Romans. It goes back to the Nazis.  And in this country, the media — Fox News — promotes racism like it’s promoting a sale at Walmart!  The Disney Corporation put Rush Limbaugh and Dennis Miller in the booth on Monday Night Football to promote racism!

RUSH:  (laughing)  So you see, ladies and gentlemen, the 1%, they’ve got all the money, and they’re keeping it from everybody “just like the Romans did and just like the Nazis did. Divide and conquer! Divide and conquer! Fox News promotes racism in media.”  I didn’t know that I was in the Monday Night Football booth.  I must have been dreaming.  Am I dreaming now, and I’m gonna wake up and realize I was there and got fired there, too?

Occupy Wall Street Justified Looting

RUSH: In regards to the looting in Ferguson, Missouri, or the looting in any circumstance like this and the politics of it.  Do you remember Occupy Wall Street?  Occupy Wall Street was a contrived, made-up, artificially created protest group to counter the Tea Party.  The Tea Party came into existence as far as anybody knows in 2010.  The Tea Party, just average Americans fed up with fear and anger over what they saw happening to their country. 

The Tea Party originally was animated by the rapidly accruing debt and the oncoming Obamacare.  The Tea Party was made up of people who were afraid of their kids’ and grandkids’ future, that the country was gonna go into such debt and that federal spending was gonna consume so much, that their tax rates would be so high that they would never have a chance to have a better life than their parents had had, which has always been part of the American dream.

So the Tea Party was just a group of citizens.  There was never any leader. There was never any particular candidate.  It was people that had never been formally involved in politics before, showing up at Town Hall meetings.  And because there was no leader and because there was no Washington tie, the official Washington establishment became petrified and paranoid, scared to death of the Tea Party. 

The left, which is totally consumed with PR and image and buzz because they have to avoid the substance of what their beliefs are, they cannot dare be honest about what they really believe.  So they rely on substance and image, lies about their beliefs and their philosophies.  Occupy Wall Street was an artificially created, made to look like another grassroots movement that had sprung up to defend Obama and Obamacare and the spending.  Occupy Wall Street was specifically created by wealthy Democrats behind the scenes to make it look like it was genuine and spontaneous, as an answer to the Tea Party. 

Now, one of the animating features of Occupy Wall Street — and it’s still around, by the way.  It’s dormant, but there’s still people in it, still living in shantytowns and so forth. Occupy Wall Street is where Elizabeth Warren came from, essentially.  Elizabeth Warren with the, “You didn’t build that! You don’t own that! You didn’t make that happen! You factory owner, you business owner, you didn’t make that happen.  Why, if we hadn’t all banded together to build the roads and put in your sewage system for you, you could have never become rich.  So you didn’t do it yourself.  You didn’t do it on your own.  You didn’t build that.”  And Obama picked it up.  Well that became the rallying cry of Occupy Wall Street.  And if there was a seminal, or a central, foundational belief in Occupy Wall Street is that work is not how you got things, because even that deck was stacked. 

Occupy Wall Street was originally aimed at the 1% on Wall Street, rich bankers, investment bankers, investment people on Wall Street, all these various financial houses.  And the Occupy Wall Street people basically attempted to convey that things, the stuff that you get in life does not come from work. That that’s a fool’s errand, and people who buy into the notion that you have to work to get your stuff are victims of a big con game.  The 1% never worked.  They have all the money and they share it only with themselves, and it’s all a giant trick to get everybody toiling away for meager wages to benefit the already rich 1%. 

It was built on resentment of capitalism, anger at the unfairness of the distribution of resources and all of that crap.  And therefore, any act of civil disobedience was justified because they were fighting injustice and unfairness and unequal distribution of resources in a rigged game.  This was made to buttress Obama, and this is, I guess, I say where Elizabeth Warren sprang up, because the “you didn’t build that, you didn’t make that,” is directly traceable to the same kind of convoluted perverted thinking in Occupy Wall Street. 

Well, I think, using the Snerdley Doctrine, when it comes to explaining looters, I think looters have much the same kind of thought process. That stuff, things, houses, cars, what have you, that work is not gonna give you those things, ’cause it’s stacked deck.  If you engage in work, you’re just working for the man. You’re working for the 1%. You’re toiling away to make him richer, but you ain’t getting any of it.  You aren’t seeing any of it.  And, indeed, social justice pretty much teaches this exact thing.  And, therefore, social justice tells people who don’t have things that they are entitled to take whatever the hell they want when they can and when they want it because they are entitled to it, because it’s being purposely denied them. 

So when an opportunity springs up, such as the unfortunate shooting in St. Louis — or when your sports team wins, whatever it is — you make a beeline, because it’s all about justice.  It’s all about getting even.  It’s all about finally being able to grab some of what people are not letting you have.  This is the belief system — and, by the way, this is not just Occupy Wall Street.

This is pretty much the left in general, and the reason for their anti-capitalist stance.  It’s rigged, it’s unfair, and all this labor (i.e., their jobs) doesn’t get them anything.  It doesn’t get ‘em health care, it doesn’t get ‘em a TV set, doesn’t get ‘em whatever.  It gets all that for the boss.  The boss and the owner.  That’s the guy that gets rich, and he’s out playing golf every day or having three-martini lunches or whatever. He’s not working.  Ho-ho no!

He didn’t build his business on his own, either.  That’s the latest scam to be revealed.  No, no, no.  He didn’t build that!  The same duped laborers, who toil away for embarrassingly low wages, made the business owner’s business. They built it. They made it possible.  Yeah, and some of these Occupy people actually believe, “What do you mean, go to college?  I go to college, I go into debt, and my first job is at  McDonald’s? 

“What a rigged game!  You mean I’m not gonna get 80 grand out of college?  You mean I’m not gonna be living in Shaker Heights right out of college?  I’m not gonna be living in Pacific Heights right out of college?  I can’t move to the Upper East Side right out of college?  I’m not gonna have a house in the Hamptons right out of college?  Well, what a rigged game!”  So it’s this entitlement to stuff that is purposely being denied.

Right there is the soft bigotry of low expectations and how successful it has been.  They look around and they see all the evidence that they’re wrong.  There are success stories all of this country. People started with nothing and have however they define success.  It’s all around ‘em.  But yet they don’t want to get rid of that victim status.  It’s just too comforting, and it explains their failure as being somebody else’s fault, not their own. 

That’s the politics of all this.