How Egypt Justifies Its Brutal Crackdown: Occupy Wall Street

Two people were killed in Cairo and Alexandria this weekend as Egyptian activists took the streets to protest the military's attempts to maintain its grip on power. And guess how the state is justifying its deadly crackdown.

We saw the firm stance the US took against OWS people & the German govt against green protesters to secure the state," an Egyptian state television anchor said yesterday...

Yeah--it gets harder and harder to maintain a moral high ground when videos like this and pictures like this are unavoidable.

Cash almost didn't exist so goods were charged at stores usually owned by the landowners. Quality was low and prices were high and yet complaints were few. If the customer didn't like it they could take their business someplace else.

Of course someplace else, if it existed at all, was miles away and with horse drawn wagons as the majority transportation it was very difficult to get there. And then you needed cash.

I grew up in that world.

It had improved by the time I was a teenager and my parents made it out by working two jobs and buying their own farm. I joined the Navy and it finished my education and then I finished my working career in corporations advancing from sweeping the lab floor to having a business card saying, "Senior Vice President."

I note these things not to brag, but to establish who I was and what I became. And the further point is what motivated us?

In all of this my parents generation and my generation had goals. They knew where they where and where they wanted to go. I was much the same.

As a country we fought WWII and then the Cold War while, at the same time, enjoying economic growth and living conditions improvements unparalleled in the history of the world.

It wasn't easy and much can be credited to what FDR started and the unions and later the civil rights struggle. And even the Vietnam demonstrators seemed to be mostly good intentions although the presence of "fellow travelers," "useful idiots" and people such as Bill Ayers and wife hurt much more than they helped.

But through all of this we had "goals." We knew what we wanted and we stated them and we worked towards them.

We also learned that when people couldn't tell you what they wanted it meant that they didn't know or they knew but wanted to conceal it from you. The former meant they would likely cause more harm than good. The latter meant they wanted to change society to their vision and they knew that their vision would be rejected by the majority.

I think the Occupiers are made up of both types. And I think the latter is controlling and directing the former.

I see them as people who, instead of wanting to expand, want to control. They are of a group that thinks government can fix all things and that someone in DC will know how much electrical power will be needed at some point. In other words, they are basically socialists, Marxists and communists.

They represent people who take a good thing and then destroy it by demanding that we "do more."

They typify "Best is the enemy of Good."

And instead of attacking the cause, a government that has been co opted at all levels by speculators... Wall Street gave more money to Obama than McCain....They attack the effect.

And you know far too little about me to make such sweeping statements.

I will give them this, dressing up as 'patriots' was genius.  Imagine the police clubbing Franklin or tear gassing Washington.  

Every one of their Occupies is a pro-life demonstration.

The difference between them and what is generally referred to as pro-life is that they really are pro-life.

Since the crash of 2008,

What movement, what organization. what pundit, what politician has captured the attention of governments, the media, the public, and the 1% worldwide?

I, too, am disappointed that  Dimon, Blankfein, Paulsen, and a few thousand other criminals of humanity haven't tendered their resignations, dropped to their knees, and begged for mercy. .......yet.

But, this "leaderless" organization has been too busy gathering 400 colleges and universities which have agreed to give OWS permanent, or semi-permanent residence.........so far, only 400.

As a Wall Street guy, he has been rather uniquely positioned to take his arguments directly to OWS.  That he hasn't bothered should say something, I would think.  

1. It is possible to give credit for, and to celebrate, what abolitionists have accomplished in publicly convening, while believing that the movement as currently operating will have to change and adapt to continue to be relevant.  Someone makes that point directly as well:
"Thus the question going forward: Will the anti-slavery movement play into the hands of its enemies by living up to the stereotypes they are trying to create? Or will it instead move to a phase that builds on its success?"

2.  My position has been that, from almost the very start, it was obvious that the movement would have a pivot point - say, Congress deciding to let slavery expand even more west of the Mississippi by letting new states there, coming into the Union from above the Mason-Dixon line were it extended west, to be slave states -- and the ability of abolitionists to recognize and move at that pivot point was always going to be the key to its long term power. At some point slavery states and non-participating, non-slaveowning citizens (even sympathetic ones) were going to have to start doing things to enforce laws, keep the nuisance of runaway slaves in check, etc. Also, the lack of focus will start muddling their power -- I mean, are they about aiding runaway slaves or about passing laws to help them?  They ought to do the latter, really, as there certainly would not be sympathy in this great land for making the situation of 99% of slaves worse with something like a Fugitive Slave Law!  Here in the South, abolitionists are planning a march against police brutality due to the shooting by police, as slavecatchers for wealthy plantation owners, of a suspected runaway slave last month and others that happened almost every day for years, decades, a century now.  Those might be great causes, but at the end of the day, the lack of drafting specific legislation -- and don't tell me that's the job of legislators -- pulls abolitionism away from its focus and weakens the 99/1% argument. 99% may be in the same situation on issues, not owning slaves themselves and suffering from the impact of slavery on free labor, but the numbers for and against the use of force by police officers in capture of runaways  may be way different.  The stretch to breaking of the law by abolitionists weakens what I thought their core concerns were.   Plus winter is coming and the numbers were going to start dwindling just by nature of the cold, although there are those dreamers who note that the occasional freezing of the Ohio River may be just what some Eliza needs to get to a free state.  Nevertheless, there has to be a plan for the next stage for the movement to be successful and maintain support from the nation, lest the movement simply wait for the 1% to continue passing stupid laws that, with each law, will awaken more supporters - each law a `pivot point' for some supporters, until the most egregious laws cause an influx of massive support.

3.  Unfortunately, without leaders, I do not think the movement will be able to make the pivot.   Don't point out to me this William Lloyd Garrison guy who organized the American Anti-Slavery Association last year and others who have disseminated their goals.  I demand specific demands - such as just which year we are supposed to end slavery, such as exactly in which states first and then which states next, such as exactly the language of the legislation that would prevent slavery's expansion, and when, and where - and don't bring up this pie-in-the-sky possibility of a war with Mexico in which we would claim a third of that country's land, including some place called Texas, to turn that into slave states, too.  Be realistic; that couldn't happen, not even a decade and a half from now.  The Missouri Compromise is working fine.  I think the news - well, the news except for Garrison's silly newspaper, the so-called Liberator -- will increasingly be full of protestors who look less like the average slaveowner and more like the extremes of the movement, like those whites who betray their race and class and even consort with freed slaves who worked their way to freedom for decades, as we all do -- and most of us have to pay for the roofs over our heads and the food on our tables, unlike these slaves who get all that given to them.  So I think the abolitionist numbers will dwindle, and I think that outside of the radical sphere, the movement will be marginalized.  And the very fact that the wealthy and powerful will marginalize the movement proves that the movement must be wrong.  I hope I am wrong, but not really, as you can tell.

4.  Repeat: I support abolitionism and its core points.  Unfortunately, you have to continually repeat that if you suggest that abolitionists may need to change, and especially these immediatists like Garrison and his society, who want - but where are their specific demands, again? - slavery to end all at once, rather than help the poor, misunderstood 1% pick their time to free slaves sometime or other, say, after a few more generations of their families have had time to invest in something else to preserve their fortunes and political power.  In that thinking, I am joined by many a man on the frontier, like this young Lincoln guy I know in Illinois, who never will change from being a gradualist about ending slavery to being an immediatist and even joining this odd new movement that Garrison began.   There it is. Again.  The abolitionists just are doing it wrong.   Therefore, they will get nowhere with this.  Trust me on that.
   

"Thus the question going forward: Will the Occupy movement play into the hands of its enemies by living up to the stereotypes they are trying to create? Or will it instead move to a phase that builds on its success?

Ongoing violent demonstrations will simply not help the cause, and the Martin Luther King Jr.'s lessons on nonviolence are useful here. Thismovement is about something much bigger than "occupying" a particular space. Occupations proved to be a shrewd tactic. They are not a cause or an end in themselves. Focusing on holding a piece of public land simply makes the movement a hostage to the decisions of local officials, some of whom will inevitably be hostile to its purposes."

That's my point exactly.  Are you disagreeing with that point?

Probably more importantly, it's also the point of many of OWS's most prominent members as well:

Link

No matter how peaceful and positive the movement is, one bad act in one city can destroy good will across the nation.  We only need one OWS affiliated person to commit a bad act for the whole thing to be placed in danger.

The margin of error is very slim.  I am very concerned that the work of thousands of good people could be destroyed by the random acts of a few.  I am in the business of risk management, and  if I was consulting OWS on the best way to maximize potential while minimizing the chance that the movement is derailed, real coordination would be the order of the day.

It's no different than a company that has no internal controls.  It may be profitable. It may be wildly successful.  But at some point the lack of structure will bring the company down.  It's not that it might happen.  It ALWAYS happens.

Our ability to describe & discuss may be affected by whether we emphasize the unifying national theme--the original theme--or whether we look to individualized city developments. IMO, the national focus is important in terms of messaging & general populace interest/support...without that clear theme, observers would drive wedges & the groups, like other historically short-lived spontaneous movements, might flounder. OTOH, encouraging the individual components to develop in accord with the needs of their communities would seem to strengthen the national focus by allowing the successful tactics from various operations to be included in the nationally visible effort.