Occupy Wall Street: The Class War & The Nationalist Solution

Article by Robert Stark.


Actress Roseanne Barr expressed the sentiment of a lof of Americans when she problaimed on Russia Today’s Max Keiser show that if she were President “part of my platform is, of course, the guilty must be punished and that we no logner let our children see their guilty leaders getting away with murder. I do say that I am in favor of the return of the guillotine and that is for the worst of the the worst of the guilty. I first would allow the guilty bankers to pay, you know, the abbility to pay back anything over $100 Million of personal wealth because I believe in a maximum wage of $100 million. And if they are unable to live on that amount than they should, you know, go to the re-education camps and if that doesn’t help, than being beheaded.”

While many Conservatives dismissed her as a socialist who also happens to be very wealthy herself, Americans across the class ideological spector and class divide feel they have been screwed over by Wall Street. When an average person looses money in a bad investment they are screwed but when the banskers on wall street screwed up they were rewarded with billions of tax payers dollars. This anger over the bailouts and economic declined contributed to both the rise in the Tea Party movement as well as a growing anti-capitalist sentiment. While both groups may be at odds with each other they both grew out of the same resentment for the bailouts of Wall Street.

However both groups have been co-opted by powerful financial interest. Kurt Nimmo of Alex Jones’s Infowars recieved an anonymous e-mail stating that “there is one major inaccuracy in all the coverage that has been bothering me, and that is the focus on Anonymous as the architects and organizers of the event The initial call for the protest was put out by the magazine Adbusters.”

Adbusters is an anti-consumerist organization which supports many just causes but it has recieved $334,217.00 from George Soros’s Tides Foundation. George Soros is one of the wealthiest financiers in the world and though is used financed many leftist and globalist causes thoughout the world. Soros is also conected to the Day of rage on Wall Street via the Ruckus Society which is Tides foundation donated $4.2 Million to in 2008.

Nimmo who suports libertarianism and states that the goals of the protesters is to dissmantel Capitalist rightfully points out that “the ruling elite, their banks and transnational corporations do not pay taxes, the little people do, as Leona Helmsely arrogantly noted. Increasing taxes on the “1 percent,” as the movement demands, to save the “99 percent,” will result in a further erosion of the middle class, as the elite know.” He adds that the “the higher taxes may very well cause the smaller businesses to go out of business,” notes the Collateral Damage blog. “They won’t have the economies of scale to compete with the bigger corporations, so what ends up happening is that the small business assets eventually get sold to the big corporations, usually for a fraction of what the assets are worth. So in effect, it ends up being a wealth transfer from the middle class to the super elite rich.”

While I agree with the protesters that Capitalistalism has been corrupted I see the elites dooping them into support regulations favoring the elites. The Federal Reserve was originally marketed to the American people as populist reform against finance but if anything it granted these same financiers the power to print and issue currency rather than the Congress as the Constitution requires.

The other major movement being the Tea Party is focused on opposition to Socialism, Big Government and Tax Increases. Much like the left they despise they are also missguided in the sense that their hatred of big government and socialism blindes them to the fact that the elites are waging class war on the middle class though debt, speculation, job oursourcing, and mass immigration. The Tea Party Movement is also being backrolled by ultral wealthy Globalist. The two major promoters and financiers of the Tea Party are Fox News which is owned by Globalist Open Borders Advocate Rupert Murcoch and the Koch Brothers Financiers who are opposed to any regulations to limit the power of Finance.

Back to the the protesters on the left, akey part of the leftist philosophy is Anti-Nationalist and Open Borders. This is one of the main reasons that the financial elites have funded leftist causes. Your average person would think that Wall Street and the left are arch enmies but that could be further from the truth. They want open borders for a number of reasons, one being cheap labor, the other being finaciers want access to markets thoughout the world and finance is the driving force behind globalization. Nationalism is the number one threat to the financial elites. Nationalism leads to Populism and people uniting against the parasitic elites. That is why they want to diversify the populations and weaken the national identity, Divide and Conquer.

I discuss Occupy Wall Street and the issues of Class Warfare, Controled Opposition, and how Nationalism solves these problems with Comedian and Political Commentator Ramzpaul.


Categories: Uncategorized

2 replies »

  1. Hmmm… the elimination of borders is a very anarchist idea, so what’s the criticism of that concept doing here???

    RJ is right, Adbusters initiated the idea, Anonymous promoted it. Who cares who Adbusters gets money from. I think their critique of consumption kapitalism is spot on.

  2. “Hmmm… the elimination of borders is a very anarchist idea, so what’s the criticism of that concept doing here???”

    “Open borders” is a deceptive term that is used to camouflage efforts by the state and the ruling class in contemporary Western societies to subjugate their traditional populations by means of demographic overrun. This is not a new tactic. It’s been used by ruling classes since time immemorial. The Romans imported populations from their outlying colonies to be used as mercenaries in the declining era of the empire. Stalin used it against the Baltic states and captive nations of Eastern Europe. The CCP uses it against Tibet. The Israelis use it against the Palestinians with their so-called “settlements.”




    A more genuinely anarchist approach to immigration might be something like this:

    The immigration issue is probably one of the things that undermines our ability to appeal to both the Left and the Right. Many of us are immigration skeptics, so the left-anarchists think we’re fascists. Meanwhile, nationalists think we’re just another left-wing open borders movement. I think a big part of our ability to grow our own milieus will depend on the degree to which we can successfully convince the left-anarchists that equating anarchism with support for mass immigration is theoretically flawed and convincing nationalists that private property rights, local sovereignty, regional federations charged with defending common boards, the right of specific tribes to ethno-cultural self-preservation, alternative economies that undermine the immigration-friendly corporate economy and so forth are better ways of curbing immigration than, for instance, The Turner Diaries and other forms of right-wing lunacy.

    I don’t think this issues needs to be a source of division. In an anarchist civilization, some of the free cities, towns, villages, communes, workers’ syndicates, cantons, etc. might have open borders, while others might have restricted entry. Irreconcilable disagreements about his and other issues might be handled by secession. As a practical matter and within the context of our present statist system, I’d say simply give immigration policy back to the states and localities. Arizona can have a restrictive immigration policy and San Francisco can be a sanctuary city. Liberal communities in Arizona can then secede and become independent territories if they want, while anti-immigration neighborhoods in the Bay Area can form restrictive covenants and that kind of thing.

    I think a big question here is who owns property that is not considered “private” in a conventional sense? Who owns the “means of immigration” like roads, highways, seaports, airports, public lands, coasts, waterways, etc. Who rightfully owns land currently under the control of the state? Once again, minus the state I think we’d see a plethora of immigration policies, not just a single policy imposed from the center.

    A point of reconciliation here might be to address the “root causes” (a nice liberal term) of mass immigration rather than arguing about what a utopian immigration policy would be. Minus the subsidy of the state and the willingness of capital to exploit cheap immigrant labor, immigration would dwindle to a large degree. If we had more worker-run industries, the workers wouldn’t fire themselves to hire cheap immigrant labor. A diminished or more restrictive welfare system would mean fewer immigrants coming to take advantage of state benefits. An end to aggressive foreign wars would mean fewer refugees and asylum seekers. Abolition of discrimination prohibition and restoration of freedom of association would mean people could exclude immigrants from their own private communities, institutions or organizations all they wished. I generally think left-anarchists are correct to oppose exploitation of immigrant labor and abusive conditions in ICE detention centers and I think “right-wing” anarchists are justified in opposing mass immigration as a demographic threat. It’s not a question of either/or.

Leave a Reply