Occupy Ottawa.

I think at least some of these guys should pull their pants up higher. Their IQ is showing.

Will have lots more to say on this shortly as I receive more clips. Thank you ‘Deke’ for taking the time and trouble to shoot this video and pass the clips along. I have had clips from Ottawa and London England come to me directly today from the people who filmed these faux-tests. Thank you very much for trusting me with your material.

Here was a guy who seemed to be a leader. But they don’t have leaders. Just people who are “facilitators” but “they do not make decisions” except of course, when they have no consensus, which they never can or do, and then yeah, the ‘facilitator’ makes the decision. At least that is what it looked like in Philly.

Here is a comment from Gates of Vienna with which, I totally agree. In fact I quasi-alude to it above and had planned to add the link to the video he refers to, and will do so the moment I have a few seconds to find it.

Travis McGee said…

The “hypno-toad” is actually called “the people’s microphone” by these freakazoid commies. Look at the youtube from Atlanta where Lewis was kept from speaking for the best example of the “people’s microphone” in action, and how easy it is for the cadres to control the lemmings and bend them to their will. Most importantly, it allows the real commie freaks to take over a very large crowd, because they are the only ones who know the rules of the game, and can boost their volume above any others. No interlopers stand a chance of being heard. It’s very well thought out for crowd control by a dedicated cadre. Please watch the Lewis/Atlanta video. Observe the union thugs and red shirts muscling people, and hand-signalling their leader. Very interesting. I’m sure their inspiration is the Bolsheviks, who seized control not by numbers, but by a keen understanding of group dynamics at all levels.

Meanwhile, a great deal of lip service was paid to equality of opinion and so on and so on. That there was no leader and all people were equal there. Yet oddly, if someone had a divergent opinion from the masses there, as did this fellow in Toronto…

 

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

21 Replies to “Occupy Ottawa.”

  1. “I’m not really up on politicians and such things” What an idiot, complaining about something about which she knows and admits to know absolutely nothing!

    It’s called Critical Theory – no matter what we have it’s unacceptable. The corollary of this is something which a lefty will never offer – a constructive suggestion, let alone a clear outline of the problem. Just slogans – get your candle, raise it high, and sing “Imagine”.

    What a sad commentary on humanity.

  2. Dallas,

    thanks to Glenn Beck.. I know that CT is a frankfurt school invention..

    he ain’t perfect.. but he’s batting better than Ted Williams in the foresight department..

  3. A couple quick constructive suggestions:
    -Increase taxes for the wealthy. Or, more importantly, enforce those taxes by closing the thousands of loopholes only available to the wealthy.
    -Increase taxes for corporations. Again, enforcing them by closing loopholes may be just as good.

    Now I don’t have Canadian numbers on hand, but I can easily pull up some stats for the US. In that country 1% of the population has 42% of the wealth. The top 5% own nearly 70%. The bottom 80% hold a minute 7%.
    Adjusted for inflation, CEO pay has increased almost 300% since 1990. Average production worker a mere 4%. Minimum wage is down 9%.

    This is not a question of things being “fair” as some have suggested (on both sides of the debate). It’s a question of exploitation and control. You also don’t have to know much about politics to protest the control corporations have – not only are they two separate things, but it doesn’t matter who you vote for. In the US, democrats and republics are both held in thrall to the lobbyists (and considering the lack of wealth, the bottom 80% can’t really afford those), while in Canada no party is likely to change much (even the NDP. Only the bloc might, but for reasons unrelated to economic equality).
    Not to mention there’s the whole cultural hegemony thing that the media helps keep hold. You do know about hegemony right?

    So this “lefty” has just offered some quick suggestions and a relatively clear outline of the problem. I come with no slogans, no candles and definitely no singing. Will this change your mind about so-called lefties? Of course not. And that’s what is a truly sad commentary on humanity. What happened to respecting our fellows and working together for the common good?

  4. Hey Kevin while you are looking things up check out who pays the taxes, it is the rich. You are trying to punish the people who work hard and create the jobs the rest have, all government can to do the economy is cause it to collapse. If you don’t believe me look at the state of all nations with command driven economies, they are basket cases that can’t feed themselves. Hell the trouble here in the west was caused by the Social Justice movement when they forced the banks to make unsound loans and the leftists in the banks decided to get rich off the bad loans.

    What you have to remember is, Socialism is simply organized theft by the government. This simply makes everyone except for the politicians poor.

  5. Kevin
    Why do you think +80% of the large corporations in the US support socialism?

    Very good example is the stimulus bills passed, those loop holes you are talking about and much more. The stimulus bills take money from the people and give it to select large corporations. If that isn’t wrong I don’t know what is.

    If you hate corporations like most socialists claim you are on the wrong side of the fence.

  6. The stimulus bills were stupidity in action, for the same amount of money you could have given every adult in the US over $70,000 most of which would have been spent in ways that would have increased revenue for the government. Not enough to pay off the borrowed money that was distributed but a lot more then the Marxist stimulus bills created.

  7. “You are trying to punish the people who work hard”

    Oh please. You seriously think the rich work hard? How many self-made millionaires are there? More importantly, outside of sports how many there are (athletes do generally work hard, and many come from lesser backgrounds, but they are also playing a game that they love and getting paid millions. Millions of people would put just as much effort in for less money, so they’re sort of in an iffy spot).
    Even if the rich work hard, which I doubt, are you trying to suggest that the average worker is not working hard? How about those that need to work until they’re 70, those that have medical bills, struggling to put their kids through college/university, etc.

    Let’s look at this another way; how did they get rich? Sure, they may have worked their ass off to do so, but how do they actually get the money? Take walmart; they sell products, so their money comes from sales (i.e. from the non-rich), but in order to guarantee they make more than they spend they have to have low production costs (i.e. hard production workers getting less money, generally in 3rd world countries) and low wages (i.e. walmart employees getting less money).
    The money therefore is leaving the pockets of the non-rich and going to the rich…why should the rich not, in turn, thank the non-rich by paying higher taxes? They’re only rich because of the non-rich.

    Government wouldn’t necessarily cause the economy to collapse. Let’s use an easy example, Canada vs the US. Canada has weathered the recession relatively well. Why? The common reasoning is because we have more rigid banking regulations. This is something that the Canadian government has put in place. In the US, George Bush’s government ensured that there were very relaxed banking regulations, which has resulted in a global recession. Remember those sub-prime mortgages? None of those in Canada, because of government regulations.
    I’m not suggesting politicians are perfect, certainly not. But I always find it interesting when the right blames everything on the politicians and absolves the wealthy, the corporations, of all guilt.
    You guys talked about bailout and stimulus…where did that money go? To corporations saying “if you don’t bail us out, your economy will go bust” and things like that. Is that the fault of too-much government but not the corporations? If it’s the fault of both, who are you actually advocating for here?

    “Socialism is simply organized theft by the government”
    This statement is a funny one. You’ve taken a rather complex system and boiled it down to one simple idea. Okay, let me try:
    “Capitalism is simply organized theft by the wealthy”
    Yay, that was fun!
    Okay, seriously, both of those statements are bullshit. Socialism mainly features the idea that the state exists to provide for its people, as opposed to the other way around (which is, frankly, closer to capitalism), though even that is overly simplying things. But do you not think that your country should be attempting to provide for its people? I mean, without the people you don’t really have a country, whereas without a country you still have people. Take healthcare. Sure, it costs a lot and isn’t always efficient. I’m a pretty healthy person – I’ve only ever had surgery once, and another time I had tonsilitis. I’m 25, relatively fit, I don’t smoke or drink, etc. But I don’t mind paying healthcare taxes, because I’d rather consistently pay a small amount, in order to not have a random big amount pop up one day when I slip on some ice and break my wrist, or some shit like that. That’s the whole point of insurance, no? The only difference is that having health care means everyone pays for everyone’s insurance, and you don’t have to worry about a private company marking the costs up 500%. What’s wrong with it? More importantly, picture yourself and your bills…imagine you lost your job today, your investments tanked, your pension disappears and then you get, I dunno, prostate cancer. How are you going to pay for it? How are you going to live the rest of your life? And that is the question that every single American should ask themselves…what if something happens? Do you really want to be dying on the street because you can’t afford to pay hospital bills?

    And that’s why socialism is great. It takes care of the people, so they can live their lives without having to stress out over massive potential problems. I can live my life and work my ass off to make sure I’m a success…but I know that if something happens, the state will take care of me. I don’t care if taxes are raised, it won’t make much difference to me. But if healthcare were privatised? Then I could be fucked…and you just never know what could happen.

    Oh, by the way, you don’t need the rich to create jobs. Ever heard of workers co-ops? What better motivation to work hard than recognising that the better you do the more money you make, without having some invisible hand (i.e. the owners) taking all the profits from you.

  8. Yes I agree. We don’t need the rich to create jobs. It is a fallacy to depend on the rich to create jobs. Not many rich people are really capable anyway. Freedom to compete, freedom to set-up our own small self-help organisation, free from slavery, freedom to improve our quality of life, freedom from irrational harrassment, freedom from rigid barbaric ideology, freedom to control our own life, freedom to improve our own economic status, freedom from horrible eastern culture, etc.

  9. It is normally 3 to 4 generations from shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves, the first generation makes the money, the second works to preserve it and the third and fourth spend it. The fourth or fifth are back to shirt sleeves working for their money.

    We don’t need the rich to provide jobs! Yes we do, the government regulations are strangling the small businesses, they are the ones who use to create the jobs, not it if the rich and big corporations who provide the jobs.

    The government exists to provide for the people, bull, the small government exists to provide essential services for the people, big government exists to provide power for the bureaucrats and the self proclaimed elite of the ruling class. If you will massively reduce the size of government then we wouldn’t need the rich to provide jobs, but you on the left won’t do that, you are in love with the idea of big government enslaving everyone so you don’t have to work.

  10. Rich individuals who don’t run corporations are not there to create jobs. They are entitled to keep their wealth for future generations if they wish to. It is the responsiblities of of governments or govermental corporations or other big corporations to provide jobs.

  11. The size of any corrupt governments need to be reduced and efficient, excellent private enterprise need to be increased so that more equal work opportunites is available to anyone that is suitable.

  12. It is not up to the rich individuals to create jobs. I am sure the rich who already paid a certain amount of tax and other not so rich who have to pay exorbitant tax for various services to the government, are entitled to keep their own money or invest in any place that they trust. It is up to good governments to use the tax money wisely and provide decent environment for decent growth to take place or maintain decent growth. If I am a rich person. I will run away from any bloated corrupt government.

  13. I find it interesting how little information you actually use in your arguments. For example, Richard says “If you will massively reduce the size of government then we wouldn’t need the rich to provide jobs”, but gives no reasoning behind that. Did I not mention that Canada, with its strong government, is in better shape than the US, with its weaker one?

    Anyways, here’s another thing you guys seem to forgot. The people in power are rich. They were when they got there, and they still are. They’re not working to punish their fellow rich men, they’re working to keep the status quo as much as possible. If they go too far one way, their fellow rich bring out the big guns and they lose their political power. If they go too far the other way the public suffers and votes for the other guy.
    If you look at the backgrounds of most political leaders you will find money. Somebody paid for their education (usually law school, which can get pretty expensive, no?). Easiest example is the oil rich Bush family (clearly they wanted to destroy the rich and help the poor!), but in Canada you could easily mention a guy like Paul Martin. He was an elected member of the liberal party for 20 years, owned a shipping company, and was finance minister from ’93 to ’02. Clearly he was in a position to make decisions about taxes and spending, but as a business owner do you think he was solely focused on helping the non-rich?

    So ya, it’s good that you guys want less corrupt government. Everybody should. The only thing is you seem to ignore who that corruption helps, and who it hurts. The banks have a lot of guys in place near the top, advising presidents and candidates. So is it any surprise that they not only got bailed out, but then turned around and used that money to make loans to the US government, enjoying excellent interest payments from it? That’s not because of “big” government, it’s because of a too-strong financial sector. It’s not the only one.
    In a similar situation, I think a socialist government would not bailout these industries, but buy them. Then the state would run GM, Chrysler, the banks, etc. The state would be creating jobs, or at least preventing some from being cut. The owners of those companies failed, their CEOs failed, their boards failed. And yet they are still strong today, making millions, while the governments are forced to run higher and higher deficits, and the people suffer.
    A capitalist government should have let them die; only the strong survive right? But they didn’t because of the massive damage that would have done. Hm, that seems like a flaw. Capitalism needs business to succeed, otherwise the government fails…which means government is dependent on business…and thus subservient to capital instead of to labour. So who has the power in the US? Certainly not this big corrupt government you guys keep complaining about.

    By the way, here are the charts of interest: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1

  14. Smaller government leaves more money for the individual, the individuals then invest their money to make more money, this creates jobs for people. Governments don’t create jobs, the only thing they do is stifle innovation and limit the growth of business.

    One way the governments stifle job growth is to put so many regulations in place is is almost impossible to start a small business, in the US the majority of jobs are in small businesses, businesses the government is forcing our of business by the unnecessary regulations of who your can hire. How long they can work and how much you have to pay them.

    You on the left never learn that when you limit what people can keep you limit the growth of businesses and the innovation that gives us a better standard of living.

    As far as Canada being in better shape, you don’t have a President running around borrowing money like crazy and spending it to pay off his campaign contributors. As far as the big governments look at Europe, their big governments have them in worse shape then the US.

  15. We can’t depend on government to do anything these days. They are either biased, think about their own selfish interest only or think only about a certain section of the community interest only which is their kin or their kind. Perhaps, after so many incidence of abusive asian governments in asia, it t is better we govern our own life in asia, instead of wasting money on asian government and big useless asian corporations whose only purposes is to suppress our free will.

  16. I was commenting about asian type of governance in general and not western type of governance which is better and more professional in many ways. I think a good government would just stand a side and ensure the smooth running of private enterprises, and ensure that capitalism would thrive and run in a fair manner. A good governance will not interfere uneccesarily and will ensure that the majority and the minority will have a fair deal.

  17. It strikes me that the people on this blog are doing a lot of good, otherwise the left wouldn’t be attacking as hard as they are, and attacking by using the same old tired dogma they started using about 1900. You know the stuff that led to the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

  18. I know I’m a bit late checking back, but I got busy with some stuff.

    All I want to say though, is that I’m amused by your Nazi Germany thing. You clearly don’t know your history if you think the left led to Nazi Germany…

    First, in Germany; The Nazis talked big about the people, but were loved by the rich for many reasons. One was because they fought…the communists. I would not suggest the communists in Germany (or Russia) were great, but you can’t really suggest that the left supported the Nazis in Germany.

    In greater Europe the Nazis had support because they were ideologically opposed to the communists (you know, far left vs far right). Governments in Europe feared a communist uprising in their own country, which led to Franco winning the war in Spain (England, France claimed neutrality and said no foreign armies should be sent to Spain. Germany, Italy agreed, then sent their armies to back Franco. Russia backed the democratically elected REPUBLIC, though of course also the spanish communists. So Franco won because England and France chose right wing fascism over democracy; clearly because they were left wing and loved communism…)

    Some of your arguments have weight, others don’t. But once you start suggesting that the left helped lead to a right-wing fascist dictatorship in Nazi Germany, you really shoot yourself in the foot.

    p.s. Neville Chamberlain, best known for his appeasement policy, was a Tory Prime Minister (read: centre-right, not centre-left). The one before him was Stanley Baldwin – another Tory. The one before that was Ramsay MacDonald, Labour (centre-left)…except that his government was a coalition that depended on the Tories, and policy was essentially controlled by Baldwin and Chamberlain. So the centre-right made all the decisions leading up to the war, from ~1929 onwards.

  19. You are the one that doesn’t know history, google about leftist fascists and you will find a lot of articles about how the Fascists and Nazi’s were leftists and the left proudly claimed them. This changed after Germany attacked the USSR, then the left started calling the Nazi’s the far right, as Eeyore says the only difference between National Socialism and International communism is the Inter.

  20. Kevin:

    NAZI is an acronym for National Socialist Workers Party. It was leftist through and through and used the same campaign posters as did the Bolsheviks in fact. At one point, Hitlers minister for propaganda, Goebbels, actually gave an interview to the New York Times explaining the communist roots and beliefs of the NAZI party. The Times of course supported them as they do every leftist despot. The same Goebbles criticized Hitler for ripping off the Russian communists so blatantly as he wished to distinguish the German, ‘National socialism’ from the Bolshevik, ‘International socialism’ more than Hitler was. Both of course wanted to take over the world and impose their ideals on everyone.

    Kevin on an earlier comment, which I must confess I have not read all of, you pontificated on how much people should be allowed to earn and by what means. You felt it was more fair for athletes to earn millions but then again, maybe not because they enjoy what they do. I would like to ask you…

    What makes you feel you even have the right to speculate on what others are worth? If I want to pay you for example, 50,000,000$ a year to comment on this site and you decided to accept, and you enjoyed writing absurd,easily provably wrong pseudo history for that kind of money, why should some other totalitarian quasi fascist like yourself decide that you shouldn’t get to keep that money that another idiot like me, for my own reasons, might feel you are worth?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*