Anarchy in the U.S.A. - The roots of American disorder.

Yes. A dual campaign of

infiltration

and

disinformation within their ranks

is most definitely called for. There are many patriots who are retired or who have day jobs that border on these kinds of activities, and can freelanc in their spare time in ways to disrupt those Occutard movements, it will be like taking candy from a baby, using SNS tools that they use to spread anarchy or marxism-leninism, right back on themselves. A good approach is to "flash mob their assess" to go to the wrong place, sew confusion, do that enough times over and over and over and soon without a strong central leadership and/or a counter intelligence appartus (which is way above their tactical brain and pay level) they won't believe anybody posting an SNS "rallying call" for the convening of communist general assembly or whatever the damn things are that they call them, and other direct actions. This disruption is not only patriotic, it is our DUTY as Good Americans to thwart, confuse and demoralize these dregs of society.

And YES, I too know they also read FR; "THERE I SAID IT" (as Mark Levin would say) so they can shove it where the sun don't shine. We ARE the .... 53% (taxpayers and producers), and we are not going to take this sitting down, the further disruption of public order and a shaky economy trying to recover and people able to go to and from their places of work, worship or education without such public disruption.

The following comment is not directed at Catskip

“Never in living memory has such a small political movement received such disproportionate attention from the press.”

Hmmm /s
My memory is quite good.
The parallels are astounding

I seem to remember a little corporal somewhere in recent history.

Cannot remember the mans name but, I do remember he caused the deaths of many, had a funny little mustache, an in inflated opinion of himself.

Those who refuse to read or learn from history are destined to repeat history.
These OWS are participants in this replay of history, and are either ignorant or complicit.
Either way they are pawns, woe the pawn as he is expendable.

This is a great article but it does have it's quirks.

David Graeber identifies January 1, 1994, as the birth of the antiglobalization movement. That was the day the North American Free Trade Agreement went into effect, and the Zapatistas launched their revolt in Chiapas, Mexico. The model for twenty-first century anarchism was established. “The Zapatistas,” Graeber writes, “with their rejection of the old-fashioned guerrilla strategy of seizing state control through armed struggle, with their call instead for the creation of autonomous, democratic, self-governing communities, in alliance with a global network of like-minded democratic revolutionaries, managed to crystallize, often in beautiful poetic language, all the strains of opposition that had been slowly coalescing in the years before.” In a “flat” world, where borders and national governments counted for less and less, the new anarchism would reject the idea of seizing state power by force. Anarchist forms of organization, Graeber wrote, “would involve an endless variety of communities, associations, networks, projects, on every conceivable scale, overlapping and intersecting in any way we could imagine, and possibly many that we can’t.”

He's right, the anti-global movement began then. It was also the beginning of globalization. Since then borders, particularly in the Western Hemisphere, mean less and less - unless you are a totalitarian country south of the U.S. OUR borders were to be porous while they maintained their borders.

I am a bit confused though. Didn't NAFTA effectively create a small "commune" of countries? Shouldn't that have appealed to the socialists yet they argue against it? It seems they would have welcomed the opening of markets and the free flow of labor.

I am/was against NAFTA because it creates the illusion that all these little countries have become, at least in the eyes of the political elite, the equal of the U.S. It was the beginning of the erosion of "American Exceptionalism" backed by the U.S. government. We now are supposed to believe that we are the same as Ecuador, Honduras, etc. vis-a-vis markets and the ability to create wealth. This is pure folly.

Anarchists claim not to want to rule anyone, but by denying the right to personal property, they essentially oppress the average person i.e. the would-be property owner. Totalitarian fascists all of them.

You're thinking of those people all dressed in black with little circle-A badges. Actual anarchy is defined by the individual anarchist, hence the name. People like me are more anarchist than those capital A freaks you're talking about. Most critics of anarchy rely on straw-man mythical Anarchy as a critical target. The capitalized Anarchists you're complaining about are a bunch of Communitarians, aka proto-communists.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html

After reading this, I almost have to agree on the whole “too much power” issue with the banks...

But in reality, it seems to me that it is just an absolute travesty, like a sucking butt wound that our government makes deals like this and are not held accountable...

As far as I am concerned we need to fire them all...

Just my opinion...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.