I’ve seen people who have been so thoroughly damaged by their past that their anger consumes them and is dished out upon the surrounding world.
Their inability to let the past go cripples them. Unlike the song, they shall not overcome. Instead, they give into a formidable and dangerous form of envy, because its easier then taking any responsibility. Why work on yourself, if others are completely at fault?
It is indeed envy more than it is jealousy because envy is the reaction to lacking what others have while jealousy is the usual reaction to losing what you have – usually not just in possessions, but people as well.
Look at the roots of the Social Justice dogma that plagues my millennial generation; it is a fundamental belief that you have been deprived, wronged, and prevented from having what is rightfully yours. Everyone else is oppressing you.
The 1%, the cis straight white male with a decent white collar job, the normal everyday blue collar worker with no criminal record; they don’t deserve it, but the fact that they have it and you don’t leads to that boiling rage and all consuming fire of envy. It’s not even just limited to success, as people covet the looks of others, blaming those looks and their lack of them for their inability to succeed. On social media, this has been dubbed, “The Instagram Effect”.
Look at the results of that fire. It destroys the lives of those who social justice types and feminists who have subconsciously and unknowingly became nihilists as the logical conclusion of their ideology tears into reality.
Consider the critics of men like Mike Cernovich. What is at the root of their anger toward him? His success. His influence. His ability to self-publish a book and sell over 15,000 copies in less than six months. Because they can’t have it, no one else can. They want his “fame” and “fortune”, but they don’t want any of the hardwork that went with it and the family that Cernovich has created in these last few years.
They firmly believe that they are simply “leveling” the playing field, but don’t actually realize that they are destroying it because they hate themselves and what they have become.
Of course they can’t realize this because they are so thoroughly broken by their pasts, that they can’t see beyond their own pain, nor see the pain of other “privileged” people in front of them.
The resentment that Quintus talks about is all consuming. People who have more then you do aren’t just “privileged”, they are an enemy. Because they have what you don’t, they must be taken down a notch and made to “check their privilege.” Why create when you can steal, plunder, and destroy what was your enemies?
But even that isn’t enough. They are a kind of evil, to be vanquished. The homeless cis straight white male on the streets isn’t evidence of holes in their ideology, but rather a confirmation that the “Patriarchy”, “White Supremacy”, or whatever other buzzword effects the “privileged”.
Envy when left unchecked, and the anger and resentment that give birth to it, eventually result in a complete lack of empathy. Ironically, that lack of empathy is exactly what they credit as to leading up to “systematic racism”, “white supremacy”, “Patriarchy” and the rest of it.
Why? What is turning them into Medusas that turn to stone everything they see?
Nietzsche was right when he said, “Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster… for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”
They are now that monster, fueled by anger and resentment of what others supposedly have which they do not. Leveling the playing field isn’t enough anymore; they must now destroy and dismantle everything that the previous “establishment” has created and produced.
This is why political correctness isn’t just running amok, its becoming more personal each and every day as the political becomes deeply personal.
It’s why Huck Finn is too “dangerous” to be allowed in literature classes because it hurts the “feelings” of those who have supposedly has much less and therefore it’s educational benefits that other students may gain from it simply doesn’t matter.
Envy is indeed dangerous, especially to those who are desperate to find a cause to give their life meaning and in turn adopt causes like “Feminism”, “Fat Acceptance”, and “Cultural Sensitivity” because they know their life doesn’t have purpose. So does everyone else.
Because of that, no one else’s life can either.
This doesn’t have to be any of us. It doesn’t have to be you. Even if everyone else is completely at fault for your problems, it won’t change the fact that you still face those problems.
“Stop hating and start creating.” – Mike Cernovich
Vox Day via Milo Yiannapolous makes an important point in a recent post, “Embrace Your Extremists” regarding the current culture war and how we should deal with particularly active, aggressive, and rabid SJWs who are on the attack.
“If you want to stop people using bad tactics, the only way to do it is to make them prohibitively costly. And the only way to do that is to use the same tactics with such brutal efficiency that they cry “uncle” and agree to a ceasefire.”
I’ve come to realize that the moral high-ground isn’t just useless vs particularly active and vicious SJWs, but a dangerous handicap. As Internet Aristocrat has said, “You can’t reason with these people. They don’t care. They are narcissists to the core.”
Now each situation is different, but when you deal with SJWs actively trying to go after you, fighting fire with fire is an absolute necessity – for instance when they try to change the Code of Conduct of a company/organization to begin their Stalinist purges and thought-police even the most meek of dissenters. Note that these dissenters are often moderates, who at a certain point will get fed up.
Companies and corporations still have yet to realize that disgruntled people sending emails to them usually don’t represent even 5% of their customer base. Until they do, these tactics will continue to be effective and we should utilize them like our cultural enemies are.
To be honest, Sarah was trying to engage in a philosophical conversation over the issues of age of consent, sexuality, ect on “her” forum posts and blogs. However, when she started labeling opponents – namely #GamerGate and others with every “ist” and “ism” under the scalding sun – while trying to destroy any critics and GamerGate supporters, she began her own Pearl Harbor and the response she is receiving is her just due. She refrained from actual honest intentions in her dialogue and began her campaign of extermination.
Now every SJW isn’t Sarah Butts.
I know some SJWs in real life. They aren’t active and they don’t participate in email and social media campaigns to destroy people. They should be treated as POWs. Never employ “scorched earth” against those who haven’t initiated it first. Guilt By Association SHOULD not be attached to what I would call the, “nominal SJWs.”
We don’t want to turn “thinkers” into flag-burning revolutionaries so to speak, which is why each SJW individual should be handled differently based on what they actually do and endorse.
Vox’s use of the word “extremist” is also telling and its an important indicator of how important the war over words actually is. Consider what used to be considered an “extremist” 100 years ago or yet better a “fundamentalist”.
The connotation went from having fundamentals to being some sort of religious… extremist. Brilliant when you think about it. “Extremist” is today’s current expansion on that concept and it’s unfortunate that the radical social justice left is winning when it comes to attaching a specific connotation when the word is used.
Labels are again the primary weapon. SJWs will label anyone who dissents from their narrative as extremists. Now any normal person who hears the word “extremist” attached to an individual or group will immediately assume a negative about them before hearing anything they have to say.
It’s important for us to use the word when referencing SJWs so that (1) their wordplay can’t be used to control the narrative, (2) they cant effectively utilize attacking the individual instead of the ideas by causing people to dismiss “extremists” without hearing what actually makes them extreme from a source that isnt an SJW.
Remember, when your opponents engage in demagoguery, label slander, and every other slight under the sun designed to destroy your character and reputation, it is absolutely necessary to not only fight back with their same tactics, but to do it with urgency.
Reputations of semi-private individuals can be destroyed online and the truth won’t matter, rather what the neutral public observes from the loudest mouths will shape their perception of who you and what you stand for. It’s up to you to shape that.
Disclosure: I’ve recently talked a bit with Ben via digital means. He also points out that he does not identify as a feminist.
Ben was pierced for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.
The vengeance for all of the cat-calls, all of the “creepy” men with their ingrained misogynistic awkwardness, and the sum of all “harassment” that they had ever experienced was visited upon Ben. His apology was scorned. These militant feminists; they know not what they do.
Or do they?
You terrible male cis shitlords, check your privilege.
It wasn’t until this week that I found out who Ben Schoen was. He is actually the the owner of Feminspire and what one would call an equality feminist – similar to that of Christina Hoff Summers. Arguably, he’s put a lot of time, effort, and resources into fighting the good feminist fight.
But, based on a series of interactions that certain feminists didn’t approve of, none of that mattered at all. Anything he had done to help women was all thrown out the window. Today in popular feminist online blogging and academic culture, the burden of the sinful male feminist is a tough, exhausting, un-rewarding, soul-sucking, and constant mandate to prove the support they have for their female feminist masters.
Ben’s mistake was one he was born with, one that all of us terrible male shitlords who breathe oppression suffer from on a daily basis – he is male.
This is the original sin of not just 3rd wave feminism, but of much of today’s social justice tripe that focuses on only your biology, while entirely ignoring your character.
The Entitled Interaction
Our story begins with a message to a Buzzfeed writer, Grace Spelman who decided to air all of their personal dirty laundry which started this twitter lynch mob – something that should surprise none of you. (Note that when I tweeted at Ben, she suddenly followed me then blocked me. I reciprocated the favor.)
Ben used to be involved in a Harry Potter fan podcast and she friended him on Facebook because of that podcast about eight years ago. Forward to present day and a certain site had an article on Grace’s twitter – or instagram – profile as one with 10k followers that people should check out.
Well, he did just that and realized he knew her. He then sent her several tweets, to which she didn’t respond. So he sent her a message though Facebook, one that I must admit while somewhat humorous was awkward. (Another reason why men should learn about Game.)
Then he moved to Facebook. I politely told him I was seeing someone and then blocked him on FB & Twitter pic.twitter.com/k84dCJ3OrT
Consider some of the gems Grace has written for Buzzfeed.
“30 Shirts For The Weirdos In Your Life” with the sub header, “Embrace Your Inner Weirdo”. Besides all the shirts apparently being made off Zazzle’s shirt maker in 30 seconds, that inner weirdo embrace definitely didn’t seem to apply to Ben.
18 Pickup Lines You Should Try Immediately” I particularly enjoyed “6. I noticed your arm grazed against my sweater. Pretty soft, huh? Go ahead, feel it. Do you know what it’s made of? Cashm-—CRAP, I mean, “boyfriend material.” I’m sorry. I’m really nervous.“
18 Sexts You’d Actually Love To Get. My personal favorite, “About to go through your Facebook and like all your profile pictures.” That’s not at all creepy and stalkerish that every male feminist should embrace…
Ben would then send her an apology though email, which would be the last contact he would have with her.
It was here that Ben made a crucial mistake; he apologized to this nasty harpy innocent glorious snowflake princess worthy of all admiration. His mistake is highlighted in Mike Cernovich’s excellent post, “How To Survive A Public Shaming” which I suggest you all read and thoroughly take to heart, because any of you male feminists – no matter how devoted to the cause – could become next.
What remains to be seen is why Grace felt compelled to publish the messages and emails, despite the apology. No, I’m joking. Never, ever, apologize to people like her. They don’t want an apology, they want blood.
They would get that blood when Spelman shared these conversations between them available to the ever controversy and outrage hungry feminist audience. (In all fairness, Ben did express his fustration on twitter before Spelman made these public.)
The Bleeding Frenzy
The timing of this was of course fantastic. It all happened right during the hashtag prominence of #ThingsFeminstMenHaveSaidToMe. A male villain to go with the tag had just presented himself and confirmation bias would strike a vicious blow with Ben as its target.
Eight hit pieces came within a matter of 72 hours from sites that all publish articles concerning Feminism and how it also care’s about men. I thought I was a terrible piece of sexist misogynistic male anti-feminist racist homophobic transphobic ableist trash, but I would have nothing on one of their own, namely Ben Schoen.
I didn’t even bother linking the hordes of other ones off blogs. I’d estimate there are over 100 different sites which covered his terrible misogynistic actions. These actions of his were of course so atrocious, that they make women cower in fear for their very lives every time they sneak a look at Twitter, read an email, or browse through Facebook in search of the powerful patriarchal oppressors who control every aspect of society.
These articles would direct thousands of tweets to Ben’s twitter, all telling him what a terrible misogynistic piece of shit he was. His tweets specifically were pointed out as tweet rape harassment as tweeting at someone must be a consensual activity governed by enthusiastic, clear, and concise verbal consent.
Feminist hurricane Spelman would continue to rage, but she would make one very interesting admission concerning why she didn’t accept the apology. This might not be as ideological driven on her part as I initially thought.
That angry mob spewing threats, harassment at Ben, and every other vicious form of Twitter rape at him was funny. I think we know who the real victim is here Scoob.
Yea, she found it funny, but the lynch mob angered over his vicious retaliatory responses to her “rejection” didn’t and they would continue to go after Ben.
This was all deliberately blown out of proportion for the sake of the cause – the unwilling martyrs of #ThingsFeministMenHaveSaidToMe – don’t matter.
The supposed sin that Ben committed was that he didn’t respond the “right” way – according to SJW feminist dogma- about how to handle his “rejection”. He was accused of the usual “male entitlement” when it comes to conversations with women. Observe the tactic from the NewYorkMag:
“The whole exchange is pretty emblematic of the inherent difficulties of rejecting men, both online and off. Women are frequently made to toe a line between being polite enough to not set off the suitor, but not so polite that their manners are interpreted as flirting.
“You can’t win in these types of situations,” Spelman told the Cut. “Even if you are polite in your rejection, they’ll demand that you tell them WHY you did it. It’s just a mixture of entitlement and the fragility of the ego … Because you don’t know how they’re going to handle it, you don’t know if you should be afraid or not.”
“I still am not quite sure if I should be scared of this guy or not,” she added.”
Considering who the mob’s pitchforks have been stabbing, I’d say Ben should be scared.
Now reverse the genders for a moment, and you will notice that this same concept of “entitlement” in regards to conversations between the genders is not applied. You will also notice a specific expectation – or dare we say entitlement – by feminist women as to how men should respond to “rejection” in conversations.
Who are the real entitled one’s here?
Rhetorical question, shitlord. Of course it’s us terrible male cis straight oppressors.
You will respond how they think you should, or you will be castigated with every “ist” and “ism” under the sun. They don’t care about the women and angry girlfriends in the thousands of YouTube videos who are destroying their ex’s car, home, possessions, and property. In fact, it’s considered funny. Humorous.
Now could Ben have initially handled it better?
Is it “harassment”?
No, not even close. But that’s the key tactic at play. If you can label this as harassment, Ben is a complete and utter shitlord, despite how ACTUAL interactions between men and women occur.
This is as much “harassment” as is Dish sending you two more additional letters asking if you would renew your Cable subscription with them.
Observe some of this BS
@GraceSpelman It reads like your typical sexual harassment case. Guy offers the promise of employment in exchange for fringe benefits.
You know what’s worse then being called a slut? Being called a creep. People at least want something from sluts. They prefer to completely avoid creeps. It’s not enough to shoot someone down, you have to label him in to practically an untouchable for his awkward approaches. That’s the kind of forgiving 3rd wave feminism encourages.
Think of what this entire situation implies to all male feminists out there.
Have an interest in a girl who is an ardent feminist and you are a male feminist?
Don’t bother. You are a manipulative oppressive betraying shitlord who is taking advantage of her trust placed in you as a worthless slave ally. In fact, expressing interest is harassment and a manifestation of Patriarchy, so back the hell away and check your privilege for the 1000th time today.
Obviously, you should wait for her to express interest in you, and if that never happens, too bad. Sit down, and shut up. Listen in silence like the slaves you are and make sure to kiss her shoes while you are bowing down, face to the ground.
The Disposable Cannon Fodder Ally
I ask myself, “How can one allow themselves to be treated with such disrespect and dehumanization?” Female feminists take their male allies for granted, that is why. They demand respect, but refuse to offer any in return.
Respect is earned, not given. Until male feminists realize this, they will be treated like dirt and disposable tampons for purely emotional use and support. Ben was then further accused of harassing her by threatening her job. Well, let’s look at what he said.
The so-called threat was Ben hinting that he was going to check Buzzfeed’s policies on the matter. Ben’s response:
Your article is printing a flat out lie. I never threatened her career. She started posting private emails and I said I would let her bosses know as that is against the policy of many media companies.
Of course, this was made out to be vicious harassment, despite the fact that companies like Buzzfeed have policies about not publishing people’s private emails and correspondence. As the infamous shitlord Vox Day has said, “SJWs always lie.”
Regarding his own employment, the mob would wish him well:
They literally blew up his private life, bringing up conflict between him and his ex-girlfriend who had been the co-partner of the site before he bought her out. His side of what happened in their relationship was irrelevant to their narrative.
Ben would go on a livestream with infamous and now Twitter banned Chuck Johnson to explain his side of the story.
During the interview Ben points out that he still identifies as a feminist – don’t ask me why he tortures himself. He did however make a key distiniction about it, “I am sincere about being a feminist when feminism truly means equality.”
Considering modern day feminism has nothing to with “equality” when men are the subject of conversation, that will happen when pigs fly across the English Channel.
Notice something else about these harpies; Both Ben and Chuck were attacked during their interview for their weight.
So much for Fat Acceptance.
While it’s amusing that they think grade-school like insults based on someone’s physical appearance will hurt them or their arguments, it highlights an internal inconsistency in the “fat is beautiful” crowd; the body positive image part of intersectionality -another faux cause feminism claims to advocate for – is subject specifically to the person in question.
If you don’t personally like them, that oppressive male shitlord should feel not only creepy, but ashamed of his overweight exterior which apparently is not very beautiful at all.
I have a question for you male feminists: Why do you let these small groups of malcontent harpies dictate no only how you should act, but how the rest of us of how should behave and respond in interactions between “insert marginalized/oppressed group here” and whoever else seems to rank lower in the progressive stack?
This whole fiasco and public shaming debacle is what happens to male feminists who are “Allies” and mess up – even slightly – regardless of their apologies. Yet woman like, Bahar Mustafa who writes #KillAllWhiteMen and bans certain people from diversity meetings because of their biology isn’t condemned or called out, but rather affirmed as an SJW of courage? She messed up that bad, and no lesser white feminists of note/faux journalists even called her out.
Speaking of her, shes actually Turkish. Turkey is a nation that has been oppressing everyone around it for over 500 years. Fun Fact: Talking about the Armenian genocide there is illegal, let alone acknowledging it, I consider her an oppressor whose privileged ancestors brutally murdered, oppressed, enslaved, subjugated, and genocided my ancestors for hundreds of years deeply and profoundly triggers me. Her ancestors are one of the primary reasons my ancestors have a hell of alot less today than they should have.
Back to you male feminists: You are considered scum of the earth by radical female feminists. Everyone else matter and needs a voice – except you. Your role is to listen and shutup. R.S. Mccain sums it up well, “Feminists who say their movement is about “equality” are lying. Feminism is a movement about power — absolute and unlimited power — and therefore the first rule for men in feminist movements is, SHUT UP. “
These man-haters aren’t even trying to hide it, in fact they are deliberately trying to make your life hell. Ever heard of Kafkatrapping? It’s a rather devious, sinister, and merciless tactic used to intimidate and bully “allies”.
“No matter how “nice” you are to a feminist, she will never respect you. The feminist always mistakes male kindness for weakness, and is incapable of gratitude toward males, so that being “nice” to her will only serve to convince her of how infinitely contemptible you are — a servile lackey, a fawning slave who appeals to her sadistic impulses.”
Here’s a confession: I’ve slept with two self-identifying feminists who were well aware of what I think about feminism and social justice. It didn’t matter. Ever wonder why they choose to sleep with “misogynistic sexist deuchebags” like myself instead of their male servants who think all the right things but aren’t ever seen as even the slightest romantic and/or sexual possibilities? (Of course being attractive, good at sex, in good shape, and having some game greatly helps, as it did in my case.)
The call-out culture these feminists in their Twitter lynch mob happily engage in as they target Ben is toxic. However, when fighting a war involving scorched earth – I mean men who have their lives and reputations deliberately destroyed to try to make them permanently unemployable (Yes, some women as well) – I encourage all of you to engage in like reciprocity of call-outs and shaming with feminists who throw the first punch.
Fight back. Stop calling yourself a feminist, because the movement isn’t just not about men, it despises them. There are men and women out there who actually care about you and want you to succeed and prosper as a man, despite the tripe and lies feminists spew about them.
“As feminists, we rightfully put the interests of women first, and we are sceptical of ostensibly feminist arguments that appeal to men’s interests.Solidarity should motivate the privileged in their struggle for change, not self interest; to make an analogy, it would be offensive and misguided to ask the black leaders of the Ferguson movement against police violence to tout the benefits of anti-racism to white people. Likewise, feminists should not be obliged to sell feminism to angry men.”
“But I would offer another analogy: when we combat fascism, it behooves us to offer an alternative to those that fascists would recruit. We may not be able to reach the most hateful misogynists, but feminists must directly attack the false ideology of men’s rights. We must offer a real answer for men consumed by anxiety, and especially those who feel a sense of sexual frustration.”
Avoid vicious women and men like this. Avoid people who label themselves as such feminists and constantly use social media to go after people’s jobs. They don’t care about you. They only care about your original sin- that you were born with the wrong set of genitals.
—— Grace Spelman has had her spotlight, online fame, and reputation boosted from this encounter from the internet trampling of Ben. Evidence of this and her hypocrisy will be exposed and documented in a later article.
Another day, another stumble upon a new educational “field” that most of us don’t want to pay 40,000$ to impress our family with. Today’s discovery is that of an older post concerning that social justice culture blog, Vox Populi and “psychopolitics”. (No not Vox Day’s Vox Popol) It starts off rather innocently and ends in an interesting and unintended rabbit hole
In particular the about me “resume” of one of the co-founders, Nisha Gupta, is probably one of the most ironic I’ve ever seen.
“She explores the use of art and social media as interventions to foster societal empathy and bridge differences.”
I’m almost flabbergasted in this could be mistaken for veiled sarcasm, but assuming she isn’t a usurper troll of vast privilege, this is again some rather real irony.
Since when has social media ever been used as a means to foster social empathy on targeted heretics? Memories Pizza anyone? Donglegate? The call-out culture social justice warriors use doesn’t bridge differences, it exacerbates them. It eliminates the “civilians” and turns everyone into front-line soldiers that are essentially cannon fodder with no training. They never expect the war, but it doesn’t stop their lives from being turned into WW1 no-man land’s shell shocked moonscapes.
Maybe I’m reading into this, but “interventions” on social media are more like inquisition racks. Someone is called out, and everyone shames them for at least a 48 hour period. Perhaps, that is the entire point. Now the interventions she desires are far more devious in nature and not just limited to those on social media. To understand this, you have to enter the underground manifesto like world of “Psychopolitics.”
What In The Hell Is Pyschopolitics?
“Psychopolitics“ is an apt description for “Clinical Psychology” that deals with the impact of social justice in that it’s often rather psycho in the treatment of the supposed bad privileged people perpetuating those worldwide social injustices.
I didn’t exaggerate the psycho nature of “psychopolitics.”
Most of us who live and interact in the non safe-space real world probably have never of this term. I sure as hell hadn’t. A necessary google search turned up a rather nasty and blunt summary of “Psychopolitics.” on the first page.
“Asserting and maintaining dominion over the thoughts and loyalties of individuals, officers, bureaus, and masses…”
Well, at least it’s honest.
Here’s a fun summary from Pyschopolitics on the subject with the same name, of which is some kind of communist manual on conquering populations.
“A psycho politician must work hard to produce the maximum chaos in the fields of “mental healing.” He must recruit and use all the agencies and facilities of “mental healing.” He must labor to increase the personnel and facilities of “mental healing” until at last the entire field of mental science is entirely dominated by Communist principles and desires.”
Substitute “communist” for Social Justice Warrior, even though alot of SJWs would embrace the principles of communism if not the label outright. Mental healing can be substituted for fostering social empathy. Try doing some more substitutions below:
“A psychopolitician must work hard to produce the maximum chaos in the fields of ‘mental healing.’ He must recruit and use all the agencies and facilities of ‘mental healing.’ He must labor to increase the personnel and facilities of ‘mental healing’ until at last the entire field of mental science is entirely dominated by Communist principles and desires.
To achieve these goals the psychopolitician must crush every ‘home-grown’ variety of mental healing in America. Actual teachings of James, Eddy and Pentecostal Bible faith healers amongst your mis-guided people must be swept aside. They must be discredited, defamed, arrested, stamped upon even by their own government until there is no credit in them and only Communist-oriented ‘healing’ remains. You must work until every teacher of psychology unknowingly or knowingly teaches only Communist doctrine under the guise of ‘psychology.’ You must labor until every doctor and psychiatrist is either a psycho-politician or an unwitting assistant to our aims.”
“The interdisciplinary nature of psychopolitical validity lends itself to empowerment studies and social change  and could potentially be a useful construct in other critical disciplines within the academy. Prilleltensky and Fox suggest that psychopolitical validity should be institutionalized as a method of preventing wellness and justice from being discussed in isolation. This type of validity brings the two concepts together and politicizes the concept of wellness promotion.”
Anyone else seeing that mutual connection or should I say synonym-like exchange between “mental healing” and “wellness promotion?” But why focus on the mental wellness fields for interdisciplinary reasons?
The definition which I assume comes from Prilleltensky is rather telling:
“Psychopolitical validity refers to the extent to which studies and interventions in the community integrate (a) knowledge with respect to multidisciplinary and multilevel sources, experiences, and consequences of oppression, and (b) effective strategies for promoting psychological and political liberation in the personal, relational, and collective domains…”
The use of this word and what it means to Social Justice advocates is telling. It’s just yet another example of how important the war over words in our culture and the connotation of who uses them is so important.
That cushy and noble concept of “liberation” in social justice speak is yet another code for the chaos and resulting domination mentioned from the Pyschopolitics website. By liberating the “mental health” and wellness fields, they seek to destroy it and then rebuild it in their own god-like image with their own definitions, experts, and influence . Note, this is the exact same thing that’s happened to much of higher academia since the last 1840s and Horace Mann and John Dewey didn’t even try to hide the social conditioning element to the education they had planned for the country’s malleable youth.
A rise in what psychologists could consider “disorders” these days might be more political in nature then we realize. If you are deemed to have any kind of mental disorder – a list that is expanding exponentially every year – there are alot of fields, jobs, and other lifestyle choices you would be excluded from as well as numerous amounts of medication you would constantly need to swallow.
You of course can’t run for political office because you aren’t mentally “well” in the social justice definition of psychology. For one, you most certainly can’t own a firearm. (In fact, in states where I live like Illinois, just 1 out of 10 doctors declaring you mentally unstable or “mentally retarded” is enough to ensure that you can never legally own a firearm.) You also might be excluded from certain public places, buildings, and jobs because of the “risk” you might present.
Any dissenting opinions could be considered a disorder of some kind and those of course are expensive and MUST be treated. The pills, clinics, therapy, and health services would ensure financial profitability. On the trendy side, at least the new normal will be to not be normal – which would include a large segment of the population.
If you think about about it, this is exactly what social justice advocates are trying to in every sphere of life today. Diversity of opinion isn’t for those who have “privilege” and individuals who step out of line and they would need to be subjected to accepted thoughtspeak and wellness promotion to get them back to mental health.
A New Impending Attack
Look at who controls much of mental health institutions and it probably only a matter of time before the concept of “mental healing” takes on a very ideological underside. Maria Konnikova made the case about how dominant those of liberal persuasion have become in the higher academia departments of Psychology point in her article, “Is Social Psychology Biased Against Republicans?” for TheNewYorker They of course hold that field of “study” with an iron fist. (Again an example that absolute power corrupts absolutely.)
“Explain to students that psychology is not always value free. Modern psychology is often framed as a science that uses empirical methods to advance knowledge about the mind, the brain, and behavior in an objective manner. However, students also should understand that psychologists’ worldviews shape the questions we pose in research, the strategies we use to answer those questions, and how we understand phenomena.
For example, most psychological research uses quantitative methods. Students learn to conduct quantitative studies in research methods courses; instructors most often rely on quantitative findings to inform their lectures. Psychology instructors can teach about qualitative research that models greater power-sharing between researchers and participants through its open-ended questioning and community immersion (Kidder & Fine, 1997). Moreover, qualitative research can advance social justice by amplifying the voices of research participants, particularly people who have been mischaracterized by psychology and broader society, such as women, people of color, and sexual minorities.”
Whenever SJWs talk about “amplifying” marginalized voices, they really mean is that you would give far more emphasis, validity, and credibility to those specific voices and the research they produce – often of very dubious scientific nature. Alot of the early “privilege” theory comes from what is known as “Standpoint Theory” along with “Muted-Group Theory” which is basically the idea that because marginalized minority voices haven’t gotten enough voice in history – a mistaken and false conclusion – researchers, teachers, and society overall must give much more attention to said voices then any other ones. Essentially, those minority marginalized voices must be given 70% or more of the attention and the scraps will be distributed among the rest until society is “balanced” Note, no SJW knows or has even formulated a position as to when that actually will occur so luckily for them, that horse can always be beaten for eternity.
Regardless of what mortals you follow, adore, admire, and pay homage you will at some point disagree with them. Whether it’s most of the time or almost never, no one will ever hold exactly all the viewpoints that you have come to cherish.
A tweet from Milo Yiannapolous prompted the above line of thought in which he voices disagreement with libertarians on the NSA spying incident – color my libertarian tendencies irked.
Obviously, he is mistaken, as his his later tweet about Snowden being a traitor and not a hero. I’m also above reproach in my conclusion.
Today, the internet echo-chamber or “communities” as we call them is often bereft of any actual substance in discussion when it comes to disagreement over just about anything. Dissenters are labeled “concern trolls” or just “trolls” in general. In fact the word, “troll” has lost it’s meaning because of the abuse of the term.
Throw in “safe-spaces” and this takes on a whole new layer of people who immediately dismiss anything that comes from an opposing side. If you make the mistake of identifying with a label that is considered “bad” or triggering, everything you say is immediately dismissed – regardless of the validity of what you say.
We need to start judging statements, comments, and opinions based on what they actually are – the merit and validity of them – instead of who said them. Whether they come from a radical liberal feminist or a neo-con warhawk, it shouldn’t matter; we need to reject guilt by association.
Well, I don’t agree. Okay, I couldn’t resist. Take a look at this specific observation:
“Which one of us agrees on everything with any other single person? No one! Certainly, many of us share similar passions and congregate according to common interests, it’s only human to interact with those who you resonate easily with. But if you dig deeper, or you spend enough time together, it isn’t long before one discovers there are indeed some, if not many points of disagreements with those we are in relationship with.”
As she points out, no one will ever agree on everything, but with today’s identity politics and culture its often either all or nothing. If someone doesn’t share enough “similar” passions, interests, and convictions, chances are that most people won’t give anything they say the time of day. This is more likely if they know about your “opinions” and affiliations before they evaluate what you’ve actually said.
“If we are honest with ourselves, adding the phrase is a form of social insurance. We want to protect ourselves from the risk of being associated with certain things this person represents. “
It certainly is a form of social insurance, but why?
People seem conditioned to pre-judge and make assumptions based on labels and what they “represent”, so what choice is there but to adjust? Unfortunately, this is the reality of where we are at. It rather sucks that these qualifiers are needed, but can anyone point to topics of conversation where they aren’t?
The risk of being associated with someone who is deemed a racist, bigot, homophobe, ect or any other culturally deemed demagogues can be cause for your employment to be revoked. Consider Razib Khan who was initially hired by the New York Times, but then let go because of his “association” with right-wing publications who were deemed to be mired in racism. So much for diversity of opinion right?
Shockingly, the fact that he isn’t even white was enough to save him from the wrath of social justice warriors who usually excuse certain people from terrible actions, deeds, and statements based purely on their genetics. Another mighty journalism giant bows before Gawker and SJWs. Apparently, all you need to do is label someone a racist enough to make them suffer the effects of today’s modern heresy.
For instance, Cindy describes herself as “social justice-y” on the side bar of her site. GASP!
Someone, pull the alarm. Danger is near.
My spidey sense is tingling.
Now a large amount of people will probably dismiss anything she has to say because of the affiliation with social justice. Don’t make that mistake; don’t fall prey to guilt by association. I may fall to this ever constant trap subconsciously, but then force myself to read what is actually state. Some exceptions are made for Tumblr…
I strongly disagree with almost everything modern day social justice folks advocate – what normal sane person wouldn’t – but I won’t necessarily dismiss something because of who is advocating it.
“We can dialogue with people as people, other human beings with different personalities, life experiences, and ideas. We can celebrate common ground without erecting walls or drawing boundary lines. We can connect without disclaimers, embracing the whole of our conversation partner along with her ideas. Let’s base our conversations with one another from a place of shared humanity instead of basing it on fear by association. “
Is this really possible? Can we connect without disclaimers? I don’t think we can.
Tales From The Online Crypt
I recently encountered and “argued” with some conservatives on TheRightScoop about the subject of police abuse. Obviously, they deny this is a real problem. In order to even get them to look at anything I have to say, I had to utter the following disclaimer, “I’m not a democrat…”
This is of course true, but if I didn’t point this out, said conservatives would assume I’m some sort of liberal because I disagree with one of their viewpoints.
Behold, the current state of online discourse.
If you disagree with someone on an issue you are immediately considered to be a follower of the opposing “side”. If you disagree with some of the trash on the Huffington Post, you are a right-wing bigot, ect, ect, ect. If you take issue with something on Breitbart you are left-wing marxist, socialist, ect, ect, ect. Qualifiers are absolutely necessary.
“The power of association, of tribes, of communities, is so strong that we take extra measures to ensure boundaries are clearly marked, compelling us to insert disclaimers even in casual conversation. We are so fearful of being grouped with the “wrong” crowd as perceived by the person we are speaking with.
I do not think this is a healthy way to dialogue. I think it is a sign of disrespect to curate someone’s ideas, extracting it from their whole selves with all of their complexities and personhood.”
She is right; it’s not a healthy way to dialogue. Yes, we must consider the context of a person – if that makes sense – which is necessary to fully understand their ideas and why they have them. However, in today’s charged, “guilt by association” culture, you absolutely have to introduce qualifiers into the conversation or anything you say will be dismissed based on you supposedly are.
One popular “Debate” tactic is Godwin’s law. To sum that up, it means that you equate a certain argument, idea, or even person to Hitler. This of course invalidates anything they have to say. Or does it?
This time-held tactic is “guilt by association/wrong by association” and is employed by disingenuous teenagers, tumblrites, and many adults who want to shout down others based on who they are, rather then what they’ve said on extremely important blogs and websites where their comments clearly make a difference.
Don’t be one of “those” people.
People who engage in daily displays on their Facebook feeds in guilt by association tactics usually have something in common; they are angry, upset, and jaded.
Their life is a never ending stream of un-fulfilled selfies, self-loathing, and vicious attacks on anyone who looks like they wallowed in depression for weeks upon end. All of these bitter people online have one goal in mind; if they can’t be happy – neither can you.
Go outside of your bubble and live.
It’s been said that you can’t argue with certain people, and that is true. Argument however shouldn’t be the goal of every interaction. You don’t need to “win”. All you need to do is engage, discuss, and see if any new seeds are planted in either your mind or your “opponent.” In order to any of that, you must reject guilt by association.
Perhaps, you may just develop a relationship with someone where you don’t need qualifiers, but you must take the initiative to do just that.
I encourage all to go out and have face-to-face conversations with people you know you disagree with. You will be surprised at what happens when both of you or others involved have a conversation that isn’t based on “convincing” anyone of a particular point, but is focused on the exchange of ideas and worldviews.
This is how you grow and become a more rounded individual.
It is one of the first steps in today’s vicious culture in becoming a renaissance man.
When you have to run to the bathroom in desperation and see a toilet with plastic rim coverings surrounded by stains all around you that look like someone either died, or experienced massive bladder problems and misdirection, you know you are in Union Station. For many reasons, including time and money never well spent, I hate Chicago. When I finally figured out that not only had I walked the wrong way, I had taken the wrong street, and I wasn’t on Jackson. After about two hours of walking around and making it look like I had a purpose with my direct and forceful steps, I followed the drum beats and finally found the corner of Jackson and LaSalle.
I arrived in the eager expectation that I would see something controversial happen. I was hoping for yelling, screaming, shouting, lots of fist pumping and shaking, blood, and shocked Kent State looks on people’s faces. What can I say? I was hoping for a little bit of entertainment, because I wasn’t expecting 6 or 7 hours of protesting to not bore me. (I’ll admit it, I love controversy. It is one of the most entertaining concepts out there.) Protests are supposed to be a place where you can feel the energy in the air. It’s almost a kind of substitute for the concert atmosphere, except all the wannabe hippie hipsters there wouldn’t like the idea of a hardcore moshpit. Someone there told me there that moshpits were the creation of capitalists and the corporate machine, no joke. There were some “hippies” there to the point that it was almost like a scene straight out of Southpark with the college know-it-all hippies.
First off, I’m surprised there hasn’t been any cases of serious “nerd-rage” out, about, and around the corner of Jackson and LaSalle. I’m shocked that nearby residents haven’t mugged the protesters banging on drums throughout the night. Since I suck at breaking the ice and initiating conversation, it probably took me 15 minutes to talk to some of the scrunched up faces there.
People were angry. Even if they weren’t, they made sure to look at it. Some didn’t even know why they were angry, but it feels to good to smash on a drum, call attention to the protest and occasionally get reaffirming honks of support or middle fingers from nearby vehicles. Someone was going to pay.
When the Fox News folks showed up with their cameras, they were one of the first to pay. Some protesters near me made sure to drop plenty of F-bombs directed at them and two of them even jumped up and down with middle fingers extended in view of the camera. I guess there’s nothing like making a direct impression to the rest of the country watching about what kind of maturity level we are all at. Furthermore, it isn’t just Fox that deliberately misleads, its MSNBC, ABC, and CNN as well. It’s too bad that some people there had bought into the progressive nonsense that targets just the network they don’t like, rather then the networks who frame the news in a way favorable to the progressive agenda.
For all intensive purposes, the protesters were “trolled” hard the previous week. Even I’ll admit, those fliers that flew down with the words,” We are the 1%” were a badass idea. Well, when I got out my sign, I did get a bit of a “What are you doing here look?” from a few people, but that did go away shortly. What initially surprised me was the amount of media attention of all sorts to the protest which maybe had a 100 people there tops when I first arrived at the scene. I had the original perception that the protest was alot bigger. Its a bit odd considering alot of people thought the movement was either being ignored by the mainstream media or being hyped up and exaggerated by it.
The occupy movement is what people have made it out to be; a smorgasbord of people from varying political and philosophical ideologies who had gathered to protest the power that Wallstreet and the Financial sector have over our government and economy. Now this movement really is made up of alot of different viewpoints and ideology all across the spectrum. This is one overall picture of the movement that has been accurately portrayed. There were angry die-hard anarchists, socialists, libertarians, independents, people who protest everything, ect. essentially a lot of angry people who have have every right to be.
There were also signs like “Chicago Teachers Unions Supports Occupy” and “LGBT for the 99%”. I can only hope they don’t hijack the movement and turn into attempted political action and talking points. (Jesse Jackson showed up one night himself. That media hogging racist…) After talking to a lot of people there, particularly interesting to me was the surprising variety of groups there – everything ranging from radical Marxists progressives to independents and Ron Paul libertarians like myself.
Now the protesting situation in general there reminded me of Pokemon. You initially didn’t know much about it, but everyone else thought it was cool as hell and either had the trading card game, Red or Blue version for the gameboy, or had really creepy plush toys of Pikachu in their room. Either way who didn’t want to catch them all? No one wanted to be left behind who has something to protest about.
This movement is somewhat similar, thought not everyone there falls into that generalization. There are some people who really know why they are there. What particular irks me about this is that these people seem to be largely ignored by the mainstream media, especially Fox which has potrayed the overall amount of protesters as dumb-asses, which is far from the truth. There were however people who just showed up because “protesting is cool”, people who wanted to be apart of something, and the people there to make some noise with an almost ADHD like fury because they ” can”.
During some of the “educational” sit-downs that occurred throughout Saturday, I noticed that disagreement among protesters there was widespread. There was however agreement on the problem: The current economic problem, and who has benefited from it. What did however remain up in the air, was any kind of real agreement on how to fix the problem, the root causes that have led up to it, and how to turn the movement into a political force, something the neo-con elements of the Tea Party were able to do with the movement. Do be assured though, almost everyone of the protesters there wanted to end the Fed. (That’s most certainly a good sign.)
My initial perception concerning the movement still remains -There will be some major problems on the horizon concerning the ability to turn into a political force. Doing that could however cost the movement supporters, as its overall lack of direct organization and leadership is what constitutes part of its strength. Because of this it really does feel like a movement involving everyone under the sun from the overall populace. The moment it does gain an overall face, the movement will probably split off into different directions.
I personally showed up with a lot of disagreements with the more Marxist and progressive elements in the crowd which keep emanating out the woodwork- they literally had a donation box there. I did however have one thing in mind when I did come down; to show my support for those who recognize the current situation and problem in the country right now. It was my effort to show some solidarity. I am however very worried that this movement will be hijacked by the progressive elements who will most certainly turn into another supposed” grassroots” support group for the Democrat party. I do plan on going down again to protest, and this time, I’m going to take tons of pictures.
Note the “Progressive Stack” wasn’t implemented, which surprised me considering this is Chicago.
Anyway, around maybe 2 PM or so in the afternoon, if I remember correctly, we engaged in a sitdown across the street where the supposed leaders of the movement there made announcements. Some supposed “leaders” made announcements of various sorts, and they proudly introduced some sort of old African American speaker, an Civil Rights ex-icon of sorts who had been in some competition and situation involving the Olympics down in Mexico during the civil rights movement. No one including me, had heard of him, so they the introduction took a few minutes. Seriously, where these people who we are supposed to have some sort of respect for come from?
This ex-icon fellow went on a rant that included a fair amount of hostility toward the “right wing” and encouraged us in our protests and told us just how awesome Obama was, to keep supporting him, and to hate the evil republicans and the evil “right wing” who were blocking the great leader at every turn. He made sure to mention that all the resistance toward the president was because he was black. I kind of turned off my attention after he got to this point, as I’m sick of people looking at his race, first and foremost, instead of his policies and positions.
I thought to myself, “Great, just what the movement needs. More political pandering, divisive speech, and plenty of hate.” The word itself is losing the kind of connotation it used to hold because of the frequency of which people are misusing it. You can now just throw it around when you can’t actually point holes in someones position, so you just tell them they are a hater, and that their argument/position is now therefore invalid. It’s almost like the race card.
I just kept my mouth closed, stared on at him, and proudly stuck out my chest with my anti-Obama t-shirt on that I was wearing. That shirt turned a lot of heads. I made sure to wink at the heads that were girls that I thought were hot, even giving courtesy smiles and a wink here and there to the hippie like ones who hadn’t bathed in days. I did receive some compliments from some of the protesters on the shirt though, including one who informed me that he regretted voting for Obama back in 08. I even saw some signs demonizing Obama for not giving out enough handouts. The poor guy can’t win can he?
This speaker in particular irritated me, now that I think more about it. I love how some ideologues are so far in the progressive’s and democrat’s pocket that they can’t think for themselves and differentiate between the neo-cons and libertarians in the supposed right wing. I noticed he had absolutely nothing bad to say about the President who he portrayed as a messiah that we are all supposed to love, cherish, and respect. Maybe he should look further at the president then the fact that he is black. (Obama isn’t even black, just supposed civil rights advocates still have assumptions that are drenched in the racist principles of the “One drop of black blood rule.”)
Furthermore when did libertarians get thrown in with the right wing? Got to love how your political opponents can simply change the definition, demonize you, and throw you into some political wing. There are a lot of similarities between Dennis Kuccinich and Ron Paul. Its called an advocacy and support of the principles of liberty. But since people still can only look at things through party lenses, they get thrown into the perspective jokes of the two party system we currently have.
Later on around 5PM, the crowd of protesters seemed to quadruple to the point where it was hard to move back and forth on the sidewalks. Almost out of no-where, I noticed a set of large loud speakers which had the consistent phrase of “Tax The RICH!” barking from them. This seemed to be the agreed upon solution to the our current problem by the protesters who had control of the speakers.
“Tax, tax, tax the rich!” When a question was asked on the loudspeaker, this was always the response. World hunger? Tax the rich. Baby crying? Tax the rich. Girlfriend broke up with you after you only just “made out with that girl”? Tax the damn rich. It was as monotonous and bland as listening to Jet Li talk in Kiss Of The Dragon. It unfortunately made everyone there look they were a bunch of highschool kids protesting their schools recent new policies on bumping and grinding during prom dances. The calls for “Less Cuts, and more taxes!” seemed foolish, considering it seems half-assed to only demand taxes on the rich, while ignoring the obvious implications of a bloated and abused welfare state. It just goes to remind us of how easy it is to whip up people into a frenzy where they say things they really haven’t thought about, but just go along with whoever’s shouting at the time.
Something that comes to mind from this repetitive slogan/mind-numbing chant is the lack of common sense. The more you take from people, the less they have to invest in the products, services, hiring new/additional labor – the market. Politicians just don’t pass tax-cuts to look cool and stand out as a “man of the people”, they shockingly realize that usually cutting taxes spurs on consumer spending, thus benefiting everyone else in turn. It does however matter significantly of what kind of taxes they are cutting, whose taxes they are cutting, and who is eligible for said tax cuts. The current system seems to endorse specific tax cuts for corporations, banks, certain sectors and businesses in the industry that have made the right campaign contributions, ect. It is of course crony capitalism at it’s finest. The banks did rob us blind. They used the government to do it.
There were oh so many signs criticizing capitalism as if it was a concept from hell itself. I in particular couldn’t understand what was with all the signs hating on capitalism. This indicated that the majority of the protesters haven’t the slightest semblance of what true capitalism actually is. Crony capitalism and actual capitalism are very different things.
Greed does suck, but what sucks more is embracing the polar opposite which would put the power into the hands of a very few select greedy people. Human nature is very very greedy. True capitalism understands this and uses peoples greedy natures to exploit each other and create competition that directly benefits everyone, specifically the lower class.
Many protesters however did realize that corporations have vast influence and power in the political process and legislative action. They just fail to recognize true capitalism vs. the fake system of capitalism we have now.
Unfortunately the protesters are yet again succumbing to encouraging politicians to legislate insane economic policy for the sake of political pandering. Remember, politicians will do anything to get your vote, and its going to end up spiraling to the point when Peter will be all of us, and Paul will be those who made the most donations to their campaign.
One conversation in particular, I remember well. It was with a public school teacher. He was probably the only person there which I initially was turned off by. During this particular conversation, I remember, marching toward Grant Park and talking with a teacher in Chicago who kept trying to trap me in my words with a hidden amount of hostility behind his questions and answers, which I did resent. He dropped those words like “them” so much that I realized he essentially bought into that bogus democrat ideology of “the other side are evil.”
I kept thinking to myself, “Really?” as he lashed out at the other side for everything you could imagine. Once I told him that I was interested in dialogue with him, rather then debate of any sort, the conversation became much more cordial. I wanted him to realize that I wasn’t talking to him to point out that he was wrong in anyway, just that I was asking questions, Cartman style, to see if had thoughts things out and followed them to their logical conclusion instead of subscribing to party talking points.
I did however have an awesome conversation with a dude in Guy Fawkes mask. (Anyonmous FTW) who understood just how important freedom of speech is. He also understood something most don’t; the difference between equality and liberty and just how important liberty is.
Now, to a certain extent, alot of people there seemed to be asking for a handout. The most frequent request was for money of some sort, something I can Understand. There was one fellow there who kept insisting we should fork over money for batteries for his megaphone. “I need batteries. Someone should get me some.” It’s hard to really want to provide someone with batteries when they shout out unintelligible things with their megaphone in your general direction.
If anyone feels like going down to protest in Chicago and freezing their asses off, I’ve come up with a list of pro-tips:
– Make sure to bring a camera with you. A nice Iphone or Android phone with decent video quality that I only wished I owned will suffice.
– Cigars. Something to smoke. It feels good to be smoking around all those other people smoking. Solidarity eh? You’d be surprised by all the conversations that will be encountered by simply lighting up.
– Beverages. Be careful about how much you drink, and I’m not just referring to beer. There is almost no where in nearby locations where you can go to the bathroom without having to pay to use the bathroom. Part of the blame lies with the homeless who consistently try to shower in the bathroom as you hop up and down outside holding yourself.
– Ipod or Mp3. At some points you will want to just chill and listen to music as you hold up your sign. I personally chose Legend and The Acacia Strain to make sure I kept up my angry state of mind against Wallstreet.
– Bring two coats. You’ll probably need them when it gets colder later at night.
– Go ahead and march on Grant park if that happens when you are there. Just get out before the Police start arresting people when they won’t leave the park. Some of us couldn’t afford to get arrested and miss a day of work, but that doesn’t seem to matter to some protesters who don’t realize that some of their fellow protesters have bills and rent to pay.
– Point out the things you have in common with other protesters. There is strength to be attained in even the most vague displays of solidarity. Sure it’s hard to stomach some of the ideology that is spewed by some of the progressives there, but remember, they are there for several of the same reasons you or anyone else is.
– Ignore the temptation to be divisive because of political differences and biases and look at the overall big picture. Engage in dialogue and conversation. Sure, people might have reasons for being there that you or I think are dumb, but they are reasons nonetheless, and we should try to understand where people are coming from, not just dismiss them. There are people there with common sense, and they are your friends, neighbors, ect, even if they are demanding for insane governmental action that will just worsen the problem. If you desire to point out the problem with that, just carry that line of thinking to its logical conclusion. Also, ask questions. Lots of them.
– Don’t bring too much stuff with you. It really sucks when you have to carry around two bags of stuff and have to watch it like a hawk when you set it down.
I still have a lot of reflection to do on this whole movement. Don’t dismiss it off-hand like many conservatives have done. That pompous ass Gingrich needs to learn that people there at the Occupy were looking for jobs, and weren’t all lazy protesters who wanted handouts. Unfortunately, the extreme progressive elements appear to be hijacking the movement as I saw with some of the SJW types that were there.
I do tire of those who dismiss the movement right off the bat.
There is a lot more then meets the eye to Occupy. The only way one will learn this is to talk to and engage with the people at the Occupy Protests. Let’s for once not pull a Herman Cain and talk to people to see why they are upset and the reasons behind them, instead of “Get a job.” Also, lets hope that political hypocrites and fake witches like Pelosi and Obama don’t try to hijack Occupy and turn into a supposed political force for them. These people, myself included want answers, not hypocrites like Obama who take the most money from Wallstreet lobbyists in the history of any presidential campaign history, proceeds to advance their agenda, but then yet pretend to support the Occupy movement.