57 Responses to “Lech Walesa Has An #OccupyWallStreet Reality Check, Declines Beclownment”

1. ThePaganTemple
   October 22nd, 2011 @ 8:54 am

   It would have been more accurate to have said the OWS Movement is to left of Obama’s public positions. I think in reality, Obama is a kindred spirit, why else would he have so quickly spoken out in favor of them. Obama’s only true experience in life is as a community organizer. When he first heard of this group he probably immediately wished he could go there and speak. I don’t doubt for a second that somebody had to tell him that probably wouldn’t be a very good idea.

   Good for Walesa for having the good sense to see this bunch for what they are, not that that should be so difficult. But its nice to know there are at least a few European leaders who are worth a shit.

2. Anonymous
   October 22nd, 2011 @ 9:06 am

   “The movement is organized”

   Not very.

    “by anarchists”

   You say that like it’s a bad thing.

3. chuck coffer
   October 22nd, 2011 @ 9:29 am

   “You say that like it’s a bad thing.”

   Because it is. Anarchists are shitty people with shitty ideas and shitty goals because those are the only kinds of ideas and goals shitty people are capable of.

   It notable that Walesa had an opinion of this group that was completely opposite the truth. Why? He watches the news, and the “new” business around the world is run by scumbag leftist liars.

4. Anonymous
   October 22nd, 2011 @ 9:34 am

   Anarchists are idiots who’ve forgotten the lessons learned in their 7th grade gym locker room.

5. ThePaganTemple
   October 22nd, 2011 @ 9:36 am

   Most anarchists are either socialists, want to dismantle any business that’s larger than the local produce market, or want no laws or government beyond the local or at most regional level. Naive at the very best.

6. ThePaganTemple
   October 22nd, 2011 @ 9:37 am

   I’d be very interested in seeing who it was that tried to lure Walesa into this trap. That might be the real story.

7. Joe
   October 22nd, 2011 @ 9:45 am

   Most anarchists I find are like knappster, gentlemen (or ladies) who just want to be left alone.  Unfortunately there are too many busy bodies in the world for that to happen. 

   The people you are describing Pagan may use the label but are not anarchists. 

8. Anonymous
   October 22nd, 2011 @ 9:52 am

   TPT,

   There’s an old saying to the effect of “if you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, best just to shut the the hell up.” This is an instance where that rule would have served you well.

   That’s okay. I run afoul of it occasionally myself, so I can empathize with your embarrassment.

9. ThePaganTemple
   October 22nd, 2011 @ 10:04 am

   All the self-described anarchists I’ve ever known are that way, so until I see something more definitive than “you’re wrong” I guess I’m going to have to assume I’m right. Granted, anybody can call themselves anything, but I haven’t exactly been living in a box. I’ve associated with all kinds of people on the net, from avowed communists to the DU set. I’ve never known of a conservative or federalist-which is how I see myself more than a conservative-refer to themselves as anarchists. I know there are some libertarians who refer to themselves that way, but most libertarians I’ve known don’t describe themselves that way, maybe for strategic reasons.

10. Anonymous
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 10:58 am

    TPT,

    You write:

    “I’ve never known of a conservative or federalist — which is how I see myself more than a conservative — refer to themselves as anarchists.”

    Well, defining “conservative” is a bit difficult, but will you accept some definition roughly corresponding to the tenor William F. Buckley, Jr.’s essay “Did You Ever See a Dream Walking?”

    Among the other places you’ll find that essay is a Buckley-edited anthology titled Keeping the Tablets: Modern American Conservative Thought, which also includes at least one essay by early 20th century conservative anarchist Albert Jay Nock (I can’t recall whether the essay is “An Anarchist’s Progress” or “Our Enemy, the State,” and don’t have my copy of the anthology at hand to check at the moment).

    As an anarchist, I’d be the last one to ask you to accept my word as (ahem) authoritative, but I suspect I’d easily pass muster as an expert witness on anarchism if one were needed in a court. I haven’t written any book-length articles on anarchism myself, but I’m cited and/or acknowledged in more than one.

11. Lech Walesa figures out the “Occupy” movement
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 11:00 am

    […] man knows Communism when he sees […]

12. Joe
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 11:22 am

    I can ususally tell the anarchist-libertarians from the anarchist-statists in about a minute (I like the libertarians…the statists pretending to be anarchists not at all). 

13. DonM
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 11:29 am

     Anarchists are like bank robbers who want to be let alone by the police as they rob the bank.

14. chuck coffer
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 11:31 am

    If all you knew about this giant stink-in was what you saw on mainstream news reports, you’d probably think it was just a bunch of people hoping to buy the world a coke.

15. Rich Vail
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 11:40 am

    The people engaged in the OWS “movement” are the useful  idiots of fame and ill-fortune, and would be the first to be stood against the wall if their “revolution” were successful.

    Rich Vail
    Pikesville, Maryland
    The Vail Spot dot Blogspot dot Com

16. Joe
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 11:47 am

    Actually most of them lead legal straight non eventual lives.  They just have an issue with authority. 

    I have found anyone who does not question authority, at least some of the time, is either a pussy or an asshole (oh wait, did I steal that from Team America, World Police?). 

17. allyHM
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 12:01 pm

    Anarchists are lazy.  Anarchy is the easy way out and requires no commitment, no action.  NOT the best use of the human mind, IMHO.

18. Hate at Occupy Wall St Protests « Newsbeat1
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 12:06 pm

    […] Walesa is not going to get involved with the OWS. He is not comfortable with the “organizations” behind the movement. […]

19. Joe
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 12:14 pm

    Hey Stacy, I guess you do not suck anymore.  Even if Tabatha Hale may think so.  http://www.allamericanblogger.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/P1050270.jpg

20. Joe
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 12:15 pm

    Memories of past BlogCons…sob. 

21. Charles_30626
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 12:17 pm

    I heard that the Illinois Tea Party asked Lech Walesa to address a Tea Party in Daley Center in Chicago.  Knowing the North Side, there were quite a few Polish Tea Partiers present. 

22. ThePaganTemple
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 12:30 pm

    Really? I wonder how many of them it will take to clean up after themselves?

23. Anonymous
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 12:48 pm

    One of the problems with anarchists some of them think they are Johann Most.

24. Will
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 12:49 pm

    Wow, what a bunch of pseudo-intellectual, self-congratulatory blather. Did you think to address any of his points rather than just provide a C.V.?

25. PTL
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 12:54 pm

    Does that mean that Obama is an anarchist?

26. Multitude
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 1:20 pm

    Not to offend, but the conception that anarchists are socialists is utterly incomprehensible and historically confused – as much as the confusion in labels and identities is also apparent on the left.

    It would be quite accurate to claim that “OWS protestors who claim to be anarchists are actually socialists.” Their support of the power and sovereignty of the imperial Barack Obama, along with their advocacy of a larger government in the control of production means, is quite fascist by the classical definitions and as such, an application of Marxist socialist ideology.

    Anarchism as a theory and practice, is in polar opposition to the Marxist tradition. Because it is incredibly problematic as a system for social interaction, nearly no viable practice of anarchism exists today. One who calls them self an anarchist really has no grounds to this claim, though it’s usually used pejoratively by those who are either confused or seek to scare the little children of something not to be evaluated, but simply feared.

    The tea party has had connections to post-anarchist theoretical traditions which have emerged in the past few decades, but it too is giving up on the hard work of advocating individual liberty and autonomy and instead seeking a King to rule over all and smite those who disagree. Bad times are ahead when both sides appeal to authority.

27. Multitude
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 1:28 pm

    Obama is certainly an imperialist. According to Marxist traditions of hegemony illuminated by Gramsci, he’s certainly a hegemon. He’s also a fascist according to Marxist economics. That he continues to advocate for a “Second Revolution” to rid the people of the “failed old way of doing things,” and that his speeches have carefully crafted in other subtle references, he is a Leninist. That he has constructed a shadow government of Czars, has authorized his command to execute death sentences based on his imperial decree absent due process, that he has radicalized the Bush intelligence apparatus by shifting its focus on the American citizen, all suggest most of all that he is a Totalitarian.

    How one could suggest this same creature is an anarchist suggests that some are either insanely hilarious in their employment of irony, or we have serious problems with ignorant people who insist in their right to ignore history.

    Barack wants you confused. Diminish, confuse and blur the labels you accuse others of. Absent meaningful language, the sheep can be led to believe anything. Orwell, a proud writer of the real anarchist tradition, warned as such.

28. Multitude
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 1:38 pm

    Thanks knappster for the good words. Most of these sheep are convinced that the master (liberal or “conservative”) have nothing but good intentions and that the slaughterhouse is actually utopia. That too many on the left and right are appealing to totalitarianists to save them is a bad sign for America’s future.

    The greater concern I have is the hatred of intelligence, history and theory that some on the right show. Having spent considerable time in Germany in my youth, I learned a lot about the SA (brownshirts) from the family I stayed with. These working “conservative” thugs supported the progressive-socialist elites of the party by attacking intelligence, rejecting history, silencing warnings and of course, burning books. Comments that use terms like “pseudo-intellectual” are a giveaway (as if they have any authority to understand actual-intellectual).  What they warned me of was that intelligent people must shame, attack, subordinate and shut down these anti-intellectual thugs early on. Authentic individuals embrace a real discussion of ideas. Brownshirts attack character, mock intelligence, and pose other terroristic acts on discourse.

    To these thugs, we warn: Crawl back under the rock you came from before we step on your miserable ass. We won’t permit your kind to repeat history’s greatest mistakes.

29. Instapundit » Blog Archive » LECH WALESA figures things out….
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 1:49 pm

    […] LECH WALESA figures things out. […]

30. Joe
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 2:03 pm

    Absolutely not.  He is a hard core statist.  He loooooves him some government authority.  Because he loves us. 

31. egoist_capitalist
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 2:14 pm

    Early on, on NPR, they had some blabbermouth doing the no-tech audio crap: “As an anarchist, we need to pull in the socialists, leftists, communists… and get organized”. At first, I thought it was a comedy routine, but realized that it was too good to be NPR’s staff.

32. jones.barry
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 3:28 pm

    and most anarchist-poseurs seem blissfully unaware that when the wished-for ‘anarchy’ comes, it will feature quite a bit of gunplay- that’s where I come in

33. richard mcenroe
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 3:33 pm

    If you did you weren’t listening.  It was “dicks and assholes” and in Team America terms an anarchist is an asshole who WISHES he was a dick.

34. Anonymous
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 3:58 pm

    Your last point about the TP subsuming their independence as well as their efforts to influencing the outcome of Republican primaries and the general election is well taken. While to some extent this is unavoidable as it’s the only way to effect policy changes “within the system”. The TP does run the risk of being perceived as merely the “far right element” of the Republican party. This will undermine it’s credibility when it’s time move back into opposition when the Republicans inevitably betray us again.

35. Here
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 4:09 pm

    Huh?

36. Anonymous
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 4:16 pm

    Will,

    I don’t know what you think a c.v. is, but if you think I presented one, you’re waaaaaaaaaaaaay off. And FWIW, the only degree I have is the Litt.D I bought for five bucks from Universal Life Church.

    TPT’s point was that he’d never known of a conservative referring to himself as an anarchist, so I pointed him to a prominent one and told him where to confirm it. If you’ve got a problem with that, well, you’ve got a problem.

37. ThePaganTemple
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 5:35 pm

    There is a big difference between avowed socialists who are really socialists, and avowed socialists who are actually communists. To a true socialist, the end goal would result in a socialist society, government, and economy. To a true communist, socialism at the government level isn’t the desired goal, but the means to an end. Their entire strategy upon acquiring power involves establishing a socialist framework in order to dismantle the previous national institutions. The idea is to establish a system of soviets, which are really little more than city councils, or regional councils at most. The entire idea is to dismantle and eliminate the nation state as a long term goal.

    Of course it never works out that way and before long it runs into all kinds of problems. Probably the most obvious one being that once you establish a system of bureaucracy, its not very long before the bureaucrats set about making sure their positions are consolidated protected, and enhanced, and the next thing you know you have Lavrenti Beria, Joe Stalin, and one after another successive despots and the police state apparatus necessary to keep it going.

    When that happens, and the new ruling class is cemented in place, among the first casualties after the initial resistance are the true anarchists and devoted socialists who never take to the inevitable corruption of the new order, which isn’t really a corruption at all, its an inevitable happenstance and a completely natural result.

    There has never been a communist government. For one thing, a communist government as a national entity is a contradiction in terms, and for another, it never gets beyond the jackboot socialist police state stage with all its attendant blood lust and barbarism.

    Initially, the mass graves are all of those who were deemed unfit to transition and evolve into the new soviet or communist man. After so long, it just becomes the accepted way of eliminating rivals and perceived opponents.

    They are incapable of being anything else, or of living in peaceful coexistence for long with anything else, which is the reason for the constant global upheavals they sponsor when they have enough power to do so.

    Nothing ever changes, including the way they have of luring anarchists and other naive idealists into the fold.

    I don’t know if any of this applies to you or not, but if it does, be advised that you’re chasing a chimera.

38. S P Dudley
    October 22nd, 2011 @ 11:48 pm

    ” It was not a difficult discussion.”

    So well said. Can we make this guy President here?

39. Anonymous
    October 23rd, 2011 @ 12:03 am

    Re: “Anarchists are socialists” The term “anarchist” has been used in several different contexts, some at odds with one another. The term “anarchy” was used as early as the English Civil War, when it entered the language in 1642.
    It became associated with socialism with the “First Internationale” in 1864, i.e. the International Workingman’s Association. Karl Marx was among the members. This marks the start of anarchism’s association with syndicalism (trade unionism). Across Europe and into Russia and even America, the rest of the 1800s and the early 1900s were marked by increasing numbers of assassinations carried out by anarchist groups and individuals affiliated with them.  The widespread availability of firearms and dynamite made these the preferred methods of would-be assassins. Gavrilo Princip, the man who touched off WWI with the killing of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, was a member of the “Black Hand” anarchist group, to name one example.  These and similar examples account for the link between anarchism and leftism.

    However, the term “anarchism” has a very meaning in terms of political science, where it can mean the absence of government or the absence of govt. control. Viewed on a continuum of degree of government control over the individual , totalitarian collectivist systems such as communism and fascism lie to the far left; as one moves further right, one finally ends in anarchism, the complete absence of government. Some libertarians describe themselves as anarchists, though most do not, given the historical connotations of the term. Libertarians generally want severely-limited government, whereas anarchists want none.

    To muddy the waters even further, demonstrators and activists are often labeled by the media and press as “anarchists,” no matter their political/ideological leanings. This is the generic use of the term, for anyone who displays anti-authoritarian behavior.

40. Adjoran
    October 23rd, 2011 @ 2:47 am

    This cannot be emphasized enough, especially when we are offered polls showing significant portions of people approving of OWS.  Like Walesa, all they know is what they see in major media’s drive-by coverage.  Once they take a closer look and discover just who OWS is and what they are saying and doing, it’s a different result.

41. Adjoran
    October 23rd, 2011 @ 2:48 am

    Well, actually, back in the day I always kinda hoped for a sudden hailstorm on that mountaintop, too.

42. Adjoran
    October 23rd, 2011 @ 2:53 am

    You know, it’s really a generational thing.  You put these just-out-of-college kids in charge of invites for the conferences, figuring they have their fingers on the pulse of the high-techy stuff, the LAST people they are going to call in are veteran print reporters who will tell them all the things they don’t know.

    Right out of college, they already know everything.  Unless the veteran has a cushy expense account and hates to eat and drink alone, they will stick with kids their own age – who know it all, too.

43. ThePaganTemple
    October 23rd, 2011 @ 7:22 am

    Yeah it does sound crazy, I know. There’s more than just one kind of anarchist though. I guess that’s another irony, that there seems to be some kind of law that there can only be one kind.

44. ThePaganTemple
    October 23rd, 2011 @ 8:59 am

    I think what the TP should be most aware of at this present time is the subtle insinuations in the media that they are the same as the OWS. We know better of course, but much of Dancing With The Stars America may take it to heart. You don’t see it too much, yet, but every now and then you get this “they have a lot in common” bullshit. Once you get past the fact that both groups are pissed off at the government that’s about the limit of what we have in common. From there we diverge into opposite directions, with the OWS demanding more of the same from government, the TP demanding a hell of a lot less in the way of spending, regulations, taxes, and overall government control.

    I bet if the truth were known, at least one fifth of all Americans think they’re all the same.

    And there’s another probably even worse danger, that being the TP might end up vanishing from the public consciousness along with its message, to be replaced by the OWS, with a complicit media acting as a cheerleader, and maybe even a thinly disguised recruitment arm of the movement.

45. ThePaganTemple
    October 23rd, 2011 @ 10:04 am

    I believe the correct division is anarcho-capitalists for the libertarians and anarcho syndicalists for the “socialist” (actually communist} anarchists. It helps to know the difference between communists and true socialists. Communists allegedly want to set up a socialist state, abolish private property rights, and let the government take over all major manufacturing and other industry, as well as agriculture. Then, supposedly, they want to let the state “wither away” to where there is no longer a nation state at all, but merely regional and local councils, or “soviets”. As for the major industries, they will be turned over to “worker control”.

    But first they have to get through the socialist stage, which is the stage they never ever get beyond. It just gets bloodier and more repressive as time marches on.

    But the initial goal, the abolition of the nation state and handing all power to “the people”, is what attracts the anarchists.

46. BizzyBlog
    October 23rd, 2011 @ 3:28 pm

    […] Friday, October 21, at 5:01 p.m., Adam Andrzejewski at BigGovernment.com (HT Smitty at The Other McCain) reported that “Based on our discussion and intervention, President Walesa is not going to […]

47. Bob Belvedere
    October 23rd, 2011 @ 4:22 pm

    What Joe said.  Anarchy or Chaos are merely stops along the way to building the Socialist Paradise.  The Left believes the best way to Immanentize The Eschaton is through the destruction of the existing order and the utter elimination of all existing traditions.

    I think it much more accurate to label him a Nihilist.

48. Bob Belvedere
    October 23rd, 2011 @ 4:30 pm

    I wanted to roast the snow-white turtledoves.

49. Occupy Wall Street – The Democrats’ Electoral Albatross | Koch's Tour
    October 23rd, 2011 @ 4:33 pm

    […] these protests have packed up and gone home – they were smart enough to realize that they were being used by the organizers and hard-core anarchists who are behind all of […]

50. Bob Belvedere
    October 23rd, 2011 @ 4:34 pm

    Exactly.  When a faction of the Left gains power, the first groups they go after are the Useful Idiots/Dupes and any other faction that is ‘on their side’ [see: The Mensheviks’s treatment at the hands of The Bolsheviks].

    This is key to a person on the Right surviving a Leftist takeover: use this breathing space to either organize an effective resistance [learn from the tragic mistakes of The Whites in Russia] or get the Hell out of the country.  The Left will always turn their guns on their own first, all in the name of solidification of their power and control.

About

This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

Subscribe to our feed

Search

Admin

• Log in
• Wordpress
• XHTML