The Occupy protests are fighting for freedom, truth, justice, equality, and the right to wear tents as casual attire.

Imposter or genuine Occupier? You decide. Pic: Jake Nowakowski

In the course of their battle they have faced many enemies; authoritarian authorities, policing police, the Melbourne weather. But now, it seems, they are to face their biggest enemy.

The enemy within.

For the Occupy protests have themselves been Occupied. Infiltrated by those masters of many dark arts, the Right.

They’re not easy to spot at first, these undermining interlopers, because they mimic their hosts so well. But their presence is evident in the way the protests are now shoring up the stereotype of the Left as scattered stoners, as ineffective bleeding hearts strumming ukuleles as the world falls apart. As people to be ignored.

Like all archetypes, this image of the useless hippy is not entirely baseless. But the Right’s mission has been to ensure that the stereotype eclipses any and all messages the Occupiers want to spread.

You see, the Right got spooked.

In the United States, the Occupy movement has started to have a discernible effect. ‘Occupy’ became the mostly commonly used word in English language media, according to the UK’s Daily Telegraph.

Politicians, including US President Barack Obama, have started to acknowledge that they need to address income inequality. Obama has been talking more and more about how the American Dream is “slipping away”, about how the wealthiest people got the country into a mess and things need to change, about chances for everyone. He told the protestors: “You are the reason I ran for office.”

It must be said that the Australian Occupy movement was, from its inception, a shiftless and showerless shadow of its international parent movement.

They are so busy occupying so many things – banks, Christmas, cardboard boxes, Qantas – and fighting for so many things – Aboriginal land rights, better pay for the cleaners of Sydney, a Robin Hood tax – that they start to look not just derivative, but daft.

They should have learnt from the climate change debate that large-scale, complex ideas, despite their very real impacts, tend to alienate a broader audience.

Still, if you can dispel the haze and distil their message, it is an important one. The gap between rich and poor is getting wider. Human need should trump corporate greed.

And this is the message that spooked the Right.

Within their Black Ops unit (the one where they train up the shock jocks), the Evil Grand Master stroked his white cat and told his minions to go forth and disrupt, to grow their hair and sit unwashed amongst the Occupiers, to embed themselves then speak to the media at every possible opportunity and speak nonsense. To make no sense. Give them death by Kumbaya.

And lo, they went forth, and painted signs with Beatles lyrics, and mumbled about love and unity and trust, and uttered their deliberately shambolic words.

They wrote things like:

The idea of societies that allow the co-existence of multiple realities is not a figment of someone’s utopian imagination. It is to assert that, as the saying goes: another life is possible.

Oh wait, hold on, that was from anthropologists writing for the ABC, not right-wing plants attempting to discredit the Left. My mistake.

And yet the plants are winning, the movement is waning, and a recent Sydney gathering heard they may struggle to keep going past Christmas.

Their only hope is to banish the right-wing white-anters, to clear out the Trojan horses.

If the Left is to have any hope of rebuilding its reputation, it must rid itself of these agents imitating dropout dimwits.

They must strip them of their tents, their posters and their place.

Maybe the police can lend them a hand.

138 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • acotrel says:

      05:09am | 13/12/11

      ‘You see, the Right got spooked.’

      Reality bites ! !  There’s an old saying ‘bullshit baffles brains’.  Being on the bones of your arse clears your head ? The current situation has the potential to cause a revolution like those two in France and Russia.  Getting into denial, or forcing the issue won’t stop it from happening.

    • TimB says:

      05:49am | 13/12/11

      ‘The current situation has the potential to cause a revolution like those two in France and Russia.’

      Bwahahahahahaha

      Surely it doesn’t matter Acotrel? After all, you told us that the Aborigines were going to get complete ownership of Australia (somehow). That would put quite a crimp in your glorious revolution, won’t it? smile

      Too funny.

    • acotrel says:

      06:16am | 13/12/11

      @TimB
      It is no laughing matter.  Which group has the most money on this planet ?  I think it’s the Arabs.  Their dictatorships are currently under attack.  If their world implodes who will they attack first, and which nations will try to intervene while having little economic back-up ?  It’s a recipe for the world to go pear-shaped ! ‘Occupy’ is only a symptom, however I suggest it is one which should be recognised.

    • TimB says:

      06:56am | 13/12/11

      First he predicts Aborigines gaining title to all of Australia at our expense.

      Then he predicts the drum-weilding rabble that is the Occupy movement is on the verge of become a full-blown revolution.

      And *now* Acotrel predicts a world war started by the Arab countries. The funny thing is, if anyone from say the Liberal party said something like that, Acotrel would be the first to decry them as scare-mongering racists.

      Sorry Acotrel. Your ‘predictions’ are indeed a laughing matter.

    • AL says:

      07:14am | 13/12/11

      You be trollin’
      No one’s that stupid

    • Alf says:

      07:17am | 13/12/11

      @acotrel. Conspiracy theories now? You really should find something else to occupy your mind (and stop playing with youself). You are losing the plot old fella.

    • MarkS says:

      07:59am | 13/12/11

      @acotrel
      Have you been drinking the same water as John?

    • the_pseudonym says:

      08:07am | 13/12/11

      Reading body language and now predictions, you really do have too much time with your hand acotrel.

    • old fart says:

      08:16am | 13/12/11

      dont think so, I havent heard anyone telling them to eat cake yet, although, if the pollies get their way and put the broom through the defence heirarchy , there could be a chane on the armed services backing occupy.  After all that is what defence forces are trained to do isnt it? occupy?

    • Borderer says:

      08:18am | 13/12/11

      The right is not spooked, what Gillard has done for feminism, the occupy protests have done for the left.
      Revolution in Australia, you’re dreaming (that’s me telling you you are), revolution occurs when the majority feel that risk to life and limb is better than the present regime. Mind you, given Julia’s reshuffle (and dealing up the same set of jokers, brownest noses first) there is a possibility. This is likely to take the form of election rather than electing not to bathe or protesters getting cut down with assault weapons.

    • John says:

      08:23am | 13/12/11

      The alliance with Russia, China and Arab States is possibility. Russia can attack Europe via Poland, Arab states can invade Spain and the Italy. The west needs to understand their constant pushing people around might cause reaction. The problem is Americans and Europeans are demoralized by their criminal leadership. The crimes that NATO have done in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, The Americans forces, what will they have to fight for? International Bankers Interest? Russia will be welcomed into Europe as liberators! Europe and the west have no real political leadership. Europeans have will have no incentive to fight a Russian attack. Clearly this will be disgraceful act of allowing the Russian to come and liberate Europe, its something i will not like, but it will be the only cards on the table. The other option is to fight with a criminal organization such as NATO to defend international banking interests, which is something not in the interests of the europeans either.

    • Borderer says:

      11:48am | 13/12/11

      @John
      Watched Red Dawn before turning on the computer hey?
      Not only do you demonstrate a vivid imagination but also an utter lack of understanding of European nationalism. You don’t normally think before opening your mouth do you?

    • John says:

      12:50pm | 13/12/11

      Borderer

      How is Europe going fight WWIII when it’s politicians and media have no creditability? Europe has been divided by marxist politics, immigration, multiculturalism and international banker subversion. There is nothing to fight for! Who is going to defend European multiculturalism, immigration and it’s ill’s? who is going to defend the international banking rulership over europe? Who is going to defend Sarkozy, Merkel and Cameron? Who is going to defend the Communist EU Project? The entire European political, banking structure, media and entire military NATO is hated by europeans themselves. Europeans are already occupied, they want to be liberated! They don’t want to defend their occupiers. Don’t you get it! 

      When they start pumping war propaganda, they are going to laugh as their media and the governments have lost all creditability. Propaganda doesn’t work anymore, the moves have been played too many times.

    • John says:

      01:15pm | 13/12/11

      The end of the Communist EU and their destructive immigration policy’s is near. 

      “In the interview, Le Pen said she would limit immigration to 10,000 people a year and argued that efforts to save the euro should be dropped and France return to the franc.”

      “I have always said the euro will collapse,” she said. “If it still exists when I come to power, I will bring together our European partners and propose an organised exit. France will return to the franc.””

    • marley says:

      01:37pm | 13/12/11

      @John - there is absolutely no possibility that Russia will ally itself with China, nor much of one that it will ally itself with Arab states.  There are border issues with the former and ethnic issues with the latter. 

      So, on to your next fantasy.

    • Borderer says:

      01:44pm | 13/12/11

      @John
      You seem to have picked up a Marxist handout dated from last century. The communist revolution failed to materalise in western Europe then and will not happen today when people have even more to lose.
      If you are curious how Europeans respond to people invading their land, ask someone from the former Yugoslavia, they are usually pretty direct about that sort of thing.

    • John the Zombie says:

      06:12pm | 13/12/11

      Guys acrotel heard all this on a cabbies radio system as thier is no dispatch system in Australia for cabs.

    • Thor says:

      10:31am | 14/12/11

      I bet you and John both wear tin foil hats…

    • TimB says:

      05:18am | 13/12/11

      Wait a second….

      Tory, are you *seriously* trying to tell us that the reason that the Occupy mob comes off as such a useless bunch of morons… is because they’ve been infltraed by right-wingers intent on trashing their rep? Really?

      This is wacky conspiracy theory stuff, and all without a shred of evidence I note. Please tell me this article is just one big wind-up. It has to be. But part of me worries that it isn’t…

      The Occupy movement is Blair’s Law made manifest. They do a great job of looking stupid all on their own. Given that I hardly think there’s a need for right-aligned agent provocateurs.

    • Chris_D says:

      05:56am | 13/12/11

      Thanks TimB for saying it for me.  I’m not sure if it’s Tory trying to be ironic, but given past form I’d say it’s just another fabrication based loosely around things she’s heard in the office or while waiting to get a coffee somewhere.

    • Tim says:

      07:20am | 13/12/11

      Um did you really think she was serious?
      Haha.

    • Nilbog says:

      07:35am | 13/12/11

      It’s a gee up boys, no one is that stupid…

    • TimB says:

      07:36am | 13/12/11

      I’m hoping she isn’t Tim. But I wouldn’t put it past her.

    • MarkS says:

      07:59am | 13/12/11

      Clearly tongue in cheek

    • Bertrand says:

      08:07am | 13/12/11

      I’m not sure about the presence of agent provocateurs in the Australian occupy movement, but it is fair to say that the biggest victory of the movement’s detractors has been to have the protesters reduced to hippy stereotypes for ridicule. The mockery of the individuals involved has ensured that any message this group has is also mocked.

      In Australia the group itself has given the wider public plenty of reasons to mock them. The circumstances being protested against in America and Europe aren’t reflected in Australia, and as a result the Australian occupiers have come across as too disparate a group of voices protesting almost for no other reason than the sake of protesting.

      Nonetheless, we need to ensure that we as individuals don’t allow ourselves to simply latch on to the mockery of the protesting hippy stereotype and use this to dismiss the issues that global occupy movement has raised. At its core is an acknowledgement that the neo-liberal marriage of corporate and government power has been bad for democracy and bad for scores of individuals and communities, who have had to bear the brunt of policies of corporate and financial deregulation that have allowed big business to externalise so many of their costs.

      This is the case in America where rabid deregulatory policies and the stripping of the power of regulatory authorities has led to the most unequal distribution of wealth in generations. Similarly, in Europe, it is the avergae person in the street who is being forced to carry the cost of poor lending practises (and equally poor borrowing practises) of banks and sovereign governments.

      In both of these parts of the world we have an entire lost generation who will see their standard of living continue to fall. The occupy movement is right in protesting against the policies that allowed this to happen.

    • subotic says:

      08:22am | 13/12/11

      I thought that the Occupy mob comes off as such a useless bunch of morons because they were such a useless bunch of morons.

      My bad….

    • Sarah says:

      08:32am | 13/12/11

      Guys - I normally agree with a lot of things TimB says - but I think a lot of you have missed the point.

      This entire article is tongue in cheek. I laughed myself silly while reading it - that was a great job, Tory!

      She’s taking the piss out of left-wing whingers and right-wing evil doers and everyone else in between!

    • Tubesteak says:

      08:44am | 13/12/11

      TimB
      It was all satire so don’t worry. No-one would take the Occupiers seriously except for the intellectually bankrupt and ignorant who believe that the world owes them a favour and a living.

      Which brings me to…....

      Bertrand
      The marriage of corporate and government power is merely a reflection of those in society that actually contribute. Those that do something with their lives and add value to the system.

      You also fail to understand that the externalising of the costs was something the US government was bound to do under their own policies created by the Community Reinvestment Act as they tried to give the parasites and poor cheap housing that they couldn’t afford.

      Deregulation and the free market are brilliant. They allow things to happen naturally. The government screws this up by trying to make things “fair” in order to buy votes from those unwilling to play the game.

      Poor lending practises were imposed by the US government that forced banks to lend to people that couldn’t afford the loans. Had the free market been allowed to operate naturally the banks would never have lent to these people. This created a property bubble that burst plunging the world into the over-leveraged situation that we continue to have.

      The only effective way for a society to operate is to force the individual to take responsibility for themselves and their choices and their life and their outcomes. Not expect society to give it to them.

    • SimonFromLakemba says:

      08:50am | 13/12/11

      Liberals + Sense of humour don’t usually go hand in hand

    • SimonFromLakemba says:

      08:54am | 13/12/11

      @Tubesteak

      It wasnt the Government.

      Correct in saying they wanted the banks to lend money to minorities, but the banks big business was refinancing, only something like 20% were new home loans, they stitched people up on honeymoon type loans on refinances.

    • Bertrand says:

      09:01am | 13/12/11

      Tubesteak,
      What a load of Randian objectivist tripe. To argue that their is no room for altruism or compassion in a society and that everyone’s needs will be best served by allowing free market forces to operate is to ignore the reality. Withouth environmental, labour or other such regulations more power is fed to thos without power.

      When you see the situation in America where a very small number of incredibly wealthy individuals swing through the turnstile of corporate director to executive power holder in government to corporate lobbyist, you end up where simple things like environmental regulations that exist to do things like protect the water supply or air quality of communities are stripped away. So these communities end up paying the cost of the companies’ environmental vandalism.

      You end up in a situation where companies will source the cheapest labour possible, employing children or women in 3rd world countries to work in sweatshops run almost like military detention centres, complete with armed guards and spies.

      I am not against markets, but to argue that the type of unregulated corporatism that has been allowed to emerge since the 1980s is only going to reward those who contribue and punish those who refuse to contribute is a load of crap.

      As for your claim that we need to explain the individual to take responsibility for themselves, how do you explain the multi-billion dollar bail out of banks that bankrupted themselves?

    • badrinath says:

      09:01am | 13/12/11

      Chris D and Timb, you folks only respect yourselves, and those that promise to only believe exactly what you believe. Your obvious arrogance is a poignant frame for your outlook. Arrogance toward this movement, and the next one that comes along, may be a foolish approach, but hey, I forgot - the whole world is and should be, exactly as your perception indicates. Phew, feeling less fear already.

      You could also have a little respect for the journo, after all, you lot are on here all the time, allowing yourselves to be agitated and provoked into justifying the adds on the right side of the screen. Which I love, because people like you so love your assumed (and ironically gifted) superiority.

    • John Smythe says:

      09:19am | 13/12/11

      Problem is when she flops with an article it’s always the reader’s fault…they didn’t understand what she was saying, she was only kidding, it wasn’t meant that way…..oh wait…...seeing a very Julia-like pattern here.

    • Optional says:

      09:32am | 13/12/11

      @ Shane

      Happy for the Police to do so to, these activist people are a threat to safety.

    • TimB says:

      09:36am | 13/12/11

      It was a choice between bad satire or complete seriousness. In all honesty it could have gone either way.  I thought I pointed that out pretty clearly in my inital post.
      Making fun of Occupy is all well and good, but I’m confused as to what the conspiracy theory aspect of the article was meant to satirise. As far as I’m aware, even the Occupiers haven’t been batty enough to think that they’re being undermined by right-wing infiltration. The whole premise is just weird.
      Fact is, Hildebrand does this sort of thing way better.

      Badrinath, I generally have respect for anyone who doesn’t make sweeping generalisations about me, regardless as to whether or not I agree with them on various issues. By the same token I also respect those who realise I may indeed have valid reasons for my views, whether or not they agree with said views.

      I have to say, you’re failing on both counts.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      09:38am | 13/12/11

      @Optional- Nah, they have poor public relations skills, poor discipline, poor security and poor organizational skills. These people are a bunch of amateurs and mostly harmless

    • TimB says:

      09:42am | 13/12/11

      @ Shane, law enforcement infiltrating for investigative purposes is very different from ‘right wingers’ doing it to engage in actions that deliberately make the movement look bad & trash their rep.

    • Tubesteak says:

      12:27pm | 13/12/11

      Simon
      It was the government. They forced banks to give loans to people and didn’t bother regulating them and the inevitable market failure this would create. Giving people honeymoon loans isn’t a failure of the banks. Plus, no-one forced the borrower to take the loan. Caveat emptor

      Bertrand
      You are clueless. I’m not ignoring the reality. I am embracing it. You are ignoring the reality.

      The small number of wealthy are those that have earned it and played the game. This is open to anyone if they have the drive and ability to do everything necessary (eg get a scholarship to an Ivy League school, work hard, get good grades, get a job in a major bank or law firm and go from there).

      Your claim sounds like irrational conspiracy theory because it suits your agenda. There’s nothing based on fact or evidence.

      Companies should source the cheapest labour possible. Especially in jobs that are generic and require no real skills or qualifications or location. The world economy has changed. Move with it.

      No country has had unregulated corporatism. Not America, not Europe and definitely not Australia. They have all had significant government involvement and it is this that has created the problem.

      I explained the banks in my initial response to you and again to Simon. You need to do some research. Start with the CRA.

    • Bertrand says:

      12:55pm | 13/12/11

      Tubesteak,
      What a massive amount of ideological dribble you are spouting. For anyone to truly argue for a complete unregulated market is just astonishing. Do you know what the labour market looked like before it was regulated? Are you honestly going to claim that having 10 year old kids working for a couple of bucks a day, while risking getting beaten by a factory supervisor is a necessary and positive thing in our global marketplace? Do you honestly believe that in the absence of any sort of environmental regulations a company would find a profitable reason to safely dispose of waste products? Your claim that anyone who wants to succeed in a completely free market will succeed is flat out absurd. Libertarianism fails in that it doesn’t recognise people do not start out in life on an equal footing. When you have governments drafting laws with the assistance of major corporate powers, and drafting those laws in such a way that they benefit corporate interests at the expense of other people, when you believe that the only human drive that should shape decision making is pure self interest you cannot truly believe that it is a fair system or one that is going to build the best society.

      Australia has a more regulated system than America. It also has a higher standard of living and isn’t having to deal with the catastrophic failure of free market ideology that has governed society in America for the past 30 years.

      The Great Depression and the current GFC both resulted from an over-reliance in the believe in the ultimate power of free market ideology. I am certainly not arguing for some sort of Marxist, centrally planned society. But to believe that government shouldn’t play some role in regulating the operations of the market is ridiculous.

    • St. Michael says:

      01:56pm | 13/12/11

      “The Great Depression and the current GFC both resulted from an over-reliance in the believe in the ultimate power of free market ideology.”

      For the most part, both the Great Depression and the current GFC were the result of government screwing around with the free market and either being reckless or ignorant as to the consequences of doing so—not a misplaced belief in the free market.

      One of the major triggers for the Great Depression is acknowledged as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which literally a thousand economists begged Hoover not to sign into law.  He did it anyway—and more or less killed international trade overnight, since the first thing a competing nation does when you impose tariffs on its exports is to impose tariffs on *your* exports.

      That is: an attempt at government regulating the free market.

      The Great Depression was then extended and deepened by FDR continuing and building on Hoover’s policies, including stimulus after stimulus, anti-business legislation, seizing privately held gold, instituting price controls, wage controls and the like.  In essence, the Homer approach of pressing buttons at random with your eyes shut.  None of it materially helped.  It took WW2 to get the US and the world out of that one.  Had FDR just left the market to recover and let natural market forces prevail, it wouldn’t have been a Depression - it would have been a so-so recession.

      Again, government screwing around with the market as in trying to control it.  Not misplaced belief in the free market.

      In the case of the GFC, the major cause was the government indirectly forcing the market to sell last-resort-lender-price mortgages, usually due to affirmative action policy.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—both government institutions—are well-acknowledged as having a big role to play in subprime since the free market had to compete with their bottom of the barrel lending practices, and in many cases these bodies underwrote NINJA loans they knew would fold pretty fast.

      This is not to excuse the various homeowners, real estate agents, and Wall Street types from their culpability in the crisis, but you would find the majority of the ill-gotten gains from the GFC were kept by the homeowners who sold their homes at inflated prices before the bubble burst, and the real estate agents that brokered them.  Ain’t nobody going after homeowners in prosecutions for the GFC.

      Your insistence on regulation is also amusing given the market was not unregulated just before the GFC hit.  There were a number of government regulators and ratings agencies who were all mysteriously caught asleep at the wheel, which is rather a pity since the GFC was one of those things they’re meant to prevent.  It’s amazing nobody’s hauled the CEO of Moody’s off to jail, since they were certifying subprime CDOs as AAA rated right before it all went to hell.  So government regulation sure as hell didn’t stop or prevent the GFC; why would it make any difference now?

    • John Smythe says:

      02:14pm | 13/12/11

      @St Michael…sorry mate you fail…not enough dramatising or pleas about who would think of the kids. Remember, it’s my right to have what you spent hard time and effort working for, without me having to expend the same hard work or effort. It’s my right to have the government think for me, because, well I’m only used to crap TV that doesn’t make me think anyway….

      In all seriousness though, well said mate.

    • Tubesteak says:

      02:57pm | 13/12/11

      Bertrand
      Your grammar betrays your ignorance and lack of understanding. I never said a complete free market, just minimal government intervention.
      Moreover, resorting to reductio ad absurdum is never a good arguing tactic. It shows desperation.
      Yes, companies will dispose of their goods in an environmentally friendly manner if people don’t buy their products due to their environmental record. Same for companies that use child labour. Companies can’t get away with anything they want.
      Companies often assist in drafting legislation because governments have no clue because most of the drafters don’t know what they’re doing. I have been involved in these discussions on a number of occasions.
      It’s the usual fall-back line of the left who think big corporations are evil even though they can’t prove it.
      Self-interest is the greatest motivating force in the world. It is also the only true motivating force. Society is not fair and nor should it be. The world is not fair and nor should it be. It should only reward those who put in the effort to earn it.
      The free market did not fail because it was never free. It had massive government interference and as I’m explaining here for a third time this was the cause of the GFC. Not the free market or free market ideology.

      John Smythe
      That was funny. I lol’d.

    • Bertrand says:

      07:28pm | 13/12/11

      My bad grammar reflects the fact that I wrote my previous comments on a p[hone and it wasn’t worth my time editing every grammatical error and typo.

      I love how I am be portrayed as the radical on this discussion. My claim has been nothing more than my preferred model of free market democracy is one that has a decent level of regulation and a decent separation between corporate power and government power. This exists in Australia to a reasonable degree, and certainly a lot more than in America, where the right for big businesses to finance politicians has been interpreted as a right enshrined in the constitution.

      I am arguing for what we pretty much have here in Australia. If you go back to my original post, I specifically said that the Occupy Australia movement doesn’t have a reason. I also said that some of the complaints being made by some of the occupiers are valid. You are defending a series of economic and governmental policies that were enacted over the past 30 years in places like America, and which has collapsed spectacularly in the past few years, leaving tens of millions of people in its wake. And I’m sorry, but to place the blame for the collapse on having regulation in the market is dishonest. Australia’s banks were much more heavily regulated than America’s and they did not go into or allow people to get into the same sort of unrecoverable debt as what occurred in America. Free marketeers always refer to government regulations forcing American banks to lend to people who could not afford it as if it is the sole cause of the GFC. While certainly this was a flawed regulation, to blame the entire crisis on it is to be disingenuous.

      @  your claim that I am being overly dramatic would be a bit more convincing if you didn’t automatically resort to the ‘deadshit hippy’ stereotype as your rebuttal. In my very first comment on this thread I said that people were failing to separate the ‘buffoon’ image of the people involved in the OWS movement, and the argument that they may have some reasonable points. I am a part of the ‘system’. I work, pay tax, have a mortgage, have a credit card. I don’t think it owes me anything. I can still be a critic of its flaws.

    • St. Michael says:

      11:18am | 14/12/11

      Look, Bertrand, you’ve been relatively polite, but there are a couple of quotes I do need to dissect:

      “And I’m sorry, but to place the blame for the collapse on having regulation in the market is dishonest.”

      Not regulation.  Even the most rabid libertarians would concede the rule of law’s required to make capitalism work, and the rule of law in itself is a form of regulation.

      The problem is overregulation—or regulation for political purposes.  The latter is what FNMC and FNMA were guilty of, although in mitigation they’ve basically been forced into it by successive Presidents since Jimmy Carter onwards.  Those policies, in summary, were to make everyone own their own home—regardless of their actual creditworthiness or their means.  And the only way you could do that was make the government underwrite loans to poor people (what Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae did a lot of).  That turned the housing equity market into a race to the bottom.  Credit exploded and suddenly everyone could borrow huge amounts of money on their houses.  That fuelled a housing bubble—and all bubbles burst, sooner or later, whether it’s the stock market or the real estate market.

      All due to regulation for political purposes.

      They were done that way mostly because of affirmative action policies, which, like it or not, are reverse discrimination and just as damaging as the original Deep South apartheid mentality.  The affirmative action policies, based on their results rather than their intent, are classic cases of overcompensating.  America’s got a guilt complex over its historical racism in the same way it has a guilt complex regarding its treatment of Vietnam veterans.

      “Australia’s banks were much more heavily regulated than America’s and they did not go into or allow people to get into the same sort of unrecoverable debt as what occurred in America.”

      APRA’s jurisdiction basically deals with the financial statements of the banks themselves - they’re mainly aimed an ensuring the bank has enough cash or assets to last out against a mass withdrawal, what we call a “run on the bank”.  They’re not concerned as much with individual mortgage applications.

      What you are obliquely referring to, I think, is the non-recourse loan, which is common in America, common in subprime mortgages, and which, in normal conditions, was an excellent stop-loss tool for any homeowner who took it.  A non-recourse loan only allows the bank to take the house in satisfaction of an unpaid debt.  It’s a hell of a lot better than the alternative, which is the bank pursuing you to bankruptcy and thus financial ruin for missing a few house payments.  Happy to go into more detail about this if you want.  But the point remains that the banks were as much victims as beneficiaries of easy credit pushed by the government.

      “Free marketeers always refer to government regulations forcing American banks to lend to people who could not afford it as if it is the sole cause of the GFC. While certainly this was a flawed regulation, to blame the entire crisis on it is to be disingenuous.”

      Not exactly.  Because the other chief reason for the GFC was the failure to act by government regulators with authority and jurisdiction to do so, in particular Moodys and S&P which knowingly lied about the rating of CDOs across the board, and for which they have yet to be held accountable.

      In other words, to the largest degree, government is overwhelmingly responsible for the GFC: first, by pushing affirmative action lending; second, by having its regulators look the other way.  A government regulator is the one meant to stop the party.  They didn’t.

      So I don’t think your assertion is correct on that.  The government did anything but regulate before the GFC, though it had all the tools to effectively do so.

    • Erick says:

      05:22am | 13/12/11

      Nah, it’s the dark forces of feminism, I tells ya!

      ‘There is a broad effort amongst prominent feminists and well funded feminist groups to convince the American public that the whole banking crisis is, at its root, all about the “patriarchy.”  Resulting is an Occupy Patriarchy movement budding up amongst the protesters who have been squatting on park squares in cities all over the world.’

    • Mark G says:

      06:51am | 13/12/11

      Anti-feminist comments from Erick what a shock wink True point though but I think it is more than just feminist infiltration. Feminism is just another of the mish mashed leftist ideals that is the occupy movement. I have started calling them ‘Leftist Ideals R Us’. Its a sales bonanza of poorly thought out, bleeding heart and idealistic leftist policy.

    • MarkS says:

      08:01am | 13/12/11

      Well played sir

    • I luv u Erick says:

      09:38am | 13/12/11

      You only have to look at Pelosi in Congress to see that women should be barred from politics. Look what we got from the suffragettes - the Evil Red Witch. The spawn of the devil. A former ambulance chaser in Melbourne. A woman who sends her lover (???) out to the back shed. A woman who talks about kids, reduces IVF treatments etc etc. A woman who refuses to advance men like Craig Thomson whom she has full confidence n. Surely with his expertise as a former union secretary and credit card user he should have been promoted to Treasurer. Miss Gillard leads a sexist government, and a pro Muslim government. Down with the evil red witch. i

    • Erick says:

      03:01pm | 13/12/11

      Nice try, troll. smile

      @the Marks - Obviously Tory was being a bit tongue-in-cheek, as was I. But the maleficent feminist indfluence is present, both at the Occupy rallies and elsewhere.

      There were a few feminists writing in the mainstream media about how the GFC was caused by males (evil!), and how it wouldn’t have happened if women were in charge. To which I’d repoly that the prosperity we enjoyed, and still enjoy, was caused by males, and wouldn’t have happened if women were in charge.

      As for the Occupy groups, several of them use what they call a “progressive stack” in meetings. This amounts to letting everyone except white heterosexual men have priority to speak and be heard. Typical leftist racism and sexism.

    • John L says:

      05:45am | 13/12/11

      Another pathetic attempt by The Punch to deride the Occupy movement without any serious analysis. Are you trying for spot on 2GB Tory?

    • VVS says:

      07:36am | 13/12/11

      Doesn’t need serious analysis, champ. No one cares anymore…

    • Trevor says:

      08:14am | 13/12/11

      Just like the carbon tax hey VVS?

    • Frank says:

      09:47am | 13/12/11

      well Hadley is on holidays smile

    • Occupy where the sun don't shine !!!! says:

      09:47am | 13/12/11

      WTF - how can you analyise the Occupy movement. They don’t even have one friggen policy. Have a look at their many websites. All they want to do is rape pillage and plunder within their occupied zones. Read the police reports. The only thing they agree on is they hate anyone who works and makes a few million. Get a life you useless bludger as I sip my cask wine on the DSP - hahahaha

    • VVS says:

      02:06pm | 13/12/11

      Yes, exactly like the carbon tax… thanks for agreeing.

    • TChong says:

      06:28am | 13/12/11

      A snide sneer at those who oppose uncontrolled capitalism,.
      Undermining the Occupiers doesnt take undercover Righters, the status quo is maintained via Faux Nooos.
      Ruperts favrit channel ( after Punch) is hosted by puppets so intellectually bereft of any type of ability to be impartial that they are actually funny to watch. ( google Media Matters )
      The rest of the meeja, here and overseas are no better.

    • the_pseudonym says:

      07:13am | 13/12/11

      The lefties channel ( after The Drum) is hosted by puppets so intellectually bereft of any type of ability to be impartial that they are actually funny to watch.  Back at ya TChong, I love stirring the pot. 

      On a side note, shame about our cricket team going down by a handful of runs yesterday.

    • TChong says:

      07:53am | 13/12/11

      Twas a good game though, both sides eveny matched.
      Warner, a god bless him, almost got us there.
      Should make for a good OD and 20/20 series.
      I think I’ll start forming and spruiking for The Cricketting Party.
      Worked for Imran Khan, the Great AB was tempted.
      multi racial and denominational ( sorry to Sir Donalds memory, but both Cattlicks and Prottys are welcome.)
      The slogan about a way of life, - sells itself wink

    • Samuel says:

      08:09am | 13/12/11

      You are aware that uncontrolled capitalism is a myth, right? Good then. As you were.

    • Two Wongs dont make a White - Arthur Calwell (ALP) says:

      09:57am | 13/12/11

      F off to the ABC and the commie Fairfax press if you don’t like reality

    • the_pseudonym says:

      11:18am | 13/12/11

      TChong, how do reckon the team will go against the Indians, I believe we’ll get our arses whipped, but it may just be what the team needs.

    • Super D says:

      06:28am | 13/12/11

      One of the challenges that the CIA has in dealing with the Taliban / Al Qaeda is finding suitable operatives with the ability to go deep cover in the primitive conditions of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border regions.

      Conservatives would have similar issues if they were trying to find people to infiltrate the Occupy movement.

    • VVS says:

      07:38am | 13/12/11

      Not bathing for a month would be a good starting point…

    • gobsmack says:

      01:39pm | 13/12/11

      With each bong they could find their cherished materialism slipping away.

    • Winston says:

      06:29am | 13/12/11

      Pretend all you like, the Lefty hippies appear stupid because they are, they should have paid attention to an education.

      Though the embedded ‘sleepers’ is a very humorous conspiracy theory.

    • Joan says:

      07:10am | 13/12/11

      Winston - right on. Anyone with a whole brain or half a brain can’t pretend `stupid` even Oscar winning actors have trouble playing the `stupid`  character role successfully and be convincing-  the Occupiers present tthemselves as they are plain dumb stupid. .

    • acotrel says:

      07:31am | 13/12/11

      I think it would be very sensible to embed ‘sleepers’ in the Occupy movement !  It has quite a bit of potential, especially if the talks in Europe on the GFC go wrong .  The consequences could be quite severe.
      Of recent times, it has only been war which has caused a correction when the economy has gone wrong in a big way.

    • old fart says:

      08:12am | 13/12/11

      are “occupy” being pierced by sleepers?

    • Winston says:

      08:19am | 13/12/11

      So your theory acotrel is that the sleepers should join and remain a part of the occupy protests.  Then when they are told to activate and come to life, their only task is to pretend to be stupid?

    • Tator says:

      08:22am | 13/12/11

      There was a quote from the movie “Tropic Thunder” about that.

      “Never go full retard”

    • badrinath says:

      02:19pm | 13/12/11

      Winston, a lot of your lefty hippies are highly educated mate, but I guess if they do not end up at the same viewpoint as you have after your education - then they didn’t listen properly right?

      Joan, as always, you are an open-minded, clear thinking intellectual heavyweight.

      Let me say, that to the right-thinkers these people appear stupid. This is because rightist thought repels intuition, and will only assimilate what can be proven through specific (yet fallible) models of knowledge determination.

      The answer to what these occupiers are about is more complex than such a trite, emotive and arrogant type of response can acknowledge. They way many of you speak about it here at the punch reeks of a little club of “yeah those people are stupid and crap” type kids in the playground.

      If you stop to think about their ‘thing’ before you judge according to your own firm beliefs, then you might see that there is a lot that these people represent and indicate. The answer to what this is, is not a clear list of 20 points that you can later use to box these folks again. The drivers, and catalysts are sociological, intellectual, based on the reality of many peoples lives and of course borne out of thinking that is more left than right. They are not a homogenous group. Dismissing these people the way you right-thinkers at the punch do, goes directly to the apathy, ignorance and arrogance that these people are shouting about.

      I only say this, because I feel there is a lot of older (like me above say 30) voices speaking in this way. And I feel for you, because it was likely not so long ago you felt yourself in the irrelevance of your youth, and now as tomorrows generations come through, along with tomorrows ideas, you are only able to respond with insult and dismissal. I believe it is great that they are actually standing up to form their beliefs, to influence the world. Our generations are so tainted with middle class fortune and TV watching apathy, that any stance or veering from what is laid out before us as the path seems to disgust us. Which is pretty unenlightening.

      All we have to fight for is that our borders (that we cant see, and are nowhere near and surround a huge island with a small number people on it) stay taut and firm. That the wealth continues to flow for US, for OUR super plans, in OUR realities - regardless of bleeding heart concerns for much of the rest of the world. That our easy life - where we whinge about every imperfection or inadequacy or great moral injustice (like the horrific electing of a govt based on power sharing and deal making - oh the horror, or the shocking outrage of whatever the next ACA or Sunrise event will deliver) never change, and that we never be required to give up any of our advantage for any reason. To reel in any part of our way of life is unthinkable, because we are so entitled to our lofty reality

      I don’t stand with these occupiers, but I stand respecting the parts of the message that I do understand and that i can intuit. The greed issue; the wealth distribution; the way power is being homogenised on many fronts such as the supermarket, the petrol company, the media corporation or the mining industry or the banking sector; and even their feelings about environmental concern/respect/awareness.

      It isn’t hard to do, and I genuinely feel if we fail to do so, then their anger will only grow, and as we all get older and approach our degrees of irrelevance, we will be deserving of how disempowered we become in our world, because we had no respect, and did not listen.

    • C1 says:

      06:39am | 13/12/11

      I saw the benefit of the Occupy Movement recently on a trip to Hong Kong. They are located in the courtyard of a major bank where I attended a function. One of the attendees had a bit too much to drink and prior to going home-snuck in to one of their tents and had a nice kip.
      No one either noticed or cared that a guy in a suit had crashed out there.
      Maybe that is the infiltration of the right that Tory was alluding to.

    • nihonin says:

      06:45am | 13/12/11

      ‘Another pathetic attempt by The Punch to deride the Occupy movement’.  I don’t know about that, I remember the two women arguing over who had the right to speak to the tv news crew next.  As one of them said “you’ve had your turn its my turn now, stop being so selfish’  then they got into a verbal stoush all for the nightly news viewers to laugh at.  Thats right share the love and whatever else you have. hahaha

    • Mark G says:

      07:00am | 13/12/11

      The Right infiltration is definitely a true conspiracy. The infiltrators get in front of cameras and intentionally look like idiots by presenting the Occupy ideas. Occupy have been hiding their ideas so that the right cannot distort them. Everyone knows that the only place that the occupy protests points make sense is in the sanctity of the drum circle after a large volume of pot. This is the only place where the true brilliance of Occupy becomes apparent. Not in front of a camera in the mainstream media.

    • Tangent says:

      07:19am | 13/12/11

      The multiple reality theory of cultural existence is valid depending on the method you’re using to do your examination.
      As in accounting - the value of something can be its price, or its ability to produce income, or its depreciation (if I pay $5 for cake ingredients, then sell my cake for $8… what is the *value* of the ingredients to me? the $5 I spent, or the $8 I can get from it… or the $3 profit? And if I let the ingredients go off.. its worth $0) - the intangible concept of “culture” can be looked at from a number of areas.

      Multiple reality as played in that piece Is a very Levi-Strauss way of looking at things (and Levi-Strauss looked at things in a very Levi-Strauss way…). Put simply he saw societies and cultures and structures within them as “languages”. Languages co-exist and intersect… for a simple example our word “yes” - its a combination of “Ja” from germanic and “Si” from latin.
      Ergo, people looking at explaining culture from that point of view, will always look for combinations, intersections, divisions and unique identifiers.

      Thats not to say they’re right - but they’re also not invalid. Its the conclusion that counts, not the method. If I use a straight line cost method.. the value of my cake ingredients is $5. If I use diminishing returns, it starts as potentially $8 and lowers to zero the longer it takes to get my sale. But I cant use diminishing returns and stop once it hits $5 and carry that forward, because now I’ve combined 2 incompatible methods.
      Same with multiple reality ideas.. you cant say ‘there’s a lot of them’ and then pick one. You have to examine them all.

    • stephen says:

      08:28am | 13/12/11

      Sometimes the method is the conclusion, because Sociologists like Levi-Strauss and others have too big a concept of Culture, a Culture which does not allow for reductivism.
      Reductive thinking is best for behaviours because
      a : they are ahistorical, therefore lose out on context, a context which is metaphorical - and this is good,
      b: behaviour can explain as well as describe,
      c: Culture cannot explain anything.

      The ‘incompatible methods’ you mention does not make an argument invalid - you can insert any signifier you want to make a sentence or an argument valid - so I don’t understand why the writer of this article cannot say that ‘there’s a lot of them’ as a description of behaviours, then pick one ?

    • GMB says:

      09:43am | 13/12/11

      @Tangent & Stephen. “Levi-Strauss”? You mean the guy who invented denim jeans all those years ago? I’ll never look at a pair of 501’s the same way again. The things you learn on The Punch.

    • stephen says:

      10:10am | 13/12/11

      L.S. didn’t invent denim.
      Denim was already in the US used as coveralls.
      He invented the studs that join the pockets to the plaits, and patented it.
      He made his money out of someone else’s idea.
      (Just like Ralph Lauren did.)

    • Tangent says:

      10:11am | 13/12/11

      @ Stephen - I thought it was because the ABC article was an overview, but I didn’t read it that closely. I just thought Tory including that single statement as something that ‘discredits the left’ was pretty rich. Almost like saying derivative share trading discredits the right - ie proof the speaker understands neither.

      And GMB - he’s a french anthropologist named Claude Levi-Strauss. One of my lecturers was a grad student of his.

    • Tim says:

      07:22am | 13/12/11

      Occupy.
      The gift that keeps on giving.

    • Elphaba says:

      08:02am | 13/12/11

      I said that! tongue laugh

    • Tim says:

      08:35am | 13/12/11

      I’m just Occupying your comments.

    • Alf says:

      07:24am | 13/12/11

      Fact is: the Occupiers were mainly lefties - which is why they appeard incompetent, stupid and disorganised. Rebels without a clue.

    • Brad Coward says:

      10:51am | 13/12/11

      I like the line, “Rebels without a clue”.

      I shall use it.  Often !

    • Alf says:

      12:27pm | 13/12/11

      You have my blessing Brad.

    • Alf says:

      09:04pm | 13/12/11

      @Chris L. I didn’t claim to. But it seemed an appropriate description of the morons.

    • Bill says:

      07:30am | 13/12/11

      Can we just stop paying attention to these ignorant, feral leftists?

    • thatmosis says:

      07:33am | 13/12/11

      “Another pathetic attempt by The Punch to deride the Occupy movement without any serious analysis.”
      What a joke that statement is. The Occupy Movement derided themselves when they took over public places, turned them into garbage dumps and sewers. No right thinking person would have the audacity to do what these clowns did to the parks and then complain when they were moved on. my only complaint is that more werent fined big amounts to pay for the damage as once again to tax payer, which from what I saw were none of the Occupy Movement people, footed the bill. I respect their right to protest but not their right to trash public parks and stop wage earners from going about thier business.

    • stephen says:

      07:39am | 13/12/11

      There’s various interests with the occupiers, but I don’t think they have been hijacked by the Right.
      Some took it upon themselves to not want any heirarchies, generally, so then they spent the entire time not doing anything, listening to others, looking like sheep, but shaking their heads and thought ... that if a Hitler comes back, a shared ignorance is our best weapon.
      Extremely naive, and thankfully, some of the West End crowd went home early.
      The Occupy Movement has only one thing in mind : abject corporate greed which is wrecking western nations.
      The hijackers diffuse the point of view here, as much as mainstream politics does, in that they regale one important concern - money and greed - with a whole lifestyle of opinions, from global warming, to the damnation of authorities, to a daily wash, and that’s why they are less imperative than they might be.
      One of the great ironies is that it might only take educated and wealthy folk to really put the brakes on business greed.

    • The righteous one says:

      08:25am | 13/12/11

      I think locally it’s the same old unwashed rent-a-crowd who are content to sit on the dole long term and cry poor, instead of going out and earning a quid and their way.  On the other hand, the people in america have a reasonable gripe.  America’s richest make up less than 1% of the population and a median wage of just over $26000 US pa.  Doesnt appear really equitable does it.  People from Occupy Australia should look at employment levels here compared to the US.

    • The righteous one says:

      07:43am | 13/12/11

      You are right about the right being preoccupied with the “Occupy” movement who are only preoccupied with “Occupy” occupying an unoccupied space. 

      I wonder why it is that so many “Occupy” members have so much vacant time and so many vacant expressions on their faces with which to occupy themselves with?

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      02:44pm | 13/12/11

      I just wonder how you can tell the difference between the occupiers from the Left talking drivel and the so-called Right-wing infiltrators *pretending*  to talk drivel.

    • The righteous one says:

      06:37am | 14/12/11

      When you dont know left from right , look for a middle of the road comment perhaps?

    • DocBud says:

      07:48am | 13/12/11

      The Occupy Movement carries the seeds of its own destruction from within. They are intellectual pygmies with the hubris to believe they are an elite representing 99%. Because in their minds everything is so crystal clear, they get frustrated that this has not become a mass movement of change but just a meaningless sideshow that is no more than a smelly inconvenience. The inevitable consequence of such frustration is infighting, attempts to control what little they can control, i.e. each other and disdain for the ignorant “larger sections of the population [who] are distracted with entertainment and in addressing their never-ending wants.”

      http://www.occupysydney.org.au/2011/11/14/past-present-and-future-based-activism/#comments

      The “right” simply has to sit back and watch, and wait for this irrelevance to become a tiny bit of history that achieved nothing.

    • Samuel says:

      08:14am | 13/12/11

      I think my favourite thing about the Occupy movement is the way they constantly refer to themselves as something along the lines of the most important social movement in a decade, or how they talk about how ‘the world is watching’, or how, as you say, they insist that they speak for the “99%” (my second favourite thing is how they throw those 99% and 1% labels around as if they are actually a thing).

      They seem to think that if you keep saying those things as often and to as many people as possible, they might actually be true.

    • chungo mung says:

      03:45pm | 13/12/11

      sounds like politics samuel.

    • Juanita says:

      07:51am | 13/12/11

      Hi Tory, English is my second language, so please excuse me but isn’t ” authoritarian authorities” something implicit?

    • Michael says:

      07:54am | 13/12/11

      so it is the Right’s fault that the Occupy movement is achieving nothing of note?

      is that similar to it apparently being Abbott’s fault for the Gillard government achieving nothing of note?

    • Borderer says:

      03:34pm | 13/12/11

      Kind of found the left’s standard operational proceedure.
      To relate it to the schoolyard “Stop hitting yourself!!!”

    • Semi Concerned Citizen says:

      07:56am | 13/12/11

      If your a tinfoiler you’d be wondering where george soros is these days.

    • Michael says:

      08:08am | 13/12/11

      Utter drivel!

    • John says:

      08:10am | 13/12/11

      The problem with the occupy movement is that it’s Marxist, Leftist, i don’t know if you people know, but Marxism killed 42 million people and looked humanity as animals and that the Berlin wall and Soviet Union collapsed many years. The Left today are just a headless snake slivering. The left, liberalism and Marxism is dead. These headless snake movements movements are still used by western governments who are controlled by the international banking cartel around the world to cause division between their real political threats such as the Tea Party and Nationalist Movements in Europe.

      The political push and shove is now between The New International World Order vs Nationalism. The headless snake movements are being used as pawns to skirmish with the Nationalist forces around the world. So basically the occupy movements are government and media backed operations to cause division.

      The entire left have been marketed and funded by the international banking cartel, just look at their investment into communism in Russia gave the world a return of 42 million dead.

    • marley says:

      08:31am | 13/12/11

      “headless snakes slivering.”  I like that.  And I love the concept of international bankers investing in communism.  It’s all so clear now. Cough, cough.

    • Zeta says:

      09:00am | 13/12/11

      Aw Tory why did you have to resurrect the pain of that ABC Unleashed article?!?!

      For the better part of a month I had that open on a spare window on my desktop, and every day, I’d wake up and stare glumly at it, knowing that hidden in there, was the perfect pearl of satire just waiting to be wrenched from that wretched shell.

      Never before on even that most easy to mock of all ABC sideshows had there even been two more worthy targets than a pair of academics researching ‘the politics of multiple realities’. I did hours of research. I haunted La Trobe University forums trying to find the most hilarious example of their pretention (the answer - wine, cheese and Proust nights, its like they knew I was coming).

      I even read through their back catalogue of meandering anthropology papers, their numerous articles in The Age celebrating ‘diversity’. It was all there damn it! My opus!

      I took my favourite late night writing cocktail (The Black Tooth Grin, two shots of Wild Turkey, two heaped tea spoons of coffee grounds and a splash of Coke) and got to work. By about 1am, I was happy enough to hit ‘submit’ on the ABC’s poorly designed comments form.

      And I waited.

      And waited.

      And waited.

      And I’d been so careful damnit! None of the occassional ‘shit’ or ‘bollocks’ or thoughfully censored ‘ratf***ing’ The Punch lets me get away with. Oh no. I’d designed that comment like the f***ing AIDS virus man, it was going to sneak into the ABC’s white blood cells, and SURPRISE! It would be there in the morning and the sweet tears of trolled lefty swine would sustain me for weeks, months, possibly all year.

      But to no avail. It’s like the ABC’s online infrastructure is defended by some anti-satire condom, some viriluent anti-body that hunts down my seeds of hate before they’re sent.

      Christ, a whole comment about writing comments… that’s meta. Some academic should write an ABC article about that.

    • John Smythe says:

      09:24am | 13/12/11

      Classic as always!

    • SimonFromLakemba says:

      09:07am | 13/12/11

      I don’t think they have been infiltrated by the right, there was no one there over 70 years old with a blue rinse through their hair.

    • John says:

      09:12am | 13/12/11

      It’s not a concept it’s a fact. Why don’t you just expect it. The entire leftist political world view has been constructed, engineered by the very people you so call despise. Leftism is concept of self-destruction, a concept of stupidity to keep mass’s turning into a mindless heard and incohesive herd.

    • Nick says:

      09:41am | 13/12/11

      The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object. – Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

      This was what democracy was about originally now very few responsible people are free.

    • John says:

      09:46am | 13/12/11

      “The Right infiltration is definitely a true conspiracy”

      Why call them the right??? This what i think is going on the Occupy movement was originally created by the CIA for the purpose of dividing political unrest against the the western ruler-ship. Clearly there might be legitimate people who have attracted to this groups, but also communist leftists have most likely been encouraged into it, and i guess agents CIA could be in the movement, making it look like a silly movement, at the end of this movement it just crumbles, as the movement is portrayed as dumb.  This is also could work against the tea party movement.

      CNN has tried the same tactics on tea protestors deliberately targeting, and reporting the protestors with so called crazy views and to try and make a legitimate movement look silly.

      The same tactics are used in europe, any who opposes immigration and multiculturalism, as some white supremacist and Nazi. 

      Calling them the right is clearly disinformation. CIA, US government is not the right. Some people see the world with such a skewed view.

    • Warwick says:

      09:52am | 13/12/11

      What a waste of time and space. Of course there is tremendous inequality of wealth. There is tremendous inequality of intelligence, talent, energy, willingness to work and willingness to sacrifice today’s pleasures for the sake of long-term prosperity. Blame God for this, if you want to blame anyone. The alternative to individual freedom is a centrally organized society like Soviet Russia, or North Korea, or Cuba, where there is/was universal and equal poverty, except amongst the inner party.

      In the USA the rich own yachts and mansions but even the very poor have cars and TVs. In centrally planned countries the great majority have bugger-all. Eggheads like the idea of the centrally planned society; they foolishly imagine they would be part of the inner party. Mostly they would be purged and shot.

    • John Smythe says:

      10:05am | 13/12/11

      Don’t blame God Warwick…blame humans for being the only animal that brings themselves down to their lowest common denominator to “preserve” the species…whereas every other animal (plants too show signs of adaptation) weeds out the genes that are a threat to their prolonged existence.

      Who is not to say disease and hunger aren’t Nature’s way of controlling our numbers?

    • Bertrand says:

      11:04am | 13/12/11

      Your argument presupposes that there are only two ways to structure a society :unfettered free market capitalism or some type of authoritarian Marxism. Clearly this is not the case. I don’t think it us unreasonable to expect a form of capitalism that does not corrupt the political process with money, thar provides a regulatory framework that protects the rights of workers and the environment and ensures that all members of society have access to basic things like healthcare, shelter and a safety net if they lose their job or ability to work. In short, a system more like Australia’s than America’s. The vastly superior quality of life in Australia when compared to America is testament to the fact that markets require decent regulation and society us better served if the government steps in to help its citizens when they need the extra support.

    • Warwick says:

      12:18pm | 13/12/11

      Bertrand, you talk about “the vastly superior quality of life in Australia.” This shows that you are are simply an ideology motivated xenophobe. The quality of life in the USA is, as far as these things can be compared, vastly superior to that which prevails here in Australia.I have lived there; I know.

      Anyway, free enterprise and reward for initiative and ingenuity is the prevailing model in both our countries, and it is this which the “occupy” ratbags are complaining about.

    • cityboy @ Sydney says:

      09:57am | 13/12/11

      Every generation needs something to protest about. Some in the older generations feel the need for a nostalgic revisit of their youthful protests.
      Having actually visited the New York Occupy Wall Street protest camp, and conversed with a number of those protesters, I can assure you that the various Australian copy-cat versions bear no relation to the real thing.
      The limp-wristed, conviction-free, low-wattage demonstrations we see here are simply a manifestation of the need to protest about something, anything really, by those with an axe to grind about their personal ‘thing’.
      Close them down and move them on? Sure thing!

    • Zaf says:

      10:01am | 13/12/11

      Australian OWS (does that even make sense?) lacks drive because we still have a functioning welfare state. 

      OWS in the US is motivated by that country’s genuinely Weimarish situation for working people - and a big part of what makes that dif is the US not having a funcitoning welfare state. 

      So of *course* OWS’ demand for what boils down to progressive taxation and Govt spending is going to be resisted by potential tax payers and their proxies (the Republican Party and the Tea Party in particular).  Obviously they’re going to infiltrate one of the largest popular movements in the US for a generation.

      Australian OWS would only be infiltrated if it demanded a serious super profits tax on Gina.  Until they do that, they’re fine.

    • NESLIHAN KUROSAWA says:

      10:38am | 13/12/11

      Hi Tory,

      How do you actually distinguish a genuine protester from the not so genuine, really? May be for some of the protesters, it is all about having their five minutes of fame.  Lets all face & admit it that it is highly catching like influenza virus.  It is happening all around the world, right??

      I can not quite work out why you might be against the whole idea, though!  No matter what their reasons happen to be in the first place, I am guessing that most of the protesters worldwide have managed to make headlines around the world, just the same!!

      Especially, for the ones living in the USA & some European nations, living in tents with almost freezing temperatures overnight.  That definitely takes a certain kind of courage or just simply being crazy, just to be seen in public places or just the idea of being arrested.

      I personally think though, whether it is the university students asking for free education or the unemployed youth, don’t you think that they are actually making themselves sort of useful?  It is so much better than just sitting at home or getting drunk at their local pub or club. Best regards to your editors.

    • jaki says:

      11:23am | 13/12/11

      Yep ! Laying about in a stinking cesspit of human faeces and banging on drums is really “useful”. That’s really sticking it to the guys on Wall Street !

    • St. Michael says:

      11:25am | 13/12/11

      I recommend this page on Occupy: http://www.johntreed.com/OccupyWallStreet.html

      One of the things that struck me about it and made it worth repeating is that disorganised movements, such as Occupy, often get taken over by organised movements.  In particular, the union movement, at least in the US.  That, indeed, is why Obama is out there proclaiming “they’re the reason he ran”—because SEIU, the equivalent of the Miscellaneous Workers’ Union in Australia was one of his biggest campaign supporters.  And SEIU is out on the OWS barricades now.

      The other significant note made in the article worth repeating is this: in one sense, the OWS protesters do have a point.  Corporate governance in the US sucks.  Badly.  But OWS, like the Tea Party, does not understand corporate governance and therefore does not have any solutions for how the problem should be fixed.

    • PaxUs says:

      11:50am | 13/12/11

      The moment Al Gore announced his support for OWS, was a red flag that these groups had already been infiltrated.  Typical M.O. of the power’s that be, infiltrate, divide and conquer.  This has been going on since Hitler joined the Brown Shirts as an army spy and ended up leading the organisation.  It’s a risk that all organisations protesting the Status Quo face.  Beware of whom you accept financial support from and of those who come bearing gifts.

    • PaxUs says:

      12:35pm | 13/12/11

      St. Michael - It’s easy to fix..get rid of the Fed and bring back the Greenback!  Unfortunately, any President that runs with that platform will be assassinated as in the past.

    • St. Michael says:

      12:44pm | 13/12/11

      Actually, the solution’s much simpler.

      Do not allow the government to spend more than it takes in taxation.

      Problem solved.

    • Esteban says:

      01:12pm | 13/12/11

      No worries St. Michael they have a debt ceiling to stop congress spending too much !

      Now if they could just figure out how to stop congress raising the debt ceiling.

    • St. Michael says:

      01:43pm | 13/12/11

      “Now if they could just figure out how to stop congress raising the debt ceiling.”

      It’s called the bond market.  When it implodes, as it mathematically must sooner or later, that will stop Congress raising the debt ceiling, mostly because there won’t be any money to borrow to create the debt. smile

    • John says:

      01:46pm | 13/12/11

      You still have the problem of counter-fitting which is being done by FED which is private international bank. 

      Just imagine if you were the only one allowed to print US dollars. If anyone wants to buy anything, they need to come to you! You turn on your A4 printer on, print 10 million dollars out of 3 dollars worth of A4 paper. Then you tell the borrower that they need to pay you back with 4% interest. Then lets say you have buddies that want to rule the world, why not print a few trillion for them to buy all the entire media, national infrastructure and to corrupt politicians to jump when you clap your hands. Clap, Clap, Clap! Wow look at Abbot jump! Gee Obama jumps really high!

      St Michael your view is flawed, You need National Banks, Audited banks. Nations need to be able to print their own money. Instead of allowing a International Banking Cartel to do it. The implications of this is that International Bankers will end up owning and ruling the entire world via this theft, corruption schemes. We don’t want this.

      Just have a look at debt’s the majority of western nations have incurred. We are basically fueling growth, via the very same scheme i described above. Trillions dollars of debt is created to pay off the interest that is growing via the debt. Simply, the International Bankers hold 95% of western wealth, while western themselves have nothing.

      All that labor, work created by the west has been funneled back to international bankers. How can we be so dumb to pay interest on something we can create out of thin air and pay no interest? The solution to this financial crisis is very simple indeed.

      It seems like it’s highly complex method of slavery. People seem unconscious of the con.

    • St. Michael says:

      02:13pm | 13/12/11

      “Just imagine if you were the only one allowed to print US dollars. If anyone wants to buy anything, they need to come to you! You turn on your A4 printer on, print 10 million dollars out of 3 dollars worth of A4 paper. Then you tell the borrower that they need to pay you back with 4% interest.”

      Here’s your problem: the free market does not have to use fiat currency.  And no matter what the government does, it can’t stop the free market (hence why the free market in these situations becomes known as the black market: it’s a market where things can be transacted without the government’s sanction or control.)  It may take a while, but eventually the government can’t move its crap currency (because nobody trusts it and therefore nobody uses it) and has to return control to the market at large.  Zimbabwe is like that: hyperinflation conditions persisted until, at last, the country let the people trade in US dollars again.  At that moment, the hyperinflation ended, along with the crap currency that fuelled it.

      Argentina went through exactly the crisis you’re talking about, albeit in reverse.  When their economy imploded (again) their government stopped people transacting in US dollars.  They wanted to force people to use the government’s own currency since the government could tax it and thereby pay off its debts with inflated dollars.  This is what governments do, again and again, with fiat currency.  Eventually they figure out they can run up massive debts and then pay for it by printing enough money to do so.  QE I and QE II in th US are just a taste of that.  They do this without any regard whatsoever for the Weimar Republic hyperinflation and the staggering harm it does to a nation’s popuation.

      Argentinian barter clubs: look them up.  They sprang up right across the country, and in many cases kept people from starvation.  No government intervention at all.  Or indeed people trading in gold (which governments also stamp on in inflationary conditions, because it provides a mode of currency outside government control.)

      What I would see, rather than government-owned banks, is actually another Free Banking Era—as in, no currency with a government imprimatur on it.  Rather, you get your currency from a local bank.  The very first money—Egyptian warehouse receipts—was precisely this.  And the last time there was a Free Banking Era, it actually did pretty well.

      But government will not allow this to happen, because they want to buy stuff on debt which, via inflation and eventually hyperinflation, they pass on to their people.

    • Esteban says:

      02:38pm | 13/12/11

      John, Chairman of the Fed and indeed all 7 board members are political appointments.

      No Fed board member can be a banker or even own shares in a bank and they are required to swear to it.

      It is too cute to blame these international bankers for soverign debt problems. It is polititions who fram budget deficits that are the cause of sovereign debt. No one is forcing Governments to live beyond their means.

    • John says:

      02:59pm | 13/12/11

      Whats interesting, is that every western nation is in debt. I think this international banking system is to blame!

      http://www.creditloan.com/infographics/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/national-debt.gif

      Check this out every nation under the yoke of international banking cartel is in the red! What a surprise! I told you so. You can pretty tell which one is international banker occupied via their debt. The image is a little wrong, since the australian public owes 1 trillion dollars to the international bankers. Interesting that Libya has no debts(maybe that was the reason for the war), it soon will have once the international banking cartel starting loaning them their counterfeit money.

    • John says:

      03:07pm | 13/12/11

      Then can you please explain how the FED gave out 16 trillion dollars to all their banking buddies from 2008 to 2011? Where did the money come from? 16 trillion? Can you please explain how the NAB and Westpac got a bailout be the FED? Where did money come from? Where is the money coming from to fuel Australia housing market? Please don’t say people’s savings accounts as there isn’t enough in there.

    • St. Michael says:

      03:49pm | 13/12/11

      “Then can you please explain how the FED gave out 16 trillion dollars to all their banking buddies from 2008 to 2011? Where did the money come from? 16 trillion?”

      Short answer: from the US government selling bonds, which amounts to the government borrowing money to do it.  Those bonds then get repaid at interest when they fall due and the money cycles back through.  16 trillion of money moved does not mean 16 trillion of money still outstanding - although note I don’t think it’s 16 trillion.  It’s more likely to be billions rather than trillions if I remember right, unless you’ve got a reputable website that says otherwise.

      “Can you please explain how the NAB and Westpac got a bailout be the FED?”

      Please explain.  With references to reputable websites, if you’d be so kind.

      “Where is the money coming from to fuel Australia housing market? Please don’t say people’s savings accounts as there isn’t enough in there.”

      That would be the *private* banking market, which sources loaned money from various other lending agencies across the planet.  One interesting theory is that it’s actually Chinese restraint and saving that was one cause for the financial crisis: the Chinese are reputed to be compulsive savers, up to 50% of their income.  That income is saved in banks.  Banks have to lend that money on, because they survive on margins between loans and savings.

      Thus, because there was an abundance of money in the world private equity system, the terms at which that money could be loaned were cheap—a classic supply and demand situation.  Consequently, cheap finance led to overreaching by mortgagors and banks alike.  That money wound up loaned, in many cases, to subprime borrowers.

    • Soames says:

      01:24pm | 13/12/11

      Wonderful piece Tory, I’m moved to say humbly, the best this year. Thankyou. One never knows the capacity of journalists.

    • Brad Coward says:

      02:41pm | 13/12/11

      Tory, I’m moved to ask the question….“who occupied you and is he/she/they prepared to take responsibility for what you’ve written” ?

      If your intention was to pose a serious question, you haven’t.  If your intention was to be tongue in cheek, there was too much tongue and not enough cheek.  If your intention was to be ironic, then there is more irony in the Alanis Morrisette song, “Isn’t It Ironic”.

    • The Labor Landslide says:

      05:40pm | 13/12/11

      The 2010s Occupy Movement is just the modern version of The 1960s Hippy Movement. The Left Wing has become sick of the Right Wing again.
      The Left Wing is sick of ultraconservatives again.
      in the 1960s, I supported The Left Wing Hippy Movement.
      in the 2010s. I support The Left Wing Occupy Movement

    • DocBud says:

      05:47am | 14/12/11

      So I guess you’re never going to grow up and will always prefer silly little nursery rhymes like your post below.

      The fact that Occupy is hard left is why it is pure hubris to claim to represent 99%. Those well up the ladder of the 99% are far more concerned (quite rightly) with being forced to share their slice of the pie with the indolent beneath them on the ladder (as opposed to the much smaller number of genuinely disadvantaged) and are also not keen on having their slice diminished to solve non-existent environmental problems.

    • The Labor Landslide says:

      05:42pm | 13/12/11

      The Left is right.
      The Right is wrong.
      The environment counts.
      The economy does not count.

    • CTF Down says:

      10:55pm | 13/12/11

      @  The Labor Landslide
      and, many of us are sick of the constant sickeningly self righteous rhetoric from BOTH sides. It’s always so black and white to both your kind and your counterparts on the Right. Hot tip, cracking the sads and making blanket offensive statements wins nobody over to your side. Same goes for any rusted on righties. I suppose it’s intellectually easier to pick one side and fling crap like the primates we are rather than partake in rational thought and produce actual solutions to non-imaginary issues. Sheesh…

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @popculturechris: Meanwhile, Gotye holds no.1 for a sixth massive week in the US - "that" song has now sold over 4 million copies there.

ToryShepherd

@loupascale if the survey made you sad, probably skip the comments...

Paul Colgan

@paulwiggins @richardkendall that fountain pens yarn is a great social trend story

Paul Colgan

I like how a tip erodes so only you can use it MT “@paulwiggins: BBC News - Why are fountain pen sales rising? http://t.co/0hk2MRtf

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

When you take on a job like being Environment Minister there’s some hits you can see coming. …

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit column. It’s a regular column that looks at skulduggery…

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

We are taught early in life that we should not question authority. We must listen to our parents, our…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter