Students- Default on Your Student Loans, Says Piven

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/game-plan-fox-piven-expands-on-strategy-to-illegally-occupy-foreclosed-homes-default-on-student-debt/


Frances Fox-Piven now has called for students to default on their student loans. As the Occupy movement continued on, I found that a number of Occupiers had stated that had been living off  money from their student loans to stand around, often commit crimes, (Without attending class or working) and demand yet more money. I knew in my heart that many of them had no intention of paying back their loans in the first place. It was just a matter of time before someone publicly declared that a widespread defaulting would be the preferred tool to bring on  an economic collapse  (The main goal of the Cloward-Piven strategy) instead of simply being end goal of students who want free college. Rather than postponing payment of their student loans until the Occupiers got their way and had their debts cancelled, an outright default would be much more effective in hastening the failure of our economy. This has been long-desired by Piven (Piven's story and that of the Cloward-Piven strategy is below*). In short, she has long been an outspoken advocate of a bottom-up created economic collapse that would allow for the institution of a Socialist-type society in which very individual, by virtue of residing in the US and continuing to breathe,  is entitled to a "guaranteed minimum income".

*http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/03/cloward-piven-founder-gleefully.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/03/piven-democrats-socialists-and.html

Piven also called for the accelerating and expansion of squatting in foreclosed homes and added that Universities too should be targets. She continued that Occupy should have plans in place to provide security for squatters to prevent removals and that they should seeks the means of reestablishing water, electric, and heating service to the occupied structures. I did not draw any inference from Ms. Piven's statements that would tell us just how she planned for the squatters to pay for the restoration and continued supply of the utilities. Remember, the Socialist mindset is that you pay, not the revolutionaries.


Piven has been one of the few Old-Guard Marxists that has been able to garner a position of influence with the Occupy Movement.


This is getting uglier every time that I see something new. The US is facing a massive effort from a substantial amount of its own citizens to cause economic and social collapse. Leftists thrive off chaotic situations, especially those that are their creations. They desire such events as these provide fertile ground for the scrapping of annoying obstacles such as National Constitutions and the erecting of Socialist States in their stead.

We are past the point where (No matter how much effort is expended in proving that free markets, not Marxist societies, create economic growth) we can persuade appreciable amounts of people, especially the youth, that Socialism does not work. We stood idly by for too long as one High School graduating class after another was sent to the Reeducation Camps. The brainwashing was so severe, thorough, and ongoing, that we are now faced with a  body politic in which 36% (a percentage which is growing) of our voters support or sympathize with Socialist thought.

Our Founding Fathers foresaw a lot of potential threats and provided numerous safeguards in our Constitution to keep them in check. Aside from the obvious "...secure the blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our Posterity", and all that this implies (Bottom**), the wholesale attack on property rights as advocated by Marxists was not one of them. Almost every potential threat to our nation can be addressed by the application of Constitutional Law. The very notion that governments are themselves created to protect property (and the use and profit of it) was so basic to our Founders that they could not even conceive a future in which the same would be demonized in the manner that it is today.

I submit, that since our Constitution was based of the very basic principles of the respect for and complete protection of Private property as promulgated by John Locke** (Whose thought was a powerful influence in the making of our nation), we need to stand back and reconsider the very right of Leftists to exist as political bodies or function as members of the body politic in the first place.

I hold that the statement "...secure the blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our Posterity" does indeed provide a governing principle that would serve as legal justification to prohibit Leftist-inspired political actions. Even without a clear-cut  legislative intent of the Founders or legal precedent, the US would have to establish a policy to deal with a threat not specifically treated in the Constitution. Nothing could be closer to the threat from an outside source than that of Leftists who are currently free to operate within the system, call for measures that are purposely designed to bring about economic collapse and force taxpayers to pick up the tab, create new Leftists by steady and relentless indoctrination,  vote for candidates that advance Leftist notions, and seek to abolish private property and the profits derived from such.

Islamic terrorism and Sharia? - Small potatoes compared to the threats we face from the Left.

Since the Constitution does not address Marxism, nor could it since no such thought existed at the time (It began in the early to mid-19th century), I submit that, at the very least, US States should legally (By Statute) define Leftist political action as a direct threat to our nation and as contrary to the very principles one which this nation is based. I challenge anyone to argue that a movement that seeks to overturn basic rights such as that of Private property and the freedom from oppressive taxation (We are fast approaching that turning point) can be considered to be anything other than a threat akin to that of a foreign invasion. As standard Oaths of Office require that individuals swear or affirm to support and defend the Constitution of the United States (And often of his or her own State) against all enemies, foreign and domestic, all public officials have the obligation to defend us and our nation from and Marxism, whether it be of the blatant or piecemeal type.

Marxists must firstly be removed from their public offices, prohibited from possessing voting rights, and allowed to depart the US for whatever locale will take them. The principles on which our Constitution is based do not allow for the political actions of those who stand against Property. Acts of this sort are Treasonous.

There is no Liberty without the right to Private Property:

**
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/john-locke-natural-rights-to-life-liberty-and-property/

"Locke established that private property is absolutely essential for liberty: “every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.” He continues: “The great and chief end therefore, of Men uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property.”
Locke believed people legitimately turned common property into private property by mixing their labor with it, improving it. Marxists liked to claim this meant Locke embraced the labor theory of value, but he was talking about the basis of ownership rather than value.

He insisted that people, not rulers, are sovereign. Government, Locke wrote, “can never have a Power to take to themselves the whole or any part of the Subjects Property, without their own consent. For this would be in effect to leave them no Property at all.” He makes his point even more explicit: rulers “must not raise Taxes on the Property of the People, without the Consent of the People, given by themselves, or their Deputies.”

Locke had enormous foresight to see beyond the struggles of his own day, which were directed against monarchy: “’Tis a Mistake to think this Fault [tyranny] is proper only to Monarchies; other Forms of Government are liable to it, as well as that. For where-ever the Power that is put in any hands for the Government of the People, and the Preservation of their Properties, is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the Arbitrary and Irregular Commands of those that have it: There it presently becomes Tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many.”

Then Locke affirmed an explicit right to revolution: “whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence. Whensoever therefore the Legislativeshall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty.' "

Revised: Occupy - No Shame for Stupidity Let Alone For Being Leftist

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/hannity-rips-apart-occupy-organizer-in-tense-segment-get-your-ass-out-of-bed-and-get-to-work/
Added 5/4/12-

There are two videos on this link. The bottom one is the longer version. An Occupy dolt/lunatic/Joseph Goebbels type got Sean Hannity more than riled up. Among other things, the Occupy rapists were said to have been sent to Zuccoti Park by the NYPD to discredit their operation. Later, Sean lit into the guy after finding out that, according to Mr.. Occupy, certain jobs were beneath him.

The Left has got these people in a state where they convince themselves that life after the establishment of the worker's paradise will be pretty much the same as it has been for the last 20-30 years, if not better.

Original post below:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupy gave up trying to veil themselves in legitimate gripes such as Bailouts long ago. The cliche must be annoying, but a leopard can't hide its spots.

The movement unfurled the red banners a few weeks into their program last year. On May 1st, they came in with colors flying.

The videos, along with the posts, in the following links must be seen to be believed. Communism, Marxism, Unions taking over the means of production- it's all there. Patently absent is any acknowledgement that, once the factories and farms are taken over, progress grinds to a halt. Bureaucrats are in business to maintain what is under their supervision. Unlike demonic Capitalists, civil servants will not go out on a limb and risk substantial capital to invest in an entirely new infrastructure of fabrication (Unless the purpose is for war or other propaganda victories such as space travel). Nations such as Cuba and North Korea stand in testimony to the consequences of government-controlled economies; factories are inefficient, farms do not produce at anything hear their capacities, and those in charge just keep issuing orders to work harder and to tighten one's belt. Cuba of course has made some changes, but the damage runs deeply there; their water pipes, for one example, are crumbling to pieces underground and massive amounts of water are being lost daily.

If you have time for only one video, you have got to watch the one in which the two sad dopes talk about getting rid of currency. In the same segment, they profess their attachment for such staples as big-screen TVs. When asked to explain how this type of item will still be around after the money economy s history, they provide some wonderfully insightful answers.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/funny-vid-d-c-occupiers-want-to-banish-monetary-system-but-still-buy-big-screen-tvs/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/occupy-answers-what-is-the-best-alternative-to-capitalism-hilarity-ensues/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/occupy-on-display-when-i-grow-up-i-want-to-be-a-professional-protester/


The excising of any education on Western Civilization has, in my opinion, been far and away the most effective means of producing blank-minded young people. I hold that, even taking in to account all of the damage done by the constant attacks on Christianity and Judaism, along with our own acquiescence to the marginalization of our faith, the loss of the knowledge of Western Civilization has had far worse effect. Even if most people do not follow the path of regular devotion as did their ancestors, the memory of it remains and will continue to have an effect on one's decisions. What causes the complete dearth of understanding is the ignorance of how the society in which one is standing at the moment came to be. Without being aware of the fusion of Greek, Roman, Northern European, and Christian and Jewish elements that made us what we are, one can actually convince himself that we could have reached the point that we have by any means. I could go on at length on this subject but will leave that for another time.

Suffice to say for now that the advent of a money economy was the means by which the world was able to create the living standards, achievements of science, the arts, architecture, engineering, literature, and others  that we take for granted. Even those who contributed to medicine, which has lengthened our life expectancy far beyond that what we had in the past, could not have accomplished a fraction of what we now have had we not had the means for people to earn a living while learning, researching, and applying themselves to their chosen profession. Running to and fro with bartered food and handmade products leaves a society in a primitive state, period.

Money allows for specialization of work in a manner that even the advanced Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Mayan, Mohenjo Daro, and other societies  could not approach. Sure, the grain surplus (The Left wants us eating mostly grains too) allowed for a few people to be set aside to think of things and apply what they learned, but an abundance of food is not enough to convince people to venture far away to trade, to make better products to sell, etc.

In his Penguin Atlas of Ancient History, Colin McEvedy notes how the world changed with money economies. Primitive societies utilized wealth for display and to show rank. After apparently learning to use coin money from the Lydians, who used the gold/silver allow electrum, the Greeks applied this to their society. The author states "With a fistful of coins and an eye for the main chance, the individual had arrived in  history". As the Left detests the very concept of the individual, I am not surprised that they too want to do away with the means by which a civilized society can actually have free individuals.


Decades of welfare and Leftist-dominated college courses have created a dangerous voting bloc. According to a Gallup poll, 36% of all Americans view Socialism favorably. Even taking into account the 4% margin of error given on the site, we are looking at almost a full third of Americans who look at property, financial risk, and success with either a jaundiced eye or outright hostility. As we have no reason to hope that colleges will begin giving their Leftist professors the boot, we can expect the 36% to creep ever closer to half of our body politic.

Even a win for a Romney who hypothetically turns out to be a real conservative in November, we are looking at a brief four-year respite from a potential Marxist overhaul of the nation. If we do not take into consideration what steps may need to be taken in the event that our rights and freedoms are being completely stripped from us, or what we can do to prevent the establishment of a Marxist regime by our current electoral system, we may be too late.


Excerpts from previous posts are below:

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/04/communist-party-usa-chairman-speaks-and.html

For those accustomed to Universal Suffrage as an institution, and we have taken it as a given for a long time, it is a difficult thing to give any thought to the possibility that there may be certain individuals who cannot be considered part of the Body Politic. We have not given any thought to whether or not a person who reaches his majority (Archaic term), upon reaching the age of 18, should automatically be allowed to exercise the same political power as does an individual who pays income and/or property tax, receives no government benefits such as welfare, has served in the military or other institution that would constitute a sacrifice of one's liberties for service to the nation, or taken any step that would recognize that he or she has entered into the Social Compact as described by John Locke. Note that voter requirements were a part of our nation from the beginning and that these do not need to single out anyone due to race, religion, etc.

Most are aware that Locke, particularly in his First and Second Treatises on Government, was a tremendous influence on the thought processes of our Founding Fathers. Our Declaration of Independence could not have been written in the form that we know had ideas promulgated by Locke not been around. I will not go into detail but on Locke's ideas but stick to his idea of the Social Contract. Note that his Treatises can be purchased for around $3.99 on E-readers.

Locke described the manner in which a person leaves the sphere of parental authority and joins society. I doing so, he, by choosing to in fact remain in the nation of his birth, accepts and engages in the Social Compact. This entails, among other things, an acceptance of the basic framework of that society. It does not mean that he cannot work to excise natural wrongs such as slavery, but it does mean that he should refrain from working to remove things that are part of the basic framework of that society. In the case of the US, one would, upon leaving the authority of one's parents and entering society, implicitly have to accept rights such as private property, the right to be free of oppressive taxation, to live where one chooses and can afford to live, to be free of governmental regulation that reaches into the minutiae of one's life, the right of that Nation itself to remain free and sovereign, etc.
http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/04/bill-ayers-wife-was-partly-correct.html

We have for too long held back from admitting to ourselves that there is a significant subset of out population who are, beyond a shadow of a doubt, actually in a State of War with our nation and its society. We have been non-participants in this conflict. We can no longer, though remain idle. Not only are these people, who are at war against us, allowed reside here, they are allowed to constitute a part of the body politic. They can vote, hold office and gradually (Right now they are not gradually doing anything) bring us step-by-step to a point from which we will not be able to extricate ourselves without a catastrophic conflict. The Left pretends to be against all war. This is a complete falsehood. They will eagerly enter into armed conflict with any nation, State, or free people that refuses to be swallowed up by the Leftist tide.

My position is that Leftist doctrine must be legally defined as completely contrary to the structure and fabric of nations such as the US. Those who advocate the end of private property, the very reason why people enter into Social Compacts and institute governments in the first place, (Again, Locke), must be treated as dangerous enemies of the nation and society. This is not an issue of free speech as it does not concern the mere free expression of thought.Those who remain outside our Social Compact declare themselves to be our enemies ipso facto their stated goals of destroying the very concept and right of private property. We don't even have to fight them. They can simply leave. Those who refuse to leave would have to be removed from all but the smallest pockets of the nation's land mass. They must be denied the right to vote, hold office, or teach. Any who decides to jump on the Leftist bandwagon can join their brethren in the enclaves, free of the rights they so despised. Hopefully, those who grow weary of being restricted from their choice of place of residence or voting will apply to live somewhere else. Anyone who gets fed up with the horror show that these enclaves will become may apply to rejoin, or, if he or she is a new adult, voluntarily enter into the Social Compact. In short, those who put themselves in a State of War against us must be treated as full-fledged enemies.

As the primary reason that people create governments for the preservation of property, and those who remain outside of the Social Compact have placed themselves in a State of War with those who desire to retain their property rights, the Left has chosen to place both sides in opposition to each other with no civil body to arbitrate our differences. This is what Locke refers to as the State of Nature, our primordial state in which any injured party to could punish another who wronged him. The State of War is a natural and common occurrence in the State of Nature.

The secondary reason for creating a government was to provide a process by which to parties could seek justice. Our problem is that one of the parties has never had any intention of adhering or entering into the Social Compact, in doing so, they have returned us to a State of Nature. Indeed, they seek to transform the civil power into the very body that they would need to crush any resistance, thus bring the civil power into their camp to prosecute the State of War they wage against us. If that occurs, then the only option of the injured/oppressed is "An appeal to Heaven".(Locke). This refers to the days of the Judges in Israel, when Jephthah, unable to obtain peace with the Ammonites, was left with no other option but to appeal to God for justice and fight. Maybe you can recall the early "An Appeal to Heaven" flag with the tree that was a symbol of our resistance to Great Britain.

Men will not accept truth at the hands of their enemies, and truth is seldom offered to them by their friends: for this reason I have spoken it. - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

Van Jones - Marxist Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

Obama's former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones seems to aspire to be the prime mover to convert the US into a Marxist society. The man who was tossed from his job by the Obama administration (Wow, what kind of lunatic does one need to be to get fired by Obama?) has moved himself on to center stage of the Occupy movement and the Regressive (Progressive, strangely to them) agenda. Aside from his vicious, anti-white, anti-US, anti-middle class, anti-property, etc. positions to which he clings, he does have one very special and effective skill; he can make himself appear to be almost anything depending on what he perceives his current audience to be.

Jones has demonstrated his ability to engage people from all walks of life, pointing out issues with which they, rightfully, (Such as looted and neglected pension funds) have reason to protest. The problem is that Jones has no intention to work for needed reforms, but seeks to overturn the entire cart and bring about a totalitarian society in which property, no matter how much or how little, will become an historical footnote, right along with Western freedom. A big part of Jones' plan is to encourage racial tensions. Chaos that will occur as a result of race-based conflict will go a long way towards the justification of governmental takeovers of our liberties and property.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/not-ready-waiting-on-video-race-wars-part-ii-co-opting-martin-luther-king-while-fanning-the-flames-of-racism/
"Jones, who reportedly studied Ronald Reagan in detail, is a “chameleon” who will engage the public on a faith-based level, offering those who “need help” a peace-loving narrative."

The following are excerpts from the TheBlaze article linked below. Jones makes no bones about making just about anyone who does not conform to his ideas out to be accomplices with the evil, polluting, child-labor using, Capitalists. Conservatives are substituted for Democrats as the people who desired to maintain slavery (and by extension Jim Crow, segregation etc.) since, well, the Left  can't allow their Party to be seen as the bad guys on this issue.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/van-jones-unloads-conservatives-want-slavery-segregation-children-in-factories-working-at-walmart-mcdonalds-as-bad-as-selling-drugs-plus-beck-is-a-hater/

"In discussing his vision of a utopian economy, Jones made sure to note that anyone who works in factories, fast food industry or Walmart were essentially as bad as drug dealers.

“I started to figure out where are the jobs I can respect, because if you’re out in the neighborhood, and you’re causing problems, and then you know we get you a job and you‘re working for a factory that’s polluting everybody, you’re still causing problems! Just cause you’re doing it on thelegitimate side doesn’t mean that those kids getting cancer and asthma cause of you are any less sick or dead than the ones you were selling drugs to on the illegitimate side. So, we gotta be consistent.”

“Green jobs [where we're putting our people to work] in healthy industries- organic foods, solar panels, weatherizing homes, helping people be healthy. I said I want more work, more wealth, and better health in our communities. The way you get that is not with pollution-based jobs, not having people working at McDonald‘s or Wendy’s selling food that’s not good, not working at Walmart where the people who made those products overseas are being oppressed, but having something that you can say 360 degrees is healthy and positive.” 

On the topic of his political theory, Jones took no time blaming conservatives for many immense wrongs in Americas past

“You always have some Americans that, they don’t want to go forward. ‘We like slavery,‘ or ’we like segregation,‘ or ’we like women not voting,‘ or ’we like the environment being destroyed, we like workers having no rights, we like children in factories…’And they want to conserve, ahem, conserve, ahem, conserve the old ways.

Jones then vaulted the role of progressives and their inevitable victories.

“And then you have people who say ‘no, we can be a better country than this,‘ let’s progress, ahem, let’s progress beyond those old hateful ways. And so that’s always been a debate and a divide, but you know the people who are trying to make America progress always win in the end.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jones also claimed that the Occupy movement, itself a force of destruction, was what saved the nation from being destroyed:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/van-jones-occupy-saved-the-entire-country-from-destruction/

“[The] Occupy movement pretty much saved the entire country from destruction,” Jones said in aninterview posted online. “Both political parties were barreling toward more austerity, more cutbacks, more pain for the people and more — basically both political parties had managed to converge on this idea of basically no rules for the rich, no rights for the poor, no middle class to speak of. That was basically the agenda, the question was just how much pain how fast.”

Van Jones can not be ignored. As with most if not all Marxists, he is not only terribly ambitious and power-hungry, he has very intention of prohibiting you from having what you want and that for which you have worked. This is the essence of Western Marxists. They are truly more concerned with ensuring, not that they get to live in a Marxist state, but that you do not get to live in a free nation. It is you with whom he is concerned, not himself or other Marxists. It is noteworthy that people such as he do not call for Western nations to finance the emigration of people who adhere to Marxist principles to nations that actually are Marxist. They detest the very existence of free nations that protect the worker from seizures of the fruits of his labor. Jones and Company will gift-wrap their hatred in language carefully scripted to appear geared towards the richest of our citizens while intending to take you down with them. A 21st century Joseph Goebbels, he will accuse the Tea Party, Libertarians, and others who hold what makes America great dearly  as being exactly what he is, a divider, a "hater", a racsist, etc.

The following link has a number of articles and posts concerning Jones, his rants, and his intentions:

http://www.glennbeck.com/?s=van+jones

Here is another one of Van's rants:

“http://nation.foxnews.com/van-jones/2012/03/22/van-jones-death-great-white-suburbs

"There are two American dreams. There’s one I call the "American Fantasy". Everybody's going to be rich, and we are all going to ride out on our credit cards to the GREAT WHITE SUBURBS, get a McMansion, and buy flat screen TVs to cover up the holes in our lives... that is the American fantasy which is turning into the American nightmare. That is dying out on its own accord, it deserves no defense and it gets no defense and I’m glad it’s going away"

Van has every intention of eliminating suburban communities. Note how he is growing ever-less concerned about veiling his racist beliefs. Those who can afford to purchase homes and live in lower-crime areas that have relatively quiet neighborhoods are the problem. In these locales, people like the convenience of being close to their kid's Little League and other recreational sports fields and enjoy being able to posses a few hundred square feet of grass in which their children can play outside (Or ride bicycles around the block). The facts that these people often sacrificed quite a bit of their lives and fortunes for their education (In Majors that are desired by employers, not, for example Latin-American or whiteness studies, or Critical Race Theory) and often spend much time away from their families at the jobs that pay for these houses has no meaning to Mr. Jones.

- from a previous post on Van Jones:
http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/search?q=van

Occupy Albuquerque Becomes un-Occupy; Occupy Sounds Too Much Like What Europeans Do

I just came across an interesting development in the "occupy" movement while reading a post on TheBlaze on a a group of "useful idiots" who crashed a pro-Israel event at the University of New Mexico. This resulted in a physical altercation as the participants in the event tried to regain some control of the microphone. A common practice of the Left is to engage in loud, aggressive, and confrontational suppression of free speech whenever the content of the expression is contrary to their position. In Europe, groups such as the anti-Fascist Action (AFA) regularly physically assault and destroy property (Such as homes) of anyone who dares to speak out in support of freedom, Western values, property rights, and rights of  indigenous peoples.

The link has several videos:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/occupy-activists-mic-check-prompts-physical-altercation-at-pro-israel-college-event/

As I have noted on previous posts, Israel is a common target of the Left as its very existence as a nation stands in contrast to the drive by Leftists to destroy any and all national borders. As Islam also is inherently against thought of any nation maintaining its freedom and sovereignty (In their case because these form a bulwark against the establishment of worldwide Islamic rule -Dar al-Islam), the Left has found a convenient group to support to support their cause,the Palestinians.

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/02/israel-her-sense-of-nationhood-is-bane.html

Anyway, back to the interesting point - The group that started in with the mic-crashing referred to itself as un-Occupy Albuquerque. The reason for this the following:


"The word “occupy” in general is offensive to most Native Americans and indigenous people and people of color in general – again in general. Occupations have displaced us for generations by Europeans."

http://unoccupyabq.org/why-un/

There we have it. Again, the Europeans are the bad guys. Although this group states that they stand in solidarity with the Occupy movement, they just can't bring themselves to use a term that has such imperialist connotations.

:“Albuquerque is in solidarity with the rest of the world. We are the 99%. That being said, Albuquerque wants to make it clear that we are uncomfortable with the word “occupation” – not uncomfortable with the acts coming out of the movements across lands. The word “occupation” for Native Americans, indigenous people and people of color in general is problematic because this land that we now live on has been occupied since 1492.We simply want to bring awareness to this fact and have more conversations in this regard.”

We are at the point where we cannot simply ignore statements such as these as the rantings of brainwashed and deluded individuals. The Western world, the people descended from those who created it, and those who have moved here (Or remained here) to be a part of it, are the main targets of the Left, the Occupy movement (Including its little brother, "un"), environmentalists, and Islam.

All of the invasions, occupations, raiding, conquering, and pillaging that have been committed by all the peoples and nations of the world do not matter - except for those that were done by Europeans. The Europeans and those descended from them are the only groups of people on which guilt should be laid.

For starters, the Aztecs were a terribly vicious conquering people who engaged in warfare almost solely to gain captives for human sacrifice, or worse, cannibalism:


"With an understanding of the importance of cannibalism in Aztec culture, and of the ecological reasons for its existence, some of the Aztecs' more distinctive institutions begin to make anthropological sense. For example, the old question of whether the Aztecs' political structure was or was not an "empire" can be reexamined. One part of this problem is that the Aztecs frequently withdrew from conquered territory without establishing administrative centers or garrisons. This "failure" to consolidate conquest in the Old World fashion puzzled Cortés, who asked Moctezuma to explain why he allowed the surrounded Tlaxcalans to maintain their independence. Moctezuma reportedly replied that his people could thus obtain captives for sacrifice. Since the Aztecs did not normally eat people of their own policy, which would have been socially and politically disruptive, they needed nearby "enemy" populations on whom they could prey for captives. This behavior makes sense in terms of Aztec cannibalism: from the Aztec point of view, the Tlaxcalan state was preserved as a stockyard. The Aztecs were unique among the world's states in having a cannibal empire. Understandably, they did not conform to Old World concepts of empire, based on economies with domesticated herbivores providing meat or milk."
  
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/aztecs/sacrifice.htm


The people of Tlaxcalan were kept in a state similar to that which the Eloi were for the Morlochs in the story The Time Machine by H.G. Wells. The Aztecs have long been portrayed as a peaceful and noble people who were the victims of European aggression. Well, Cortez was certainly aggressive, but rest assured, he and his successors, like them or not, put an end to human sacrifice and cannibalism.


But the European Spaniards were the only bad guys here.

Aside from countless smaller-scale campaigns that resulted in widespread pillaging, slave-taking,  and seizures of land, Europe was invaded, with full conquest being the intent, by  non-Europeans four times in the Middle Ages; the Turco-Mongol Avars in the 6th century, the Arabs and Berbers of the 8th, the Mongol invasion of the 13th, and the Ottoman Turks of the 14th and 15th. (The last one is still with us today - ancient Thrace in Europe is a part of modern-day Turkey). I have not included the Huns as they arrived before the beginning of the Middle Ages. I have also not included the Magyars (Hungarians) as their geographic origin is not clear. Europe was, nevertheless, ravaged by them for many years. They, like Finns and Estonians, do not speak an Indo-European language but belong to the Finno-Ugric group. The Basques speak a language not attributed to either the former or the latter, but one that is believed by some to be related to Georgian.


Slavery, while essentially disappearing in the West, was revived and maintained as a system by the Muslims. In Spain, the Christian communities under Islamic rule and the Christian Kingdoms that held on to a precarious existence, had no choice but to provide members of their own population as tribute. 


This also happened in the Balkans when the Ottomans destroyed piece-by-piece what was left of the Byzantine Empire.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/01/how-islam-breathed-new-life-into-slavery-and-the-slave-trade-in-europe.html

http://www.ktersakian.com/2009/10/ottoman-slave-gathering-sytem-devsirme.html

Contrary to what is claimed by some modern revisionists, there is every reason to believe that, had Charles Martel been defeated at the batter of Tours (Poitiers), the Muslim advance would have been continued into the heart of Western Europe.

There is, however, no doubt that the defeat of the Ottomans at their final siege of Vienna in 1683, a scant 100 years prior to the official recognition of the American Republic, repulsed what would have eventually turned much of Western Europe in a battle ground.

The Avars were driven out of Europe largely due to the efforts of Charlemagne and his German allies by the end of the 8th century, but the Mongol devastation of eastern Europe lasted much longer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Europe

This of course is not intended to be an exhaustive or even detailed description of the history of invasions of Europe. The intent was to demonstrate that the Europeans too have felt the heavy hand of invasions and oppression -even at the hands of the Northmen or Vikings, themselves Germanic peoples, who terrorized and enslaved many Europeans prior to their conversion to Christianity.

None of this matters to the Left. Every invasion by any non-European people or nation is OK. Whether it is the Chinese of the Viet peoples, the Mongols of China, Russia, Poland and Hungary, the Aztec of everyone in Mexico, or of course the armies of Islam, who have been the most indiscriminate in their choice of peoples to attack, none of these can be brought into the discussion. The atrocious treatment of Native Americans captives by other Native Americans cannot be taken into consideration either.

All that matters are the Europeans. It is they who are responsible for all of the world's ills. Had they never existed or had been nipped in the bud as a people early on, the world would be a utopia in which everyone would be nice to each other.

We cannot remain silent any longer. Europeans and their descendants cannot be held to be different from other ethnic/cultural groups in regards to military aggression. They can, though, be held to be different in their accomplishments such as the concepts of the free individual, basic rights, property, and limited yet effective government.  We can also include science, engineering, the arts, literature and more. There is nothing wrong with standing up for one's heritage.