On Occupy, False Narratives, and Elections
No sooner than conservatives began achieving electoral wins in the storm of abysmal Obama failures with the US economy and foreign policy, mainstream media began to focus on something other than the norm.They began to focus the nation’s attention on the existence of the enmity between the rich and poor. In this case, the supposed fight was between the “haves” called the 1%, and the “have nots” called the 99%.
Various far Left movements’ leadership joined together to solidify their disparate groups. From the SEIU’s chief organizer, Lisa Fithian, all the way to a now defrocked New York Times writer named Natasha Lennard, they all pitched in to re-frame failed and retired arguments that have historically been able to achieve short-term political gain.
Communist theory was able to unite various working peoples behind one banner throughout history, albeit for short periods, with the fuel of a supposed “class war” between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The power of this false narrative was able to temporarily hide the horrors of the worldview. Class war and the bourgeoisie vs the proletariat was powerful enough to help the New York Times’ Walter Duranty hide Stalin’s mass murder for a period, so left-of-center pro-government centralization advocates knew all to well the power of this false narrative to temporarily blind the masses and get them to look away from the reality of their lives and what their leaders were doing.
Far Left US and Western movements were able to band together and re-frame their failed “Peace and Justice” movement as Occupy Wall Street, and later just Occupy itself. Needing a divergence, regardless of how false, the Democratic Party desperately needed the national focus and discussion shifted off of the job performance -- or lack there of-- of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. The Occupy movement provided this for them.
Realizing that no self-respecting informed person could get behind the class war “bourgeoisie vs the proletariat” argument, but needing the arguments power to blind the masses, Occupy architects simply re-framed and renamed the murderous and failed agenda’s terminology. The 1% vs the 99% was born. Same argument; just different names for the arguments pillars of logic and details. With a predominantly left-of-center media complex willing to promote them and not hold them accountable, they were indeed able to reshape and refocus the nation’s attention and concerns.
As our 2012 presidential election approached, none of the failures of Barack Obama or other senior Democratic Party leadership got attention. The focus was on the the supposed war between rich and poor, the plight of the 99% vs the oppressive 1%. The false narrative won --that “wanting to help others’ means you should vote for Left and “wanting to help rich white racists and their few Uncle Toms” meant you should vote Right. More people voted Left.
Although the 2004 Presidential race between George W. Bush and John Kerry resulted in a Bush win even though some 80% of Americans felt that “Kerry cared more for others,” 2004 did not have the Occupy movement. That is, the 2004 Democratic Party did not have the ability to create and then focus jealousy and envy in the hearts of Americans against others who had accomplished more in the realm of finances.
Of course, the far Left did not accomplish their goal of diverting attention to the “not a class war” class war all on their own. Their goals’ accomplishment required a passive Republican Party who would play into their spun narrative. It required a Republican Party to be foolish enough to counter claims of the Left "caring more" by simply talking about jobs and the economy.
To put it simply, we were “community organized.”
Breitbart readers are encouraged to learn more more on the Occupy movement and far Left relationships in media and government by watching Andrew Breitbart’s Occupy Unmasked.