Note to Occupiers: Wake Up!

Upholding the World

It’s time for you to grasp reality.  Not your morality, nor mine, but objective reality.  It’s time to cast off the childish wishing that your putative leaders have been pushing.  It’s time for you to recognize that there are no free lunches, no free money, and that there can be no Utopia on this Earth.  For once, I’m asking you to do what your leaders will not: I’m asking you to think.  I’m asking you to consider the real meaning of what they’ve been telling you and what they really intend.  Because I believe you have been misled, some of you rank-and-file occupiers, I want to give you the tool you need to understand the concept of money in a way you may have never understood it before.  You already have minds, which is the most important tool humans possess, but it’s time to put it to work as you have never done before.  Euro Pacific Capital CEO Peter Schiff tried to tell you, but instead of listening to what he was saying, you tried to shout him down.  He was offering you the most valuable information in the last two hundred years of human history, and you ignored him, or shouted at him without recognizing the great value he was providing you, for free.  I intend to offer you the same knowledge in a different form.

I believe that part of the problem in the situation with Schiff was that a sort of mob mentality took over, and people simply couldn’t hear what he was saying because the emotional mood of the crowd wouldn’t permit them to hear it or acknowledge it, let alone contemplate or understand it.  In order to give you a second chance, when no crowd is gathered, and you’re alone with your thoughts, I’ve posted a page that contains a timeless book excerpt with which your teachers and professors should have made you familiar, but chose instead to conceal from many or even most of you.  If you’ve never read it before, please do so now and consider its full meaning.  Even at this late date, we still have a chance to save this country, but salvation will not come on the streets of New York.  Instead, it will be born of great minds and a firm understanding of the morality of money. <<< Read it. Save your life while it’s still possible.

Once you understand that, you’ll understand why the protests in which you are now participating on Wall Street and around the country are actually statements against the world you so desperately need.  You won’t get what you want through this OWS movement, and what you must discover is that your adversaries aren’t so much on Wall Street as they are on either end of Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC.  You’re being used, and if you permit them, they will quite literally use you to death.  It’s their modus operandi, and if they weren’t so interested in concealing that from you for what should become increasingly obvious reasons, you’d know that they’re planning to serve you up like chum for sharks.  You needn’t go out that way.  There is an alternative, but if you are to avoid what your alleged “leaders” and those who fund them have in store, you’re going to need to realize the facts.  This is your chance.  You won’t get many more.

Leave a comment ?

35 Responses to Note to Occupiers: Wake Up!

  1. akabosan says:

    Thank you for that post and for this site. As much as I agree with the purpose and general tone, I must say this again.

    The word "leaders" has somehow come to replace representatives and servants in our political jargon in this country. When we change the language we change the thinking.

    When I went in to the military my leaders were assigned. I worked up to being a leader, but there were always higher level of leadership. One of the reasons I got out before retiring was some of the principles of that "leadership," had no relation to morality, actual achievement, or ability but was tied directly to rank.

    I have been out of the service for many moons, and ever since my discharge I have chosen my "leaders." No one "out ranks" me. I have been accountable, responsible and free.

    I believe it is now time for us to start thinking along the lines of many of our great representatives in this country and provide ourselves with people who are best at serving.


  2. Jim says:

    Are you serious markamerica? I don't think ows protesters are against "money" or capitalism at all. They are protesting the blatant corruption that is emblematic of wall street. When average joe buys a house he can't afford, the government tells him to suck it up; joe was an idiot. But when too big to fail bank buys mortgages it can't afford, government says "o no! Here's 250 billion dollars of average Joe's money for free!"

    Ows protesters are simply fighting for a level playing field. You tell me which version of the world is capitalism.

    • MarkAmerica says:


      You're entitled to your opinion. I think they are against the concept of Capitalism. I think when I hear their complaints about having to repay student loans, I wonder if they are not willing to invest in themselves, why they believe the rest of us should. I think this is a movement being driven by hardcore Marxists, and it is being financially supported by the likes of George Soros. The root of all this is a criminally corrupt enterprise. Sorry, but the moment the OWS people became involved with Soros, or any like him, they lost all credibility. The moment they fell in with Marxists, they lost all claim to a moral cause. If the truth be known, however, it was Soros and the Marxists who BUILT OWS, so once again, I return to my prior premise: These people are being used, and they've been too naive to see it.

      • Matt says:

        Can you prove in any way that Occupy Wall St is in any way associated or funded by George Soros and proof that George Soros and Marxists engineered the whole thing? Sources and citations are worth far more than the mere words I see.

        • MarkAmerica says:

          Sorry Matt, but if you've been following this blog for any period of time, you'll know that much of that information has been covered in one form or another repeatedly.

  3. chris says:

    Funded by marxists? Do you have any physical evidence of your remarks? Have you been to an ows protest and talked to any of the people about their views? If not than your opinion is of no factual value. "Banks got bailed out, we got sold out" they are for true capitalism, in which companies or banks go under if they fail NOT get bailed out by the government. That in itself is the definition of socialism.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      Physical evidence? Like what? DNA strands off the cash? What sort of "physical evidence" are you talking about? I don't approve of the bail-outs either, but that's not an excuse for a Marxist takeover of the United States.

  4. Harry Mudd says:

    Just another follower of The Man With Two First Names, aka Ron Paul, or as I like to call them, Ron Paulie Girls. They want to see NO government, and TOTAL corporate takeover.
    #OWS is not looking for handouts, just a fair share, for a fair amount of work, and not have their job moved overseas.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      Actually, I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. Nice guess. Come back by when you have something useful to contribute. Ron Paul supporters frequently curse at me, like many of your friends.

  5. HOratio alger says:

    OWS isn't against capitalism. This whole article is besides the point. I suspect intentional misleading from the writer.

    Typical for enemies of the people to try and reframe a movement to be able to then kill it.

    OWS are fighting for the same things the tea party was fighting for before the teaparty was co-opted and fooled by racists and the 1%.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      OWS is against capitalism. It's self-evident. The author has no need to mislead anybody, intentionally or otherwise. Now, as for the "enemies of the people, " why don't you run along to your next "Re-Elect Obama" meeting? The Tea Party hasn't been co-opted by anybody, despite attempts from both sides of the political spectrum. I don't know a single Tea Party member who ever asked to "tax the rich" or "eat the rich" or any such thing. We see a large number of such signs down at OWS, comrade. Save it. I've provided info here on this site direct from the OWS people, including their list of demands, which were nothing but Marxist ideas. Oh, some OWS people opposed the bail-outs. That may be the extent of any agreement between OWS and Tea Party. I also never heard a single Tea Party person make racist or anti-semitic remarks at any of the events to which I've been, but down at OWS, oh, yeah, there's a strain of hatred for jews and others that is pretty thorough. Forget it. Peddle your propaganda elsewhere, Horatio…

  6. HOratio alger says:

    "OWS is against capitalism. It’s self-evident." Now that is your mistake: getting your premise that you just gleefully invented from your own fantasies totally wrong.

    You are misframing this movement so that you can use that misframing to execute the movement, somewhat like a strawman argument.

    Where do you get this crazy idea that they are are against capitalism? The one thing that is sure, is that they are against some aspects of wall street's practices. HOw can you go from that to saying they are against capitalism? You are in my book being disingenuous, and maybe intentionally dishonest.

    * How could I elect Obama if I have never been in the US lol.
    *I agree that my statements on the tea party where highly speculative.

    Conclusion: just admit it please. You are a right wing ideologue that is doing his very very best to give a movement you don't like a bad name. You are the propagandist, not me.

    Oh and off course, you are one of the people on the richer side, or if you aren't you are so so stupid like all those teaparty folks that are poor as hell, but STILL rooting for the rich.

    Unlike Americans, the rest of the world does not see all solidarity as a rediculous communist plot. That kind of nonsense is typical for the us. How foolish to say that sharing and helping are evil plots. Laughable lol.

    Good day to you sir, may your life lead to more sharing and joy, and less of the envy and fear that is apparent in this blogpost.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      Well, admit it. You don't read much. Obama got lots of support from overseas. If you want to know about the Occupy crowd, check the latest post in this blog, complete with video. There's an Occu-Pest doing his thing, and rooting for the downfall of capitalism.

      I'm poor as hell, but I'm not the one down on Wall Street demanding to eat the rich. Amazing that you then accuse me of envy. I root for everybody who seeks to better their lot in life by honest efforts that do not include banging others over the head for their wallets, or sending government agents to do so on their behalf.

  7. HOratio alger says:

    You are writing as a laughable ideologue sir. You are AS silly as the more and more marginalised Glenn Beck. You say the same total nonsense. Paranoid conspiracy theories…. What is happening to your country man!

    PS I didn't elect obama. I've never been to the us and I never will. Too many crazies.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      I agree. We have many crazies. Thankfully, most of them arrive electronically, and can therefore be filtered out. You've overstayed your welcome.

  8. Adam says:

    I have taken a minute to summarize both this blog post, and the comments that follow:

    "I'm going to paint the Occupiers with the broadest brush I can find, and then when someone argues against my obviously exaggerated generalization I will lob insults until he goes away."

    • MarkAmerica says:

      Back again, huh?

      • Adam says:

        Ohhh I get it. I agree with someone that you do not, so I must be the SAME PERSON. Because there can't be more than one person that disagrees with you.

        To be honest, I regret the insulting tone of my previous post. I have read much of your blog, and you are not the usual kind of guy I find myself arguing against. You are obviously very intelligent and informed. You do your homework. Thus, I cannot help but respect your opinions, though I still disagree with them.

        What you should understand, is while there are plenty of fools and tools and retarded extremists within ANY gathering of people, and while it is very easy to point to them and use them to paint the entire group with that same paintbrush, this will not give you a very clear idea on the true nature of that group. I could spend hours researching and posting information about the most degenerate and retarded Tea Party members, refer to them by childish name calling like Tea Baggers, and paint them all with that brush so they all look as retarded as the hick from Alabama who openly fondled his daughters breasts at a rally, using that to call the entire Tea Bagger Assembly child molesters. But that wouldn't be very fair, would it?

        The heart of the OWS movement, the majority of the *real* heart behind it, is not affiliated with Soros or that loud stupid woman who kept talking over the CEO in Milwaukee (In fact, I was there, and many of us in the background wanted to tell her to STFU and stop making us look retarded). There are many of us who DO know what we are talking about. Who do NOT want to increase taxes on the rich or any of that knee-jerk BS. We simply want the corporations corrupting our government to stop. We want the corporations to stay our of governmental elections and policies, and we want the government to stay out of company practices as well, except in the cases of health concerns. We want a return to the capitalist idea that the harder one works, the more one makes. A level playing field. That's all.

        Please, explain to me how this is anti-capitalist?

        • MarkAmerica says:

          Adam, I apologize for being dismissive as well, but when you get a number of people who hold approximately the same opinions, spouting much the same thing, at least superficially, yes, it's possible to be unnecessarily short with somebody.

          Here's the problem: The OWS movement has been directed by the Soros crowd from the outset. People like you, who may not be part of that hardcore leftist alliance have attached yourself to OWS, and you're being co-opted. I'm hopeful that some of you will break away and realize that your best bet is to abandon OWS and join with your much-maligned, but much more similar Tea Party brethren. Do you follow what I'm saying? I'm saying that if you're in favor of a crony-free capitalism, where government officials and corporations do not effectively merge in common interest, the Tea Party is the group that has been fighting it. I'd urge you to take a look at what Palin has been saying. She's not alone, but she is one of the biggest voices aligned with the Tea Party who absolutely understands the ugly reality of the crony capitalism about which you're complaining. I share those complaints. The problem is, the OWS movement is being directed and controlled by radical leftists who answer to Obama, Soros, and all the rest of that crowd. If you're sincere, and I suspect you may well be, you are going to need to realize that up until this moment, OWS is being used for purposes that do not resemble what you've laid out here. If you're sincere, you'll finally realize this, and behave accordingly. Given what you've said, I suspect you're coming to realize this, with or without any prompting from others. I'm not, as you've discovered, some "mouthpiece for Republicans". There are probably very few people at my level of the blogosphere who make the Republican establishment more angry than me.

      • Adam says:

        Thank you for your reply.

        My problem with the Tea Party is similar to your problem with the OWS movement. Namely, being co-opted by other people. I apologize if this offends you, but Sarah Palin **************. The fact that the Tea Party have collectively agreed and supported her and other extremist nutjobs, have made me extremely wary of that movement. The difference is that OWS has *not* collectively agreed to support Soros or the KKK or any of the other nutjobs trying to co-opt the movement. I do see what they are doing. I think any large movement of people that catches the eye of the public will have many groups that step in and try to co-opt them. This is inevitable. I believe my best bet, at this time, is to get the help of others and attempt to convince my fellow OWS members of the need to police themselves. To publicly denounce the nutjobs and extremists and Marxists that are trying to co-opt the movement. To distance ourselves from the KKK and other racist or bigoted groups, and, regardless of who "started" the OWS or backed it originally (which I disagree on Soros being behind it, but at this point the original catalyst is no longer relevant), I believe we need to return the OWS to truly speak for the majority of capitalist freedom-loving Americans.

        The Tea Party and the core intelligent OWS members have mostly the same agenda, to stop large corporations lobbying the government for more power, with the government in return enacting laws and regulations favorable to large corporations. This is what causes the uneven playing field and the majority of the economic problems we Americans are facing.

        The difference, is that the Tea Party believes this problem is a symptom of the government having too much power. While OWS believes this problem is a symptom of corporations having too much power. The truth is probably somewhere in between. Personally I believe they both have too much power, but when it comes to "choosing sides", which, unfortunately, has become necessary in order to accomplish anything, I believe that stopping the corporations and the banking cartel would be more beneficial to our capitalist system than limiting governmental power at this time.

        Perhaps there is a way to work out the differences between the intelligent Tea Party members, and the intelligent OWS members, and band together while denouncing and attempting to ostracize the radicals and extremists plaguing both movements. But for this to be possible, the name calling and the focus on those extremists from both sides has to stop.

        All that aside, I think you worry too much about those extremist portions of the OWS movement ending capitalism. No matter how many extremists co-opt the OWS movement, and no matter how much support they end up getting, when it gets down to the wire, the core of the OWS group does not want the end of capitalism. And, like you, we will fight to the death to protect it. I have been inside of many of these protests and crowds and talked to many people. The ones driving the movement with their intelligence, believe as I do. The ones driving the movement with rhetoric and drum circles, and many of the college kids, just want to be a part of something. Neither of those two groups are dangerous. The dangerous portion of extremists are by far the minority. A very vocal and loud minority, true, but in the end I truly believe the more they make their extremism clear, the more the OWS movement will either ostracize them, or simply go home.

        Sorry for length.

        • MarkAmerica says:

          Adam, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to permit you to call Sarah Palin names. She was out ahead of the whole QE2 debacle and was being attacked on that basis a year before most people began to realize she was right. If you wish to post here, I'm going to ask you to refrain from that sort of unfounded insult. I have edited out of your post.

          The difference between OWS and Tea Party is this: Tea Party is organic, and it would be nearly impossible to co-opt it. In stark contrast, Soros has no need to co-opt OWS: It's HIS movement. He has largely funded its organizers. He is behind it. It's not a matter of co-opting OWS. This is his show. Period. You're going to need to catch up. Read my most recent post, for starters.

      • Adam says:

        I cannot yet respond to the Soros accusation until I have done my due diligence on it myself, so I reserve that for later.

        However, from a man who has openly called members of the OWS movement and other people all sorts of names, you seriously censored my post? From a freedom loving American, who would die to protect freedom of speech, you refuse to practice it on your own blog? I was originally going to respond with the ton of quotes that are so easy to find detailing the level of intelligence possessed by Sarah Palin, however, the point is no longer about whether or not we agree on the merits of that woman, but instead that you censor my words and threaten my ability to comment on your blog simply because you do not like what I have to say. I insulted a public figure. A woman that has put herself out there into the public eye in a country that believes in our freedom to ridicule and spout opinions as we see fit. As much as I am not a fan of her, I don't believe she herself would agree to censoring that rather mild insult.

        I understand that it can be frustrating when someone insults or ridicules something or someone you believe in strongly. Your plentiful insults of OWS and it's members, which include myself, did not make me smile. However, I would never presume, not even on my own blog or website, to take away your ability to speak your mind, no matter how disagreeable or insulting I find what you have to say.

        I am going to find it difficult to have an intelligent discussion with you, if you persist in restricting and/or editing what I have to say, while providing no means to do the same to you.

        • MarkAmerica says:

          Adam, You're free to move on if you like. Understand my position: You can criticize Governor Palin on the merits of issues, but if you wish to hurl insults of that sort, you'll need to find another venue. There has been quite enough of that. You're entitled to speak your mind, but just as I edit out significant cursing on this site, so too will I edit out any such name-calling leveled at Palin. Sorry, this is a site on which I won't tolerate that, not because I support her, merely, but because she's undergone quite enough of that sort of baseless attack. Sorry, if you can't live with that, move on. You can find other ways to state your disagreements with Sarah Palin without resorting to that.

          Now, by all means, please go examine the relationship between Soros, his shell organizations, and the leadership of OWS. While you're at it, go check into my post on Sarah Palin's critique of QE2. While people like Krugman were pining for wars and alien attacks, and likewise calling Palin names for her criticisms of QE2, she called it right down the line. History has borne out her contentions and predictions on the matter. Don't come here with the SNL caricature of Palin and expect to further it here.. Not happening.

      • Adam says:

        Also, RE: Soros' movement.

        I heartily disagree. This is NOT his show. Your argument would make sense if we were all robots and he was the master programmer. But we are not. We are all individual people with our own opinions and values and thoughts. It does not matter what he started, who he backs, or how much money he throws at us. If the *people* that make up the bulk of OWS decide to go in a direction, or hold a belief, his agreement, disagreement, or dislike becomes irrelevant. We are not under his or anyone's control. Regardless of "who started it" or "whos funding it" we are all there for our OWN reasons. Which is why I mentioned earlier that the catalyst is irrelevant at this point. We are out there. We believe what we believe, not what any attempted co-opter with deep pockets tells us to.

        We ARE organic. We are made up of PEOPLE, in this for our beliefs and values. Thus, we cannot be anything BUT organic.

        • MarkAmerica says:

          Well, some would contend otherwise – that if OWS was born of a "genetically modified seed" it couldn't possibly be "organic." The problem you have with that argument, from my point of view, is that if Mr. Soros is still involved(and he is) and if his shill outfits are also still involved(and they are) then you can't really say it's not their show. It is. It's not about what you believe. The fact that they've led you to believe your opinion has any bearing at all on this movement means they've done a masterful job of selling you. For example, if Soros decides tomorrow that it's over, Zuccotti Park will be emptied by Monday morning. It's that simple. Yes, he absolutely has that kind of pull. Don't kid yourself, and do flatter yourself with exaggerations of your importance in the OWS movement. If you were significant in that movement, you wouldn't be talking to me.

      • Adam says:

        If you are going to say things like Soros can decide it is over and the park will be empty by monday, I'm afraid I can only respond with [citation needed].

        You say "yes, he absolutely has that kind of pull".

        Speaking as someone who has stood shoulder to shoulder with large OWS crowds quite often in the last month, I have to call BS.

        I agree that if he really could do that, this would, indeed, be his show. But he cannot. Because this is not his show. That simple. If indeed he started this thing, he was only able to do so because the malcontent at the corruption rampant in the system was already there for him to use. So it is indeed possible that someone stirred it up into what is now OWS on purpose. Making it go away, however, is not nearly so simple.

        • MarkAmerica says:

          Look, we'll have to agree to disagree here. I say this because there seems to be some well established links between Soros and the operation in New York.

      • Adam says:

        Let me ask you this, if the OWS movement decided to publicly denounce Soros, the KKK, and all of the Communist/Marxist/extremists that have latched on to the movement, and decided to publicly declare their ONLY demand as the end to corporations and banking cartels influence in the government, would you still feel compelled to stand against us?

        • MarkAmerica says:

          It wouldn't hurt, but I don't think it will happen because the lists of objectives I have seen published look nothing like that simple 'demand.'

      • Adam says:

        That is precisely my point. That list of demands appears to be someone's "brilliant" psuedo-democratic idea of asking everyone present for their agenda, and creating a mishmash list of it all.

        Which, IMO, is a ridiculous way of going about it. I think that if we truly wish to speak for "the 99%" we need a single demand that a true 99% of Americans do agree with.

        I have been giving thought to becoming more vocal and attempting to convince the core movement of the importance of sticking with an achievable goal, one such as I mentioned above, that the true majority of Americans cannot find fault with.

        Perhaps the left and the right can set aside their differences for the common good and work together to end the rampant corruption that everyone seems to dislike equally.

        Yeah. Sometimes I get in these overly optimistic moods.

        I don't find myself identifying with the "right" or the "left", just with some ideas and not others. But I think the importance of ending the corruption and banking cartels trumps the differences and petty disagreements between political ideals. Besides, if we can achieve that one important goal, which should help to boost the economy by proxy, the extremists and revolutionaries will no longer have this steam in their sails and have no choice but to go home and cry. And with an economy pulled out of the slump, they will be unable to garner support for their continued failure to seek employment.

        Maybe I'm just shooting the breeze, however.

        • MarkAmerica says:

          Adam, this may or may not surprise you, but I find the goal laudable. Here's the thing, and honestly, this will probably come off badly, but I'm going to let it rip anyway: I am not right-wing, and definitely not left-wing. I am do-the-right-thing-wing. What this means is that while I am not bound to either party, I am bound to a baseline ideology of…doing what is right. And when I say "doing what is right," I don't mean for my own sake, but for the sake of the country, or put another way, for the sake of a country made up of individuals. I tire of people telling me they are non-ideological. That's roughly like saying one doesn't think. That's certainly suggesting, if not saying it explicitly, that they don't wish to be confined by a sound and consistent philosophical basis from one end to the other of their range of ideas. To me, that's to admit one's willingness to be wrong some of the time. As for the parties, the Democrats are simply detestable in my view. The republicans torque me off frequently. You can't possibly have missed that if you've gone through any number of my articles. I wind up more frequently on the side of Republicans, but not because I like the republican party. Instead, it's because much more frequently than the Democrats, they wind up on the side of that which is right. I'm sure it's perfectly accidental in many cases…LOL

          What I really am is a conservative with some distinctly libertarian positions, particularly on issues of economics, and monetary and fiscal matters. Like you, I am disgusted by the crony-capitalism that pervades much of goings-on in DC. The best way to get businesses out of politics is to get politics out of business. Everybody always thinks that this all started with some fat-cat bribing some politician. While I have no doubt that such occurs, the fact is that this all got out of control when politicians learned they could extort businesses. Vanderbilt is remembered for being a cutthroat for the sake of his railroad, but what the common historical record omits is that he was playing self-defense, initially and in the main against Albany, where politicians had learned they could jack him for money by introducing bills and then offering to kill them. I kid you not. The politicians were in the pockets of the canal guys too. It was the start of this whole mess, which only worsened with the Sherman Act.

          No, you want to clean this up, you do two things: You strip the government of power to intercede in business, and you make penalties for politicians and their staff who peddle influence or run protection rackets the same as treason, with the same penalties, and I assure you this gets cleaned up. The problem I have with OWS is that it's focused on the wrong target. Try Occupy K Street and Occupy Pennsylvania Avenue. THAT would make a bigger difference.

      • Adam says:

        You have a fair point. The problem I see with that idea, is while I would agree to stop the politicians meddling with businesses, it simply cannot stop there.

        Perhaps that is truly where it started, but the fact is that it is no longer a one way problem. Corporations and banks *are* corrupting politicians. Banks *are* stealing money directly from the economy.

        While indeed to solve the problem the government would have to be limited and punished for interfering and extorting businesses, businesses banks and corporations also need severe penalties for interfering with government and politics.

        I think it's only if we nip this at both ends that the problem may be resolved completely.

        • MarkAmerica says:

          I think there is plenty of it going both ways these days, but one of the most overlooked problems are the professional staffers. I'd almost rather they be term-limited than the politicians themselves. They right in goodies for lobbyist friends, and all the rest, into legislation. It's stunning, particularly with committee staffers. There is plenty both ways, but you won't find many of the old-fashioned "Here's a wad of cash if you vote my way, Senator…" scenarios going on. Most of it is much more subtle. Here's the point, and I can't stress this enough: If you ask me who is the guiltier, it's a no-brainer, so let you consider it briefly, and I'm sure you'll agree: Who is worse? The businessman who either in self-defense, or in aggressive pursuit of favorable policies, buys favorable legislation, or the politician, who swore and oath, who now uses his office for profit? I will always contend it's the latter. An old economic principle is Say's Law, which says approximately that a "supply creates its own demand." Here's the point: You can't buy what isn't for sale; you can only buy it if it is. You want to get to the root of this, that's where you must start.

  9. Adam says:

    Also your rant about the wonder of money has one serious glaring error… these days the vast majority of money is *not* used in exchange of tangible goods and services. The vast majority of money is used ONLY to generate… more money. To buy money and sell money with money for monetary profit. Mostly, on wall street. Where did the Occupiers start again? Oh yeah. Wall Street. Who are they against? Oh yeah, THE BANKING CARTELS. Why? STEALING THE MONEY.

    They aren't against capitalism or money at all. They are trying to free both.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks: