Questions For Occupiers: Do You Believe Michael Moore?

Occupying More than His Fair Share

I have a hard time understanding how anybody believes Michael Moore.  After sitting through three of his documentaries, including Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Capitalism: A Love Story, I don’t know why anybody really takes him very seriously.  His pushing of real conspiracy theories over 9/11 really do challenge all credulity, and I say this knowing not all my readers will agree.  Nevertheless, Moore appeared in Oakland to rally the Occupy crowd on Friday.  According to reports from the scene, the Moore was mobbed.  For me, this raises two questions of some importance:  Did none of them notice Moore is part of the one percent they claim to oppose?  If they believe Michael Moore, is there any point in talking to the Occupiers?  My answers to both questions may surprise you, but then again, perhaps not.

I doubt that the Occupiers really have any sense of what constitutes the “one percenters” they claim are the problem, but more importantly, I think they conveniently issue a political pass to those among the so-called one percent willing to kiss their feet and claim solidarity with them.  It’s a basic symptom of an ideological self-contradiction that permits them to ignore this dichotomy between their stated complaints and their acceptance of radical leftists who happen also to be rich. Roseanne Barr?  Rich, yes, but on their side?  You bet.  Susan Sarandon? Oh yes, mightily rich, but they don’t seem to want to eat her.  Michael Moore? Well, he’s “down for the cause” or whichever trendy saying they’re using these days.  George Soros?  Ah, well, now you see, they feel some unease about Mr. Soros, which is probably the reason why despite funding almost all of the organizations involved in this Marxist Mosh-Pit, he has stayed well away.  The Occupiers really don’t like having to explain away their Soros connections, their Tides Foundation connections, their Adbuster affiliations, or anything else to do with Mr. Soros.  This may be too big a contradiction even for them to talk out of existence, so instead, they simply ignore it and claim they have nothing whatever to do with Soros.

Since these people believe in Michael Moore, I suspect that for those of the type to do so, there isn’t much point in talking.  Frankly, it’s my conclusion that Moore’s dishonesty is perhaps best exhibited in Bowling for Columbine.  This anti-gun, anti-right screed is nothing short of ludicrous in its proposals and in its reporting.  When a person can tell you they support the man who produced such a piece of “work,” you know almost reflexively that you’re not going to be able to reason with them in any meaningful way.  The way in which Chuck Heston was treated and portrayed by dishonest editing is one of the greatest bits of personal assassination ever committed to film, never mind submitted to the world as a “documentary.”  If you’ve not seen these ridiculous propaganda pieces, I’d urge you to do so if for no other reason than opposition research.  Debunking them should provide you an opportunity to learn just who some of the members of Occupy really are, and what they are prone to believe.

It’s small wonder that they could be led to believe that all their problems lay at the feet of big business and Wall Street, but most particularly, those evil bankers.  Simplistic arguments of that sort always appeal to those who are most easily conned by the Michael Moores of the world.  It’s simple:  You create some bogeyman, assign them all the blame, find some mechanism by which to throttle them, and call it a day.  Nice, simple, and without effort, particularly intellectual, but nevertheless wrong.  I can’t help but feel a little sympathy for them as they come along with all their excuses for believing Michael Moore while hating Peter Schiff.  It’s an astonishing demonstration of who they are, what they believe, and whether it is even fruitful to hold a discussion with them.  The answer is firmly “no.”  When you ask them: “How is it that you have occupied a private park for nearly two months,” their answer is likely to be something absurd and naive.  None of them at the so-called “organic” level can tell you, and they’re not generally curious enough to care.  That should be your first clue.

Leave a comment ?

15 Responses to Questions For Occupiers: Do You Believe Michael Moore?

  1. Adam says:

    Micheal Moore is a gigantic tool. No argument here.

    However, when you begin to use phrases such as "these people" to generalize a group that you disagree with, and begin to attach every negative trait you notice in one of them to all of them, it may be time to take a step back and have a good long objective look at some of what you are writing.

    Perhaps this arises from a tendency to spend your time researching opinions that agree with yours. I find it a more productive approach to spend my time researching *intelligent and worthy* opinions that differ from my own instead. Notice the emphasis on intelligent and worthy, as I mentioned in a previous discussion how easy it is to find ridiculous scapegoats and extremists on either side of any argument. This tendency of mine is, in fact, why I am here.

    There is some truth in much of what you say. This is why I have not dismissed you out of hand. But your tendency to paint the entire OWS movement with the same broad paintbrush as the most extreme people that claim affiliation with us, robs you of some credibility.

    Some of more more sheeply left-wingers treat Micheal Moore as a god, this is true. But do not lump us all in that together. Quite a lot, I am tempted even to say the majority but I have no source for that, believe that Micheal Moore is nothing more than an opportunistic weasel out to champion any cause that can lend him a little more fame and money. And, an extremist.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      Adam, If you'll read the totality of what I've written about OWS, I make distinctions, though not always in bold letters. The other day, I actually broke OWS into three subgroups. I suppose you missed that. I realize there is a danger in generalizing, but at the same time, certain common denominators make of OWS a group or a movement. Thank you for acknowledging what I suspected: The subgroups break down much as I suspected. You're apparently part of the only subgroup for which I have any sympathy, which is probably why our conversation has been able to persist so long as it has. In fact, I've suspected that because you were willing to talk in a relatively reasonable manner. Thanks for that, btw. I read Slate, Salon, HuffPo, and many other predominately leftist sites. I also read more libertarian sites.

  2. Adam says:

    To clarify, what I mean to say is not that you do not do opposition research, as in this very article you have shown that you do, but when that research consists of watching tripe like the Micheal Moore videos and than painting us all with that brush, you have missed the part about "intelligent and worthy".

    • MarkAmerica says:

      I realize not all OWS folks support Michael Moore, but in that crowd in Oakland, the euphoria over his arrival seemed close to universal. I realize that doesn't mean everybody there supports him, but you'd have to admit that many do.

  3. C.A. Bamford says:

    I suppose it would be inappropriate then to quote the observation someone made that, "Michael Moore won't admit children must starve so he can continue to consume twice his obese weight in food."
    Ah…thought so. Mea culpa, Adam. Back to weightier subjects….

    Tell us, Adam, what you think of the offensive language, biased comments and unresearched and blatantly untrue comments made about tea party Americans by Michael Moore, the mainstream media, journalistic elite, members of congress…and even the Vice President of the United States. Have you had time to take issue with any of them yet? Or do you perchance find them "intelligent and worthy"?

    Just wondering.

    • Adam says:

      I think you have missed my point entirely. Please re-read what I wrote. I went on, at length, about how I agree that Micheal Moore is a opportunistic tool that seeks fame and fortune in a similar manner to most of the guests on the Jerry Springer show, but with a more political slant.

      I am not sure how I can make it more clear that I do not support Micheal Moore then I did in my first comment and all of my replies to it.

      The part about "intelligent and worthy" was meant to mean sources *other* than Micheal Moore. As in, I do *NOT* consider that man and his retarded tripe either intelligent nor worthy of anything but a sad chuckle and perhaps an example of the Dunning/Kruger effect among his supporters.

      • kilt1iron says:

        Adam —

        I do not know you. Mark America states he dialogs with you. I'll stipulate to many more things, if needed. But, let me cut to the chase.

        I would appreciate those on the Left, who would prefer to argue rationally with those conservatives who read Mark America, to clearly denounce the bad examples that paint your side with so broad a brush.

        Our examples would include —
        > A VP that has worse "foot-in-mouth disease" than ANY other VP in our modern history
        > The high-profile "beautiful people" who DO regularly speak on your behalf, AT YOUR gatherings
        > The absolute disregard for the U.S. Constitution, by a significant number of Democrat Congressional members, who SWORE to "uphold & defend" said document, highlighted during those fun summertime 'town hall meetings'
        > The blatant LIE of this current Administration about having "the most transparent government in history" — as they proceed to do dirty Chicago-style politics behind the cover of an apologetic MSM — and do all sorts of things with "czars" and" Executive Orders" and such

        Just a few, but you should understand my point (and frustration) conservatives have with the Left. Which, I might add, will change VERY SOON …

        So, will you denounce these basic, prevalent representations of the Left?

  4. C.A. Bamford says:

    You're a good man, Adam. But why nitpick Mark, when there is such a wealth of egregiously offensive material from the left side of the issue waiting for your impartial review?

    There were likely a few reasonable people, with reasonable complaints supporting #OWS. But by now they should have figured out that this movement has nothing to do with reason.

    The motivation of the organizers of this grand tour of American cities is quite clear. The motivation of the collection of flora and fauna they have gathered along the way is unclear to all….especially to the unruly flora and fauna.

    And who will pay for the mess they made?

    • Adam says:

      The problem I see, is propaganda and "egregiously offensive" material from both sides of the coin. I am not a leftist. Nor am I a right winger. Many of those I am surrounded by come from both sides of the coin, and many come from neither. There is truth and BS from both extremes. Like with most things, truth lies somewhere in the middle.

      The folks with ties to underhanded organizations and racist groups are not the only organizers of this thing. They are simply the ones those who oppose Occupy focus on. The problem is that any movement that makes no conditions or demands leaves themselves open to all sorts of extremists and malcontents latching on and making demands of their own.

      I support OWS due to the need to stop corrupt governmental, corporate, and banking practices. I believe this need trumps all of the drama and left-vs-right that has become the focus of the movement lately. I believe it even trumps any of the organizers and rumors of who started what. Most of the people that are there, and yes I can say most with a high degree of certainty, as I've been there talking to people from the beginning, simply want the corruption to stop so the economy can improve.

      You say there are likely a few reasonable people with reasonable complaints supporting OWS. I submit that those people are the *majority* of the OWS supporters, but that they are simply not as loud, forceful, or attention-seeking as the radicals and extremists.

      In an earlier discussion I mentioned trying to get OWS back to the focus on the corruption, a point that the majority of Americans can truly agree with. Anyone can organize a rally. If some extremists and radicals are doing so, more people like myself need to host events of our own to compensate. I propose holding meetings and gathering the reasonable and intelligent OWS supporters and holding an event designed to bring attention back to the root cause. An event where we publicly denounce such organizations as the KKK and Micheal Moore and those behind Soros. An event where we take the list of socialist demands the extremists have come up with, rip them up, and write a new list composed of a single demand. The end of governmental, corporate, and banking corruption. Maybe include some steps to achieve this, if a clear path can be agreed upon by all of those present.

      Unfortunately, I work full time and am a full time college student studying Electronic Engineering and Architectural Engineering, so I have severe time constraints that will cause me to put this together rather slowly.

      If you all find yourself agreeing with my simple demand, the one that I see the true majority of OWS supporters asking for, perhaps many of you would lend support to my attempts to bring sanity back to the OWS movement. Perhaps with your support, and the support of the people at OWS that agree with me, we truly can speak for "the 99%" and foil any nefarious schemes you fear the left is trying to pull.


      • kilt1iron says:


        Please identify a "corrupt" practice you want stopped.

        I have a question, while you form your reply — is "profit" a bad thing, in your mind? Why?

  5. C.A. Bamford says:

    Adam, where have you heard egregiously offensive language from those who do not support the OWS movement? What conservative or conservative leaning member of congress, the media, business, movie industry, education, or religeous community can you quote?

    If you are indeed in the middle, consider that this is not a time for sitting on the fence., I once called myself a moderate..until I took the time to become informed beyond what we are fed from an agenda-driven media.

    I cannot agree that the majority of OWS participants are concened about crony capitalism. The majority of them are either engaged in destructive behavior, vagrancy, youthfully ignorant hi-jinks, and a distrubing amount of unlawful behavior. Even those whose hearts are pure are unable to clearly voice their concerns and what they hope to accomplish by being a part of this thing. Taka a good look at how they spend their days.

    Crony capitalism will not be removed from our government by mob rule. Note how despotic regimes were removed from Egypt and Libya by mobs and are being replaced by worse. There are those who hope to see that happen here. The fact that you are here engaging in civil discourse shows that you understand this. The seat of government is where we must focus our attention, starting with the President. It is, after all, his job and his responsibility to act on correcting these problems, We began sending that message in Nov. 2010, and can reinforce it in Nov. 2012. Come sit at the grown-ups' table with us, Adam