Occupy What Now?

On David Vance’s “That General Assembly” post from yesterday, DB posted a comment (his reply to mine at the top of the thread) about how a well-known clothing company, Men’s Wearhouse (an off-the-rack suit chain) spoke out in support of the Occupiers.  The dopey bearded CEO decided to have a store in Oakland put a sign of solidarity in the window.

DB posted this picture of said window:

The message apparently went over the Occupiers’ pointy little unwashed heads, so they smashed it.

So, do Katty Kay and Laura Trevalyan and the rest of the comrades working for the BBC in the US still think these people want to sit down with their opponents and work out how to fix the system?  Can we admit what’s going on yet?

Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Occupy What Now?

  1. Grant says:

    Oh dear, the protestors don’t even know the difference between good capitalists and bad ones. 


  2. Span Ows says:

    That is because they are dumb schmucks Grant. (And no, I will not change my avatar!)


  3. deegee says:

    Is it possible the CEO was just trying to protect his shop and/or drum up a little business?


  4. Jeremy Clarke says:

    The local branch of the Tea Party held a counter-demo and they smashed the window.

    It’s obvious, really.

    Either that or it was the Zionist bankers looking to discredit the Occupiers or a Mossad-orchestrated false flag operation headed by George Rumsfeld and signed off by Israel and Exxon and zzzzzzz…


  5. My Site (click to edit) says:

    I saw on the news that the small businesses in London (cafes barbers etc.) -close to the whingers temporary slum – are really suffering from the loss of trade that the bankers usually bring to them.
    These socialist freaks have either never done a days work, or have only ever been in public sector seat-warming positions. They despise anyone and everything, except themselves.
    They can most often be found screaming and gurning against nationalist movements, but if they ever did succeed in closing these down, they would then move on to UKIP, after that the Tories, then the Lib Dems, then Labour, until only the Islamists and Communists were left and then realised that they were both using each other for their own political ends, which would result in a war between the SWP and the (dis)Respect (the natives) Party. . . . . Tossers!  


  6. David vance says:

    David P

    Excellent insight – have cross posted on ATW.


  7. cjhartnett says:

    Not the slightest bit surprised.
    He might as well waved Chamberlains piece of paper at the marginalised and dispossessed down below.

    No doubt, he will now be accused of having “incited” the rioters by “drawing attention” to the cause that can only “inflame the protesters”.

    Even worse…and there is no greater sin in LaLabLand…he might just have “patronised” the insurgents…and therefore deserved it!

    Let`s see what his dopey bearded insurance company CEO will decide on whether the owner was “patronising” “negligent” or “provocative”….and whether he can get some compensation in the form of LETS or old sandals equivalent once he`s paid his Tobin Tax to Bill Nighys account!

    As the great St David of Essex quoth “Oh, what a circus!”


  8. Barry says:

    I doubt if they sell many suits in Oakland anyway.

    Is it near the court house?


  9. D B says:

    There are some more good photos of the delightful Oakland protesters at Verum Serum. Banners with “All My Heroes Kill Cops”, “Burn This City” and “Off With Their Heads”, and a couple of fine examples of progressive parenting. Amazing how the BBC always manages to miss this sort of stuff in its coverage, isn’t it?

    (Btw DP, it’s “Men’s Wearhouse”.)


  10. Buggy says:

    This sort of thing is very helpful as it indicates just where your money shouldn’t be going one the “Occupy” nonsense wears itself out.

    Related: Is it only me that didn’t know that “Ben & Jerry’s” (another supporter of the mob) is actually a subsidiary of Unilever ? And run by a Norwegian UL bod? It’s a far cry from the “made by gentle hippies who aren’t beholden to the man” sctick they like to project, no ?


  11. Demon1001 says:

    If I lived there, I would make sure that I never bought any merchandise from that shop again.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Men’s Wearhouse adverstises in NYC as well. They will never have my custom, and I won’t hesitate to tell others.


  12. Bupendra Bhakta says:

    ‘these people want to sit down with their opponents and work out how to fix the system’.


    I suppose for the ‘Yoohoo Everyone It’s Me Me Me Listen To Me Me Me’ mob it’s to much to be expected of them to write to their MP, or use their vote, or God forbid, become a local councillor or MP, or do any of the tedious stuff the rest of us have to do.

    They expect a seat at the big table, just like that.

    And albeeb encourages them in this risible and ridiculous notion.


  13. Umbongo says:

    As a matter of interest are the responsible authorities in the US as completely supine as ours (ie the City Corporation and St Pauls)?  It appears not but, I assume, the MSM in the US (or the usual suspects anyway) are cheering on the lads and lasses at the front of the (Class) war against those devil-capitalists.  
    On a (sort of) connected theme, there’s a wonderful play on in London at the moment http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/theatre-reviews/8865402/Three-Days-In-May-Trafalgar-Studios-review.html the subject of which is the “missing” three days in May 1940 when Churcill was fighting the appeasing wing of the British political class (yes et in arcadia ego applied even then) to be allowed to keep the war going.  
    Today, in a slightly less immediately perilous position – well it is similar now I think about it – Cameron and Osborne are in Cannes wondering how they can put a positive spin on selling out the UK and the BBC is broadcasting propaganda for the enemy (part of which is camped outside St Pauls).


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Not entirely supine, Umbongo.  For example, Nanny Bloomberg took away their generators last week, under the pretext of “safety”.  Right before the big snowstorm. And it seems that he’s quietly allowing an influx of unfriendly homeless druggies to hang out amongst the Occupiers, which is causing some unhappiness.

      The problem is that most of the national media not only agrees with what they (wrongly) think the Occupiers want, but gives them succor, so local authorities tend to feel the heat far more than the Occupiers do.  
      It’s times like this that make me glad the US doesn’t have a State Church, so there’s no national religious authority figure given air time to spout nonsense and meddle in politics and economics.


      • Umbongo says:

        I don’t know whether it’s cunning or serendipity but the inchoate nature of these “protests” creates a blank slate on which anything can be written – and is.  Hence the BBC portrays it as an attack on its (the BBC’s) perceived enemies (bankers, private sector workers, non-lefty Christians).  To the apparatchiks of the CoE (lefties to a man and woman) they’re (literally) a godsend and can be portrayed as the beginning of the Christian socialist dream etc etc.

        However, coming back to the raison d’etre of this website, I may have been unlucky but I have not heard one iota of criticism of this crowd on the BBC in any studio discussion or sound-bite.  Am I to believe that there isn’t one person in public (or not so public life) who considers these parasites to be the problem not the solution?


        • David vance says:


          It’s worrying. Locally here, I have been trying to get my views on the rabble in print but no evident interest. All those who support them seem to get in with no trouble. I’m ready to take on Occupy Narnia anytime but the BBC don’t seem to want a discussion, more of a monologue…


          • Umbongo says:

            ”  . . but the BBC don’t seem to want a discussion, more of a monologue..”

            Well there’s a surprise.  But, you know, forget about impartiality, the constant repetition of thick one-note ignorance is plain boring.  Getting somebody on with even a slightly different take would, if nothing else, provide some interest to listeners/viewers.  OTOH it might frighten the horses so the BBC sticks with the praesidium’s line and damn the consequences.  Remember, it’s not as if a mass turn-off affects its income.


  14. David Preiser (USA) says:

    It’s not going well for them in Chicago, either:

    Traders From Chicago Board Of Trade Dump McDonald’s Applications On Occupy Chicago Protesters

    In the middle of an Occupy Chicago teach-in this week, traders at the Chicago Board of Trade dumped several sheets of paper on top of the heads of protesters below. Demonstrators were angered to find out they were showered with employment applications for McDonald’s.


  15. TooTrue says:

    My first thought on seeing this post was that he’d put the sign up so his window wouldn’t get smashed. Bad move.