We’ve been dissecting the activities and tactics of Occupy Wall Street for some time now. We’ve exposed their efforts to create another “Kent State,” by attacking police. We’ve shown them using children as human shields, and attacking people that disagree with them, or even trying to record their activities. Right along those same lines are their efforts to derail free speech by disrupting events that they do not like. They have a game plan:
1. Infiltrate an event.
2. Disrupt the event so thoroughly, that the opposition cannot speak.
3. And, if anyone tries to stop them, they claim to be the victims.
For the latest example, let’s take a look at the following, via The Blaze…
The efforts of pro-Palestinian “Occupy” protesters to stifle the free speech of pro-Israel speakers nationwide continued at the University of New Mexico on Thursday night when a small group tried to shout down a speech by author Nonie Darwish. This time, their pre-planned disruption led to a physical altercation.
Darwish, founder of Arabs for Israel and director of Former Muslims United, was speaking at anevent titled, “Why the Arab Spring is Failing” organized by the University of New Mexico Israel Alliance and the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
We’ll not be examining the anti-Semitism inherent in the Occupy movement-it’s been abundantly covered in other posts, and this one is about their process, not the content.
At any rate, the occupods usually disrupt or crash an event to their fullest, and prior to occupy, leftists were very successful in preventing anyone aligned with freedom from speaking in the first place. The Occupods are simply picking up on that tactic.
To illustrate, here is what happened at the event in New Mexico. The first video is from the perspective of the speaker and the crowd…
Then, here are two videos from the occupod perspective…
Kindly note how the occupod videos are titled in a way that makes them appear to be the victims.
The activists and their supporters claimed three of them were “were assaulted on UNM campus for simply trying to make their voices heard and it is a shock that a non-violent action was met with such aggression.”
TRANSLATION: “We were preventing others from speaking, silencing people that disagree with us-you know, minding our own business, when these evil elderly people attacked us!”
Of course, this is mild, compared to the rapes, attacks, defecating on police cars, and vandalism, that are part and parcel of the occupy movement. But, they will engage in all manners if violence, and then cry foul when they are thwarted in their efforts to silence others. This is just another example if the occupod’s (as well as the left’s) general hypocrisy and tyrannical nature. Only they have freedom of speech. And, ironically (or not), their freedom of speech entitles them to silence anyone who disagrees with them. They love democracy, but votes can only be taken if it favors their ends. They can be as violent as they want, but if anyone resists, they are the victims, not the aggressors. They can vandalize businesses, assault passers-by, threaten to close small businesses, commit rapes, child molestation, drug sales, create IEDs, and the like-but the slightest effort to resist them is a crime?
Why yes, yes it is.
The speaker herself also reacted…
After the protesters left and she was able to resume her speech, Darwish told the audience, “They could have waited to prove me wrong but they can’t unfortunately and I feel sad for them because our children are being poisoned mentally.”
Well, they aren’t interested in proving anyone wrong. And, in fact, they cannot. That’s why they resort to silencing opposition, rather than engaging in actual debate. In their desired Marxist state, all dissent is defined as “hate,” and they feel justified in engaging in hate to stop the “hate.” History teaches us where that leads, but then again, they aren’t interested in inconvenient facts, like history.
We’re going to have to get used to this. It’s always been a tactic of the left, and it’s part of the Alinsky Method; keep pressure 0n targets, using whatever tactics are necessary, causing the targets to retaliate. Then, they try to portray the target as the aggressor. It’s a classic, and they’ll always go back to it.