By Caleb McMillan
Germans have organized to protest the Federal Reserve, the bailouts and the NATO wars. Most Western media outlets have ignored the real grassroots movement. Meanwhile the German media are calling the demonstrators Nazis. Fortunately independent media is on the case. Our friend Luke Rudowski from WeAreChange was still in Europe from Bilderberg to cover the event first hand. See for yourself, this ain't no American Tea Party cryin' out against the welfare state while supporting the Wars. This is more like the counter-culture from the Sixties. Except this time, instead of advancing “free love,” drug use and socialist ideals – they're advancing the non-aggression principle. Hopefully these protests (that started with one person in the street) will build and grow internationally. I think people are underestimating how much people we have. It took decades for the bankers to get a central bank in every country and to remove money from its commodity origins. It's been a psychological war that has been implemented gradually. But all it took to reverse this zeitgeist were certain factors at right place, at the right time: the Internet, Ron Paul, the Global Depression, to name a few.
How is this different from Occupy? On the surface it looks similar, but Occupy took a militant tone (complete with organizing committees) before losing focus completely. The German demonstration is an organic outcry from real issues. Not the vague “1% vs. 99%” meme or the idea that the government needs more power to keep the bankers at bay (I feel sorry for people who think like that). Also, Occupy can be traced to the Vancouver-based AdBusters magazine, which gets all sorts of money from Tides Canada. George Soros puts a lot of money into Tides. And no wonder. The only coherent demand I heard from Occupy were calls for a Tobin Tax. That type of tax would benefit position traders like Soros.
The reason the German demonstration is getting demonized and ignored is because they are right. “End the Fed” is one of the biggest threats to the Globalists, after “End the State.” Occupy was no threat and in fact advanced elite interests. That's why it became as popular as it did. And that's why the German movement is getting zero coverage (and that the coverage they do get are more akin to political attack ads).
But does it really matter if we're pro-Occupy or pro-End the Fed? Isn't it possible to be both? As long as we protest, we're accomplishing things, right? Well I wouldn't be too sure. Without focus, without unifying issues (and even without similar colours and banners), a movement could be co-opted or lose focus. Most importantly though, the rebellious must know what they are rebelling against. In 1944, Ludwig von Mises wrote Bureaucracy. Chapter Six is entitled “The Psychological Consequences of Bureaucratization.” Allow me to leave you with a few paragraphs. Although the book is 70 years old, it explains why Occupy took the shape it did and why the German demonstration is the real threat to the Establishment.
"All roads are open to the smart youngster. He is optimistic in the awareness of his own strength. He has self-confidence and is full of hope. And as he grows older and realizes that many of his plans have been frustrated, he has no cause for despair. His children will start the race again and he does not see any reason why they should not succeed where he himself failed. Life is worth living because it is full of promise.
All this was literally true of America. In old Europe there still survived many checks inherited from the ancien regime. Even in the prime of liberalism, aristocracy and officialdom were struggling for the maintenance of their privileges. But in America there were no such remnants of the Dark Ages. It was in this sense a young country, and it was a free country. Here were neither industrial codes nor guilds. Thomas Alva Edison and Henry Ford did not have to overcome any obstacles erected by shortsighted governments and a narrow-minded public opinion.
Under such conditions the rising generation are driven by the spirit of the pioneer. They are born into a progressing society, and they realize that it is their task to contribute something to the improvement of human affairs. They will change the world, shape it according to their own ideas. They have no time to waste; tomorrow is theirs and they must prepare for the great things that are waiting for them. They do not talk about their being young and about the rights of youth; they act as young people must act. They do not boast about their own “dynamism”; they are dynamic and there is no need for them to emphasize this quality. They do not challenge the older generation with arrogant talk. They want to beat it by their deeds.
But it is quite a different thing under the rising tide of bureaucratization. Government jobs offer no opportunity for the display of personal talents and gifts. Regimentation spells the doom of initiative. The young man has no illusions about his future. He knows what is in store for him. He will get a job with one of the innumerable bureaus, he will be but a cog in a huge machine the working of which is more or less mechanical. The routine of a bureaucratic technique will cripple his mind and tie his hands. He will enjoy security. But this security will be rather of the kind that the convict enjoys within the prison walls. He will never be free to make decisions and to shape his own fate. He will forever be a man taken care of by other people. He will never be a real man relying on his own strength. He shudders at the sight of the huge office buildings in which he will bury himself.
In the decade preceding the First World War Germany, the country most advanced on the path toward bureaucratic regimentation, witnessed the appearance of a phenomenon hitherto unheard of: the youth movement. Turbulent gangs of untidy boys and girls roamed the country, making much noise and shirking their school lessons. In bombastic words they announced the gospel of a golden age. All preceding generations, they emphasized, were simply idiotic; their incapacity has converted the earth into a hell. But the rising generation is no longer willing to endure gerontocracy, the supremacy of impotent and imbecile senility. Henceforth the brilliant youths will rule. They will destroy everything that is old and useless, they will reject all that was dear to their parents, they will substitute new real and substantial values and ideologies for the antiquated and false ones of capitalist and bourgeois civilization, and they will build a new society of giants and supermen.
The inflated verbiage of these adolescents was only a poor disguise for their lack of any ideas and of any definite program. They had nothing to say but this: We are young and therefore chosen; we are ingenious because we are young; we are the carriers of the future; we are the deadly foes of the rotten bourgeois and Philistines. And if somebody was not afraid to ask them what their plans were, they knew only one answer: Our leaders will solve all problems.
It has always been the task of the new generation to provoke changes. But the characteristic feature of the youth movement was that they had neither new ideas nor plans. They called their action the youth movement precisely because they lacked any program which they could use to give a name to their endeavors. In fact they espoused entirely the program of their parents. They did not oppose the trend toward government omnipotence and bureaucratization. Their revolutionary radicalism was nothing but the impudence of the years between boyhood and manhood; it was a phenomenon of a protracted puberty. It was void of any ideological content....
The youth movement was an expression of the uneasiness that young people felt in face of the gloomy prospects that the general trend toward regimentation offered them. But it was a counterfeit rebellion doomed to failure because it did not dare to fight seriously against the growing menace of government all-round control and totalitarianism. The tumultuous would-be rioters were impotent because they were under the spell of the totalitarian superstitions. They indulged in seditious babble and chanted inflammatory songs, but they wanted first of all government jobs...
The youth movement was an impotent and abortive revolt of youth against the menace of bureaucratization. It was doomed because it did not attack the seed of the evil, the trend toward socialization. It was in fact nothing but a confused expression of uneasiness, without any clear ideas and definite plans. The revolting adolescents were so completely under the spell of socialist ideas that they simply did not know what they wanted."