a state sponsored revolution ...

update, tues. 10.18.2011:  six (6) days ago i wrote that the obama administration would use these "99%" demonstrations to attack the american middle class, free market economies and free speech, this latter being ironic because the demonstrators "espouse free speech."

well, it seems the mainstream media have caught up with me, about 3 days earlier than i had expected.

this, at atlas shrugs, http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/10/occupy-portland-protesters-sing-fuck-the-usa-obama-supports-ows-revolution-plots-to-use-anger-in-ree.html .  the linked post at a. shrugs is headed with this language, which i think proves my points rather handily, for anybody who cares to keep track of such things:

        "So this is Obama's civilian army. The Washington Post is reporting, 'President Obama and his         team have decided to turn public anger at Wall Street into a central tenet of their reelection         strategy.'"

       "Really?"

the washington post gets it right.  i had it right, earlier.  oh, well. 

now, i expect very little recognition that i was well out front in having anticipated and recognizing this, as though i am sometimes right in such matters i am very seldom given credit for it.  those who are more adept at the "credit game" than i shall garner the attention.  

but, i do have the personal satisfaction for having been very very right in these matters.  see as well, the post immediately preceding this essay, http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2011/10/it-is-evident-that-having-failed-to-bring-forth-the-socialist-utopia-of-their-dreams-through-either-.html .

batten the hatches, and trim your sales, for we are headed for stormy weather. and, please, don't bother telling me that i told you so.  end update, 10.18.2011.

 

 

 

friends:

we are experiencing something rather novel, in my view.

what we have going on in the united states, more overtly in recent weeks than at any time in the obama administration, is a state sponsored revolution carried out by ideologically credulous ragamuffins, to try and destroy the chief rivals to the power and authority of the state.

put simply, the leftist who control the state apparatus, with the connivance of wealthy individuals of a left leaning "nature," are trying to destroy corporations and other loci of wealth and power which stand as counter poise to the spreading power and influence of the state.

it is very much analogous to the lefty's attack on religion over the past century, and cheek to cheek with the lefty's attack on free markets and free enterprise.

only now, the flower children and radicals who sought to destroy the state in the 1960's are the state, and they comprise its leaders, and its minion employees and administers.  so, they do not advocate the downfall of the state.

they use the state mechanisms, by contrast, to seek to destroy the last great adversaries of socialism, and social radicalism, ... , in other words, the state seeks the heads of corporation and the rich.  "bring me the head of bill gates."  only, it's bill gates saying it.  curious, that.

in a very perverse sense, the state seeks to destroy for ideological reason that which props it up.  eli wallach noted to yul brenner, in "the magnificent seven," that god would not have given the sheep wool if he had not meant them to be shorn, to explain why he robbed the peasants of the wealth created by their labors.  we might observe that wallach was a natural born tax collector.

from eli wallach's perspective, it made more than just a bit of sense.  and, it certainly justified his existence.  like i said, a natural born tax collector.

well, in the sequal to "the magnificent seven," entitled "the little soft handed limped dicked robbers," and aged eli wallach is going to have to explain to yul brenner why it makes sense to kill the sheep who grows the wool, why it makes sense to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.  

well, why does it make sense to destroy the very things that produce the taxes that prop up the state that distributes the largess of enterprise?  directly to the ragamuffins, we might correctly observe.

it would be funny, were it not so tragic.  i guess that is what tragedy is, funny/pathetic that has very serious consequences.

where does all of this go?

john jay @ 10.12.2011

p.s.  in other words, a sitting president of the united states (and his coterie) tries to foment civil unrest in the nation in anticipation of an election he figures to lose.  he attempts to retain power by the exploitation of this unrest, or to be handed the reins of power by those who will attempt to bring it about.

what other reason is there to foment violence in the streets?  to hand the election to his opposition.  of course not, this scheme, this exploitation of the "99%" is for the democrats to retain power.

no such naked attempt to keep power has ever been witnessed in this country.  it is extraordinary.

Comments

[password management software]

What was explained in blog was rightly said, I would like to forward this post to my friends.. good work!!

[RalphB]

john jay wrote: "...aged eli wallach is going to have to explain to yul brenner why it makes sense to kill the sheep who grows the wool, why it makes sense to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

"well, why does it make sense to destroy the very things that produce the taxes that prop up the state that distributes the largess of enterprise? directly to the ragamuffins, we might correctly observe.

"it would be funny, were it not so tragic. i guess that is what tragedy is, funny/pathetic that has very serious consequences.

"where does all of this go?"

I read a book that was devoted to answering this question. Its title is Atlas Shrugged and its answer is that it doesn't make sense to destroy that which keeps you alive if your goal is to live, but if life is not your aim, if you hate the good for being the good, the healthy and the beautiful for being healthy and beautiful, and reality for being reality, self-destruction follows quite effortlessly. The only caveat is that one must not allow oneself to know what one is aiming at.

[john jay]

ralph:

thank you for a very careful read, and thank you for your very penetrating observations.

i hope you come back and read again, and comment again.

thanks.

john jay