For 3 weeks now, protesters have converged on Wall Street under the banner of Occupy Wall Street. The protests began with a handful of hippies, college students and anarchists who demonstrated, chanted and marched near (the NYPD had blocked off Wall Street itself) Americas financial center. There were no clear demands, no leaders and no definition to the movement but there were some themes.
1. The banks are to blame - Nevermind that it's the politicians, from both party establishments who give the "banksters" the power and access. Also, they're not limiting their angst to those who are responsible for the crisies we face. Their calls are to bring down ALL of the banks. And not just bring down the institutions but "behead the bankers" too.
2. Capitalism is the problem - They're only partly right. Pure Capitalism could NOT have caused these problems, only crony Capitalism can. That's the corrupt, pay to play that we have seen throughout the years from the establishment progressives in both parties. Ask them what they'd replace Capitalism with and they'll say that they don't know BUT press them some and you will find them talking about things like " a more equitable system", "maximum salaries", "wealth redistribution" and "a system based on empathy".
3. If we don't go willingly, force us - While the organizers and spokespeople call for "non-violence" at the protest, the means to their fluid ends include the use of force. This force includes but is not limited to: beheading bankers who do not cooperate, forcing the wealthy to give "their excess" to the middle class and "taking down Capitalism".
Now, some of what these protesters are saying makes sense. They say it's time to "end the Fed" and return to sound money backed by gold and you know what, they are right but then they jump to "and we should bring down Capitalism too!" and we have to stop and say...No...don't bring it down, FIX IT! You see, this is the difference between the Wall Street protesters and the TEA Party.
The TEA Party began in 2009 with a call to return to the principles of American liberty through political and ethical reform. THIS is why it mirrored the American Revolution. The war against England came only as a last result and only after England had repeatedly murdered American colonists. Heck, some of our founders would have had us remain the King's subjects if only he'd listen to our grievances and act to rectify them. The TEA Party likewise didn't seek to destroy the American system of government or replace it. It sought to rebuild it and strengthen it by improving ethics, getting the fiscal house in order and returning the power of the government to the people where it belongs.
By contrast, the Occupy Wall Street protesters are seeking to tear down the current system, break the new bourgeoisie (as defined by the Marxists, the 19th century French would have combined the bourgeoisie (capitalists) and the aristocracy to create what we consider to be the "new bourgeoisie" today) and implement a centrally planned economic and governmental system. This is EXACTLY why it mirrors the French Revolution. The French saw what happened in America and the lower class, led by radicals, socialists and budding communists led a revolt that they intended to be based on the American Revolution. Americans like Thomas Paine and to a lesser extent Thomas Jefferson supported the early stages of the French Revolution because the fires of liberty burned so strong in them. The problem is that there was a difference, the American Revolution came about after an enlightenment and a religious awakening while the French Revolution was a result of chaotic anarchy. So while the French Revolution may have had the same goal of liberty as the American Revolution, the means were different and the devil is in the details. Even the details of the Occupy Wall Street protests mirror the French Revolution:
1. The banks are to blame - Nevermind that it's the politicians, from both party establishments who give the "banksters" the power and access. Also, they're not limiting their angst to those who are responsible for the crisies we face. Their calls are to bring down ALL of the banks. And not just bring down the institutions but "behead the bankers" too.
2. Capitalism is the problem - They're only partly right. Pure Capitalism could NOT have caused these problems, only crony Capitalism can. That's the corrupt, pay to play that we have seen throughout the years from the establishment progressives in both parties. Ask them what they'd replace Capitalism with and they'll say that they don't know BUT press them some and you will find them talking about things like " a more equitable system", "maximum salaries", "wealth redistribution" and "a system based on empathy".
3. If we don't go willingly, force us - While the organizers and spokespeople call for "non-violence" at the protest, the means to their fluid ends include the use of force. This force includes but is not limited to: beheading bankers who do not cooperate, forcing the wealthy to give "their excess" to the middle class and "taking down Capitalism".
Now, some of what these protesters are saying makes sense. They say it's time to "end the Fed" and return to sound money backed by gold and you know what, they are right but then they jump to "and we should bring down Capitalism too!" and we have to stop and say...No...don't bring it down, FIX IT! You see, this is the difference between the Wall Street protesters and the TEA Party.
The TEA Party began in 2009 with a call to return to the principles of American liberty through political and ethical reform. THIS is why it mirrored the American Revolution. The war against England came only as a last result and only after England had repeatedly murdered American colonists. Heck, some of our founders would have had us remain the King's subjects if only he'd listen to our grievances and act to rectify them. The TEA Party likewise didn't seek to destroy the American system of government or replace it. It sought to rebuild it and strengthen it by improving ethics, getting the fiscal house in order and returning the power of the government to the people where it belongs.
By contrast, the Occupy Wall Street protesters are seeking to tear down the current system, break the new bourgeoisie (as defined by the Marxists, the 19th century French would have combined the bourgeoisie (capitalists) and the aristocracy to create what we consider to be the "new bourgeoisie" today) and implement a centrally planned economic and governmental system. This is EXACTLY why it mirrors the French Revolution. The French saw what happened in America and the lower class, led by radicals, socialists and budding communists led a revolt that they intended to be based on the American Revolution. Americans like Thomas Paine and to a lesser extent Thomas Jefferson supported the early stages of the French Revolution because the fires of liberty burned so strong in them. The problem is that there was a difference, the American Revolution came about after an enlightenment and a religious awakening while the French Revolution was a result of chaotic anarchy. So while the French Revolution may have had the same goal of liberty as the American Revolution, the means were different and the devil is in the details. Even the details of the Occupy Wall Street protests mirror the French Revolution:
- Accusations tossed about with little or no proof or as out right lies - Like the protestor who claimed Chase Bank was "taking" his parents home when in fact they are choosing to sell it and move on their own.
- Storming or "Occupying" cities and buildings to force the system to shut down until their demands are met.
- Maximum earnings limits with the rest being redistributed to the populace by central planning of the government.
- Violence if their demands are not met - including the specific act of "beheading" which was a staple of the French Revolution and has been touted by supporters of the Occupy Wall Street protests.
