OWS Echoes The French Revolution.

The far left magazine Jacobin held a strategy meeting in NYC last month. The video is long and boring, but itis interesting that these anarchist/communist pseudo-intellectuals believe they are in charge of the Occupy Movement.

JACOBIN - #OWS: a debate on left politics and strategy

Held on Friday Oct. 14, 2011 at Bluestockings bookshop on Allen St. in New York City.

VIDEO: #OWS, a debate on left politics and strategy

A Jacobin (French pronunciation: [ʒakɔbɛ̃]), in the context of the French Revolution, was a member of the Jacobin Club, a revolutionary far-left political movement.[1] The Jacobin Club was the most famous political club of the French Revolution.

Jacobin (politics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once again, PoliticalChic hits one out of the ballpark. :clap2:
 
Last edited:
The "wealthy" have us in a rigged game?

Still waiting on that definition of "wealthy"...

The distancing of America from a diety does have an end game. Our founding documents maintain that a "creator" has endowed each person with inalienable rights, among those to be life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Naturally, if you are progressive, then you can only have so much "pursuit of happiness." When you reach a certain point then that's too much and you have to "pay your fair share." And if you are a progressive, you can only be guaranteed life AFTER birth. Liberty, especially free speech if it is 'unapproved' (refer to conservatives and Evangelicals and the recent attack on Karl Rove by the OWS mob), is also negotiable to the progressive.

If our creator has given us those rights, then no government and no man can remove those rights from you. Those rights outlined in our Constitution, which I believe was divinely inspired, will NOT be infringed upon. IF the progressive can remove the creator from the founding documents, then they can alter those rights, because of course, man gave them to you, then man can take them away. Unfortunately for the progressives in our midst, most of us still believe that the rights outlined in the Constitution are not up for discussion. The right to keep and bear arms, freedom of speech, and the freedom of religion are not up for negotiation.

Look at the OWS crowd. Mobs without a goal, without a concious, without a real purpose. A wise man once said that you will see them by their works... crime, filth, and destruction. So far, I haven't seen any good things come from them...

Wealthy = People who have a lot of money right now, who probably didn't have it ten years ago, and may not have it next year.

However, the leftist twats don't seem to know that.
 
The Game is always rigged by players in one way or another. It's a shame you don't see that. You don't want Justice, just control of the game. It's always been that way. Achievement Overcomes obstruction, it's always been that way too. Why is it that you always want to punish the very achievement that overcomes obstruction? Oh right, it challenges your control. ;) Got it, thanks.

No, we want justice.

No, you want cosmic justice, and never mind if you destroy the world in your attempt to achieve something that can't possibly exist.
 
Unfortunately people will never be satisfied with the conservative forms of goverment like Fascism, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Theocracy and Dictatorships.

Why?

Because they suck.

This is the Nth time I've had to correct you on this definition...but I don't mind.

“The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” War Is the Health of the State


"referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power"
That's very different from "conservative forms of goverment like Fascism, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Theocracy and Dictatorships," isn't it?
In fact the opposite.


But I fully understand your need to obfuscate.
I almost sympathize with your plight.

Almost, loser.

The "indivduals" you guys are looking to protect in terms of "private property" and "limits on power" are corporations.

And no..sorry..I don't consider them people.

Hence the schism.

Actually, the individuals we're looking to protect in terms of "private property" are the people who own the corporations, the ones you can't see because you're so busy hating some fantasy of monolithic corporate eee-vil.

And no, you DON'T consider them people . . . because they have money.

Hence the schism.
 
No, we want justice.

Which by you mean social justice, which is a code word for wanting what other people have, and using the government to get it from them.

It's God's favorite kind. Social justice, also called distributive justice. Not "does everyone have the same", but, to quote a favorite author,

"the vision derives from the well-run home, household, or family farm. If you walked into one, how would you judge the householder? Are the fields well tended? Are the animals properly provisioned? Are the buildings adequately maintained? Are the children and dependents well-fed, clothed, and adequately housed? Are the sick given special care? Are responsibilities and returns apportioned fairly? Do all have enough? Especially that: Do all have enough?
John Dominick Crossan

The only hitch for you and your shithead author is that a nation isn't a family. I take care of MY children because I love them, I created them, and that makes me responsible for them. I take care of MY husband because I love him, I chose to join my life with his, and that makes me responsible for him. I take care of MY home because I live there, it directly affects my well-being, and that makes me responsible for it.

You, on the other hand, are nobody to me. I don't love you, I don't like you, I don't even frigging KNOW you. And I don't want to. I didn't marry you or give birth to you. I don't live in your house; I've never even seen it. All of this means that I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR YOU.
 
It's God's favorite kind. Social justice, also called distributive justice. Not "does everyone have the same", but, to quote a favorite author,

"the vision derives from the well-run home, household, or family farm. If you walked into one, how would you judge the householder? Are the fields well tended? Are the animals properly provisioned? Are the buildings adequately maintained? Are the children and dependents well-fed, clothed, and adequately housed? Are the sick given special care? Are responsibilities and returns apportioned fairly? Do all have enough? Especially that: Do all have enough?
John Dominick Crossan

Its fine if you do it with your own money, and your own time. Its when you decide to force others to contribute to it, via taxation, that it goes from justice to nothing more than forced charity.

Nice trying to find a way to get religon into "from each according to thier ability, to each according to thier needs"

It's fine if we decide, as a society, that it's what we want for ourselves, too. If we want to fund a decent society, we can do that.

I was compelled, though taxation, to support a war in Iraq. This is how democracy works. You don't always get your way.

Yes, if you and other like-minded dumbshits want to form your own society to let lazy assholes suck off of you and get you to take care of them, that's fine. You can decide that. You can decide to fund that.

The problem comes when you decide to force other people who want no part in your airy-fairy, "I know better than all of human history" bullshit to pay into it, anyway. It gets worse when it becomes painfully obvious that your plans and schemes are every bit as ignorant and unworkable as people have been saying all along, and you still refuse to pull your head out of your ass and wise up.

And given that YOUR idea of a "democracy" is to get everything you want in any way OTHER than the legislative process - judicial fiats, regulations imposed by unelected bureaucrats, etc. - it's pretty fucking laughable that you think you have the same legal authority as existed for the war in Iraq, which was duly voted on and green-lighted according to the law.
 
It's fine if we decide, as a society, that it's what we want for ourselves, too. If we want to fund a decent society, we can do that.

I was compelled, though taxation, to support a war in Iraq. This is how democracy works. You don't always get your way.

War is an enumerated power of the federal government. Taxing me to pay someone else for doing nothing is not.

if you want to fund a decent society, use your own money.

Taxing you is an enumerated power, period. :eusa_angel:

And don't distort the discussion with a side track into welfare queens. Are there individuals who abuse the system? Yes. Is that a sufficient reason to abandon any efforts to have a decent society? No.

Just because the government has the power to tax us doesn't mean they have the power to then spend that money on any bullshit utopian project goofballs like you decide they want.

And yes, the fact that communism ALWAYS attracts - and creates - lazy leeches like shit attracts flies IS a sufficient reason to abandon unworkable schemes to have a "decent society" as defined by dimwits who could inscribe everything they know about human nature onto the head of a pin, and have room left over.

In fact, just the fact that your idea of a "decent society" can't exist in any society that contains human beings is a sufficient reason to abandon such errant nonsense. So is the fact that most people wouldn't want to live in it even if it could.
 
Sallow and Truthmatters, you've done a good job educating on this thread.

The French Revolution is not a model for anyone, PC. It's an object lesson.

You're so busy trying to figure out a way to attack OWS that you completely miss the reasons for revolutions. You seem to believe that they are simply misbehavior by those who ought to know their place. You fail to realize that people reach a tipping point. You fail most spectacularly to realize that people-poor unnamed people-were dying from starvation before the revolution ever started.

The French Revolution, the Russian revolution, Gandhi's movement for India's independence, the Civil Rights movement, all of these have one thing in common-people had been pushed to their limit by tyranny. Real tyranny. Not "I don't want my taxes to pay for museums and schools" Tea Party tyranny. This is not to say that the French Revolution was good. It is to say that it was inevitable.

"The French Revolution, the Russian revolution, Gandhi's movement for India's independence, the Civil Rights movement, all of these have one thing in common-people had been pushed to their limit by tyranny. Real tyranny."

You are wonderfully consistent.....understanding is never a factor in your posts.

And, likewise, this thread is far too nuanced for you.

Probably, the McDonald's Dollar Menu is far too nuanced for you.

But..(sigh)...I admit that I look forward to your posts for the comic relief. Yes, you're beginning to grew on me, like was a colony of E. coli on room-temperature Canadian beef.

I was going to go with the fungus that grows under toenails if you don't keep them clean.
 
Which by you mean social justice, which is a code word for wanting what other people have, and using the government to get it from them.

It's God's favorite kind. Social justice, also called distributive justice. Not "does everyone have the same", but, to quote a favorite author,

"the vision derives from the well-run home, household, or family farm. If you walked into one, how would you judge the householder? Are the fields well tended? Are the animals properly provisioned? Are the buildings adequately maintained? Are the children and dependents well-fed, clothed, and adequately housed? Are the sick given special care? Are responsibilities and returns apportioned fairly? Do all have enough? Especially that: Do all have enough?
John Dominick Crossan

"Social justice" is an entirely arbitrary concept that could only exist in the warped brains of bien-pensant compulsive meddlers. The correct response is "Whose social justice?" An NAACP activist's definition of "social justice" might well differ from that of a KKK member; an eco-campaigner's view of "social justice" will surely be different from that of someone from the Competitive Enterprise Institute. It is entirely typical of the sublime arrogance and blinkered bigotry of liberals that they imagine the irversion of "social justice" is the correct one. This, in itself, is more than reason enough to show why liberals should never be allowed anywhere near state office.

Next time a liberal talks about "social justice," tell him you'll take your "justice" straight up, without any prefixes, as established in a rule of law based on Christian principles in a democratic state, and see how he gets out of that.
365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy - James Delingpole - Google Books

He'll stick his fingers in his ears and hum really loudly until you stop talking, because that's what they always do. It is physically impossible to actually hear what other people have to say, and remain a liberal.

Liberals really believe that "social justice" is a term with an objective, concrete definition, same way they do "fair". They're shocked - SHOCKED, I tell you - if they ever learn that other people define these terms differently than they do. And then they proceed to demonize those people and try to hound them into extinction so that no one else ever finds out.
 
I guess the people of France should have been satisfied with being poor, and just accepted that the lower classes faced most of the tax burden.

I guess our own founding fathers should have just been satisfied with what Great Britain was throwing at us too.
Yeah, and i'm sure those poor in France owned big screens, laptops, stereos, air conditioners, automobiles, Ipods, Ipads, cell phones, and made the happy walk to the mailbox once a month for the free government money, eh?:eusa_whistle:
 
Last edited:
The Game is always rigged by players in one way or another. It's a shame you don't see that. You don't want Justice, just control of the game. It's always been that way. Achievement Overcomes obstruction, it's always been that way too. Why is it that you always want to punish the very achievement that overcomes obstruction? Oh right, it challenges your control. ;) Got it, thanks.

No, we want justice.

No, you want cosmic justice, and never mind if you destroy the world in your attempt to achieve something that can't possibly exist.


Here is the truth as a minimalist landscape:

A society can have equality or prosperity, just not both.
 
The American Revolution was a movement peopled by Christians. No matter how much you want to remake the Founding Generation into a bunch of atheists, it's not going to happen.

And if Christian religions are so intolerant of other religions, how come the most religiously tolerant nations are the ones with strong Christian backgrounds? You want high death tolls, you gotta go look at the atheistic Communist nations. You want daily barbarity, that'd be the Muslims. As for the nations of Western Civilization, it's no accident that the farther they get from their Christian roots, the more you find laws restricting the free practice of religion.

Some of the founders were Christians. Others were deists. They founded a secular government.

Most Americans are tolerant of other religions. The far right American is typically far less tolerant of other religions than the average American. Based on their posts, I believe that they see Christianity as a part of their nationalism.

Spare me the repetitive bullshit. Heard it, refuted it, heard it fifty more times, refuted it fifty more times, think anyone who's still saying it is an asshole.

The Founding Fathers had ONE Deist in their midst. That's it. And you'll notice that I said jack shit about "The Founding Fathers". I referenced "The Founding Generation", dickwad. Maybe if you took your knee off of auto-jerk mode and tried reading the ACTUAL post, rather than skimming and then responding to what you THOUGHT I said, we might get somewhere.

When I want to hear some vague tripe about "far-right Americans are less tolerant of religions" from you, I'll ask. And you should DEFINITELY hold your breath waiting for me to ask you to waste my time with your unfounded opinions. In fact, start holding it right now.

And don't waste my time with this sort of nothing again, moron. You didn't say one goddamned thing about anything that was actually in my post, which would tell anyone with a brain - anyone who isn't you, in other words - that they shouldn't respond.
 
The far left magazine Jacobin held a strategy meeting in NYC last month. The video is long and boring, but itis interesting that these anarchist/communist pseudo-intellectuals believe they are in charge of the Occupy Movement.

JACOBIN - #OWS: a debate on left politics and strategy

Held on Friday Oct. 14, 2011 at Bluestockings bookshop on Allen St. in New York City.

VIDEO: #OWS, a debate on left politics and strategy

A Jacobin (French pronunciation: [ʒakɔbɛ̃]), in the context of the French Revolution, was a member of the Jacobin Club, a revolutionary far-left political movement.[1] The Jacobin Club was the most famous political club of the French Revolution.

Jacobin (politics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once again, PoliticalChic hits one out of the ballpark. :clap2:

She did, but I also think I won my bet and she owes me a cookie.
 
1. The OWS movement reflects several aspects of the French Revolution.
Had they an actual education, we would have seen cardboard signs with
"Liberté, égalité, fraternité."

a. égalité..equality...is the demand that the so-called "1%" be brought down to their level.

2. The OWS folks certainly count as a mob.

a. Gustave Le Bon, in his groundbreaking 1896 book, “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind,” was the first to identify the phenomenon of mass psychology. Both Hitler and Mussolini used his book to understand how to incite a mob.
The administration had hoped to harnass this mob as an ally.

3. In her book, "Demonic," Coulter illustrates how rumors and catch-phrases innervate a mob, and this is clear in that OWS and their supporters believe nonsense such as workers incomes stagnating, or falling, and only some bête noire called the "1%" is thriving, at their expense.

4. The man most identified with the French Revolution is Rousseau, who famously saw man sans government as 'the noble savage,' and some 'general will,' that the group expressed, as the right path. How did that work out in the OWS communes...? An anemic reflection of the French Revolution...without guillotines. Up to now.

a. In France, there was the development of an apparatus of ideological enforcement for ‘reason.’ But rather than necessitate liberty, Edmund Burke was prescient enough to predict that ‘enlightened despotism’ would be embodied in the general will, a formula for oppression as in ‘tyranny of popular opinion’ or even ‘a dictatorship of the proletariat.’

b. Although attributed to Rousseau, it was Diderot who gave the model for totalitarianism of reason: “We must reason about all things,” and anyone who ‘refuses to seek out the truth’ thereby renounces his human nature and “should be treated by the rest of his species as a wild beast.” So, once ‘truth’ is determined, anyone who doesn’t accept it was “either insane or wicked and morally evil.” It is not the individual who has the “ right to decide about the nature of right and wrong,” but only “the human race,” expressed as the general will. Himmelfarb, “The Roads to Modernity,” p. 167-68

c. Robespierre used Rousseau’s call for a “reign of virtue,’ proclaiming the Republic of Virtue, his euphemism for The Terror. In ‘The Social Contract’ Rousseau advocated death for anyone who did not uphold the common values of the community: the totalitarian view of reshaping of humanity, echoed in communism, Nazism, progressivism. Robespierre: “the necessity of bringing about a complete regeneration and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people.” Himmefarb, Ibid.

d. In this particular idea of the Enlightenment, the need to change human nature, and to eliminate customs and traditions, to remake established institutions, to do away with all inequalities in order to bring man closer to the state, which was the expression of the general will. Talmon, “Origins of Totalitarian Democracy,” p. 3-7
Astute observation with which I fully agree. And I look forward to construction of guillotines on K Street and on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Mikey, the symbolic 'guillotines' will be set up in every precinct in November of 2012.

Vote smaller government, and you'll be able to say "It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done..."
 
The far left magazine Jacobin held a strategy meeting in NYC last month. The video is long and boring, but itis interesting that these anarchist/communist pseudo-intellectuals believe they are in charge of the Occupy Movement.

JACOBIN - #OWS: a debate on left politics and strategy

Held on Friday Oct. 14, 2011 at Bluestockings bookshop on Allen St. in New York City.

VIDEO: #OWS, a debate on left politics and strategy

A Jacobin (French pronunciation: [ʒakɔbɛ̃]), in the context of the French Revolution, was a member of the Jacobin Club, a revolutionary far-left political movement.[1] The Jacobin Club was the most famous political club of the French Revolution.

Jacobin (politics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once again, PoliticalChic hits one out of the ballpark. :clap2:

She did, but I also think I won my bet and she owes me a cookie.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWac5UT80no]Cookie Monster Metal - YouTube[/ame]
 
I guess the people of France should have been satisfied with being poor, and just accepted that the lower classes faced most of the tax burden.

I guess our own founding fathers should have just been satisfied with what Great Britain was throwing at us too.
Yeah, and i'm sure those poor in France owned big screens, laptops, stereos, air conditioners, automobiles, Ipods, Ipads, cell phones, and made the happy walk to the mailbox once a month for the free government money, eh?:eusa_whistle:

Um, okay!:cuckoo:
 

Forum List

Back
Top