More from Karl Denninger about Occupy.

More from Karl Denninger about Occupy.

Occupy the White House

A friend asked me the other day, “So why haven’t they occupied the White House?”

They already have occupied the White House.

Occupant-in-chief, Barack Hussein Obama II

Mission Accomplished!

Picketing the White House would be like a union going on strike and picketing the hall.

(click for full-size)
Do you understand?

Another tack on engaging Occupy

It occurred to me this morning;

If only “mainstream” Islam had “engaged” with the Arab Spring, then perhaps all would be peace, love, and rainbow pooping unicorns in the Middle East.

Of course it wouldn’t.  Because the Arab Spring IS mainstream Islam.

Occupy is a natural expression of the left’s jihad against America, against capitalism, and against liberty.

Denninger responded the other day to the heat he’s been taking for his views on Occupy. (link) I have a few thoughts of my own. 

This is the Ticker I’ve been holding for roughly the last week, editing it as the days go by.
Please go pull an espresso, grab a beer, or (if you’re easily disturbed) a shot of whiskey might be appropriate.
I’ve taken a boatload of heat for my alleged “support” of the “Occupy Everything” meme that is taking off across the country. There are a lot of people commenting on my positions that have displayed everything that is wrong with our education system, chief among them being its utter lack of teaching people to read for content rather than generating spittle-laced knee-jerk invective.
No matter. Since 2007 I have written what I believe on The Market Ticker and if you read Musings going back to 2004 you can see my commentary there too. A very few remember the rather-acerbic interviews and debates that I had with the ACLU and other organizations during the 1990s, including some tame appearances on Chicago Tonight and some much-more-lively ones on Usenet. If you think I can’t take the heat that gets dished out you are rather naive; I believe there were entirely-new curses named for me back in the 1990s. In comparison the screeching of people on other blogs and media outlets today is the sort of thing that annoys with the intensity of a dog that occasionally barks next door.
OWS, whether you like it or not or whether you accept it or not, is displaying all of the hallmarks of a nascent political apparatus.

Why yes, yes it does. It looks like the beginnings of the French Revolution to me. Or perhaps Communism. Or Nazi-ism. Where oh where might I get that idea? Perhaps from the NP and CPUSA who have endorsed the Occupy movements?

In this nation we’re free to organize with others, irrespective of our beliefs, into political parties. We usually remember only Democrats or Republicans, but in fact there are a whole bunch of actual parties; the Libertarians are one such example of a third party that has some prominence. The modern Democrat and Republican parties date to the 1800s; prior to them we had The Federalists, the Anti-Federalists, the Democratic-Republicans, the Toleration Party, The Anti-Masonic (really!) party, and of course the Whigs, among others.
Through our nation’s history, however, we have more-or-less always had a two-party system. Sure, there have been times (like when Ross Perot ran for President) that this has been threatened, but it has never been a stable situation unlike many other nations that have several political parties active at any given time and revolve around coalitions between them to build consensus in their legislatures.
Whether this is good or bad from your point of view doesn’t matter; it simply is.
Now add to your perception of OWS the following: They have and are explicitly disavowing any sort of “spokesperson” support from MoveOn, as just one example. In short they’re refusing to “ally” with others – they see themselves as an independent group and are acting like it. That doesn’t stop other organizations to claiming that they “stand with” or “in solidarity with” the protests, but that’s no more valid of OWS’ interest in the claiming organization than if I were to say I stand “in solidarity” with Harry Reid (trust me, I’m quite sure he wouldn’t stand “in solidarity” with me!)

And you believe occupy when they publicly disavow support from MoveOn? Do you believe that the people who funded ACORN and are sitting on their hands, or would they instead be inclined to fund OWS-seeing it as a vehicle to allow them back into the game?

As I see it “OWS” (in all of its branches across the country) will go one of two routes:
Someone will do something stupid. Specifically, the “movement” will turn toward violence. Public opinion will instantly shift against them and that will be the end of it. The people generally support the First Amendment but they will not stand for looting and burning cars, nor should they. I will leave the position I will immediately adopt if that happens “in my pocket” for the present time as I don’t expect to have to show that set of cards, but trust me on this: I have pocket rockets and my position is founded in the Constitution as currently written.

Only two? Someone will do something stupid? Too late. The movement is already turned towards violence. Do they have to be violent to be “turned towards”, or more plainly, “pointed in” that direction? Nope. 

The group will maintain a peaceful organization, even if “in your face”, long enough to actually coalesce around a core set of ideas. If that happens a formal political apparatus will almost-certainly arise.
Now you can dislike this but there is no legal means available to you to prevent it from happening nor should there be. Political activism is what we all be both supporting and engaging in ourselves. After all, if you’re not politically active you have little room to bitch if you don’t like the political outcome.
I believe the second is their goal; the people I’ve talked with, the videos I’ve seen, the emails that I’ve read on the various mailing lists lead me to believe that while there are some “bomb throwers” in the group there are in all groups and that the vast majority of those involved in OWS recognize that #2 is imperative if anything is to be accomplished (other than getting their head cracked, that is.) Indeed, if you watched any of the livestream coming from Times Square last weekend you saw this in action – the camerapeople were warning the protesters that the police were showing up with lots of plastic handcuffs intending to bust heads and that they had to keep their cool. They did.

Camerapeople were warning protesters. Hmmm. Would this be the same mainstream press types who said that if they were in a war zone, they wouldn’t let our own soldiers know if there was an enemy ambush ahead? Maintaining their journ-o-list veil of neutrality above the water level-even though they were in it up to their necks? I don’t suppose that the Journ-o-lists being in league with OWS has anything to do with this, does it? 

Why have they kept their cool? Why haven’t they started violence? Because it’s not time just yet. Read that again and let it sink in. These people have a plan and it simply is not time yet. 

This doesn’t mean that the bomb-throwing nuts are all done and won’t take their best shot. They might. I don’t know what sort of goal doing that has in any kind of cogent movement, because there’s only way that ever can “win”: You have to incite a revolution and doing so requires at least high-single-digit percentages of the general population willing to die for what you believe in. If not you’re simply going to go to prison – and in my view you should as you’re a rioter, not a “freedom fighter.”

You’re making too much sense, Karl. Facts are irrelevant when we’re talking politics-especially when it’s the lefty style stuff. It’s agitprop. When groups behaving as they do and are not swiftly brought into line, the behavior will get worse. 

When it gets bloody, and only when it gets bloody, the police will be called upon to restore order. Rather than maintaining some domestic tranquility, it will be allowed to go off the rails and then ask the police to “restore order.” Good luck with that. 

Now add another nasty historical fact to the mix: Revolutions are odds-on things to produce dictatorships, not freedom. For every 1 George Washington you get 10 Hitlers. Oh, and by the way, if you think you’ll be the dictator’s new best friend if you “help” incite such a thing? You’re wrong – you’ll be one of the first shot since you could do it again and overthrow him! Don’t be stupid: The first act of a dictator is to cement his power and he does that by killing anyone that could threaten him. Duh.

Agreed. Fair Warning to the Collectivists. But does that stop the revolutionaries from revolting? 

So let’s not play the romantic eh? It doesn’t work like that and anyone who has bothered to pass history class in High School (say much less do any independent reading) knows it. I’m going to assume anyone reading this blog is well-aware of these facts and is too intelligent to fall for the sort of tripe that the agitators might run.
Back to the practical: If a new political party comes from this one of the existing ones will almost-certainly splinter and die.
The salient question: Which one will it be?
Did that deep chill go down your spine?

Wait a minute, I’m confused, Karl. You keep preaching that there is little difference between Democrats and Republicans. You keep preaching that the Tea Party is a sham having been assimilated into the Borg of Washington Republicans-and I agree. So if this particular frog farts in a tornado, does anyone hear it? 

We have one party rule already. The Ruling Class. See Codevilla. 

The ruling class is simply looking for an opportunity to solidify their grip and push the rest of us over the precipice-or The Cliffs of Insanity if you like.

As Claire Wolfe says, “America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”

If not, you’re not paying attention. And don’t be smug either — let’s remember the facts, shall we? There are a lot of people who got screwed. The OWS folks have the “who did it” right. The Republicans and Democrats have both rewarded (and participated in!) the scammers games, but who takes the hit?
I honestly don’t know, but my handicapping says that if you think the Republicans are “safe” on this you’re playing with fire.
IF the Republican Party goes down then you have the Democrats and….. what, exactly?
I don’t know, but I’m not at all sure I like it!
Do I like it if the Democrats go down? Not necessarily much better if the more-radical and mathematically stupid views prevail.
They don’t have to. If you’ve been reading this blog for a good long while and listening to Blogtalk you know my position on this going back to before Obama’s election, when people were calling him the “Marixist in Chief” and suggesting that he would never leave office (just as they did with Bush, incidentally): I have no fear of Obama. The guy who follows him, or worse, someone down the road later on in the throes of a real economic ****storm is an entirely different matter.

So…’re thinking Obama can’t be “that guy.” Think again. He is nothing but a cult of personality and is totally digging the way things are going. I’m telling you that this is all connected. It may not be explicit, but it is so. It is being done in such a way that those in power can remain atop either a functioning nation or an ash heap of ruin and destruction. And it may be irrespective of the success of the means.  If they go badly wrong, those in power can disassociate themselves quickly and dispose of the inconvenient protesters who went astray and thereby gain approval from the public. If they go terribly right, then those in power will remain in power over the ruins that are to come. 

Think of it this way, the Occupy occult might very well lead to a con-con that destroys America as we know it while leaving Obama as the “President”. The titles of the offices may be nominally the same, but the country won’t be. Or, the occupy occult may be Obama’s “Sister Souljah” moment where he runs to the center (for whom he has heretofore had nothing but scorn, condescension, and disdain) and captures just enough votes to remain in power.

Karl seems convinced that economic doom is coming. Seeing how economics and politics are so closely tied together, those in power will almost certainly seek to preserve themselves through the crisis and advance their position as a result of the crisis. Let’s see, who was it that said, “Never let a crisis go to waste?”

History, if you recall, is replete with these examples: An economy goes “overcenter” due to exponential games that cannot be maintained. Rather than address it and get in front of it, accepting that which has to happen partisanship increases and the people become more and more restive. They recognize that the politicians and those in “private business” have conspired together to rip them off but they have no effective voice. Economic deterioration continues right up until someone stands and says “I can fix all this….. but there will be a few compromises.”
He wins in a landslide.
I think you know what comes next – the last time six million gassed people came next, along with a global conflict that killed millions more. Today such conflicts come with body counts that can be in the tens of thousands or more per weapon used, which makes avoidance of such an outcome much more important than it was before (not that ignoring the risk then was very smart!)
So yeah, folks, I think you should all engage these people. Logic wins, if you can manage to get people to think.

Politics is not about logic though. Nor about critical thought, but feeling, emotion, naked ambition and instinct.  So the Nazi terror was simply a failure of people to “get to” and “engage” the nascent Nazi movement?  Or was it-to use your terms-logic lost because it could not get people to think?  The Nazi party even early seems like they were beyond thinking.  I see the same post-thought characteristics of OWS.  Disclaimer; Before anyone says that I’ve compared Occupy to Nazi-ism, I remind you that the Nazi party stands with occupy.   

The anger on the street is properly placed in terms of who did it, by and large, although they’re not (yet) directing the proper proportion of it toward the elected and appointed officials that glad-handled the situation and “backstopped” their stupidity (and worse) by ripping you off.
The fact of the matter is that these problems are not new and cannot be solved without serious efforts by everyone involved, along with a lot of pain. But there are two principles we must adhere to if we’re going to actually fix things:
Those who took on or have leverage on at present cannot be protected from what happens to them when the supports are removed – and they must be removed. That is, the entire problem, boiled down, is the amount of debt in the system. You can’t reduce it without the people on both sides (who borrowed and who lent) foolishly taking the hit. If you shift it from one person to another to provide “relief” you have not reduced the amount outstanding, and what you’re doing won’t work. It’s called a balance sheet for a reason – it balances.
The enabling policies in trade, taxation, immigration and on the monetary side must be fixed and then safety-wired closed so they can’t be abused again. One of the big problems is that there are many regulations that prevent the sort of abuses we’ve seen (and we continue to see) in the laws governing acts by various government and quasi-government actors but there is no “or else” in those laws of materiality. That has to change.

Why should those who did this try to fix it now and admit their error? Why not instead, double down on their destruction of the economy and the country? The banksters and the government are hand in hand on this-each one protecting the other’s ass. Remember, either way, they remain in power atop of a functioning nation or a mountain of rubble. From their perspective, all they have to do is run out the clock until doom arrives. When it does, they can dispose of the inconvenient middle class and return to a world where they are royalty and the rest of us are their slaves. It’s so very close to happening. Why stop now?

Denninger uses logic to explain a rational, well-thought out argument against these folks. But there’s no reasoning with tyranny.

These are the two keys folks. Everything else is open to debate – the exact how, the what and similar, but we cannot avoid these two realities if we intend to actually fix things.
Economic adjustment cannot be avoided. But we can stop propping up those who did evil, even illegal things. We can allow the market to work. We cannot avoid the pain but we can mitigate it, and we must.
As just one example we can restore the right of bankruptcy to all citizens irrespective of how their debt was acquired. This immediately collapses the college debt and college cost bubbles and neither gives students who did foolish things a free ride nor their lenders. A one-sentence law reversing decades of intentional gate-barring that our government has engaged in for the purpose of enslaving our youth. We can demand this today, and we should both demand it and enforce that demand. This is a demand that I suspect virtually everyone involved in OWS would support.
There is much more and I’m sure that readers have their own ideas. The key point is this: You can either engage or go hide in a cave – but you can’t, through lawful means, stop what is going on. If we refuse collectively to engage then we own whatever comes out of this, and we owe it to ourselves and our children to each attempt to make this a constructive process before believing what someone else tells you – including me.
The “professional right” has gone into a tizzy over this movement, just as the left did with the Tea Party (remember calling the Tea Party “teabaggers”, referencing an obscene act performed with a man’s testicles?) The “Tea Party” in the professional sense was effectively marginalized (anyone who doubts this simply needs to look at how Bachmann is polling as the Tea Party “standard bearer” in the Presidential race; she’s running at roughly “dog catcher” in terms of popularity) but don’t be so sure that this will work with OWS. Remember that as of right now all you have from them for a platform is discussion points, which means they’re deliberating – you’re not being asked to support or not as written, you’re being asked for input!
So give them input, and educate people – or, if you refuse, I hope you intend to shut up if what comes of this doesn’t meet with your approval.

Actually, I intend to arm up because I am quite certain that what comes of this will not meet my approval. One commenter hit it on the head here recently:

Scott J said
They want a Ft. Sumter and want it badly.
We must make sure we don’t give it to them.
We must force them into giving us an Alamo instead.

If we’re lucky, there might just be an Alamo moment that others may remember and have opportunity to respond to. Or it could be a Waco moment where we’re surrounded, isolated, minimized, and cut off from all help or understanding-but at least many will witness it. Or a Thomas J. Ball moment-which is basically Waco on an individual scale where nobody sees or remembers. Unable to debate endlessly with people who have no intent of listening or reasoning, our liberty and property trampled, destroyed, taken, or regulated out of existence we seem doomed to a moment less than any of these. A George Winston moment where we hold on to the thinnest reed of hope of the smallest victory. That we can curse Big Brother with our dying breath as he shoots us in the back of the neck. 

As for educating the Occupy occult, I’m not feeling it. The only way that they become a revolution is if people like you and me assist them. Otherwise, they remain a small group tht will be ignored. Did you feel that chill go down your spine? Until people come alongside them to give them mainstream cred, they’ll remain a fringe group rather than the 99% they claim to be. I can only imagine how far Restore The Constitution would go with similar support. 

Let them craft their own damn message. Let them keep shitting on cars and doorsteps and residents. Let them wear out their welcome. Let the left keep full ownership of occupy and all the fallout that goes with it. Seriously. Two things I know about “bipartisanship” as demonstrated in Washington. 1) Bipartisanship means the right acceding to the demands of the left today for the promise of quid quo pro from the left tomorrow. 2) Bipartisanship means hold on to your property and your liberty because one/both is about to be assaulted.

Remember this thought; Outcomes are determined before the game begins.

If you tried to do something like this when the “occupant” of the White House is not receptive, how far do you think it would go? Millions showed up in Washington on 9-12-10 and accomplished…..what? Did they stop Obamacare? Did they reverse anything? 

Obama on the 9-12-10 march: “We got Obamacare, they got ignored.”

So how far do you think it will go when the occupant of the White House is receptive and favorably disposed to such a crowd? Let me give you a hint; ALL THE WAY. For him to “like” this as if it was something unforeseen or new to him is ridiculous. It came from his own kitchen and is being funded and was mixed up by his own chefs. But his approval is absolute mob crack to the Occupy Occult. 

So When they assemble their list of grievances next July, Obama will respond like a Dignified, Serious, Leader and listen intently and empathetically to their humble pleas like the Dignified Serious Leader that he is. “Moved by their plight”, Obama will carry water for them in Washington. Like Skar in the Lion King, he might even invite them to come with him back to Washington-thus inviting the hyenas to occupy Washington itself.

Scar invites Hyenas into the Lion Kingdom.  Or Obama welcoming “Occupy” into Washington

As a quick aside, there may be more than the draw of “3D” that brought folks to theaters recently to watch the re-release of Disney’s, The Lion King.

What an appropriate tale for us to consider at this point in history.  A Lion who hates his own kind and the kingdom in which he lives.  Who ascends to the throne by unethical means.  And who sets about the destruction of the kingdom by inviting the enemy of the lions (the hyenas) into the pride and then commanding the lions of the pride (i.e. the working class) to go and work harder to feed the hyenas who hunt nothing for themselves, yet always seem willing to swipe their EBT.

Do Lions need to negotiate with hyenas?

Occupy is the maskirovka for more tyranny.

If all goes well, then they will push through “reforms” and changes that are not in line with the founding principles of this country.

If things go poorly, then there will be blood and the DHS will be expanding their “business” even further into your life.

Either way, the longer that Occupy goes on, the bigger the win for them and the bigger the loss for America.
I’ll leave you with this Disney song from The Lion King to ponder the genesis of occupy and their ultimate goals.   

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s