Dick Morris’s approving remarks about Occupy Wall Street

I sent this e-mail to Dick Morris yesterday:
Dear Mr. Morris,

In your recent video, you say that the tea parties and Occupy Wall Street are similar in that both are against government/bank combinations that help the big banks and businesses and close out the small ones.

Your description of OWS is not accurate: they do not so much attack government/bank combinations as simply attack banks. They obviously are not against government power, they want much more government power. How else can there be an elimination of inequality, their main goal, without total government power over the economy and everything else?

You ignore the fundamental difference between tea parties and OWS: that the tea parties believe in the free market and political freedom, while OWS wants to destroy capitalism and replace it with global socialism, in order to destroy all inequality.

How could you possibly allow your listeners to believe that OWS represents anything positive? Have you seen who the leaders of that movement are, what they stand for, what they aim at? They are radical leftists—socialists/Communists and anarchists combined to destroy our system. Do you think that small businesses will thrive under a socialist system which aims at eliminating all inequality?

I recommend that you check out this on the nature and objectives of the OWS movement. My blog entry quotes and links to a remarkable photo-essay on the OWS protesters in Denver.

If you keep up this mindless and ignorant legitimizing of the socialist/Communist OWS movement, you will lose any respect among conservatives.

Lawrence Auster

- end of initial entry -

A reader in England writes:

The real contradiction is this: The majority of the ordinary people in the general public who are taking interest in the Occupy Protests want to repair the “system.” They may want a more compassionate capitalism or even want a form of socialism. But they want a functioning economic system which has ‘9-5’ jobs where you earn money to pursue the buyng of all sorts of material goods from everyday essential items to luxury electrical goods. They are materialistic even if they want a fairer distribution of wealth.

But the hardcore of “protesters” want something completely different. They want the complete dissolution of the traditional economic system which would also involve a very low level of pursuit of non-essential material goods. They not only do not want a market based system, nor even a socialist one, they do not want any sort of recognised economic system. They do not want to work 9-5 jobs etc. This view is derived from a hippie outlook of the world.

So the two sides (protesters and general public) actually want two different outcomes to this financial crisis.

The public wants a good outcome. The protesters want a bad outcome.

To put it simply: if the economic system suddenly got back on track and provided significant prosperity, the majority of protesters, unlike the general public, would be extremely unhappy. The protesters want economic Armageddon in hope that society will then turn to a very unmaterialistic paradigm where the pursuit of wealth does not exist.

But because the protesters want to be supported by the mass of the general public, they cannot come out and say what they really feel. They must publicly say that they hope that the system will be repaired and then show sympathy for the average working person who really does want the system to “get better” even if they (the middle class white protesters) want things to get worse.

If things get better (economically) no one is going to listen to the protesters. It is only when things get (economically) worse that people possibly become sympathetic to radical groups and solutions.

The reader in England continues:
Here is yet another “contradiction” within this whole Occupy scenario.

However as I said previously, the core contradiction is that while the Occupiers say they support the so called 99 percent in their quest for things to get “better” within the context of this Financial Crisis, they (the Occupiers) actually want the Crisis to get “worse” (to the point of collapse). But the Occupiers have to pretend otherwise and so they publicly say they support the 99 percent (who may want to reform capitalism but don’t want to bring down the whole economic system).

This article mentions the Weathermen and I can tell you that the same thing applied to them. They wanted things to get worse, including the Vietnam War so then many more people would be more open to radical solutions. One of the goals of the Weathermen was to create a Fascist repressive state which would encourage the uprising of many people. The better things were in general for the majority of society, the worse it was for the Weathermen.

More craziness and contradictions in OCCUPY LAND. Can’t wait for the feature film to come out, it will be a great comedy farce.

James N. writes:

It’s amazing that so few “conservative” commenters show a deep understanding of Communists and Communist thought.

Communist theory presupposes the “crisis of capitalism” presaging the birth of the workers and peasants state. In our time, workers and peasants have been replaced by non-workers and perverts, but the concept of a historically-ordained “moment” when the vanguard can strike for power lives in the hearts of all Leftists.

The significance of these “occupy” phenomena is that the Left are trying to “heighten the contradictions” and precipitate their terminal crisis.

The reason that this is more dangerous than 1967-69 is that they have a genuine Leftist in the White House, who shares their historical determinism and who commands armies and battle fleets.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 06, 2011 04:55 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):