Skip to content

October 2, 2011


On the Bridge to Nowhere: Intellectual Proletariat Stage Pathetic Socialist Protest in NYC

by RogueOperator

Fresh off their spectacular failure of a protest, the “#OccupyWallStreet” crowd decided to up the ante to stage a slightly less spectacular failure on the Brooklyn Bridge. Somewhere around 700 trust fund babies and other self-disenfranchised students with irrelevant majors like “musicology,” a sneeze compared to a respectable-sized tea party rally, showed up on the Brooklyn Bridge to protest for a world where everything is given to everyone without having to do real work for it.

The job market being a swillthy mess thanks to the unending government meddling in the economy, of course young people are angry at not being able to find a job. But they should also take a look in the mirror, and not just to brush their teeth and put on some clean clothes. Spending tens of thousands to study subjects irrelevant to the market, like feminist basket weaving and intoxicated jai alai, probably doesn’t end too well.

Whether beknownst or unbeknownst to these sparkling jewels of intelligence, they are the left’s guinea pigs for the new man of social activism – homo overeducaticus. Self-assured of their misunderstood brilliance and their impeccable ivy league pedigrees, they are soon baffled when prospective employers politely close the door on their futures and opt for candidates who are, on the contrary,  hard-working and competent.  No wonder these fellows hate corporations – they demand accountability and will not pay lackadaisical people who feel entitled to their incomes and easy-won status.

These “intellectual proletariat,” as Johann Galtung called them, are sure to be a pain in the neck for years to come, as the stagnation of Obamanomics becomes the new normal.  They will not be great in number, but they have the potential to drag in those with more acute grievances, like the blacks who are being intentionally ignored by the Obama administration. [Continued on Political Crush]

4 Comments Post a comment
  1. Oct 3 2011

    You do understand that in writing and speech sarcasm is a low hanging fruit. That being said I’m a self professed centrist/moderate that believes fully and completely that a mixed economy is just and equitable form of governance.

    Your article provides muctonguege in cheek and I agree with some of what you say but for entirely different reasons.

    It is important I believe in such complex times with so many inherent contradictions within our own lives and the external world, our arguments, if only to give credibility to our words should acknowledge any salient points that we feel the other side may have.

    If we don’t the reader gets the feeling that perhaps we are being spoken down to and the writer in fact has all of the answers.

    You talk about “stagnation” of your presidents economic policies. As a Canadian looking down south and then casting his eyes across the world – it seems somewhat short sighted and rather like one has blinders on to blame your current president with the mess that your economy is in, mine, and the rest of the world.

    I would be much more apt to give some validity to your opinions if they had at least some backing in terms of reference or at the very least point to historical precedent.

    What I get from your short article, laugh my comment is almost longer. Is that you don’t believe that a healthy and just society should have some redistributionist taxation in order to ensure that all people live in dignity.

    Am I wrong?

    My take on the protests can be found here,

    I’d be interested in talking more about these things with you…


    • Oct 3 2011

      Rod, there is more to the article (see link below).

      It is ironic that you conflate “dignity” and “redistributionist policies.” On the contrary, ninety-five percent of people are able to work and support themselves. Self-sufficiency and independence are vital for self-sufficiently, lest people be blackmailed by others into doing things they don’t ethically agree with.

      As for redistributionism, the government should have no, exactly zero, power to redistribute wealth. Once you concede that it does, you have already given them the go-ahead to seize wealth and give it to whomever it sees fit. Once you give the government power, you give it inherently arbitrary power, that is the very nature of power itself. Thus when government starts giving trillions to banksters, socialists shouldn’t be too surprised. Every socialist-democratic country winds up exacerbating the hierarchical nature of the polity in terms of power.

      Thanks for reading and opining. RO

  2. Oct 3 2011

    In my own article I’m very strict with pointing out that I do not in any way believe in Socialist/Communist forms of governance. I want to make sure we are clear on this!

    This has in my opinion has been silly word play that has been going on for over a century now. Because a person feels that a democratically oriented government supports some social programs does not mean that it is a socialist government. I certainly don’t agree with Marx and his famous saying that the road to socialism is through democracy.

    I think this is why we still have trouble having dialogue with the masses as we immediately hop on to our iron horses supported by words and phrases that incite distinct and expected responses from various segments of our population.

    I don’t believe we have quite yet reached the, “End of History” as it were. If so we were would not be having these riots and acts of disobedience on such a large and organized scale. I posit had they actually had some sound objectives instead of the wishy-washy mantra they came up with they may have been a force to be reckoned with.

    It is hard for me to fathom coming from such a small country as Canada that last year Wall Street firms paid out over 145 billion dollars in earnings to employees of public traded firms. It sounds even more insane when put into the context of; out of 52 states, 44 of those are in a budget deficit this year – yet alarmingly the payouts to these employees/ share holders exceeding the deficit of 44 states by ten billion dollars. That is something that is not conspiratorial or outlandish to express – it means there is something very wrong with our system.

    I asked an economist on another site to explain the following to me.

    Generally speaking when I take out a loan, etc. the interest charged on said loan will reflect the level of risk that I present to the lender. In terms of large loans, such as mortgages it is my opinion that these loans represent little risk to the lender in the sense that the property is not a chattel that can be moved easily. So why is it then that a mortgage is a cumulative interest loan? Even with simple interest a bank would earn more money that they would if such money was invested in such low interest bearing mechanisms such as treasury bills etc. Anatocism should be eliminated where the risk is minimal.

    It is no misuse of facts that cumulative interest long term loans allow banks to sell your debt and make stunning profit off of it. These are the salient issues that these protestors should be talking about.

    Heck I would go as far to say that anatocism should for the most part be outlawed worldwide. It is simply a mechanism that allows banks to make an obscene amount of money. As a citizen I can’t help but ask how you could possibly not agree?

    What percentage of the population do you think can afford this? Sadly I don’t think the rich will realize that throwing even a bone to the poor would help ameliorate these perceived vast differences in standards of living.

    They can’t be so far off track, Warren Buffet and the ever growing long list of the very rich are themselves saying something is very wrong.

    May I assume that you are against the universal health care system that my country has?

    Also as a citizen of Russia can I not wonder if part of your hard right leaning is because of what happened to your own country?

    I have friends from the Ukraine that are of very similar thinking and I finally was able to get them to at least concede that at least some of their lust for pure capitalism is of because of the suffering they went through as children living in such a system.

    It’s a funny world we live in where moderates are considered not to have teeth. If you put into context of one of the world’s most difficult games, GO. A moderate is one who retains a position that can easily adapt to external circumstances. It sounds more cunning to me than weak.

    When you are too far left or too far right you become dogmatic and unable to adapt efficiently to the world around you.



Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Darwin says let stupid protests play in traffic #occupywallstreet #darwin « FinancialSkeptic's Blog

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

Note: HTML is allowed. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to comments

%d bloggers like this: