President Robespierre
Jeffrey Lord - 10.25.11
Why was the frequently outspoken actress Daryl Hannah suddenly so shy when talking to Sean Hannity?
Why was the always outspoken actress Roseanne Barr suddenly so angry with a celebrity financial website?
And why was the never shy Alec Baldwin twittering cagily in non-denial denial mode?
What could possibly make these three famous activist actors so respectively reticent, furious and coy?
The Occupy Wall Street Movement has received cheers from President Obama, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats, with the President’s union and media allies swarming to support the protest.
What is the question that, according to Occupy Wall Street supporter and Columbia professor Jeffrey Sachs, is driving the movement? Simply put, Sachs sums up the driving force as “economic justice.” It is this that has caused liberals to rally, conservatives to be appalled. The issue is thus joined, and goes precisely to the heart of what kind of a country America will be.
Since “economic justice” is the demand here, let’s explore why liberal actors and Occupy Wall Street enthusiasts Hannah, Baldwin and Barr would suddenly exhibit the behavior they have so publicly displayed. What specifically is the history behind this demand for economic justice, or the division, as it is currently phrased, between the “1%” and the “99%”? How did previous supporters seek to bring “economic justice” for the “99%” to reality? Is there something in the history of this issue that is affecting the behavior of Hannah, Barr and Baldwin, while posing considerable risk to Democrats in the 2012 presidential election?
In 1789 the rumblings of an earlier version of Occupy Wall Street were already in evidence. By 1792 King Louis XVI was under arrest and France was launched on the first serious modern movement dedicated to what is now called “economic justice.” It became known, of course, as the French Revolution.
Tags: French Revolution
PERFECTIBILISTS: The 18th Century Bavarian Order of the Illuminati
The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship
Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism
Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith
America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones
November 11th, 2011 at 1:13 am
Jeffrey Lord’s article was not uninteresting, however his political screed qualifies him as a serious IDEOLOGUE, on a parr with some of the French and German lunatics he writes about.
Jeffrey get a real job, writing for the American Spectator is a cognitive deficient activity!
November 15th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
The article is dead on target regarding the hypocrisy of the left, particularly the posturing of what used to be called limousine liberals. What the author omits, however, is that the people on Wall Street he’s apparently defending are the descendants of the financiers of both the Bolshevik Revolution and Hitler’s rise to power. And, while the French Revolution turned on its own, its animus was a bourgeois initiative to enrich themselves at the expense of the Church and little people, much as what the Reformation in England accomplished two and a half centuries before. Although thousands of the wealthy were executed in France, certain ethnic banking houses were protected by Parisian revolutionary guardsmen around the clock. Funny thing Mr. Lord passed on that analogy, isn’t it? I had been a long-term subscriber to the American Spectator until it dawned on me that it’s conservative social message is a smokescreen to further its neocon agenda of the subjugation of their own country to Israel in all things, like supporting the obscene wealth on Wall Street, the engine of neocon power, which derives from institutionalized plunder and is the antithesis of free-market capitalism the fascists at American Spectator selectively champion to further their objectives.