The movement has gone beyond the various ‘–isms,’ labels that media pundits and the corporate elite find easy to dismiss: ‘communism,’ ‘socialism,’ ‘anarchism,’ ‘Leftism,’ etc. Commentators outside the United States have started to take notice. CBC business personality, Kevin O’Leary made a mockery of himself last week during a live interview with the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Chris Hedges, by referring to him as a “Left-wing nut-bar.” The more intelligent and articulate Hedges responded by suggesting that most of the protesters are more ‘conservative’ in the sense that they desire a return to the rule of law in opposition to the radicalism and neo-feudalism of the financial class...To what year/date, exactly, would they have us "return"? When, precisely, was there a "rule of law in opposition to..., etc.?" In cave man times? The Middle Ages? Just after the Russian Revolution?
Never? (Utopians always seem to want to "return" to an earlier and purportedly more halcyon time, be they those who long to get back to the Garden of Eden, or folks looking to turn back the clock to the time of Islam's founder and his "rightly-guided" successors.)
What was it George Orwell said? "Only an intellectual could say something so stupid"?
Also, and in similar "up-is-down" vein tapped by the academic, he wrote: "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."
Update: "We are stardust, we are golden, we are billion year old carbon, and we've got to get ourselves back to the garden..."
Apparently the phrase "rule of law" as used here is a euphemism for stripping the better-off of their income and wealth, by federal executive fiat if convenient. I guess when the Founding Fathers of the U. S. appended the Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, the seemingly plain text was really a gnostic writing that only the Enlightened Ones among us in the 21st century would be able to decipher properly . . . sort of the way Leftist federal judges approach the text, come to think of it.
ReplyDelete