General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums75 Yr old Wall Streeter: "There will be prosecutions & show trials & violence-mark my words"
Michael Thomas' ominous reflections on 75 years of life as American, in which he worked on Wall Street and saw all of his assumptions about his country undone:
This time, I fear, the public anger will not be deflected. Confessions, not false, will be exacted. Occupy Wall Street has set the snowball rolling; you may not think much of OWSI have my own reservations, although none are philosophical or moralbut it has made America aware of a sinister, usurious process by which wealth has systematically been funneled into fewer and fewer hands. A process in which Washington played a useful supporting role, but no more than that.
Over the next year, I expect the what will give way to the how in the broad electorates comprehension of the financial situation. The 99 percent must learn to differentiate the bloodsuckers and rent-extractors from those in the 1 percent who make the world a better, more just place to live. Once people realize how Wall Street made its pile, understand how financiers get rich, what it is that they actually do, the time will become ripe for someone to gather the spreading ripples of anger and perplexity into a focused tsunami of retribution. To make the bastards pay, properly, for the grief and woe they have caused. Perhaps not to the extent proposed by H. L. Mencken, who wrote that when a bank fails, the first order of business should be to hang its board of directors, but in a manner in which the pain is proportionate to the collateral damage. Possibly an excess-profits tax retroactive to 2007, or some form of Tobin tax on transactions, or a wealth tax. The era of money for nothing will be over.
But it wont just end with taxes. When the great day comes, Wall Street will pray for another Pecora, because compared with the rough beast now beginning to strain at the leash, Pecora will look like Phil Gramm. Humiliation and ridicule, even financial penalties, will be the least of the Streets tribulations. There will be prosecutions and show trials. There will be violence, mark my words. Houses burnt, property defaced. I just hope that this time the mob targets the right people in Wall Street and in Washington. (How does a right-thinking Christian go about asking Santa for Mitch McConnells head under the Christmas tree?) There will be kleptocrats who threaten to take themselves elsewhere if their demands on jurisdictions and tax breaks arent met, and I say let em go!
At the end of the day, the convulsion to come wont really be about Wall Streets derivatives malefactions, or its subprime fun and games, or rogue trading, or the folly of banks. It will be about this societys final opportunity to rip away the paralyzing shackles of corruption or else dwell forever in a neofeudal social order. You might say that 1384 has replaced 1984 as our worst-case scenario. I have lived what now, at 75, is starting to feel like a long life. If anyone asks me what has been the great American story of my lifetime, I have a ready answer. It is the corruption, money-based, that has settled like some all-enveloping excremental mist on the landscape of our hopes, that has permeated every nook of any institution or being that has real influence on the way we live now. Sixty years ago, if you had asked me, on the basis of all that I had been taught, whether I thought this condition of general rot was possible in this country, I would have told you that you were nuts. And I would have been very wrong. What has happened in this country has made a lie of my boyhood.
THE REST:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/12/25/wall-street-has-destroyed-the-wonder-that-was-america.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/27/1049179/-Elder-on-Wall-Street:-There-will-be-violence,-mark-my-words?via=siderec
liberal N proud
(60,364 posts)boston bean
(36,229 posts)malaise
(269,668 posts)for the metaphorical storming of the Bastille - Rec
RZM
(8,556 posts)The OWS movement kind of is the metaphorical storming of the Bastile, minus the violence. Would you have preferred they burned it down rather than camped peacefully?
It's just one guy's opinion anyway. I'm not convinced his experience on Wall St. qualifies him to predict the future with accuracy.
malaise
(269,668 posts)Where did I say I can't wait for violence?
Metaphorical has meaning.
Bandit
(21,475 posts)and I for one can not wait either....If a few 1 percenters have to suffer a little I doubt I will shed any tears.. they have created so much pain with their greed and avarice they deserve no sympathy from me..
Voltaire
(2,639 posts)Whatever form the suffering of the 1 percent may take, I hope they suffer for the rest of their days.
Modern_Matthew
(1,604 posts)socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)The AMOUNT of violence in this coming revolution will depend ENTIRELY on the 1% and how much they resist justice.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)Occupy reminds me that peace is the way, but my old butt has been knocked down enough that if it comes to us or them (99% or 1%) well.....make it not so quick that they know not why. Oh I want them to know why.
RZM
(8,556 posts)You 'can't wait' for violence. And if 'a few one percenters have to suffer,' then so be it.
Got it
Surely you know it almost never works that way. 'A few' often turns into quite a bit more than a few and 'one percenter' could be interpreted rather loosely, such as 'somebody who sympathizes with the one percent.' Repression is a slippery slope and feeds on itself. The more you repress, the more enemies you make and thus the more tempting it is to justify further repression. And so on and so forth.
Even if you managed to restrict the violence to 'a few one percenters,' you're still endorsing violence, which once upon a time was not tolerated on DU. I guess those days are over . . .
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)that should have started several years ago, begin as soon as possible. And all Wall St. politicians and cabinet members are replaced by Americans who actually care about this country.
Which is what we thought would begin to happen in 2008.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)1monster
(11,012 posts)Because, as Madame Defarge would tell you (had she been real), when that kind of anger breaks loose, it is never just a "few" who suffer and it goes on long after justice of any kind as been done and becomes a major injustice of its own.
Bandit
(21,475 posts)You think a few protests are going to change anything? Yes it will be horrible for a lot of people but I believe our country is worth it.. IMO Violence is the ONLY[/b[ thing that will affect change...Sometimes there is a heavy price for the right thing to happen..
1monster
(11,012 posts)will be paid by those seeking justice through violence and precious little justice they will get. And also, those who sought justice (for isn't that what the OWS movement is all about in the first place?) without using violence will probably pay a greater price, for they will be painted with the same brush as the others.
And the better armed forces with the better trained army will most likely win, because when you introduce violence, you lose a large majority of your backers. And that is the way to lose.
The way to win is to gather a large majority of the American citizenship behind you and meld it into an inexorable force that lets the government know that the American people will no longer stand for the corruption that has been business as usual for many years.
Those that hold the power will not give up the reins easily, but there have already been small (yes, mostly cosmetic) changes because of OWS. If the pressure is kept on relentlessly, with any news of corruption shouted from the rooftops, eventually more and more change for the better will occurr. Absolute vigilence is a must.
The change and justice we want will not happen over night. It will be incremental. After all, it took the one percenters, as they are called, more than thirty years to reach the levels they have now and they will fight to keep what they have stolen from us. It will take time for us to take it back.
After all, it was OUR lack of vigilence that allowed them to grab control.
Eventually, if we are resolute, the balance will shift to a tipping point and the people will prevail, without violence on our part. (I do expect violence on the part of the "law enforcement" community.)
The last time anyone won in this country by using violence was the Revolutionary War. (Violence was present during the unionizing process in this country, but it wasn't the workers who started that... it was the big money corporations--and the workers won.)
And, no. I don't think that "a few protests" are going to change anything, epsecially permanently. The OWS protesters didn't think so either. They were making a point. They brought the issues to the forefront and educated millions of people who hadn't really been paying attention before. That was a triumph and a victory for democracy in the country which is the beginning of change and has done more for the cause of justice than ANY violence for the cause could EVER do.
TalkingDog
(9,001 posts)Where have you been since the Korean Conflict?
... The Vietnam War
... Iraq
... Afghanistan
I am in no way suggesting that the losses on the "guerrilla" side wouldn't be massive, but
We could fight them with conventional weapons. But, that could take years and cost millions of lives.
In this case, I think we have to go all out. I think this situation absolutely requires...a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part. And we're just the guys to do it.
1monster
(11,012 posts)Those were limited actions that were never even declared wars.
TalkingDog
(9,001 posts)had taken 4 +/- years of troop and materials depletion at the hands of the European Allies. We were supplying the Allies with material goods and could do that, pretty much, indefinitely. Nobody was doing that for the Axis.
We were in the war less than six months and the Axis was stalled. Suggesting it was close to a balance between forces. We were just the rather large thumb on the scale.
Besides the reason I pointed out the examples I did was precisely because they were guerrilla wars. WW2 was not a guerrilla war. It was a conventional war. Between sets of conventional military forces.
Do you think if actual Civil War broke out in America (again) that Joe Bob and Henry would form a regular army to fight against the Halliburton and Blackwater Security Firms the Rich would hire? Seriously?
1monster
(11,012 posts)war was "conventional" I suggest you watch the videos regarding the battles with the Japanese forces in the Pacific. There was notihng conventional about those at all. It was all out war with any means necessary and/or available used. It was insane. Incredibly insane. (But once the Allied Forces took an area, they held on to it.)
The Vietnam War was insane also. The US forces would take a hill at tremendous costs one day, and abandon it the next day, only to take it again another day. (Insane and not conventional. And not intended to win a war.)
edit: two words in the title (war was) did not show up on the post.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The police brutality against OWS was about as violent as it will get. Demonstrators will not be violent. Demonstrators have nothing to gain from violence.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Would you rather the poor be tearing at the rich or tearing at each other, like they are now?
xchrom
(108,903 posts)HappyMe
(20,277 posts)xchrom
(108,903 posts)Thought it worthy of repeating.
NashVegas
(28,957 posts)By their silence, they are complicit.
newspeak
(4,847 posts)It seems that most policies have been for pleasing and placating the plutocracy. That placating has caused a decrease of labor rights and safety (esp. mining), seen a disparity of wealth that hasn't been seen since before the great depression, seen taxpayer money, instead of helping the commons, used to bribe, cajole the global corporations to keep their business here while paying shitty wages and allowing deregulation.
When I lived in Utah, I remember SLC was going to land a major software giant corporation, they used taxpayer's money to invest to get the corporation to move there, and then the corporation decided not to move, leaving the taxpayers with the bill.
I think it's time that americans think outside the box. We need business initiatives to start more small american businesses that invest in this country, not like the guy on, I believe, Walker's ad who says he's an american business; yet, his manufacturing is in china.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)KansDem
(28,498 posts)...if their demands on jurisdictions and tax breaks arent met, and I say let em go!"
Why not? They've shipped our jobs overseas and hidden their swag in off-shore tax havens...what's to keep them here? Are they suggesting their presence in the USA is good for the USA?
Get the fuck out of here, kleptocrats!!! Who needs you?
newspeak
(4,847 posts)mining, lumber, oil, etc... Once they deplete the commons, we will have nothing.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)sell your shit there too. I think there should be some major cost to bring your crap back here to sell to us once you have shipped the work out of this country. I say sell it where you shipped the jobs. Others will step up to make our products here to be sold here.
I know, I know......
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)Where do I sign up?
FirstLight
(13,396 posts)heartily recced and shared!
I personally have no moral aversion to asking santa for a wall streeter's or congresscritter's head on a platter !
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)horseshoecrab
(944 posts)surfdog
(624 posts)The guy is "hoping" for acts of terrorism.
Why would anybody write an article and express their hope for acts of terrorism ?
Maybe it will be his house that gets burned to the ground.
msongs
(67,596 posts)The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Seriously, Please learn the definition of 'terrorism' before accusing people of committing terrorism.
Here ya' go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
Now, just explain what it is that these corporations and wealthy elite are so afraid of that Anonymous' actions constitute "Terror".
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Let's not conflate violence with action-- they are two wholly different things-- unless of course one needs the self-serving confusion between the two terms.
SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)we are glad to have them on our side. Times are in critical situation. Things that would normally be considered not appropriate are now welcomed. Things are getting really shitty out there and I love Anonymous and I love that they are on our side.
Do I wince a bit at times? I do. But nothing else has changed anything. Not a democratic house, president, congress, former protests, nothing changed.
It's kind of like change things or watch everything and everyone you love die.
I will support OWS and anonymous, hopefully right into our congress, house, presidency.
and whatever methods they choose.
Jazzgirl
(3,744 posts)He just stated the possibilities of what could happen. Where did you read terrorism? Did you read the article?
surfdog
(624 posts)He said he "hoped" the right people would be targeted
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)IF it does, innocent people would not be mistaken for those who are actually guilty.
And all of this could be avoided if investigations and prosecutions of those responsible for the 'biggest bank heist in history' begin as quickly as possible. Protecting these criminals is what is causing so much anger.
But I did not see him 'hoping' for violence, but more warning that if things do not change, it is a possibility.
surfdog
(624 posts)He could've said "I fear this is what might happen but I'm hoping not"
instead he said this is what I think will happen and I hope the right houses get burnt now
Selatius
(20,441 posts)If we hold that to be true, that anger is going to burn up something, and of all bad possible outcomes to that problem, the least destructive one would therefore be the ones who perpetrated the crimes.
The logical following does not necessarily mean the person advocates retribution, only that retribution may be a fait accompli at this point.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)if you look at times in the American past when violence and riots have erupted, those riots and violence have taken place in areas like Watts, not Wall Street.
you keep trying to insist this guy is advocating violence. what he's saying is that, in the past, those who bear the brunt of social injustice are not the ones who caused it and he wishes that, when such INEVITABLE (in his view) events occur, he wishes those who are only bystanders or victims themselves would not be the target.
he could've said many things. he wrote what he wrote. you have to avoid looking at the history of riots in this nation to misunderstand what he said.
which you continue to do.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)The OP is very clear.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Designed for and determined to get responders into a "GOTCHA" situation.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)If you bother to read the article, you'll see that he has not indicated 'hope' for these events to occur. I don't know if this logic is easy for most people, but it should be. He is saying that it is inevitable that people will be targeted. The point of this excerpt:
There will be violence, mark my words. Houses burnt, property defaced. I just hope that this time the mob targets the right people in Wall Street and in Washington.
- Is the "hope" not that there will be violence, but that when the violence occurs, innocent people are not targeted.
So let me ask you this: Given that his belief in an outcome is absolute, and if you were in his shoes and certain of this eventuality, would you hope that the 'wrong' people are targeted, or the people responsible for destroying the economy and corrupting democracy are targeted?
You have deliberately sidestepped logic to arrive at your conclusion. Please review.
surfdog
(624 posts)To dismantle.
The author isn't hoping that there isn't violence.
He's hoping the violence is directed towards the right people.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)It is very telling that you won't answer it.
The logic is very simple, I'm somewhat disappointed that you have chosen to disregard logic for the sake of a flawed position. Here is the question again:
Given that the author obviously believes there will be violence regardless of his personal desire and that the author has not expressed a desire to see that violence, if you were in his same position of certainty of inexorable violence, would you:
a) Wish for that violence to occur to random individuals regardless of their guilt or complicity in creating the circumstances that drove people to violence?
-OR-
b) Wish for that violence to occur to those directly responsible for creating the circumstances that drove people to violence?
You have not seemed to manage to comprehend the author's position that violence is the forgone conclusion. That it is a forgone conclusion is the direct reason that the author expressed hope that the violence would not occur to those who were innocent by expressing the hope that when it happens it only occurs to the guilty.
So, 'a' or 'b'?
(Or you could answer "c) I'm going to continue to ignore the position of the author on 'inexorable violence' so that I can continue to avoid a difficult question." And at that, we can put any answer you give besides 'a' or 'b' in category 'c' where it belongs.)
surfdog
(624 posts)The USA is going to war with Iraq ...boy I sure hope they drop the bombs on the right people
Or
The USA is going to war with Iraq , boy I hope the bombs don't kill anybody
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)I see that you are becoming desperate to avoid the question. Why is that?
At the very least, you could have created a more accurate analogy instead of this ridiculous one. If you believe that departing from reality with literally unrealistic strawmen will lend integrity to your position, you are sadly mistaken.
If you were to create a parallel 'question' to reflect mine, the values would have to be both similar and realistic.
Now, without being ridiculous, can you answer the question?
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)then it is apparent you cannot answer it.
The lie of your position is exposed, I'm bookmarking this thread for a handy reference. Thanks for that.
surfdog
(624 posts)You are implying that a Wall Streeter working at Goldman Sachs perhaps didn't make the right decisions perhaps he made the wrong decisions on purpose , does that mean that his house should be burned to the ground possibly killing his family ?
what kind of sick monster would say that ?
No matter what crimes or bad decisions were made the punishment is not violence and having your house burned down
djean111
(14,255 posts)He does not wish for violence. He can no more have a say in there being violence then we had a say in whether we inflicted war on Iraq. Since I am powerless concerning going to war, the best I can do is hope no innocents get killed. That is his position.
Bad decisions? For a brief time I worked at a Goldman Sachs equivalent. People sat in meetings and literally laughed at how many ways they could take money from people who got food stamp debit cards. They laughed. Bad decisions my ass.
surfdog
(624 posts)He doesn't wish for it he hopes for it.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)if everyone says you're wrong, you're wrong.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)I mother fucking do hope theirs is burned to the ground. I don't go around asking it to be done, but I would shed no tears for theirs when they kicked my ass out of mine, took my life's savings that were in that house, crashed the economy so I could not sell it to avoid foreclosure. Fucked up my children and grandchildrens future.....
Watching their houses burn would really be a mild retribution for that which they have done.
Yet, I do not say "go burn their houses down"
that does not mean that I wouln't have a smug look on my face if it ever happened.
Spazito
(50,785 posts)I have to say I hope he is wrong about this:
"There will be violence, mark my words. Houses burnt, property defaced. I just hope that this time the mob targets the right people in Wall Street and in Washington."
newspeak
(4,847 posts)the one where FDR brought in the national guard to protect the strikers from the police and guys like pinkertons. Remember that time when FDR saved predatory capitalism from itself and actually provided job programs to get the people working again?
yodermon
(6,145 posts)vivid
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)"The chickens have finally come home to roost....accompanied by three large vultures..."
Hunter S. Thompson.
Uncle Joe
(58,696 posts)Thanks for the thread, kpete.
Voltaire
(2,639 posts)is quite touching, really. But these bastards have not responded to much of anything else, have they?
RainDog
(28,784 posts)however, goes unremarked.
I suppose it's not violence for people to live in their cars, for children to have no home from which to attend school, for people to have no jobs that pay a living wage.
all over the internet you can read comments by bastards who state that the only way out of the current crisis is for American wage earners to get to the point at which their wages are competitive with the Chinese who are locked into work ghettos at night.
excuse me if I don't worry about the Koch brothers or Limbaugh the Walton family or McConnell and on and on who have the money to pay for bodyguards to protect them from their own actions while mothers have to decide whether to go to the doctor for an illness or feed their children.
the reality is that these abusers have had years to come to terms with the damage they have done and try to do the right thing. instead, they have demonstrated that they do not care one bit about human suffering - instead, they welcome it as a financial or political opportunity for themselves.
so, honestly, while I won't be the one creating violence, I won't shed one tear for those who have created this mess.
They will be reaping what they have sown.
But the truth of it all is that those who have the least will still be the ones who suffer the most.
Modern_Matthew
(1,604 posts)bullwinkle428
(20,632 posts)surfdog
(624 posts)You hope to see Americans burning down the houses of other Americans
you hope to see Americans committing acts of terror against each other ?
Fucking disgusting
bigmonkey
(1,798 posts)Like -
Foreclosing rather than renegotiating mortgages.
Speculating with other people's money.
Manipulating the government to force serf wages on the U.S.?
Forging documents facilitating mortgage speculation?
Raiding the treasury?
What do you think those acts are? Because they're done politely, they aren't "violent"?
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)to leave the country with their money if their taxes are raised? Those are Americans? Whowouldathunkit. That doesn't sound like an American to me. That sounds like a person who's only "country" is money.
bullwinkle428
(20,632 posts)simply as an easy opportunity to curse me out. A request for clarification would have been much simpler, I would have thought.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)they are traitors. Isn't there a penalty for that? Burnt houses, not so bad compared to what they actually deserve.
blindpig
(11,292 posts)Even the relatively benign of the ruling class exploit the rest of us relentlessly, that's how capitalism works.
Don't worry, we'll be more just with you than you have been with us.
greiner3
(5,214 posts)However, I find it funny that a post such as this might not make it past the jury if a DUer posted it.
RZM
(8,556 posts)Here's the result of an alert I sent on a post in this thread:
At Tue Dec 27, 2011, 10:52 AM you sent an alert on the following post:
IMO violence is going to be the ONLY thing that gets their attention
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)
YOUR COMMENTS:
Endorsement of violence
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Tue Dec 27, 2011, 11:01 AM, and voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: I agree it endorses violence, and therefore, violates TOS.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Oh FGS, it's just a little venting, neither disruptive, hurtful or rude etc.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I see nothing wrong with this post. The poster is not organizing,planning,nor trying to recruit anyone towards violence.
The post is just their opinion/prediction.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Yup. We should not be promoting violence on the DU.
Response to RZM (Reply #42)
2pooped2pop This message was self-deleted by its author.
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)I remember that Tom Mix, Red Ryder, Lone Ranger, even Roy Rogers and Gene Autry were always chasing bankers and their gangs.
Now I'm not in favor of vigilantes, somebody deputizes an OWS posse and make it all legal. I can't see NYPD doing it.
onenote
(42,948 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 27, 2011, 04:34 PM - Edit history (1)
Either way, he's dreaming. There isn't going to be any "focused tsunami of retribution," any "convulsion" or burnt houses and violence against the wealthy. It didn't happen when the economy hit bottom and its not going to happen now that there is a mild recovery and consumer confidence is turning around, however slowly. I'm not saying this in defense of the status quo, just as a measure of the reality that exists -- Americans aren't going to take to the streets, aren't going to demand heads on a pike. Is it possible that there will be random acts of violence? Sure. But that's not a "focused tsunami" and chances are it will not achieve anything positive for anyone other than a fleeting moment of satisfaction, followed by the realization that the rich are insured and that the "pain" they incur will actually be borne by everyone.
So while I get the author's frustration, he's just not writing about the real world, he's writing about a world he wishes would exist.
randome
(34,845 posts)They won't take to the streets now unless a national disaster or another economic collapse occurs.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)economic collapse. I mean it's not like it's teetering on the edge now what with all the talk of possible defaults or the euro breaking up or with the whole MF Global mess that has many on economic boards talking of run on banks and such.
Of course they said the house of cards would collapse after lehman so no one really knows what's up.
Selatius
(20,441 posts)That's one hell of a history lesson alone.
Turbineguy
(37,471 posts)Some of them already realize it. Their servants (the GOP) do not.
Johnson20
(315 posts)Missy Vixen
(16,207 posts)CanonRay
(14,176 posts)and I do believe it is coming.
MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)When the Soviet Union dissolved--who knew?
eridani
(51,907 posts)Maybe we can do that too.
MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)I don't see the author advocating violence. I see him saying there may well be violent upheaval and that if so he hopes it targets those that caused the problems. (But as most know that is almost never the case.)
Personally hope that things can be solved peacefully.
surfdog
(624 posts)The author is hoping that the right houses get burned down and violence is directed towards the right people
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)I think you may be having difficulty with the logic here.
See Post #52.
onenote
(42,948 posts)It may be true that he is indicating his belief that violence is inevitable. But he's hardly a neutral observer making a point -- he enthusiastically expresses his approval and support for that outcome. He variously describes the "convulsion" as a "great day"; as a "firestorm" that "is going to explode about the Streets headand about time, too"; as a "tsunami of retribution" that will "make the bastards pay, properly, for the grief and woe they have caused."
So, based on his own words, I think its fair to say that he not only believes violence is inevitable, he hopes for and supports its occurrence.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)in your selective quotes.
The quote about 'making the bastards pay' in it's entirety:
"To make the bastards pay, properly, for the grief and woe they have caused. Perhaps not to the extent proposed by H. L. Mencken, who wrote that when a bank fails, the first order of business should be to hang its board of directors, but in a manner in which the pain is proportionate to the collateral damage. Possibly an excess-profits tax retroactive to 2007, or some form of Tobin tax on transactions, or a wealth tax. The era of money for nothing will be over."
It could not be more clear that he expects them to 'pay' legally and without violence. "Great", in this sense, does mean 'good' or 'fortunate' any more than it does in "Great Depression".
I'm not saying that he doesn't want to see these things happen, but from the article, the only way to come to that conclusion is to make the assumption that he does. It looks to me like he laments the prospect of any of this having to happen as he says here:
"I have lived what now, at 75, is starting to feel like a long life. If anyone asks me what has been the great American story of my lifetime, I have a ready answer. It is the corruption, money-based, that has settled like some all-enveloping excremental mist on the landscape of our hopes, that has permeated every nook of any institution or being that has real influence on the way we live now. Sixty years ago, if you had asked me, on the basis of all that I had been taught, whether I thought this condition of general rot was possible in this country, I would have told you that you were nuts. And I would have been very wrong. What has happened in this country has made a lie of my boyhood."
This is clearly a man not happy with the current circumstances. That does not mean that he looks gleefully forward to the impending violence.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)and such. So he is merely making a prediction - that seems certain to him, but is not, IMO. Nevertheless, he is saying if people are punished, the punishment should not be indiscriminate. Can't argue with that hypothetical - who can favor indiscriminate punishment? Even bad guys argue that their violent rule discriminates between "us" and "them".
surfdog
(624 posts)I predict we go to war with Iraq , and I HOPE nobody gets killed.
I predict we go to war with Iraq , and I HOPE we drop the bombs on the right people.
The first statement hopes nobody gets killed , the second statement hopes people get killed.
True , he is only making a prediction ..
closeupready
(29,503 posts)rather than an overcast one.
The terrorists WILL lose the War on Terror; I just hope terrorists are caught up in it, not innocent civilians.
The pedophiles within the Catholic Church WILL be purged; I just hope nobody innocent gets swept up in the dragnet.
It really is that simple. He makes a prediction that seems certain to him, and then states how he hopes it unfolds, as opposed to other types of mass movements in which innocents were penalized along with the guilty, such as The Terror in post-revolutionary France.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)He's not advocating violence. Everyone knows that if violence breaks out people tend to destroy things randomly and ofter just end up hurting their own community rather than taking their battle to others. Remember the LA riots? Anyway, don't think there will be any violence. Least hope not!
oldhippydude
(2,514 posts)there is that ex post facto thingy... not constitutional... having said that good article great insight
closeupready
(29,503 posts)ex post facto thingy is only as much an obstacle as the 4th Amendment has been to local law enforcement setting up drunk driving road blocks (for example).
oldhippydude
(2,514 posts)call me old fashioned... but i tend to read the constitution straight, also i have a core beleif that simplly because the other guys do it, doesnt justify my actions in reacting in kind.. having said that let me air my favorite pet peeve.. the so called faith based initiative vis a vis, the first amendment..
point taken!
ps dyxlexic poster terribly missing spell check
closeupready
(29,503 posts)K&R
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The corruption will just continue to get worse, it's beyond the point of stopping now without the government falling, the corruption is no longer epidemic it's long since become pandemic.
As Jay Gould so astutely observed, it's always possible to pay half the working class to kill the other half.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)Seems like so many have been forecasting the end of the world since 2000 or so. Maybe it's longer actually.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)we done as a species. The capitalists won't quit until they make the entire world a wasteland in the name of profit. Hell, they CAN'T quit. It's inherent in the system itself.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Certainly nothing like what needs to be done.
There's just entirely too much money, power and influence sloshing around, the big wheels, the fat cats and the bigwigs run things and will until physically stopped from doing so.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)we need to PHYSICALLY stop them from doing so. That's called revolutionary socialism.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Johnson20
(315 posts)SpiralHawk
(32,944 posts)Screwing Americans and lying glibly about it (R).
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I imagine those who cannot assist affecting positive change dream then of violence-- much as many five year old infants do.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)And, in regards to violence, he is making an observation because despite MLK's significant influence, there was violence; and despite Ghandi's significant influence, there was violence; and despite Mandela's significant influence, there was violence.
tooeyeten
(1,074 posts)anything will happen in this round, however if there's another recession caused by the banksters, maybe, otherwise doubtful.
northoftheborder
(7,576 posts)bertman
(11,287 posts)That's what I would recommend, but I doubt we'll get even that.
As far as 'ripping away the paralyzing shackles of corruption', that will only happen if all the TeeVees in Amerika break simultaneously and permanently.
REC anyway.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)FlaGatorJD
(364 posts)Maybe those dirty hippies aint so dumb after all.
I believe if just one of the guilty parties from the crash
were drawn and quartered in say, Freedom Park, we'd
see a change of heart and actions.
Ah wait, that's cruel, and even messier than hippies sleeping in the park, perhaps we could hold a public stoning?
No, nevermind, that's not only cruel it's unusual, let's send a couple of them to a nice comfy Federal prison for like two years. That will appear to be a just punishment, right?
Where's my pitchfork?
Hardrada
(10,918 posts)Canuckistanian
(42,290 posts)Because the heart of America's problems is corruption. Call it what you will, but at the heart, it's corruption, pure and simple.
Rich people BUY influence, manipulate laws, and set the rules that benefit the rich at the expense of all the others.
Good to see an insider ADMIT to it.
Edim
(305 posts)At the heart, it's corruption. All the other dichotomies (left/right, liberal/conservative...) are just distractions and confuse/mislead. The best tool against corruption is transparency.
burrowowl
(17,675 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)people were still trying to make an honest living.
Thanks for posting.
Delphinus
(11,860 posts)This time the world is truly seeing that the "emperor has no clothes".
chrisa
(4,524 posts)I want my bandwidth back.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)The stranglehold these animals have us in is just too tight.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)If there is violence, they have only themselves and the politicians who covered for them to blame. You can't keep stealing from people and get away with it without those people getting fed up.
If someone tried to steal from you in person, and was threatening about it, would violence be justified? Only to the point of resisting the theft and then you would contact the authorities who would presumably arrest them.
This isn't what has happened on Wall Street. They have stolen from people, and authorities have been alerted, and the people who are supposed to be policing them not only didn't prosecute, they let the thieves keep your stolen property!
THAT is what is going to cause violence - the utter and complete failure to hold these thugs accountable, and I don't just mean with some petty little fine. They need to go to JAIL and their ill-gotten gain taken away from them. Let's see Lloyd Blankfein, Jimmy Dimon, and the others at the top of this little scheme on the side of the road in an orange jumpsuit picking up trash for a very long time.
If that doesn't happen, Wall Street is going to implode again, because they have learned they can get away with it.
firehorse
(755 posts)The foundation is in place, half the population wants regressive politics even if it means they become part of the slave and serf class.
Wall st needs to fear us.