What is a “blood libel� It is an irresponsible and frivolous accusation of murder, like the one made against Sarah Palin, made with the intent of justifying real murders.
The left have long been issuing exterminationist rhetoric, and this blood libel has led to an explosion of calls for the murder of alleged rightists. x
This blood libel looks to me like preparation for the real murders that the left hopes to commit during the coming Cloward–Piven crisis.
The left is, of course, outraged at the term “blood libelâ€. It perceives only the right as using violent rhetoric. It sees nothing violent and menacing about its own rhetoric, because, after all, supposedly everyone knows rightists need killing, hence supposedly nothing controversial about saying so. And so, the use of the term by Sarah Palin and numerous bloggers and commentators seems to them ludicrously inappropriate.
Since Sarah Palin supposedly knows how peaceful and benevolent the left is, the fact that she used such a term supposedly proves she cannot possibly know what it means. That she implies that the wonderfully peaceful left is violent and murderous is surely an accident, and proves how stupid she must be.
To progressives, who can see no violence or threats coming from anyone progressive, the term seems obviously inappropriate. Sometimes they say it is inappropriate in mild, civilized, and reasonable language, sometimes in language so incendiary as to prove the term is entirely appropriate.
In considering the entire screaming match, one must keep in mind that we are approaching a crisis in the next decade or two in which political violence is possible, likely, and may well be necessary. Someone is going to get defunded, and they will likely resist it.
So, as Sarah Palin said, keep your powder dry.
In considering the entire screaming match, one must keep in mind that we are approaching a crisis in the next decade or two in which political violence is possible, likely, and may well be necessary. Someone is going to get defunded, and they will likely resist it.
OK, but who is going to get defunded? You seem to think that it will be the least lefty parts of the the ruling class. This would be, I guess, Wall St and the defense contractors. Other leading contenders would be universities and the government bureaucracy (broadly construed–ie to include diversicrats and HR departments). Other possibilities include health care workers and old people.
I don’t see the elite defunding defense contractors. Defense contractors are where generals go to get their payoffs after 20 years of being paid nothing, relatively speaking. Generals will be useful to have on your side when the shit hits the fan.
Wall St? Taking them down without taking down the economy at the same time would require a deft touch. Seems unlikely. Much more likely if the economy has already collapsed.
Government bureaucrats, broadly construed. This is feasible. There are big gains to be had by cutting wages, firing, getting rid of employment law and etc. Two problems, though. Ideologically hard for the left. And sets up a bad dynamic: Uncle Sugar directs a lot of sweet stuff to a lot of folks via these channels, and keeps lawyers, blacks, nice white ladies on board. $/vote wise, this is probably the most efficient channel for buying support.
Universities. Again, feasible. Nobody really likes them. They won’t riot. They can be replaced as paths to the elite by any number of cheaper alternatives. Keep a few top ones around to spew useful “scholarship.”
Old people / health care. Again, this is feasible. Docs and nurses could have their wages halved with no real effects in the short run. What are old people going to do if their social security is cut? Riot?
So, the last two look most attractive.
First question: Whether to defund elite moochers or poor moochers:
If defunding poor moochers, the obvious candidates are old people (reluctantly forced into the moocher coalition by the government embezzling their retirement funds)
Defunding poor moochers, however, would probably deprive the left coalition of its electoral majority – hence the Cloward Piven strategy seems to propose a “revolution†– meaning not a revolution, but a self coup after which they pay less attention to maintaining the pretense of democracy. The Tea Party upsets them because it would make this “revolution†less credible – would spoil the theater, and risk the pretend revolution turning into a real one.
If no pretend revolution, then they have to lay off some of the rich moochers, undermining the unity of the ruling coalition, and risking a conflict between theocrats analogous to the reformation.
The universities are too central – that is where their theology, their authoritative account of reality, comes from.
The Cathedral is not all that cohesive – my prediction is that when the crisis arises, they will have extreme difficulty making a decision, and will pursue several mutually contradictory courses of action simultaneously.
Elite cohesion rests on ever expanding elite employment. This process hits a limit, wherein something is going to give – to maintain cohesion, may well have to adopt a more openly exploitative system, abandoning democracy. Alternatively, to retain democracy, may have to abandon cohesion by throwing some elements of the left coalition to the wolves.
As to which element of the coalition, or whether rich or poor, old folks or Wall Street, I really could not hazard a guess. But old folks and wall street, being the least left of the coalition, are likely targets.