Twitter Twits Tweet Anticapitalist Protest

But they're not exactly sure what it is they're protesting. It may be capitalism. Or profit. Or war. Or the environment. But aside from the professional agitators sent by MoveOn.org and George Soros to jump-start the roiling masses at Occupy Wall Street, most can't give a coherent argument concerning what they stand for or why.

Their messages have all the pithiness of a Twitter tweet. The protesters have a lot of hand-lettered signs, but there is also a suspiciously large number of expensive and professionally-produced signage to match. The signs read like a sloganeer's dream: "People Not Profits" and "Make Jobs, Not War." Aside from the fact that such bumper-sticker sloganeering makes zero logical sense, these are the silliest signs and silliest protesters I've seen since San Francisco protesters held up signs that said "Food, Not Bombs."

These people actually think that their predigested dichotomies somehow make sense. The signs are pure emotion, pure demagoguery, and no thinking. There at the events to stir up the mobs are the usual rich, capitalist hypocrites: Michael Moore, Janeane Garofalo, Susan Sarandon, Roseanne Barr, and a host of lesser lights.

These poor, starving victims of capitalism hate billionaires (I think). They tweeted, I-phoned, I-padded, laptopped, e-mailed, YouTubed and Facebooked using expensive devices invented and marketed by visionary people who started with nothing and became billionaires. Without those capitalists, the protesters would have had to get their message out by carrier pigeon. About the only billionaire they don't hate is George Soros, Nazi collaborator and currency manipulator. Soros is behind the wealthy hypocritical organizations which fomented the "spontaneous" protests. He has given them jobs all right. Con-jobs. The spontaneous protests were planned for months by Soros-funded Canadian anti-capitalist eco-wacko magazine Adbusters.

Like most unchecked cancers, the dearth of logical thinking cum lack of any solutions (other than burning down all the banks and investment firms) is spreading to other cities. But Wall Street is the world financial center, so it gives the know-nothings a great place to rally. Though their numbers are dwarfed by the mass movements of the 60s antiwar and civil rights demonstrations, these protesters share the same scruffy anti-capitalist, anti-soap, anti-logic of the outriders and disaffected "youth" of the 60s.

For good or ill, the protesters of the 60s had genuine causes and most had an articulate message to go with them. The vast majority of the Wall Street protesters are simply there to sloganeer, raise some hell, and hold up signs to protest things they clearly don't have a clue how to explain. "I'm against capitalism!" Why? "Because it's bad." It's also a lot of fun watching a babbling fool, smelling of body odor with a hint of urine, covered in piercings and gang-style tattoos trying to explain that it's Wall Street's fault that he can't get a job.

Hauling out 2008 Obamisms, the protesters hold up signs and chant: "The world is watching! This is how democracy looks! We are the ones we've been waiting for." The world is watching, and in the civilized world they are shaking their heads at the pure idiocy of the "movement." If that's what democracy looks like, it's no wonder the Founders wrote a republican Constitution to govern without the help of mobs. And they are the ones that Marx, Stalin and Mao were waiting for--useful idiots.

They even have the chutzpah to compare themselves to the Tea Partiers (the original and current ones). The original version of the Tea Party had a specific goal--stop taxing Americans without their consent and participation in government. These protesters are calling for more taxes to support their bohemian lifestyles and professional unemployment. The true patriots of the Boston Tea Party were balanced by patriots who believed the actions were too much like a mob, demanded that the partiers clean up after themselves and both George Washington and Benjamin Franklin demanded that the Tea Partiers reimburse the East India Company for its losses.

As for comparisons to the current Tea Party, there aren't any. Tea Partiers work for a living, they clean up after themselves, and their protests are peaceful with no need for police intervention. Most Tea Partiers can explain their political positions without resorting to tautologies. And all are against tax increases which are a burden on them and which are used in large part to support the government-dependent non-taxpayers currently mucking up Wall Street. Unlike the Occupy Wall Street people, when a Tea Partier speaks of the Founders, he is talking about brave men and women willing to sacrifice everything for freedom from oppressive government.

There are serious points to be made about Wall Street excesses, but these protesters can't articulate them. They blame the banks for the mortgage and housing crisis, but can't tell you anything about Barney Frank, Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. They probably think those are the names of the Three Stooges. They babble about revolution without realizing that the only revolution which produced a peaceful, middle-class constitutional representative democracy was the American Revolution. They think revolution is about attacking "the establishment" and committing property destruction without understanding even the fundamentals of constitutional government or finance.

The difference between a revolt and a revolution is that a revolution is a successful revolt. This will not produce a revolution. But it will produce something they're not going to like. They are going to find out how civilized people riot. At the ballot box.

Barack Obama is also likely to find out the same thing. He hasn't exactly become the overt standard-bearer for Occupy Wall Street. And there's a good reason for that. The Wall Street Bankers that the protesters hate so much played a major role in getting him elected in the first place. Crony socialism has merely replaced crony capitalism. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.