{"id":74146,"date":"2011-10-15T06:37:53","date_gmt":"2011-10-15T06:37:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2011\/10\/15\/comment-tea-party-soutient-occupy-wall-street\/"},"modified":"2011-10-15T06:37:53","modified_gmt":"2011-10-15T06:37:53","slug":"comment-tea-party-soutient-occupy-wall-street","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2011\/10\/15\/comment-tea-party-soutient-occupy-wall-street\/","title":{"rendered":"Comment Tea Party<\/em> soutient Occupy Wall Street<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"

L’identification et la caract\u00e9risation des relations, disons objectives, entre Tea Party<\/em> et Occupy Wall Street<\/em> (OWS), sont un grand myst\u00e8re, dans la saga actuelle dont les dimensions sont \u00e9piques et globales (aujourd’hui<\/a>, la R\u00e9volution doit emporter le monde, ou du moins faire une grande r\u00e9p\u00e9tition de l’op\u00e9ration). Les deux organisations, en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral fort peu organis\u00e9es, sont-elles antagonistes, indiff\u00e9rentes, compl\u00e9mentaires, etc. ? Il faut noter, selon ce que nous a signal\u00e9 un lecteur et ami obligeant, l’intervention tr\u00e8s int\u00e9ressante de Slavoj Zizek \u00e0 Occupy Wall Street<\/em>, notamment telle que rapport\u00e9e par HuffingtonPost.com<\/em> le 10 octobre 2011<\/a> : \u00abZizek also advised the people to see the Tea Party as a sister movement They may be stupid, but don’t look at them as the enemy, he said<\/em>\u00bb. (Voir aussi la transcription<\/a> de l’allocution de Zizemk sur le th\u00e8me : Attention, ne tombez pas amoureux de vous-m\u00eames)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tRussia Today<\/em> a imagin\u00e9 qu’on devait interroger Karl Denninger \u00e0 ce propos des relations entre Tea Party<\/em> et Occupy Wall Street<\/em>. Aussit\u00f4t envisag\u00e9, aussit\u00f4t fait Le 14 octobre 2011<\/a>, Russia Today<\/em> interroge Karl Denninger, qui est l’un des fondateurs de Tea Party<\/em>. Surprise ? Denninger soutient Occupy Wall Street<\/em> (OWS).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abIs it right to make comparisons between the two groups? Denninger says that, yes, to some degree the comparisons are indeed accurate. The Occupy movement, however, can learn from some of the mistakes that he says the Tea Party succumbed to. The problem with protests and the political process is that it is very easy, no matter how big the protests is, for the politicians to simply wait for the people to go home, says Denninger. Then they can ignore you.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbWith the problems posing Americans as big as they are though, said Denninger, it makes sense that so many citizens are joining the movement. Denninger acknowledged that much of America has lost jobs and homes and seen the stock market crash twice in only a matter of years. People are saying, You know what? I know I’ve gotten screwed by all of this but I don’t know how I got screwed. I just know that it happened. And it all came from New York and Washington DC.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbWith the Occupy movement as broad as it is, some critics say the chaos and lack of a solid plan will be the downfall of the movement. Denninger says, though, that that could actually give the group leverage. And as the movement spreads from coast-to-coast and now abroad, perhaps he is exactly right. One of the things that the Occupy movement seems to have going for it is it has not turned around and issued a set of formal demands, said Denninger. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. Everyone is looking for a set of demands. Denninger added that once the protesters formally approach the banks and government with a list of demands, then somebody is going to say, Well, we gave you 70 percent. Now go home.’<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbIn the case of the Tea Party, Denninger says such organization was actually the group’s downfall. One of the things we wanted was the end to bailouts and an end to government deficit spending, and as you can see that didn’t happen, said Denninger, who today manages The Market Ticker. Denninger added that demonstrators with Occupy Wall Street and the offshoots across the world shouldn’t just abandon their goals. Stay on message, which is that the corruption is not a singular event, he said. You can’t focus in one place. You have to get the money out of politics, which is very difficult to do, but at the same time you can’t silence people’s voice.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tDenninger n’est pas contre Occupy Wall Street<\/em> tout en \u00e9tant pour le Tea Party<\/em> originel. Il est amer depuis fort longtemps parce qu’il pense que Tea Party<\/em>, qui, lui aussi en son temps, \u00e9tait parti \u00e0 la conqu\u00eate de Wall Street, a \u00e9t\u00e9 assassin\u00e9 il y a fort longtemps. (Dans Russia Today<\/em> \u00e9galement, il y a un an, le 22 octobre 2011<\/a>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abAmerica’s Tea Party movement has evolved into a nightmare for the movement’s founder. The movement used to be about corruption and government spending, but now it is about guns, gays and God. It began with the Bear Sterns bailout. We had a handful of people, about a dozen, that marched on Wall Street, said Karl Denninger, Founder of Tea Party and The Market Ticker. The intention was to speak out against excessive corporatism and corruption and hold the government accountable to its promises of change.<\/em> []<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbIt took about a month for the establishment Republicans to come in and essentially take the party over, he said. It became all guns, gods, and gays. That’s a great thing to talk about, but that’s not what we intended.<\/em> [] None of the so-called Tea Party candidates are talking about this, Denninger said. The slogan that we adopted very early on was stop the looting and start the prosecuting’ and I can’t find one of these supposed Tea Party candidates that is actually willing to come out and say that in public.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tDe tout cela ressortent d’abord d\u00e9sordre et confusion extr\u00eames dans les diverses descriptions : autant celle de l’historique et du destin de Tea Party<\/em>, que celle de l’activit\u00e9 de Tea Party<\/em>, que celle de la tactique de Occupy Wall Street<\/em> par rapport \u00e0 l’enseignement de Tea Party<\/em> et ainsi de suite. Mais aussi, on comprend bien que ce d\u00e9sordre et cette confusion servent ces mouvements, nous dirions, selon la formule fameuse, \u00e0 l’insu de leur plein gr\u00e9 La description que Denninger fait du destin de Tea Party<\/em> est fausse objectivement, quant \u00e0 la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 des situations et quant aux r\u00e9sultats obtenus. Ce n’est pas le parti r\u00e9publicain qui a phagocyt\u00e9 Tea Party<\/em>, mais l’extr\u00e9misme d\u00e9stabilisateur et d\u00e9structurant (dito<\/em>, antiSyst\u00e8me selon les positions relatives) de Tea Party<\/em> qui a infect\u00e9 litt\u00e9ralement le parti r\u00e9publicain, qui l’a subverti, qui en a fait une machine de guerre involontaire et inconsciente (\u00e0 l’insu de son plein gr\u00e9, et comment) contre son propre monolithisme-Syst\u00e8me et, d’une certaine fa\u00e7on, bris\u00e9 le parti unique en grippant fondamentalement le fonctionnement du pouvoir US par l’opposition sauvage entre ses deux ailes r\u00e9publicains-d\u00e9mocrates. Mais on comprend l’amertume de Dillinger : ce r\u00e9sultat, ce n’\u00e9tait pas son but, lui qui voulait de v\u00e9ritables r\u00e9formes sous la pression ext\u00e9rieure<\/strong> de Tea Party<\/em>. C’est que Dillinger est un brave citoyen US, qui croit encore \u00e0 l’American Dream<\/em>, et que le Syst\u00e8me peut \u00eatre r\u00e9form\u00e9 sans \u00eatre d\u00e9truit, ce qui, comme l’on sait, n’est pas du tout notre avis, parce qu’il faut que le Syst\u00e8me soit d\u00e9truit et, par cons\u00e9quent, le pouvoir US au premier chef. Donc, Dillinger est malheureux, ce qui nous attriste, et Tea Party<\/em> a rempli son office, ce qui nous comble.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCela bien compris, l’id\u00e9e implicite de l’intervention de Dillinger, qui est de dire qu’objectivement<\/strong>, OWS peut suivre la m\u00eame voie que le Tea Party<\/em> originel, que les deux mouvement sont compl\u00e9mentaires chronologiquement, est assez juste. Dillinger approuve la tactique structurelle de OWS, qui est de rester sur ses positions et sous ses tentes \u00e0 Wall Street, de repousser les offres implicites de collaboration du Syst\u00e8me, d’\u00e9viter d’\u00eatre pr\u00e9cis dans ses revendications, de fonctionner sans dirigeants identifi\u00e9s et ainsi de suite. (Nous avons souvent d\u00e9taill\u00e9 cette tactique, qui \u00e9tait d\u00e9j\u00e0 pr\u00e9sente, de facto<\/em>, dans Tea Party<\/em>, et diff\u00e9rait de l’orientation rationnelle que voulaient lui donner des dirigeants comme Dillinger ; encore une fois, c’est le fait que Tea Party<\/em> a \u00e9chapp\u00e9 \u00e0 cette rationalit\u00e9 qui a suscit\u00e9 son efficacit\u00e9…) La diff\u00e9rence est qu’OWS, gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 Tea Party<\/em>, est une \u00e9tape au-del\u00e0 de l’action de Tea Party<\/em> \u00e0 cause du travail inconscient de Tea Party<\/em>. Il est en position de force parce qu’il a rencontr\u00e9 ce Moment psychologique<\/a>, largement pr\u00e9par\u00e9 non par le programme de Tea Party<\/em> mais par la tension psychologique impos\u00e9e par Tea Party<\/em>. En fait, les deux mouvements ont naturellement trouv\u00e9 leurs missions historiques n\u00e9cessairement antiSyst\u00e8me. Ils ont bien m\u00e9rit\u00e9 de la dynamique antiSyst\u00e8me, qu’ils ont largement aliment\u00e9e. Le constat que la position de OWS nous conduit \u00e0 faire est que cette situation antiSyst\u00e8me est aujourd’hui formidablement avanc\u00e9e aux USA. Les \u00e9v\u00e9nements sont tr\u00e8s proches de la compl\u00e8te incontr\u00f4labilit\u00e9 : y basculeront-ils ou pas ? Question pos\u00e9e, mais les prochaines semaines (peut-\u00eatre les prochains jours, diraient les impatients, mais il faut temp\u00e9rer) seront int\u00e9ressantes. Quant \u00e0 la campagne pr\u00e9sidentielle de 2012, ce sera un tr\u00e8s grand cru car, quoi qu’il arrive dans les prochaines semaines, c’est un formidable potentiel explosif qui est en train de s’amonceler dans ce cur du Syst\u00e8me qu’est le processus politique fondamental (l’\u00e9lection du pr\u00e9sident) du syst\u00e8me de l’am\u00e9ricanisme.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 15 octobre 2011 \u00e0 06H38<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

L’identification et la caract\u00e9risation des relations, disons objectives, entre Tea Party et Occupy Wall Street (OWS), sont un grand myst\u00e8re, dans la saga actuelle dont les dimensions sont \u00e9piques et globales (aujourd’hui, la R\u00e9volution doit emporter le monde, ou du moins faire une grande r\u00e9p\u00e9tition de l’op\u00e9ration). Les deux organisations, en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral fort peu organis\u00e9es,… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[4646,11581,11548,5623,7069,3769,3686,11448,3014,8256,6925,2671],"class_list":["post-74146","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-antisysteme","tag-dillinger","tag-ows","tag-parti","tag-party","tag-pouvoir","tag-republicain","tag-russia","tag-systeme","tag-tea","tag-today","tag-us"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74146","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=74146"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74146\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74146"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74146"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74146"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}