Leninists followed, gained predominance, and faded away or became heroes of the Left, until the thought of wealth redistribution as the norm became the common wisdom, predominantly with useful idiots in academia and in the corporate press.
The “corporate press” is a term I have not heard much, but I think I read it someplace before, so I will not attempt to take credit for that character string. I use it in the sense of big newspaper corporations, and other big news businesses, that preach for the destruction of other businesses. Their news copy writers treat their business as a special, anointed class of wizards who are free to say or do without any repercussions. Save for the sins of plagiarism or free market advocacy.
So, things bumped along with the stateists gaining more and more power until the Lenin Left finally imploded with the collapse of the Soviet Union. In government, that collapse was real and “big socialism” died in most of the world.
However, in the minds of academics, journalists and other fiction writers, forced economic redistribution was alive and well. The incredibly popular movie, with a large current cult following, Fight Club, has wealth redistribution at its core. The main character pulls a blackmail scam to get a permanent paycheck from his employer, then uses the money to fund a corporate terrorism organization with the aim of “making everybody equal”. The popular, kindergarten version of “equal” is used, i.e., everybody has equal “stuff”. In the movie, that means blowing up several buildings that house data systems of credit agencies. The destruction of billions of dollars worth of buildings and data is supposed to bring everybody with a credit history back to equal footing.
Another odd thing, the Left is the side that says money should not matter, but they are the ones always talking about it, claiming that anybody with more than them does not deserve it, and demanding those with more money than them give them more money.
Fight Club seemed to be a last gasp at serious pop culture socialism, until the copycats decided to emulate the Fight Club model. As anybody in the West should remember, one of Osama bin Laden's objectives was to destroy or damage the financial system of the West by targeting the World Trade Center. Note, bin Laden is no poor young freedom fighter seeking justice. He is very rich and began his jihad against the Soviets, then turned his aim at Afghan rebels who had ties to the West, like the so-called Northern Alliance. After the USA unceremoniously stopped backing the rebels, after the flamboyant departure of the Soviet Red Army, bin Laden continued waging war against the West.
However, there were still rich people in the world. Some adored by the Left, like George Soros, entertainers and professional athletes. Perhaps I repeated myself there. There was a financial “crisis” that would not have been a crisis at all if governments had not rushed in to bail out their favorites like AIG. For some decades the financial markets were not free in any sense of the world. They have been heavily regulated for ages. In a fit of Orwellian renaming, the popular press began blaming the government induced financial crisis on “deregulation”, when in fact there was no deregulation at all, it was reregulation. Skipping the fits of the alleged Conservatives and real Liberals (they are the same thing, they just vote differently) about bonuses paid to executives of bailed out firms, bonuses that were in their contracts, there still remained a group of unpopular people with unpopular incomes.
Enter the heroes on the white unicorns, B. Hussein and Hillary. They vied for the Democrat presidential nomination with ever larger promises to union special interests, with ever bigger threats to redistribute the wealth of any business that turned a profit. They both accepted massive campaign contributions from financial firms and they mostly they attacked drug and energy companies, but the list did not end there.
In a famous Hyde Park summit, Hussein and Hillary divided power, with Hillary, arguably the stronger candidate, handing over the nomination to Hussein and later agreeing to become Secretary of State in the Obama administration.
Fast forward through the first two years of the B. Hussein Obama (mmm, mmm, mmm) administration, that put the previous administration's policy of bailing out favorite corporations on steroids. However, there are more votes in unions, especially public sector unions, than there is in that Connecticut zip-code where the Wall Street class lives. Therefore, besides bailing out favorites in the Manhattan financial district, the Hussein administration bailed out a major employer of the United Auto Workers, by stealing from General Motors debt holders to give the United States Treasury an even bigger bargain to take over the company and give it to the UAW. Not many votes there, but a “nice gesture” for the true believers.
Enter the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and various public sector unions. Their demands, if followed, would bankrupt State and local governments. They rioted at any offer that did not include every demand of theirs. In spite of their riots, they were routed in Wisconsin, Tennessee and other places. Losing fair and square was not in their dictionary, so Stephen Lerner put on his thinking cap and combined the objectives from Fight Club and Osama bin Laden, and then combined them with the tactics of George Soros to hatch his plot to destroy the American financial system. There is a transcript at that link if you do not want to watch the video below.
This was apparently on 16 March 2011, as noted in a different article but not in the Blaze article.
The first leg of Lerner's stool of destruction is to encourage more home loan mortgage defaults. He wants to organize anybody who is "under water" on their mortgage (home worth less than the loan) to default and refuse to pay until kicked out of the house. This comes very early in his presentation.
Now, in reality, most people do not want to do this but there is a significant number of people who have chosen this route. The fact is, the segment that is doing it really cannot afford to pay on loans that the government forced banks to give them. The others, i.e., the people under water due to declining real estate values, pay their mortgages when they can afford to and will probably continue until the property value returns to what they paid, or until they pay off their mortgages.
Lerner continues with his hate at financial institutions with a plot to enlist students with educational loans. He wants to get them involved in refusing to pay their student loan payments and destroy the banks that way. One problem with that, the government guarantees these loans so the banks will still get their money. The government will get its money from the students too, since you cannot bankrupt a student loan, the feds can attach wages and use any other number of tactics to make sure they get paid before the student eats. New student loans have been completely a government operation for almost one year.
His third "idea" is to strike if banks do not give municipalities and States special deals on loans. This one is curious, since governments typically issue bonds themselves. Certainly they try to enlist the assistance of financial institutions to help sell the bonds, which Illinois recently discovered has its limits. When that debt ravaged State recently decided to issue more bonds, no financial institution would do it. So, Illinois is engaged in a direct online sale of what amounts to a government junk bond sale without the attractive corporate junk bond rates.
All in all, Lerner sounds like he is trying to pull off a financial terrorism without violence. Oh, did I say without violence? My mistake, no Leftwing plot is complete without violence. He wants to combine all of the above with riots and disruption of commerce. So, what we have here is another real terrorist, on American soil, without a religious angle other than Leninism.
I did not notice any advocacy for taking out unsecured debt, maxing out the credit line and refusing to pay. There is little that a lender can do if someone does not pay on unsecured debt, besides wrecking the person's credit rating. If enough people could be convinced to commit that form of financial suicide, rather than the ones he mentioned, the financial institutions involved would get a mosquito sting that might actually be noticed, followed by people who may actually need credit being unable to get it in the future.
So, how does this tie into any book of mine? In the second Suki series, Suki With A Twist, the financial environment of the 2030s is a reaction to what Lerner advocates. "The Collectors" are allowed to impress overdue debtors into employment to pay off their debts. They have broad rights to a person's labor that is not already exclusively contracted. Drugs that we know as illegal are legal in that future and so is prostitution. An ideal client of a lender would be a sex worker with a taste for drugs, since they have talents that are more valuable than real estate in the future. If the lender plays their cards right, they could gain an asset with a cash flow that pays many more times than what they would have made off of a paid off loan.
Kindle eBooks and Paperbacks on Amazon
Nook eBooks and Paperbacks at Barnes and Noble
Read Controlling Sarah free at Literotica.Com
|Now only $3.69|
Suki Series Tech
Order the paperback edition of Suki V: The Collection
Browse the series on Google: Suki I, Suki II, Suki III, Suki IV, Suki V
Fan Fiction: John and Suki: Vacation Fun
Copyright 1970 - 2011, SJE Enterprises, all rights reserved.