[chakalaka]

From Zerohedge citing:

The elite’s Marie Antoinette moment

https://www.ft.com/content/05c98c0e-b251...a01f1b0fa1

I won´t be quoting sections since I think the all article is worth reading.

This comment stroke a chord. Since I´ve been reading Roosh also defending this might happen:

Very Disappointed 8 hours ago
If it's really a Marie Antoinette moment Munchau should remember that after the Terror came Napoleon. And then the Bourbons were restored. In the process a few aristocrats and many thousands common people died. The surviving aristocrats came back to their palaces the common people went back to their lives. I hope the new populism will have a better outcome for the common people.

[RatInTheWoods]

Thats behind a paywall, sol you might like to quote sections.

[chakalaka]

Sorry for this. Here´s the sections. A piece like appearing in FT is a sign of things might change. I´ve also witnessed some articles against Silicon Valley culture.

I would post the entire damn thing. But copyright problems might emerge:

"revolutions could have been avoided if the old guard had only refrained from provocation. There is no proof of a “let them eat cake” incident. But this is the kind of thing Marie Antoinette could have said. It rings true. The Bourbons were hard to beat as the quintessential out-of-touch establishment.

Our global liberal democratic establishment is behaving in much the same way. At a time when Britain has voted to leave the EU, when Donald Trump has been elected US president, and Marine Le Pen is marching towards the Elysée Palace, we — the gatekeepers of the global liberal order — keep on doubling down.

The campaign by Tony Blair, former UK prime minister, to undo Brexit is probably the quaintest example of all. A more serious incident was the forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility in the UK, which said last week that Brexit would have severe economic consequences. Coming only a few months after the economics profession discredited itself with a doomy forecast about the consequences of Brexit, this is an astonishing reminder of the inadequacy of economic forecasting models.

The EU itself, too, is doubling down whenever it can. The trade agreement with Canada, and the yet to be concluded Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, are about as popular today as the stationing of medium-range nuclear missiles in the 1980s. A popular insurrection is under way against them because people fear a reduction in consumer protection and a power grab by multinationals.

Why is this happening? Macroeconomists thought no one would dare challenge their authority. Italian politicians have been playing power games forever. And the job of EU civil servants is to find ingenious ways of spiriting politically tricky legislation and treaties past national legislatures. Even as the likes of Ms Le Pen, Mr Grillo and Geert Wilders of the far-right Dutch Freedom party head towards power, the establishment keeps acting this way. A Bourbon regent, in an uncharacteristic moment of reflection, would have backed off. Our liberal capitalist order, with its competing institutions, is constitutionally incapable of doing that. Doubling down is what it is programmed to do.

The correct course of action would be to stop insulting voters and, more importantly, to solve the problems of an out-of-control financial sector, uncontrolled flows of people and capital, and unequal income distribution. In the eurozone, political leaders found it expedient to muddle through the banking crisis and then a sovereign debt crisis — only to find Greek debt is unsustainable and the Italian banking system is in serious trouble. Eight years on, there are still investors out there betting on a collapse of the eurozone as we know it.

And imagine what would have been possible if Chancellor Angela Merkel had spent her even larger political capital on finding a solution to the eurozone’s multiple crises, or on reducing Germany’s excessive current account surpluses. If you want to fight extremism, solve the problem.

But it is not happening for the same reason it did not happen in revolutionary France. The gatekeepers of western capitalism, like the Bourbons before them, have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing."

[Rob Banks]

I think it is really quite inaccurate when people compare Trump's win )or Brexit) to actual violent revolutions of the past. In fact, it kind of annoys me when people compare modern political campaigns and movements to battles and wars. I understand sometimes it is just a metaphor (for example, "with Trump's victory, we won the battle but the war goes on"), and that's fine. But I've seen people making comments comparing Trump supporters to the Revolutionary Army in 1776, and compare Trump's supporters and pro-Trump bloggers to "soldiers" and "armies."

The fact of the matter is that the political system we have in place is a mechanism to try and avoid violent conflicts. Instead of engaging in violent conflict and fights based on physical strength and tactics, we simply have discussions using words, and whichever side can convince a greater number of people to agree with them wins. On the surface, this seems like a good thing. Isn't it better to resolve our differences through civil discussion instead of violence? But in practice, due to the fact that our system allows everyone to vote, we are basically just competing for whoever can get the most idiots and welfare bums to vote for their side, and politicians are allowed to bribe the idiots with free stuff.

There is no problem with using this system to our advantage (as Trump did). If his election serves to make the country better without having to resort to violence, more power to him. But don't act like we just won a war. The governments of modern first-world countries, with their modern weaponry, have become so powerful over the last century or so that they are virtually impossible to overthrow (unless their own military turns on them). The only reason Trump's victory means anything is because the government is choosing to uphold their end of the bargain (i.e. to allow Trump to become president). If those in power wanted to, they could rip up the Constitution and tell Trump to go fuck himself. They are not doing that because it would not be to their advantage to do so. Sure, part of the reason they don't do that is because they know Trump supporters would get violent if they did, and they don't want to deal with that. So in that sense, they are physically intimidated by us. But there are also many other, more important reasons why they are choosing to let Trump get into power. With Trump, they only have to deal with him for 4-8 years, and then it's back to where we left off. Sure, Trump may have set the elites' plans back 10-20 years, but the pendulum will eventually swing back in favor of the globalists. Trump merely opened our eyes to how the globalists work, and bought us some much-needed time to prepare, but he did not defeat the globalists. He will not repeal the 19th amendment. We still have a system of mob rule, which the globalists will continue to take advantage of after Trump leaves office.

So let's stop acting like we won an actual war. It's fine to be happy about winning the election, but it is disrespectful to actual veterans of the Revolutionary War, the French Revoltion, or any other war, to compare ourselves to them.

When the American side won the Revolutionary War against the British, they did not say to the British "Let us be independent for 4, maybe 8 years. Every 4 years, we will hold an election to decide if we want to remain independent or become a British colony again." Instead, the US would remain an independent country forever.

When the French Revolution happened, and the Revolutionary side won the war, they did not tell King Louis XVI "Come back in 4 years, and we'll hold an election to decide if you can be king again." Instead, they executed him, and (for better or worse) abolished the French monarchy forever.

But with Trump's victory, the system did not fundamentally change like it did in the examples above. The globalists will get to try again in 2020, 2024, 2028, etc. It is very possible that Trump's victory only slowed the globalists' plans down, but did not stop them. Don't get me wrong, Trump's victory was enormously important, but it was not a revolution, and it is not really comparable to a military victory.

[MrBoombastic]

Whenever the common man is facing so much economic uncertainty as they are right now, populist leaders almost always come to power. But it rarely works out well for the common man.