John Ransom

You can always count on the progressive left to get it wrong.

Lately there has been a rush to explain how, really, the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street have a lot in common.

You got to be freaking kidding me? They have about as much in common with me or the Tea Party as sanity has in common with Jared Lee Loughner. 

OWSers have 80 arrests in Manhattan, 175 arrests in Chicago, two-dozen arrests in Denver, arrests in Phoenix.

Name an arrest for any Tea Party group, anywhere. Anyone? Buehler?   

Occupy Wall Street is made up of a bunch of European-style nihilists in the purest sense. They aren’t talking about elections or policy, as were the Tea Partiers. They aren’t interested in getting someone elected who will do what they say they will do.

Their stock-in trade is alienation, Jared Lee Loughner-style.  

They are talking revolution; extra-legal punishment; confiscation of property; the recognition of rocks and trees as people.

That won’t stop Occupy Wall Street, however, from being the first protest group in the history of counter-culture that is protesting nothing. They have no demands, no leaders, no raison d'être. They only know they are angry, alienated and approved by the Democrat wing of the Democrat Party.   

Taking a look at them, I suppose that anger comes kind of naturally for them. They are the one-percent, the permanent underclass; the pierced of body and heart.    

“No profits, no money, no banks, no jobs, no power. Nothing,” could be the official slogan of the movement.

See? Nihilists.

But still if they had their way, there would be guillotines set up in the public square.

“Gandhi today is, with respect to all of you,” said one OWS speaker and would-be Robespierre in Los Angeles according to the Blaze, “Gandhi today is a tumor that the ruling class is using constantly to mislead us. French Revolution made fundamental transformation. But it was bloody. India, the result of Gandhi, is 600 million people living in maximum poverty. So, ultimately, the bourgeoisie won’t go without violent means. Revolution! Yes, revolution that is led by the working class.”

Hey Pierre; Pick up a book.

Ghandi’s non-violent revolution led to a brutal civil war with over a million people killed. Non-violence has nothing to do with the poverty in India today. Oh, and that whole enlightened French Revolution? That only led to Napoleon’s attempt at world domination as the first anti-Christ. Boy that really was transformative.   

John Ransom

John Ransom is the Finance Editor for Townhall Finance, host of Ransom Notes Radio and you can catch more of the best money advice and monetary commentary by him daily 10am PT, 1pm ET at or on Comcast Cable