These people don’t do business. These people are wreckers.

We have a winner!

We need to take a second look at our style of protest.

Its not working.

Seems to me that the style of protest isn’t where the problem lies. The problem is that corrupt and complicit media agents have figured out that the impact of any protest can be mitigated by ignoring it. I don’t know of a way to protest peacefully and have the desired impact unless the media (Faux Nooz being only the most egregious offender) report on it factually and completely.

Opposition to a failing hegemony comes from prior displaced hegemonies.

Seems to me that the style of protest isn’t where the problem lies. The problem is that corrupt and complicit media agents have figured out that the impact of any protest can be mitigated by ignoring it.

But unless we can change the media, our current style of protest is not going to be that effective, which brings us back to the point made by ksecus.

These people are wreckers.

And their behavior is funded by opportunists encouraging and using the wreckage to pillage and loot.

One of the first steps to fascism is the perception by the people that their governing institutions aren’t working. It worked in Weimar Germany and it’s being pushed here by the Kochs and their criminal cabal trying to wreck America. The GOP is doing its part by getting people pissed at government.

If we are unable to combat and reverse the influence of the Right then I fear that the world will be fundamentaly changed for at least a generation. More likely for the rest of this century. Of course, by that time the world will be so damaged physically that there won’t be anything worth saving. As these ideals become intrenched into the fabric of society, those with the monetary motivation will have raped the earth to such a point that it will no longer be able to sustain life.

The point I was going to make, had to sign in again.

Until there is a way to counter their almost absolute control of the media, and as such, the flow of information, we are fucked.

There is a good reason the term “Low Information Voter” came into being.

Until there is a way to counter their almost absolute control of the media, and as such, the flow of information, we are fucked.

That does seem to be somewhat true.

However, perhaps if things get bad enough, then enough average people will start to get involved, but then maybe not.

We could also push things further with our protests. I’m not talking about violence, but maybe stuff like blocking the major roads into various cities might be effective (it wouldn’t take that many people, and it would be hard to ignore if people couldn’t get in to work to keep the big machines running).

One of the first steps to fascism is the [fact that] their governing institutions aren’t working.

This is the exploitation of “democracy”. While you are consumed trying to correct the misunderstanding, the misinformation, and the false belief, all demagogues are busy undermining your efforts. The problem lies at the top, on “both sides”.

The criminality at the top is the sign of abandonment. If it were punished, the competition below would be tractable.

No, the style of protest is where the problem lies. For 25 years I’ve listened to leftists accurately describe the symptoms our sickly society is ailing from, but never have I heard one describe the cure, only go on about protest, writing letters, and every other thoroughly ignorable tactic. No, the problem is the left just doesn’t want to win as much as the right does, because for most of us we can only win if it is done fairly, or with a smile on our face, or some other dumb hippy crap.

We are suffering the success of “meritocracy”. What empire salvaged itself?

What descent is most humane?

Another word for government is civilization. Anti-government equals anti-civilization. I’m sorry, but I happen to like clean hot and cold running water, sanitary sewer systems, safe food, safe streets, emergency responders, paved roads, secure ways to save, hospitals, schools, and the internet. I like the idea of living in a society where no one goes hungry, where no one sleeps in the street, where no one has to choose between paying for heat or paying for medicine. I prefer living in the 21st Century to the 18th Century and I don’t believe I am alone. Want to see a state where the people have thrown off the shackles of the government — go to Somalia.

You have it slightly incorrect when you say that Obama wants to do business with these people. His actions to date prove that he IS one of these people.

At first, you might have excused his actions and chalked them up to inexperience or a misplaced desire to engage the opposition constructively. Not any more. He’s essentially joined at the GOP hip with these crazy fucktards.

Environmental scientist Tim Flannery observes that humanity in general has been running an ecological “sustainability deficit” since the mid-1980′s, a consume-the-future economic M.O. expected to grow to ~200% of capacity per year by 2050.

Consider that we in the U.S. comprise ~5% of world population while consuming 25% of resources per capita.**

Consider further our increasingly Potemkin economy which, until the recent crash, had become ever-more reliant on the flipping of leveraged bad paper (masking the actual decline) — e.g., U.S. corporate profits from the “financial services” sector peaked at 40% or so of all profits last decade, roughly about 3x what one would rationally expect of an “agency function” (thanks to “regulatory capture”).

So, we have a greying population, an intractably structurally ailing domestic economy, with the “job creators” not simply “standing on the sidelines” but in fact investing on job creation in emergent economies outside our borders (hence the nominal cognitive dissonanace of our high unemployment concomitant with the resurgence of Wall Street)…

Any real mysteries here?
___

** Consider as well the 1948 observation of the late George F. Kennan:

“… we have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3 of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships, which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world benefaction…

In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense now with a number of the concepts which have underlined our thinking with regard to the Far East. We should dispense with the aspiration to ‘be liked’ or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers’ keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague — and for the Far East — unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.”

Sigh…

So I get the idea of coining a new label. But in what way are the anarchists of the right or the left really an-archons, against rulers?

In what way are a party that brands itself Democratic and shuts out the public to make a debt deal democrats?

In what way are a party that brands self Republican but seeks to destroy government as a institution republican.

The Tea Party I get. But instead of reading Samuel Adams (which was much too hard). They read Lewis Carroll.

By definition anarchists do not exist on the right of the political spectrum. What you describe are properly called violent reactionaries.

I’m getting sick of liberals and progressives calling right-wing wackos, fascists, and reactionaries “anarchists”. Either you don’t know better, or you desire to confuse people for some reason I cannot understand.

I would recommend the You Tube video of Howard Zinn on anarchism and marxism.

Wise up. Your mainstream, middle-class, careerist liberalism is showing. And as a member of the blue-collar working class, your liberalism has never done us any fucking good.

got to get to first base before you can bring in a run?

maybe

but it is not going to work in any case

Mr. Dean:

someone other than one of these two:

http://goo.gl/fj6PI

cause they simply happen to look something like
a bag man and a front man

If unfair, so be it but too late to get reelected.

And people are good at zeroing in on the truth, actually.

Massacio, Thanks for the vignette about your father. I was practicing medicine at that time. My 1950s textbook of Internal Medicine strongly emphasizes a connection between lung cancer and smoking. (Also it describes asbestosis and the more definitive established connection to mesothelioma. ) Anyone who smoked knew it is addicting. Those of us practicing medicine felt there was little doubt as to the tobacco connection but the studies kept coming out as no definitive proof. Most of the research came from the American Tobacco Institute and other industry supported research. Then there is the story of lead and radium and many more.. — so much for self policing. I was once a Republican and strong supporter of business The deaths and suffering they have permitted if not caused as just the price of doing business has left me with a strong feeling of betrayal.

This is why there is no doubt in my mind about what you say and the urgent need to defend the principle of government. These people are taking it away. I really never thought I would see a president, much less a Congress be so complicit.

sure looks like my comment of myself is anything unusual now:

http://www.businessinsider.com/wall-street-washington-revolving-door-2011-4

No, the problem is “the left” and empire are incongruous. Leave the hippies alone, junk.

And as a member of the blue-collar working class, your liberalism has never done us any fucking good.

There’s the problem. Liberals loved that soft empire, as if behind the mask those straight power concepts weren’t being dealt. Their goodness became reflexive because they refused to face facts.

The fascists call themselves anarchists and libertarians both to deny the originals their name and take cover.

Word.

It’s true, but only true for so long and up to a certain point.

Yes, the national media (I understand – I have neither cable or any broadcast tv since I don’t pay for cable and am so surrounded by wires and buildings that I can’t get broadcast) ignored Wisconsin and other major protests. But local media was forced to cover it. Because there, it was big.

Soon,now, protests will be big and nationwide. The public is already getting sick of this – those who know about it already, anyway.

Vietnam war protests had to get really big before they got any reasonable coverage. Even then, most of the focus was on the cops and their “devastating” responses – every one of which made the next protest bigger.

The fascists can’t just quit, you see. As they begin to see the end of the(ir) terror approach and the hostility they have generated toward their cause, they will not moderate but they will step it up. Dramatically. Insistently. Repeatedly.

Republicans always overreach when they have power, you see. Can’t help themselves. They know they had to trick a bunch of fools to get it and that even fools wise up if you keep slapping them. They are desperate to wring out every possible concession while they have the day. This, my friend, will piss more people off.

We haven’t even named this movement yet – because we haven’t exactly decided what it’s about. Is it about progressiveism? Liberalism? Labor? Peace? Seniors? Poverty? The “Middle Class” (actually the working class)? The environment? Women or minority rights?

It’s really about anti fascism (but we should call it populism.) Calling fascists fascist is frowned upon fairly strongly when most of the media is fascist owned. So liberal is a dirty word and progressiveism is elitist. Populism is time-honored and respected. Naming a party or movement liberal or progressive is a death knell.

It’s time.

The problem with labeling it “fascism” is that Fascism, as a movement, existed in an era of expanding capitalism, whereas the authoritarianism-to-come will exist in an era of declining capitalism. Big, big diff.

“And as a member of the blue-collar working class, your liberalism has never done us any fucking good.”

My dad migrated from the shop floor to a drafting board in the office, then insisted that his kids were going to college to open up more opportunities. Worked out well for us in the 1950s and 1960s, but in our kids’ generation, a college degree became to commonplace to open up many doors.

My parents worshipped FDR. They didn’t have his picture on the wall, though, else they would have lit candles to him.

They both were well served by Social Security and Medicare. They didn’t live in luxury, but they were comfortable and reasonably secure.

We’re now benefiting from those programs, and are quite grateful for them.

Norman Thomas played a major role in bringing us Social Security. Hubert Humphrey played a major role in starting Medicare. Thomas was a Socialist (and six-time Presidential candidate), Humphrey was a liberal Democrat (pre-Vietnam, anyway).

If you don’t think those programs ever “did us any good”, maybe you just haven’t seen it up close and personal in your family or community. I have, and I’m grateful.

We haven’t even named this movement yet – because we haven’t exactly decided what it’s about. Is it about progressiveism? Liberalism? Labor? Peace? Seniors? Poverty? The “Middle Class” (actually the working class)? The environment? Women or minority rights?

I think it’s called Social Democracy. The goals are “…a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,…”.

Knowing what we do of humans, these ends are best achieved with fair taxation, consumer-friendly commerce (incl. banks), equal justice, and fair trade. Rational budget practices (no imbalance in favor of the military or corporate welfare) will produce much more of the desired results.

Context and usage are relative. The 19th century American West was by definition, “absence of governmental authority,” anarchy. Libertarians, who want no governmental control of anything, are anarchists. “Starving the beast” is a modern right-wing slogan to defund government to the point that it ceases to exist and that leaves, very simply, anarchy. Law of the jungle is anarchy. Go more than 180 degrees either way, and you wind up on the other side. IMHO, today our problem worldwide is a plutocratic oligarchy.

They know what they want, they develop a plan, and they stick to it, step by step for as long as it takes. The ideas now being circulated about Social Security and Medicare, taxes, unemployment insurance, even “business confidence”, go back to before the New Deal. They just keep bringing them back, time after time. They analyze and foresee the impact of every move of the other side ten steps ahead of us. They hire people to work in Washington and every state capitol who get up and go to the office every day to work for their side and against ours.

When the liberals make a point, they have a big party and go home to write books congratulating themselves. When they lose a point they just get up the next day and go to work to recover the ground they lost. This is why they are beating our behinds.

Firmly disagree. Usage is not relative. So-called “libertarians” are not anarchists, except in Europe where libertarian has always been used to describe anarchists, ie., libertarian-communist, libertarian-socialist. Note, in Europe libertarians are always unquestioningly on the far left of the political spectum. In the U.S., so-called libertarians are on the far right, and desire government, just a government that protects their interests. Victorian-era capitalist is a better description for the New-World usurpers of the name libertarian, since it places them firmly on the right.

Pulling a name from the left and combining it with one from the right side of the political spectrum is contradictory and makes no sense, unless you are trying to make an emotional point with people who don’t know any better. Here are some examples: communo-monarchist, fasco-liberal, etc. These are contradictory and make no sense.

This is the same silly shit done by people like Ed Shultz who call teabaggers radicals. Once again, if they occupy a space on the right of the spectrum, they are reactionaries. If they are on the left, they are radicals.

There is NO such thing as an anarcho-rightist. Anarchists are, above all, socialists. This is political science 101. Anarchists believe the State must wither away and be replaced by collectives and cooperatives and direct democracy. Extreme rightists in the US love the state and love capitalism. Anarchists detest both.

They’re authoritarians you can’t negotiate with them. They want what they want, either do what they say or suffer the consequences. Or you can stick the 14th A to these creeps and let them sue. Fuckem if they can’t take a joke.

Thank you, veganrevolution.

By the way, I too am a vegan.

Interesting. To me, the word looked more like anarchy than anarchist. The scenes in these stories are a lot like the scenes of post-war Germany in Thomas Pynchon’s Gravity’s Rainbow.

Well said. I shake my head at the level of ignorance. No offense folks–but really, if you want to understand anarchism read some anarchist thought. Anarchism derives from the left. It’s like a Freeper saying that National Socialism is socialism! Please, please, please…pick up some books and study this stuff. You are relying on false information floating around the internet.

President Obama thinks he can do business with is one of these people

Fixed!

There you made my point for me. Anarchist=anti-authoritarian. US libertarian=authoritarian. This is as simple as I can make it.

I would add to your label slightly: They are violent, sociopathic reactionaries and either authoritarian dominators or followers. From the Chicago School of Economics to the “Don’t Tread on Me” public gun carriers, they are not after the destruction of government and law. What they want is government that only does their bidding at the expense of those with whom they disagree. The government they seem to have in mind is the ballpark of Fascism, Theocracy, Plutocracy. And the only law they are after is the Fuehrerprinzip kind. They are not anarchists but Authoritarian control-addicts and punishment freaks living on Fear and Right Answers. But they are indeed wreckers.

And masaccio, apart from what I think is a misapplied label, thanks for you post. An excellent descriptive summation.

I always respect this guy’s analysis ever since I read his thoughts on hyper-reality:

http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

I was waiting for someone to mention this. Thanks. We need a progressive challenge to Obama in the primaries or an aggressive third party candidate. The wrecking crew (I mean the wrecking of the middle and lower classes here, but let’s not leave out deceit and mendacity wrecking democracy as surely as dirty tricks) is inhabited also, (although they tend to be more rational, less mythic-membership, along with their greed and fear), by about 8 out of 10 Dems, and President Obama is the worst, sorry to say.

Wow. That was reactionary, even for 1948. Realpolitik – reminds me of conversations taped between the two paths Kissinger and Nixon on the subject of nuking thousands of Vietnamese. I’m sure Cheney would approve of those words, since he practiced(s) this cold power-agenda.

You make a good point. Viva Emma Goldman!

Good point about “populist” and good idea.

Yes, I agree – a transnational corporate plutocracy.

I think you’ve got it!