Dividing America

[Bob]

I contend that during the past 100 years we have not been as disunited as we are now. Why is that? It is obvious that there are many who are intentionally dividing Americans for political gain. But we have always had some degree of that. No, I think it goes deeper than that, this time.

I believe that at least some of the division we see today is that a growing number of Americans see with greater clarity the coming economic cliff, and are rightfully scared. So those who are sane on the left and right want to turn away from the cliff. But here is the rub. It seems to me that a large percentage on the left believe that big business and free market capitalism are to blame for our predicament. While the tea party right and Libertarians believe that Big, uncontrolled government is to blame. Many of the solutions offered on both sides diametrically oppose each other. Is there any common ground? I hope so, because the left, the right and the indifferent all will suffer equally.

I was thinking about the complaint of unfettered greed and unregulated capitalism, and believe there is some merit to the concern that many, many big businesses have become corrupt. Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations advocated for free markets – but his later works deal with individual accountability and the moral regulation of one’s own actions to benefit others in a society. Is it true that no matter how much external control is applied on markets and individuals that unless we are able to control our own behavior, and get rid of the corruption in our lives – that nothing will ever change? I think so.

[alkemical]

There are many enterprises which benefit off of polarization & galvanization of the populace. It's also a distraction to the real issues. As I've said/borrowed:

PROGRAMMING ISN'T JUST A TIME SLOT

Robert Anton Wilson : The Right's view of government and the Left's view of big business are both correct


http://www.illuminatirex.com/nwo-illuminati-guide-to-media-and-mind-control/


http://www.illuminatirex.com/index.php?callback=image&pid=93&width=600&height=887&mode=


http://www.illuminatirex.com/index.php?callback=image&pid=94&width=600&height=899&mode=

http://www.illuminatirex.com/index.php?callback=image&pid=95&width=600&height=945&mode=

http://www.illuminatirex.com/index.php?callback=image&pid=96&width=600&height=889&mode=

[mhgaffney]

Good thread. When you have time check out the following film -- about the role of central banks in history:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOZ2l6UNY34&feature=related

Also check out this terrific film about how the power elite puts their plan into effect:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iW1SHPgUAQ

[Bob]

My concern among several is the 10% -- or whatever percent it is that want to crash the system -- not restore it. Economic “equality” is the intent of some – to create those conditions that ensure greater equality, even if it means that we are all equally impoverished? For 90% of Americans who wish to steer away from suffering, it is hard to understand why anyone would seek this outcome. That is because 90% of Americans love America, and their neighbors, and attempt with occasional lapses, to follow the golden rule. But if one believes that America is fundamentally flawed and established on the foundation of injustice – destroying the American Republic seems like the necessary first step to social justice.

[Bob]

There are many enterprises which benefit off of polarization & galvanization of the populace. It's also a distraction to the real issues. As I've said/borrowed:

PROGRAMMING ISN'T JUST A TIME SLOT

Robert Anton Wilson : The Right's view of government and the Left's view of big business are both correct


http://www.illuminatirex.com/nwo-illuminati-guide-to-media-and-mind-control/


http://www.illuminatirex.com/index.php?callback=image&pid=93&width=600&height=887&mode=


http://www.illuminatirex.com/index.php?callback=image&pid=94&width=600&height=899&mode=

http://www.illuminatirex.com/index.php?callback=image&pid=95&width=600&height=945&mode=

http://www.illuminatirex.com/index.php?callback=image&pid=96&width=600&height=889&mode=

There is a blend of some business and government, so that it is hard in some cases to tell where one ends and the other begins... think, GE, and GM.

[mhgaffney]

My concern among several is the 10% -- or whatever percent it is that want to crash the system -- not restore it. Economic “equality” is the intent of some – to create those conditions that ensure greater equality, even if it means that we are all equally impoverished? For 90% of Americans who wish to steer away from suffering, it is hard to understand why anyone would seek this outcome. That is because 90% of Americans love America, and their neighbors, and attempt with occasional lapses, to follow the golden rule. But if one believes that America is fundamentally flawed and established on the foundation of injustice – destroying the American Republic seems like the necessary first step to social justice.

Which 10%?

You are dreaming. It wasn't dissenters. peace activists, the labor movement, gays or the left that destroyed this country. It was the 1%.

By that I mean Wall Street and the CIA, which was created to serve the interests of investment bankers. Don't believe it? Check this out:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30605.htm

[Bob]

Which 10%?

You are dreaming. It wasn't dissenters. peace activists, the labor movement, gays or the left that destroyed this country. It was the 1%.

By that I mean Wall Street and the CIA, which was created to serve the interests of investment bankers. Don't believe it? Check this out:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30605.htm

I dont mind peace activists who are peaceful -- obviously. My concern, and my battle is with those who want the enconomy to fail completely -- and are willing to state it, like Cloward and Piven wrote in The Nation. I think that those who want to destroy vs. restore are very different groups. Those who wish to destroy and use violence, and racial division -- I reject, right or left -- I reject them and their tactics. There are anachists in America, there are radicals right and left that I think are working together to crash the system. How they are tied into big business? I dont know, but it would not surprise me that at least with some companies, there is cooperation.

Separately, these fringe groups are nothing -- but like today with hundreds arrested worldwide, they have power found through fear and disorder. Many of them dont seek harmony, law and order, they hate cops and capitalism, and they are not interested in working within the system to improve it -- they seek to crash it. Yes, all these groups are interesting bedfellows -- but what they do have in common is that they need to create chiaos in order to gain political power and viability.

[mhgaffney]

I dont mind peace activists who are peaceful -- obviously. My concern, and my battle is with those who want the enconomy to fail completely -- and are willing to state it, like Cloward and Piven wrote in The Nation. I think that those who want to destroy vs. restore are very different groups. Those who wish to destroy and use violence, and racial division -- I reject, right or left -- I reject them and their tactics. There are anachists in America, there are radicals right and left that I think are working together to crash the system. How they are tied into big business? I dont know, but it would not surprise me that at least with some companies, there is cooperation.

Separately, these fringe groups are nothing -- but like today with hundreds arrested worldwide, they have power found through fear and disorder. Many of them dont seek harmony, law and order, they hate cops and capitalism, and they are not interested in working within the system to improve it -- they seek to crash it. Yes, all these groups are interesting bedfellows -- but what they do have in common is that they need to create chiaos in order to gain political power and viability.

Whooaaaa...

Please stop. Who's been using violence to the nth degree? Answer: the US war machine. Not peace activists- - not the occupy movement

I was one of millions who demonstrated peacefully to prevent the US assault and invasion of Iraq. We failed to stop the war -- and why? Answer: because the US power elite wanted this war -- and they used the media to brainwash Americans into supporting it -- by convincing Americans that Saddam was behind 9/11 (he was not) and that Saddam had WMDs. (another lie)

Two huge lies.

The best thing that could happen to this country would be for the too big to fail banks -- the ones that received the bail out -- to go under.

If you read the recent letter by the former executive at Goldman Sachs -- and the subsequent letter by the executive at JP Morgan -- these banks are totally corrupt and evil.

In my forthcoming book Black 9/11 - I will document high level criminality by Bankers Trust, AIG, Citigroup, and the Bank of New York.

The best outcome for ordinary Americans would be for these huge banks to fail -- despite the bail out. And they might. Most or all of them are on the hook for $ trillions in credit default swaps to the Europeans.

Let us hope they go under -- all at once. That would insure that there will be no attempt at yet another bail out.

Let the market work. When big banks fail -- let them.

MHG

[alkemical]

There is a blend of some business and government, so that it is hard in some cases to tell where one ends and the other begins... think, GE, and GM.

Well, that's my whole issue. Look, i used to be a 'conspiracy' guy. In fact, i still LOVE conspiracies. But now, i use them as game theory models.

I did some high level sales for a while, and sat in on meetings with Billion $ companies, and realized how facets of the 'con' work.

The real "conspiracy" is that there is massive collusion between gov't & vendors. Gov't wants it expensive to justify budgetary needs (if you don't spend it, you get less next yr). So vendors comply with that, and make it as expensive as possible.

The added benefit is when you 'outsource' the work, you don't violate pesky laws.

[Bob]

Whooaaaa...

Please stop. Who's been using violence to the nth degree? Answer: the US war machine. Not peace activists- - not the occupy movement

I was one of millions who demonstrated peacefully to prevent the US assault and invasion of Iraq. We failed to stop the war -- and why? Answer: because the US power elite wanted this war -- and they used the media to brainwash Americans into supporting it -- by convincing Americans that Saddam was behind 9/11 (he was not) and that Saddam had WMDs. (another lie)

Two huge lies.

The best thing that could happen to this country would be for the too big to fail banks -- the ones that received the bail out -- to go under.

If you read the recent letter by the former executive at Goldman Sachs -- and the subsequent letter by the executive at JP Morgan -- these banks are totally corrupt and evil.

In my forthcoming book Black 9/11 - I will document high level criminality by Bankers Trust, AIG, Citigroup, and the Bank of New York.

The best outcome for ordinary Americans would be for these huge banks to fail -- despite the bail out. And they might. Most or all of them are on the hook for $ trillions in credit default swaps to the Europeans.

Let us hope they go under -- all at once. That would insure that there will be no attempt at yet another bail out.

Let the market work. When big banks fail -- let them.

MHG

If you dont see the violence of the protesters your livin under a rock, with your head buried in the dirt under the rock...Their slogans are violent their philosophy is violent, and their actions are violent. Are they all violent no, but enough, so that you would not send your daughter to camp out with them, lest she get raped, and they attempt to cover it up for PR reasons.

[alkemical]

My concern among several is the 10% -- or whatever percent it is that want to crash the system -- not restore it. Economic “equality” is the intent of some – to create those conditions that ensure greater equality, even if it means that we are all equally impoverished? For 90% of Americans who wish to steer away from suffering, it is hard to understand why anyone would seek this outcome. That is because 90% of Americans love America, and their neighbors, and attempt with occasional lapses, to follow the golden rule. But if one believes that America is fundamentally flawed and established on the foundation of injustice – destroying the American Republic seems like the necessary first step to social justice.

What if it's impossible to 'fix the system'? Do things become so toxic, that they aren't reparable? I'm not advocating "crashing" the system...but i also don't like being on the hook and being turned into a serf for the 'lords & ladies of the manor'.

Americans do not love their neighbors and do not follow the golden rule...that's kinda how we got into this mess.

[alkemical]

If you dont see the violence of the protesters your livin under a rock.

What's an acceptable for of protest?

Standing in a free speech zone?


Sometimes, things are messy...and it isn't always "polite". You can point to the violence of the protesters, and i can show abuses of power by LEO's.


that's just it...when change happens...some people don't want it to change..and they'll protect their own way just as violently as people who want change in their favor.

I'm not advocating...it's just what it is.

[Bob]

What's an acceptable for of protest?

Standing in a free speech zone?


Sometimes, things are messy...and it isn't always "polite". You can point to the violence of the protesters, and i can show abuses of power by LEO's.


that's just it...when change happens...some people don't want it to change..and they'll protect their own way just as violently as people who want change in their favor.

I'm not advocating...it's just what it is.

Think MLK and Gandhi, they were pretty effective were they not?

[alkemical]

Think MLK and Gandhi, they were pretty effective were they not?

Well, they both 'borrowed' Thoreau's principles.

But I was thinking of the founding fathers and their bloody tactics to effect change. What about when the "Kings" want to take away everything you have...are you going to lay in the street to die...or fight?

Is there a line when non-violence is a tool to keep the masses subdued?

What's your take on self immolation?

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4877051868218661&id=96abac4e4d09bc159c9af18480d909d5&url=http%3a%2f%2fupload.wikimedia.org%2fwikipedia% 2filo%2ff%2ffd%2fThich_Quang_Duc_-_Self_Immolation.jpg


Is that violent?


What good are protests...if you're not heard? Do you think a group like Anonymous is violent? Or are they needed?


I'm just asking questions....I have my own "lines"..but i want to have a conversation so I hope you don't mind.... & thanks. :)

[mhgaffney]

If you dont see the violence of the protesters your livin under a rock, with your head buried in the dirt under the rock...Their slogans are violent their philosophy is violent, and their actions of violent. Are they all violent no, but enough, so that you would not send your daughter to camp out with them, lest she get raped, and they attempt to cover it up for PR reasons.

I was at the occupy protest in Oakland in January -- and there was a small contingent that threw some bottles/whatever at cops.

I understand that some car windows were also broken.

Here's what happened: Afterward, the organizers ponied up the cash to repair the damaged windows -- tho I'd bet this never made it into the mainstream news.

You are nuts to compare Shock and Awe to some angry young protesters.

[Bob]

Well, they both 'borrowed' Thoreau's principles.

But I was thinking of the founding fathers and their bloody tactics to effect change. What about when the "Kings" want to take away everything you have...are you going to lay in the street to die...or fight?

Is there a line when non-violence is a tool to keep the masses subdued?

What's your take on self immolation?

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4877051868218661&id=96abac4e4d09bc159c9af18480d909d5&url=http%3a%2f%2fupload.wikimedia.org%2fwikipedia% 2filo%2ff%2ffd%2fThich_Quang_Duc_-_Self_Immolation.jpg


Is that violent?


What good are protests...if you're not heard? Do you think a group like Anonymous is violent? Or are they needed?


I'm just asking questions....I have my own "lines"..but i want to have a conversation so I hope you don't mind.... & thanks. :)

I find the circumstances quite different this time. The Colonists did not have representation in Parliament. Also the founders left us many peaceful means to create the change we wish to see in America. We have representative government, we have the Constitutional amendment process, we have Jury nullification (like what happened in the years leading to the Civil war) when juries often refused to enforce unjust slavery fugitive laws. I am not a proponent of it, but we also have the right to call for a Constitutional convention. Even the progressive era gave us a few additional non violent tools like voter recall elections. So yes, I have the right to defend myself, but I dont believe I have the right to protest violently -- loudly sure, obnoxiously, sure -- but those who seek to restore will use the tools left us, not the weapons of communist revolution.

[Bob]

I was at the occupy protest in Oakland in January -- and there was a small contingent that threw some bottles/whatever at cops.

I understand that some car windows were also broken.

Here's what happened: Afterward, the organizers ponied up the cash to repair the damaged windows -- tho I'd bet this never made it into the mainstream news.

You are nuts to compare Shock and Awe to some angry young protesters.

I just call em as I see them. By their fruits ye shall know them. You think violence is not violence when you support their goals. This Saul Alinsky approach does not work for me. Furthermore, Your past racist posts about the Jews are too hard for me to ignore, or take you seriously. They sadly are also common at these various protests -- interesting, I wonder why that is? I am sorry but the truth is the real "nuts" were on the side of Hitler last time around -- also.

[mhgaffney]

I just call em as I see them. By their fruits ye shall know them. You think violence is not violence when you support their goals. This Saul Alinsky approach does not work for me. Furthermore, Your past racist posts about the Jews are too hard for me to ignore, or take you seriously. They sadly are also common at these various protests -- interesting, I wonder why that is? I am sorry but the truth is the real "nuts" were on the side of Hitler last time around -- also.

Your views about Israel are unfortunately typical of the brainwashed masses of Americans -- who have no clue about the extent to which we have been lied to.

I absolutely deny your charges. The racists are the ones who inflame hatred against brown and black skilled Muslims.

The policies of the state of Israel are MUCH more racist than even the South African government under Apartheid.

What is happening in Gaza and the W Bank is a disgrace and screams to heaven.

And here - see below - is one brave Jew, Norman Finklestein, who is not afraid to call the Zionists what they are. Most of Finklestein's family perished in the Holocaust.

This made him all the more determined to tell the truth about Israel's mis treatment of the Palestinians.

Check it out here:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31211.htm

[mhgaffney]

Amira Hass is another brave Jew -- who tells the truth about Israel's brutality.
MHG

For Israel, Punishing Palestinians is not Enough

An ongoing hunger strike by nearly 2,000 Palestinian inmates stands as a reminder of their humanity, but Israelis are more interested in revenge.

By Amira Hass

May 03, 2012

In faraway, frozen Finland – otherwise known as the infirmary of Ramle Prison – the lives of four detainees who have been on a hunger strike for at least 60 days hang in the balance. Nearly 2,000 inmates in the Nafha, Ashkelon, Gilboa and other prisons around Israel have been on hunger strike for two weeks. The very fact of their decision to refuse food and their willingness to risk being punished by the authorities stands as a reminder of their humanity.

The Israel Prison Service does not have to make much of an effort to conceal this mass action from Israeli eyes. The great majority of Israelis label all incarcerated Palestinians as conscienceless murderers or common terrorists, at the least. They have little interest in acts of personal or collective courage on the part of Palestinian detainees that serve as reminders that they are human beings.

Administrative detainees have been held without trial for years under emergency regulations inspired by the British Mandate. It’s not important. Hundreds of prisoners from the Gaza Strip haven’t seen their families for six or more years. Why should anyone care?

When Gilad Shalit was in captivity in Gaza, the cancelation of visits for Gazan prisoners in Israel was presented as “proportionate pressure.” After his release, Israelis don’t care that this sort of proportionality goes on, and that family visits were not restored. So what? Why should we care that Palestinians are kept in isolation for years on end and barred from seeing their families for three, five or 10 years? Any normal prison administration would welcome prisoners’ demand to go back to studying through the Open University. Studies reduce stress and tension levels in prison. But the name of the game here is submission.

Palestinian prisoners are given names and faces in the Israeli news media only if they can demonstrate their “contemptibility.” Their names and faces are not mentioned in the context of their personal, family and national history for more than 60 years: expulsion, exile, destruction of their homes, the injury and killing of friends and family members by Israeli soldiers, or trifles such as beatings by soldiers or expropriation of their land by government officials.

Palestinian prisoners are mentioned in terms of the number of life sentences they are serving. But Israel’s revered army generals, retired and on active duty, are responsible for killing many more Palestinian (and Lebanese ) civilians than the number of Israeli civilians killed by the Palestinian prisoners.

History – praise be to Clio, the Greek muse of history – is no longer written only by the victors. But the conquerors still decide who is the hero, who is the soldier who acts as the judge and who is the defendant who is declared a terrorist even before he is convicted. The Palestinians are not recognized as prisoners of war whose weapons are less advanced, less sophisticated than those of their jailers.

Israelis are not satisfied with the various measures to worsen their prison conditions. When it comes to Palestinians, punishment is not enough. Prison must also be never-ending revenge that extends what Israel tries to do outside its walls as well: to break up the collective, to weaken the individual, to deter others from resistance to the foreign regime.

The hunger strike is, in effect, a protest against these goals. Not all of the Palestinian prisoners have joined it. In prison, as outside of it, Palestinian political and social cohesion has declined, and many of the inmates lack the cultural and social awareness of their predecessors. Nevertheless, the hunger strike underlines the fundamentally political nature of the collective of Palestinians incarcerated in Israel.

Amira Hass is the Haaretz correspondent for the Occupied Territories.

read the original here:

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/for-israel-punishing-palestinians-is-not-enough-1.427649

[Bob]

Amira Hass is another brave Jew -- who tells the truth about Israel's brutality.
MHG

For Israel, Punishing Palestinians is not Enough

An ongoing hunger strike by nearly 2,000 Palestinian inmates stands as a reminder of their humanity, but Israelis are more interested in revenge.

By Amira Hass

May 03, 2012

In faraway, frozen Finland – otherwise known as the infirmary of Ramle Prison – the lives of four detainees who have been on a hunger strike for at least 60 days hang in the balance. Nearly 2,000 inmates in the Nafha, Ashkelon, Gilboa and other prisons around Israel have been on hunger strike for two weeks. The very fact of their decision to refuse food and their willingness to risk being punished by the authorities stands as a reminder of their humanity.

The Israel Prison Service does not have to make much of an effort to conceal this mass action from Israeli eyes. The great majority of Israelis label all incarcerated Palestinians as conscienceless murderers or common terrorists, at the least. They have little interest in acts of personal or collective courage on the part of Palestinian detainees that serve as reminders that they are human beings.

Administrative detainees have been held without trial for years under emergency regulations inspired by the British Mandate. It’s not important. Hundreds of prisoners from the Gaza Strip haven’t seen their families for six or more years. Why should anyone care?

When Gilad Shalit was in captivity in Gaza, the cancelation of visits for Gazan prisoners in Israel was presented as “proportionate pressure.” After his release, Israelis don’t care that this sort of proportionality goes on, and that family visits were not restored. So what? Why should we care that Palestinians are kept in isolation for years on end and barred from seeing their families for three, five or 10 years? Any normal prison administration would welcome prisoners’ demand to go back to studying through the Open University. Studies reduce stress and tension levels in prison. But the name of the game here is submission.

Palestinian prisoners are given names and faces in the Israeli news media only if they can demonstrate their “contemptibility.” Their names and faces are not mentioned in the context of their personal, family and national history for more than 60 years: expulsion, exile, destruction of their homes, the injury and killing of friends and family members by Israeli soldiers, or trifles such as beatings by soldiers or expropriation of their land by government officials.

Palestinian prisoners are mentioned in terms of the number of life sentences they are serving. But Israel’s revered army generals, retired and on active duty, are responsible for killing many more Palestinian (and Lebanese ) civilians than the number of Israeli civilians killed by the Palestinian prisoners.

History – praise be to Clio, the Greek muse of history – is no longer written only by the victors. But the conquerors still decide who is the hero, who is the soldier who acts as the judge and who is the defendant who is declared a terrorist even before he is convicted. The Palestinians are not recognized as prisoners of war whose weapons are less advanced, less sophisticated than those of their jailers.

Israelis are not satisfied with the various measures to worsen their prison conditions. When it comes to Palestinians, punishment is not enough. Prison must also be never-ending revenge that extends what Israel tries to do outside its walls as well: to break up the collective, to weaken the individual, to deter others from resistance to the foreign regime.

The hunger strike is, in effect, a protest against these goals. Not all of the Palestinian prisoners have joined it. In prison, as outside of it, Palestinian political and social cohesion has declined, and many of the inmates lack the cultural and social awareness of their predecessors. Nevertheless, the hunger strike underlines the fundamentally political nature of the collective of Palestinians incarcerated in Israel.

Amira Hass is the Haaretz correspondent for the Occupied Territories.

read the original here:

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/for-israel-punishing-palestinians-is-not-enough-1.427649

There you go again, Mr. Gibson. :loopy: You have chosen sides, and have chosen to stand with those who would butcher you for being American, regardless of your sympathies. You are siding with those who feel Hitler did not go far enough. You are siding with those who would butcher my sister, who has adopted the Jewish faith. I know Holocaust survivors. Goodbye -- and Congrats in joining a small and elite group of other intellectual midgets and bigots I have chosen to ignore.

[mhgaffney]

There you go again, Mr. Gibson. :loopy: You have chosen sides, and have chosen to stand with those who would butcher you for being American, regardless of your sympathies. You are siding with those who feel Hitler did not go far enough. You are siding with those who would butcher my sister, who has adopted the Jewish faith. I know Holocaust survivors. Goodbye -- and Congrats in joining a small and elite group of other intellectual midgets and bigots I have chosen to ignore.

You must be kidding. Have you ever met a real live Palestinian?

I suggest you watch the video about the Jewish dissident Norman Finklestein. He went and actually lived with the Palestinians -- and never had a problem. Many Jewish peace activists have done the same thing.

My ex's daughter did it too. Her name is Larisa. She traveled to Gaza and lived among the Palestinians -- and had no problems. They are much more savvy politically than you, sir.

There is a strong peace movement that has both Jews and Palestinians -- and also internationals. You know nothing about it -- because on your flat earth if CNN or FOX didn't cover it -- it didn't happen.

You need to open your eyes. Unfortunately, to do that requires an open mind -- something you lack.

MHG

[alkemical]

I find the circumstances quite different this time. The Colonists did not have representation in Parliament. Also the founders left us many peaceful means to create the change we wish to see in America. We have representative government, we have the Constitutional amendment process, we have Jury nullification (like what happened in the years leading to the Civil war) when juries often refused to enforce unjust slavery fugitive laws. I am not a proponent of it, but we also have the right to call for a Constitutional convention. Even the progressive era gave us a few additional non violent tools like voter recall elections. So yes, I have the right to defend myself, but I dont believe I have the right to protest violently -- loudly sure, obnoxiously, sure -- but those who seek to restore will use the tools left us, not the weapons of communist revolution.

What representation do "we" have, when those in power don't operate in America's or Americans best interests, but their own self interests? What happens when the laws have changed, and the interpreters define and enforce the laws as they see fit?

Wait, so only violent protesters are communists? Am I getting that straight?

[Boomhauer]

I contend that during the past 100 years we have not been as disunited as we are now. Why is that? ...

I'd disagree. For the first half of the last century the philosophical divisions among the population and parties were very clear and profound - small government and socially liberal (Republicans) vs massive government and socially conservative (Democrats). It would be hard to argue racial equality (in the military or civilian life) fighting against the Democratic machine (KKK/Dixiecrats) was less "disunited" than today.

After WWII, when massive government and social conservatism split to become two parties (effectively eliminating libertarianism) the "disunity" moved from philosophical into political. I wouldn't consider the futile populous bickering of the 60's and 70's to be less "disunited" than today, but the political class moved largely in lockstep during this time, as well as before (1950's) and after (1980's to 2000's).

If you're going to make the claim that "we have not been as disunited as we are now" it can only apply to the political class as there are minimal philosophical disputes among the people (apathy developed over the previous decades). What's more, the turmoil among the political class is to be expected as their myopic system of failure comes to fruition. Like rats on a sinking ship, their narcissistic and cutthroat nature becomes poignant. Similarly, the desire for authoritarian control already has.

For some, trying times reveal their true self and when threatened, DC responded by abolishing all laws and openly violating civil, human and inalienable rights. When "da monies" that had been carefully fabricated and supported their reign disappeared, DC responded by throwing out bankruptcy laws and creating zombie institutions for specific results while indebting the nation and milking dry the middle class to support banksters. Now that support for the political institutions has evaporated (for both parties, or should I say both factions of the one party system) and the populous is not only looking elsewhere, but to exile the current system, DC has predictably responded like the Neanderthals they are to stay afloat.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/557787_10150881110096125_218610566124_12084537_591 192420_n.jpg

[Bob]

What representation do "we" have, when those in power don't operate in America's or Americans best interests, but their own self interests? What happens when the laws have changed, and the interpreters define and enforce the laws as they see fit?

Wait, so only violent protesters are communists? Am I getting that straight?

The risk any time a nation has representative government is that they wont listen to the people, but those that fund them. I get it. But we the people still vote, and obviously should carefuly consider the issues. I agree its a problem, so I have to go back to changing ourselves first, and vote based on principles over party.

No not all the violence is coming from communists, it is also coming from anarchists. Have you read any of the foundational works of communism? I have read a few, and the ones I have read from Marx and Mao put revolution and bloodshead front row and center in terms of facilitataing their new vison of the world. They feel like it is needed and criticise those who speak out against it.

[Bob]

I'd disagree. For the first half of the last century the philosophical divisions among the population and parties were very clear and profound - small government and socially liberal (Republicans) vs massive government and socially conservative (Democrats). It would be hard to argue racial equality (in the military or civilian life) fighting against the Democratic machine (KKK/Dixiecrats) was less "disunited" than today.

After WWII, when massive government and social conservatism split to become two parties (effectively eliminating libertarianism) the "disunity" moved from philosophical into political. I wouldn't consider the futile populous bickering of the 60's and 70's to be less "disunited" than today, but the political class moved largely in lockstep during this time, as well as before (1950's) and after (1980's to 2000's).

If you're going to make the claim that "we have not been as disunited as we are now" it can only apply to the political class as there are minimal philosophical disputes among the people (apathy developed over the previous decades). What's more, the turmoil among the political class is to be expected as their myopic system of failure comes to fruition. Like rats on a sinking ship, their narcissistic and cutthroat nature becomes poignant. Similarly, the desire for authoritarian control already has.

For some, trying times reveal their true self and when threatened, DC responded by abolishing all laws and openly violating civil, human and inalienable rights. When "da monies" that had been carefully fabricated and supported their reign disappeared, DC responded by throwing out bankruptcy laws and creating zombie institutions for specific results while indebting the nation and milking dry the middle class to support banksters. Now that support for the political institutions has evaporated (for both parties, or should I say both factions of the one party system) and the populous is not only looking elsewhere, but to exile the current system, DC has predictably responded like the Neanderthals they are to stay afloat.

Thanks for the thoughtful response -- I will admit that when one has been on the planet for less than 50 years it might be hard to have perfect perspective even with reading up on such things and make the definative statement I made. During my life, it feels like we are the most fragmented -- if I remembered 68, I might feel differently.

[alkemical]

bob,

can you answer my other ?s you missed before i respond:

anon, self immolation, etc etc.

[Arkie]

The risk any time a nation has representative government is that they wont listen to the people, but those that fund them. I get it. But we the people still vote, and obviously should carefuly consider the issues. I agree its a problem, so I have to go back to changing ourselves first, and vote based on principles over party.

No not all the violence is coming from communists, it is also coming from anarchists. Have you read any of the foundational works of communism? I have read a few, and the ones I have read from Marx and Mao put revolution and bloodshead front row and center in terms of facilitataing their new vison of the world. They feel like it is needed and criticise those who speak out against it.

The vote count isn't transparent.

[Bob]

Well, they both 'borrowed' Thoreau's principles.

But I was thinking of the founding fathers and their bloody tactics to effect change. What about when the "Kings" want to take away everything you have...are you going to lay in the street to die...or fight?

Is there a line when non-violence is a tool to keep the masses subdued?

What's your take on self immolation?

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4877051868218661&id=96abac4e4d09bc159c9af18480d909d5&url=http%3a%2f%2fupload.wikimedia.org%2fwikipedia% 2filo%2ff%2ffd%2fThich_Quang_Duc_-_Self_Immolation.jpg


Is that violent?


What good are protests...if you're not heard? Do you think a group like Anonymous is violent? Or are they needed?


I'm just asking questions....I have my own "lines"..but i want to have a conversation so I hope you don't mind.... & thanks. :)

I like to think I have a decent vocabulary, but you were the first to introduce me to the term: "self immolation." I guess you better make sure someone is watching when you light the match. With my luck, everyone would be detracted when I caught fire. Regardless, in my opinion, it seems a wasteful act, while jumping on a grenade to save your platoon seems heroic. Perhaps, this is my western Christian upbringing coming out -- but if destroying one's body (our temple) does not immediately result in the saving of another/s, the trade doesn't seem worth it, if I am making a political statement. That's my opinion.

Regarding Anonymous, I have heard a few of their recordings -- and I am trying to remember if they ever asked folks to be violent, or if they only implied it -- but regardless, the feeling that I had within me was one of repulsion. I don't remember what the half-truths were, but thought they were mixing truth with lies. "Truth told with bad intent beats all lies one can invent." I think William Blake said that...

My hope is that honest people can fix the republic. Evil people are working to destroy it. I have dedicated all that I am to restoring the Republic, while there is still something to save. I know these views are rather black and white, but after submersing myself in the American Revolutionary war, the Constitution and the Founders, I believe what we have is still worth restoring, not replacing.

[Bob]

The vote count isn't transparent.

That may be true, so do what you can to fix it. Do your part volunteer to work within the process to improve it. "Be the the change..." bro.

[gunns]

Think MLK and Gandhi, they were pretty effective were they not?

And many thought they were the cause of many a violent clash that happened. No, a lot of the time it was the status quo that caused the violence. The 1968 Democratic convention violence, Birmingham, Kent State, etc. Yes, guess who was blamed for a lot of the violence? The protestors. The silent majority would have told you who. Don't fall prey to the media OR the status quo that would have you believe it's not them.

[Bob]

And many thought they were the cause of many a violent clash that happened. No, a lot of the time it was the status quo that caused the violence. The 1968 Democratic convention violence, Birmingham, Kent State, etc. Yes, guess who was blamed for a lot of the violence? The protestors. The silent majority would have told you who. Don't fall prey to the media OR the status quo that would have you believe it's not them.

In 1968 there were those like MLK that I respect, and there were those like Bill Ayers with the Weather underground who blew up buildings. In 2012 I trust the cops more than those who defecate on their cars, and hold up signs saying kill the cops.

This aint 1968 -- these protesters are very different, and infected too deeply with revenge, destruction and hate. There actions reflect their wickedness I will stand with MLK and those who want peace.

By the way the silent majority crap -- the 1% crap -- is factually incorrect and propaganda. The Communists and the anarchists represent the very boisterous and violent minority, I reject them and those who stand by them. Just as I would have hoped to have the strength to stand against Lenin, and Hitler as they used scapegoats (respectively Capitalists and Jews) as they fostered fear and bloodshed. Learn from history, don't repeat it.

[Fedaykin]

My concern among several is the 10% -- or whatever percent it is that want to crash the system -- not restore it. Economic “equality” is the intent of some – to create those conditions that ensure greater equality, even if it means that we are all equally impoverished? For 90% of Americans who wish to steer away from suffering, it is hard to understand why anyone would seek this outcome. That is because 90% of Americans love America, and their neighbors, and attempt with occasional lapses, to follow the golden rule. But if one believes that America is fundamentally flawed and established on the foundation of injustice – destroying the American Republic seems like the necessary first step to social justice.

I think your mistaking "more equality" with "absolute equality". It's a demonstrable fact that as the economic divide increases the stability of the society decreases.

Whether it's feudal lords or money manipulators that control 99.9% of the wealth there is a fundamental problem with concentration of money in the hands of an elite few, because where the money goes so goes the power.

[Fedaykin]

The vote count isn't transparent.

More than that, the vote is no longer anything but puppet theatre. Citizen's United put the final nail in that coffin (though it certainly it's the only nail).

[mhgaffney]

Bob was not around in 1968 -- yet with no direct experience he asserts that the anti war protests in 1968 and the occupy movement are very different.

Well -- yes -- but not different in the way he thinks.

What is different is the historical context. The activism is very much the same.

If an American demagogue comes along -- the next Hitler -- who preaches law and order -- Bob will be one of the first to sign up.

No doubt he was one of the first to cheer Bush after 9/11.

MHG

[ant1999e]

I wish more threads were like this minus Gaff and LABF. Nice civilized discussion.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I wish more threads were like this minus Gaff and LABF. Nice civilized discussion.

L0L @ you thinking you're some sort of role model for civility.

[ant1999e]

L0L @ you thinking you're some sort of role model for civility.

Far from it. I am a fan of it.

[Bob]

I think your mistaking "more equality" with "absolute equality". It's a demonstrable fact that as the economic divide increases the stability of the society decreases.

Whether it's feudal lords or money manipulators that control 99.9% of the wealth there is a fundamental problem with concentration of money in the hands of an elite few, because where the money goes so goes the power.

I don't think that one can do that without hurting everyone. During the Gilded age -- the average guy on an average basis was helped economically. The entire assumption of wealth distribution is based on the false notion that we live in a static society -- that one can never climb up economically. The fact is most millionaires are first generation rich.

[alkemical]

The risk any time a nation has representative government is that they wont listen to the people, but those that fund them. I get it. But we the people still vote, and obviously should carefuly consider the issues. I agree its a problem, so I have to go back to changing ourselves first, and vote based on principles over party.

No not all the violence is coming from communists, it is also coming from anarchists. Have you read any of the foundational works of communism? I have read a few, and the ones I have read from Marx and Mao put revolution and bloodshead front row and center in terms of facilitataing their new vison of the world. They feel like it is needed and criticise those who speak out against it.


I've read Das Kapital.

Revolution & Bloodshed being used to ursurp power:

This tool has been used by most anyone/group who wanted to effect change, and wasn't given concessions from the ruling class. It's not tied to some "leftist" ideology. (and well, while i'm not a fan of marx...the tsar's weren't "awesome" to their people either...that presented the environment for it to take hold).
The Decleration of Independence even states, citizens have a right to design a new gov't, and get rid of the old if it doesn't suit the needs/rights of the people.


I like to think I have a decent vocabulary, but you were the first to introduce me to the term: "self immolation." I guess you better make sure someone is watching when you light the match. With my luck, everyone would be detracted when I caught fire. Regardless, in my opinion, it seems a wasteful act, while jumping on a grenade to save your platoon seems heroic. Perhaps, this is my western Christian upbringing coming out -- but if destroying one's body (our temple) does not immediately result in the saving of another/s, the trade doesn't seem worth it, if I am making a political statement. That's my opinion.


Is it a violent, or non-violent statement? that's what i'm interested in. I don't care about ideology. But, they're willing to "die" for their cause, and they aren't "harming others"....



Regarding Anonymous, I have heard a few of their recordings -- and I am trying to remember if they ever asked folks to be violent, or if they only implied it -- but regardless, the feeling that I had within me was one of repulsion. I don't remember what the half-truths were, but thought they were mixing truth with lies. "Truth told with bad intent beats all lies one can invent." I think William Blake said that...



They hack banks, scientologists, the gov't (for SOPA). They break laws, disrupt commerce - yet stand up for freedom. Nothing "physical" is violent, all their "violence"is online. But...does that make them violent... or due to the way technology has changed things...brick & mortar doesn't mean much. You can "protest" a wells fargo...but commerce still happens. Shut down their page, and you now have their attention.



My hope is that honest people can fix the republic. Evil people are working to destroy it. I have dedicated all that I am to restoring the Republic, while there is still something to save. I know these views are rather black and white, but after submersing myself in the American Revolutionary war, the Constitution and the Founders, I believe what we have is still worth restoring, not replacing.


that's just it....you can't go back to what things were - but using those "tools", check out what Iceland has done: Here's "full on" democracy. How's this for freedom:

http://mashable.com/2011/07/29/iceland-crowdsourced-constitution/

Iceland Unveils Crowdsourced Constitution

[alkemical]

The vote count isn't transparent.

A Spanish company: SCYTL will be outsourced to count the votes for the US election.

[alkemical]

And many thought they were the cause of many a violent clash that happened. No, a lot of the time it was the status quo that caused the violence. The 1968 Democratic convention violence, Birmingham, Kent State, etc. Yes, guess who was blamed for a lot of the violence? The protestors. The silent majority would have told you who. Don't fall prey to the media OR the status quo that would have you believe it's not them.

Exactly!

Why does our culture enable victim blame/punishment?

[alkemical]

In 1968 there were those like MLK that I respect, and there were those like Bill Ayers with the Weather underground who blew up buildings. In 2012 I trust the cops more than those who defecate on their cars, and hold up signs saying kill the cops.

This aint 1968 -- these protesters are very different, and infected too deeply with revenge, destruction and hate. There actions reflect their wickedness I will stand with MLK and those who want peace.

By the way the silent majority crap -- the 1% crap -- is factually incorrect and propaganda. The Communists and the anarchists represent the very boisterous and violent minority, I reject them and those who stand by them. Just as I would have hoped to have the strength to stand against Lenin, and Hitler as they used scapegoats (respectively Capitalists and Jews) as they fostered fear and bloodshed. Learn from history, don't repeat it.



I think you need to learn from history, and open your eyes to problems going on with law enforcement. It's fine, i get it... you like order & authority. (this isn't meant to sound like a "slam" - i just know some people like authoritarianism more than others)

[alkemical]

I don't think that one can do that without hurting everyone. During the Gilded age -- the average guy on an average basis was helped economically. The entire assumption of wealth distribution is based on the false notion that we live in a static society -- that one can never climb up economically. The fact is most millionaires are first generation rich.


I have no interest in living as a serf. That's alllllllllllllllll you man.

(Look at feudalism - we're headed back that way)

[alkemical]

It's really funny in a way Bob. You want to talk about using Civil Disobedience. Thoreau was an anarchist in a few way. (I call it enlightened anarchy).


By using civil disobedience, you create chaos and the system breaks down.

[Requiem]

Far from it. I am a fan of it.

Then do your part and stop being purposely divisive. We would all appreciate it. Thank you.

[Arkie]

A Spanish company: SCYTL will be outsourced to count the votes for the US election.

Behind closed doors with gatekeepers I'm sure.

[alkemical]

Behind closed doors with gatekeepers I'm sure.

Trust in Diebold!

[Bob]

I wish more threads were like this minus Gaff and LABF. Nice civilized discussion.

Gaff is now on the list of 1 on my ignore list, and I feel greater inner-peace already...

[Bob]

It's really funny in a way Bob. You want to talk about using Civil Disobedience. Thoreau was an anarchist in a few way. (I call it enlightened anarchy).


By using civil disobedience, you create chaos and the system breaks down.

I have read Walden, one of my favorite books actually, although it has been a few years since I read it, and I have also read civil disobediance, more recently -- I love his style of writing and passon but disagree with him on several points. One Thoreau is a good thing for America - 20,000 in NYC with completely different views on what constitutes goodness, justice and with a sense of entitlement, is an entirely different matter.

[Bob]

I have no interest in living as a serf. That's alllllllllllllllll you man.

(Look at feudalism - we're headed back that way)

Your a bright guy -- work for it, and you might get it. Honor others, help others, don't depend on big brother or big business to define your limits. I don't think that anyone wants to live like a serf, we want upward mobility. In America we have that, those who suggest otherwise are working off a European or Russian mindset.

[Bob]

I've read Das Kapital.

Revolution & Bloodshed being used to ursurp power:

This tool has been used by most anyone/group who wanted to effect change, and wasn't given concessions from the ruling class. It's not tied to some "leftist" ideology. (and well, while i'm not a fan of marx...the tsar's weren't "awesome" to their people either...that presented the environment for it to take hold).
The Decleration of Independence even states, citizens have a right to design a new gov't, and get rid of the old if it doesn't suit the needs/rights of the people.




Is it a violent, or non-violent statement? that's what i'm interested in. I don't care about ideology. But, they're willing to "die" for their cause, and they aren't "harming others"....




They hack banks, scientologists, the gov't (for SOPA). They break laws, disrupt commerce - yet stand up for freedom. Nothing "physical" is violent, all their "violence"is online. But...does that make them violent... or due to the way technology has changed things...brick & mortar doesn't mean much. You can "protest" a wells fargo...but commerce still happens. Shut down their page, and you now have their attention.





that's just it....you can't go back to what things were - but using those "tools", check out what Iceland has done: Here's "full on" democracy. How's this for freedom:

http://mashable.com/2011/07/29/iceland-crowdsourced-constitution/

Iceland Unveils Crowdsourced Constitution

I will try to respond in kind tonight -- right now I need to grill up some burgers and hang out with the kids...

[Odysseus]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/557787_10150881110096125_218610566124_12084537_591 192420_n.jpg

:sunshine: