Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
American Dream wrote:Searcher08 wrote:American Dream wrote:publius wrote:My interest in politics rests entirely on human dignity.
Yes, but I'm asking about the people involved with the 75 Right-Wing Terror Plots.
It would "be really, really bad for most all of us if violent, hateful people like the ones described there were running things, even if only in certain regions"...
Your proposals for local control would make such things much more possible.
I'm asking what you think about that....
Your argument that State government would be more likely to create some form of government by Rightist Psychomeanies is absolute nonsense - and acts as an apologia for a bankrupt centralised fascistic Federalism ruled by a form of Roman Law, where only things on your approved list are legal. It is paranoid, poorly thought-out, uncritical total pants.
Take that straw man somewhere else- those are your words, not mine, and they do not represent what I think!
Besides which, do you know much of anything about the agenda of Third Positionists- in particular The American Third Position Party, or maybe know something of "National Anarchism", or the ever wonderful Troy Southgate?
A lot of this has been coming up in the news lately- perhaps you've noticed?
publius wrote:No in other words white nationalists presently rule, have ruled, and will rule tomorrow unless I am heeded.
They are not the people currently in power.
Then there was the extraordinary Colonel Edward Lansdale. He was an advertising executive who invented what he called "psywar" when he almost singlehandedly stopped a communist takeover of the Philippines in the 1950s.
To do this Lansdale employed anthropologists to research into the fears and beliefs of the Huk rebels. He then used the information ruthlessly to create more fear. He described how he used the terror of vampires.
"One Psywar operation played upon the popular fear of asuang, or vampire. When a Huk patrol came along the trail, the ambushers silently snatched the last man of the patrol.
They punctured his neck with two holes, vampire fashion, held the body up by the heels, drained it of blood, and put the corpse back on the trail.
When the Huks returned to look for the missing man and found their bloodless comrade, every member of the patrol believed that the asuang had got him and that one of them would be next"
Lansdale said these techniques were incredibly effective.
compared2what? wrote:I think she's mostly just a fool. Or that's the impression she makes, anyway. It certainly could be that she's something worse but just not showing it. Of course.
ON EDIT: Got totally turned around, then righted myself.
Luther Blissett wrote:I can vouch for AD's all-around good citizenry; he's an intelligent, anti-fascist humanitarian. I find all these attacks on him…humorous? I don't know what else to say, but not sure he really needs the personal references of anyone. Vanlose Kid vs. American Dream? Sheesh.
Luther Blissett wrote:I can vouch for AD's all-around good citizenry; he's an intelligent, anti-fascist humanitarian. I find all these attacks on him…humorous? I don't know what else to say, but not sure he really needs the personal references of anyone. Vanlose Kid vs. American Dream? Sheesh.
Sounder wrote:First off, institutional forces have centuries of practice at creating narratives that serve to strengthen insiders and to weaken outsiders. When we wash ourselves in bought and paid for narratives we are self brainwashing toward the interests of the sponsors of those narratives.
Next, when we pin blame on specific incidental actors or theories we become distracted and/or disinclined from considering other causal elements.
Corrupting narratives use emotional triggers as a basic means of subverting analytical efforts and transferring attention away from central causative elements and onto incidental causal influences.
publius wrote:It seems clear that remote, powerful, intrusive, militaristic central state is not a political good. I rather like the idea personally of local control and I think it would work out to promote the maximum in political liberty. Why? There would be an actual stake in doing it right.
brainpanhandler wrote:publius wrote:It seems clear that remote, powerful, intrusive, militaristic central state is not a political good. I rather like the idea personally of local control and I think it would work out to promote the maximum in political liberty. Why? There would be an actual stake in doing it right.
Would a centralized federal government have any role? Like for instance, would you support the repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Why don't you present your thinking cleanly again, by identifying what each of these eight (8) terms are to you, in the present case?
Simulist wrote:brainpanhandler wrote:publius wrote:It seems clear that remote, powerful, intrusive, militaristic central state is not a political good. I rather like the idea personally of local control and I think it would work out to promote the maximum in political liberty. Why? There would be an actual stake in doing it right.
Would a centralized federal government have any role? Like for instance, would you support the repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Good point. Because white supremacists have unusual, and notably tragic, ideas about their "actual stake in doing it right."
It seems clear that remote, powerful, intrusive, militaristic central state is not a political good. I rather like the idea personally of local control and I think it would work out to promote the maximum in political liberty. Why? There would be an actual stake in doing it right.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests