Top Leaderboard, Site wide
October 24, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!








Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

‘Electronic Brownshirts’

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on May 18, 2011
Davide Restivo (CC-BY-SA)

By Amy Goodman

Judy Ancel, a Kansas City, Mo., professor, and her St. Louis colleague were teaching a labor history class together this spring semester. Little did they know, video recordings of the class were making their way into the thriving sub rosa world of right-wing attack video editing, twisting their words in a way that resulted in the loss of one of the professors’ jobs amidst a wave of intimidation and death threats. Fortunately, reason and solid facts prevailed, and the videos ultimately were exposed for what they were: fraudulent, deceptive, sloppily edited hit pieces.

Right-wing media personality Andrew Breitbart is the forceful advocate of the slew of deceptively edited videos that target and smear progressive individuals and institutions. He promoted the videos that purported to catch employees of the community organization ACORN assisting a couple in setting up a prostitution ring. He showcased the edited video of Shirley Sherrod, an African-American employee of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which completely convoluted her speech, making her appear to admit to discriminating against a white farmer. She was fired as a result of the cooked-up controversy. Similar video attacks have been waged against Planned Parenthood.

Ancel has been the director of the University of Missouri-Kansas City’s Institute for Labor Studies since 1988. Using a live video link, she co-teaches a course on the history of the labor movement with professor Don Giljum, who teaches at University of Missouri-St. Louis. The course comprises seven daylong, interactive sessions throughout the semester. They are video-recorded and made available through a password-protected system to students registered in the class. One of those students, Philip Christofanelli, copied the videos, and he admits on one of Breitbart’s sites that he did “give them out in their entirety to a number of my friends.” At some point, a series of highly and very deceptively edited renditions of the classes appeared on Breitbart’s website. It was then that Ancel’s and Giljum’s lives were disrupted, and the death threats started.

A post on Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com summarized the video: “The professors not only advocate the occasional need for violence and industrial sabotage, they outline specific tactics that can be used.” Ancel told me, “I was just appalled, because I knew it was me speaking, but it wasn’t saying what I had said in class.” She related the attack against her and Giljum to the broader attack on progressive institutions currently:

“These kinds of attacks are the equivalent of electronic brownshirts. They create so much fear, and they are so directed against anything that is progressive—the right to an education, the rights of unions, the rights of working people—I see, are all part of an overall attack to silence the majority of people and create the kind of climate of fear that allows for us to move very, very sharply to the right. And it’s very frightening.”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Ancel’s contact information was included in the attack video, as was Giljum’s. She received a flurry of threatening emails. Giljum received at least two death threats over the phone. The University of Missouri conducted an investigation into the charges prompted by the videos, during which time they posted uniformed and plainclothes police in the classrooms. Giljum is an adjunct professor, with a full-time job working as the business manager for Operating Engineers Local 148, a union in St. Louis. Meanwhile, the union acceded to pressure from the Missouri AFL-CIO, and asked Giljum to resign, just days before his May 1 retirement after working there for 27 years.

Gail Hackett, provost of the University of Missouri-Kansas City, released a statement after the investigation, clearing the two professors of any wrongdoing:

“It is clear that edited videos posted on the Internet depict statements from the instructors in an inaccurate and distorted manner by taking their statements out of context and reordering the sequence in which those statements were actually made so as to change their meaning.”

The University of Missouri-St. Louis also weighed in with similar findings and stated that Giljum was still eligible to teach there.

On April 18, Andrew Breitbart appeared on Sean Hannity’s Fox News program, declaring, “We are going to take on education next, go after the teachers and the union organizers.” It looks as if Ancel and Giljum were the first targets of that attack.

In this case, the attack failed. While ACORN was ultimately vindicated by a congressional investigation, the attack took its toll, and the organization lost its funding and collapsed. President Barack Obama and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack apologized to Shirley Sherrod, and Vilsack begged her to return to work. Sherrod has a book coming out and a lawsuit pending against Breitbart.

Let’s hope this is a sign that deception, intimidation and the influence of the right-wing echo chamber are on the decline.
 
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.

Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 900 stations in North America. She is the author of “Breaking the Sound Barrier,” recently released in paperback and now a New York Times best-seller.

© 2011 Amy Goodman

Distributed by King Features Syndicate


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, July 6, 2011 at 2:24 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller: On the other hand,... then why the anti gay stuff, like don’t ask don’t care, this seems a contradiction?

First, I would examine the records to see if the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” program has been at all effective, or whether it is merely a legal liability loophole allowing the army to say that they tried.

You do understand that the ads on cigarette packages telling you that smoking kills, completely eliminates the ability of anyone to sue the tobacco industry, because, You Were Told. smile

Perhaps giving the directive of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, eliminates the ability of any Gay Soldier to sue the army for damages via a similar anti-liability approach. After all, if you’ve been Gay-bashed, then someone either asked or told.

If it has actually worked to prevent Gay Bashing in the ranks, then its possible that the volunteer army is still in need of every warm body it can gather due to limited recruitment options.

ie; Gay soldiers are better than no soldiers at all, especially if noboidy knows they’re gay.

Sexual preference has very little bearing on one’s willingness to kill and die for King and Country.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 6, 2011 at 10:23 am Link to this comment

Damn it Gary,... an interesting theory and food for me thoughts. If your premise is correct, this would explain the anti gay sentiment.  I mean how many gays can conceive an have 8 kids like good old Palin? If gay rights allowed marriage it would mean one part of the population would not be supporting the increased fodder for military quotas of world domination. On the other hand,... then why the anti gay stuff, like don’t ask don’t care, this seems a contradiction? The hidden motive and operation must act outraged? 

Also women must not have control over their bodies, hence the anti contraception crowd supports your theory.


It seems the abuses, inequities and buggering never stops!

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, July 5, 2011 at 12:14 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller:Now the political landscape doing the same thing for the reason of increasing the work force seems a stretch…

How about for the purpose of providing a self-replicating source of military personel, for the planned century - PNAC - of war that is the true backbone of the NeoCon’s New World Order pogrom.

After all, one cannot impose (A new World) order if things are already orderly, but put the world to war and voila, one has a ready made chaos one can pretend to put into order through the death of soldiers. And if one happens to be in charge of both sides in such a conflict, it is quite simple to fufill the promise of ending the conflict, should it become necessary.

Such is the plan which will whittle the world’s population back down to the numbers predicted to be the easiest to control by a fascist world government.

Soldier Fodder is the single most imnportant aspect of the war mongers’ plans and it is absolutely necessary to provide an impoverished and desperate environment for the proper growth of a “volunteer” - read “dirt-cheap” - military force. When there is no other occupation available except the army, recruitment is “self fulfilling”. Read “Voluntary”.

The Church - onward Christian Soldiers - has always been the primary force behind the social engineering of the war machine, because it gets to teach children from day one with parental blessings. As long as kids believe that to die in battle equates to instant passage to valhalla, soldiers will continue to willingly die for king and country by the millions and moms and dads will willingly send their kids to their death for the sake of the state and conformity.

All that we are seeing today is the revival of the oldest methods of social engineering for the oldest purpose of government.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 5, 2011 at 7:36 am Link to this comment

John Best comments on increasing the population seems to be a valid one, well in a common sense sort of way. The religions seem to scorn the idea of contraception like it is their sacred right to make women baby machines.  When one takes a gander at the religions most do not believe women are equal to men. Making over half the population unequal is a great advantage in the promoting of divisive deceptions.

Now the political landscape doing the same thing for the reason of increasing the work force seems a stretch, but most of what those ass holes are doing seems a stretch!

As for chipping away, the Conservatives seem to embellish themselves in chipping away at anything which requires compassion and provides for others then themselves. The new deal seems to be a very centered target of opportunists as I call them. 

I suspect the new world order has some part in the whole contraption, it seems the Plutocracy has moved off shore and is alive and well.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, July 5, 2011 at 5:22 am Link to this comment

Inherit,
Before you go, what would you think of a semi-organized counter offensive to the ‘electronic brownshirts’?  Sort of a ‘depolarizing’ activity meant to get to the core of these wedge issues and re-direct attention back to things which matter. 

What matters?  ‘They’ are chipping away at the New Deal, Also perhaps instead of an industrial policy, the US has a wild-west pillaging in progress.  One cold go an and on, but it would be nice to have a bit of an army dedicated to pointing out the obfuscating tactics of the “neo-con free-market pawns”.  Just thinking de-polarize.  National discourse back to real issues, not reality TV.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 5, 2011 at 3:19 am Link to this comment

Now now ITW, you may disagree with me some of the time, but ALL the time?  LOL
***************

That sounds like emotionally binary rhetoric to me! (LOL, too!)

“All the time” as in “I fill my car with gas all the time”.  Not continually as in every minute of every day, but frequently, whenever it’s necessary.

Well, that’s certainly more entertaining than the old boring sophist!

Still, page 7 is ‘WAY too far back for me to go…So I think I’ll aloha this thread.  Ciao!

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 4, 2011 at 5:27 pm Link to this comment

John Best, July 4 at 2:36 pm, 

“I believe most people don’t know they are being
duped.  .....  Focusing on how to inform the ignorant public
that they are being propagandized in simple terms they
can understand is the course in which liberals ought to be
committed.  This is my agenda ....”
—By Shenonymous, July
1 at 9:07 am

“Them” and “us” as practiced by the goats and greyhounds on
Juan Fernandez Island in the South Pacific off the coast of
Chile, South America
was , has been, and is the Standard
Model for Privatized Capitalism
, prior to the existence of the
United States as a nation, and I suspect will be the Model after
the time of the U.S. as a nation has passed; the Principle of
Social Darwinism
; this is what I expect will result from the
Privatized Capitalism Model
of life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness with freedom anbd justice for all in the USA.

The question for YOU in the American Model of Privatized
Capitalism
is whether YOU are a goat or a
greyhound, and how fast can you run and climb; answer
these questions and YOU will know where YOUR life, liberty, and
the pursuit of YOUR happiness with freedom and justice for all
resides in the coming New World Order, irregardless of
propaganda to the contrary.

The following from the AlterNet forum by Dr. Cynthia Boaz are 14
additional examples of binary emotional rhetoric that IS
propaganda:

http://www.alternet.org/news/151497/14_propaganda_techniques_fox_"news"_uses_to_brainwash_americans/

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 4, 2011 at 5:26 pm Link to this comment

So MarthaA, you are reduced to indolent indecent language.  Your
ineptitude is glaring.  What a filthy mouth you have.  Do you speak
that way to your granddaughter?  Is that what you and your family
do?  Go around sniffing butts?  Yikes?  And I thought there might
have been some good breeding in your line.  Breeding, yes, I guess. 
Isn’t that what they do with dogs? The only thing that is transparent,
MarthaA, is your filthy mouth which you have just let out of the bag
right here on Truthdig!  Now who should be ashamed?  I am surprised
at your unclean and obscene mind. 


Now now ITW, you may disagree with me some of the time, but ALL the
time?  LOL

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 4, 2011 at 5:09 pm Link to this comment

Propaganda:
Assuming I am a follower and admirer of Fox News and its tactics, and stating that I am such.

Anyone who has followed my posts on TD over the last several years knows I have never had one positive word to say about Fox, but lots of negative ones.

You show yourself to be a petulant child with “butt sniffing”. I guess that’s exciting to you, thinking of that.  Yes, I do admire Shenonymous.  But I also disagree with her ALL the time.

But she’s not a sophist phony trying to jack up a non-reputation for work that can’t get published by pretending to be some sort of smarter, superior person.

Your dishonest attempts to get around your inability to publish properly leave you in no position to pass moral judgement on anybody.  Take a look in the mirror, lady.  See if you can face it.  See if you see someone you actually like, or someone you cannot stand.

It’s the ultimate test of honesty, looking in a mirror.

And, no, I’ve never actually met her

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 4, 2011 at 4:24 pm Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, July 4 at 2:11 pm,

“I believe most people don’t know they are being
duped.  .....  Focusing on how to inform the ignorant public
that they are being propagandized in simple terms they
can understand is the course in which liberals ought to be
committed.  This is my agenda ....”
—By Shenonymous, July
1 at 9:07 am

YOU are using “Name Calling Propaganda,” Inherit the
Wind
, and engaging in butt sniffing with
Shenonymous to ingratiate yourself.  You, like other butt
sniffing minions dog pile onto the Fox News Network broadcasting
propaganda bandwagon to denigrate me as a tactic to try to cover
up your reprehensible behavior, but it is transparent to everyone
except “you people,” who are shameless, most probably,
because you are paid lackeys.

You should be ashamed of yourself, but I know that you are not,
although your behavior IS shameful.

The following from the AlterNet forum by Dr. Cynthia Boaz are 14
additional examples of binary emotional rhetoric that IS
propaganda:

http://www.alternet.org/news/151497/14_propaganda_techniques_fox_"news"_uses_to_brainwash_americans/

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, July 4, 2011 at 2:36 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller, you ask, “.......and high impacting in their emotional division to take focus off real issues.
So, what are the real issues?”

Population quantity vs. population quality?  The “Grow, grow, grow” disguised as reproductive rights makes excess children and their parents more impoverished, while providing more mouths for the huddled masses to feed and more cheap labor competing over the jobs offered by the oligarchical class.  The embedded hypocrisy, of supposedly calling for personal responsibility, whilst enabling the false notion that poor women are doing their job (and perhaps providing themselves with security) by having quantities of babies without regard to their real well being or educations.

Related to ‘population quality’, the sort of ‘social contract’ notion that we had been operating under the principle that we, the greater society, would provide opportunity to young people by paying for their education, thus ensuring   not only a better life for said young person, but providing better productivity so they can contribute to the pay-as-you-go programs such as social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. 

The students aren’t the only population segment who’s piece of the New Deal is being shredded.  What about veterans?  Old people?  Poor people?  Perhaps the overriding and yet unmentioned issue is that unless we can control ourselves and act socially from the ground up, we will always be divided and conquered.  Perhaps as a result of the population explosion, perhaps not, people seem to have become very self oriented, and as such are preoccupied with what they can get for themselves, as opposed to concentrating on how they can gain security by contributing to some greater common good.  Empathy seems to have no meaning anymore.  Christianity in this country has been replaced by the god/religion of the free-market, every man for himself, buyer beware.  Apologies, the argument gets chicken-and-egg, but I swear there is a group of puppeteers who know damn well to be prepared to pull up the castle’s drawbridge.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 4, 2011 at 2:11 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA:
You are right: I’m not ashamed. But you should be. You have tried every sophist trick to spout, ironically, your own propaganda.

You are a pompous, arrogant, pseudo-intellectual phony who has NOTHING to offer other then your anger and rage at the world for being smart enough to recognize what YOU think is your brilliance as pure snake-oil bullshit.

Even WikiPedia told you: If you can’t get published, don’t try to use the “back door” to post your lame-brain crackpot “theories”.

I almost feel sorry for you as you make a bigger and bigger fool of yourself, digging the hole you are in deeper and deeper.  You think you are battling Shenonymous and don’t even realize she’s playing with you like a terrier with a rat.  She came to the intellectual gunfight with a mini-gun—and you came with a pen-knife.

The only one who doesn’t know it, is you, and possibly the bad Dr Quack.

Had you one redeeming quality I’d have pity one you.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 4, 2011 at 1:50 pm Link to this comment

Gary Mont, July 3 at 11:02 pm,

“I believe most people don’t know they are being
duped.  .....  Focusing on how to inform the ignorant public
that they are being propagandized in simple terms they
can understand is the course in which liberals ought to be
committed.  This is my agenda ....”
—By Shenonymous, July
1 at 9:07 am

Page 1 of 2

When the determination of who did what to whom with regard to
propaganda is determined by viewers of this Truthdig forum, the
salient germinal point that MUST be kept in mind is that I am the
one offering a simple and easy way of defining propaganda for use
by the masses in propaganda analysis to decrypt the complexities
of propaganda, and the chorus of Hard Right and Lite
Right
minions of Shenonymouses together with
Shenonymous are AGAINST my offering of the simple and
easy way of defining propaganda as “binary emotional
rhetoric,”
in favor of “simple terms” THEY, the
masses of the American Populace
, can understand that is
“the course in which Liberals ought to be committed.” that
Shenonymous has proposed here on the Truthdig forum
and that Shenonymous and all of her minions here on the
Truthdig forum have refused, and continue to refuse to define and
give EXAMPLE of.

Shenonymous and her minions asked of me that I provide
definition and EXAMPLES with regard to propaganda as
“binary emotional rhetoric,” and I complied in a straight
forward and forthright manner.

When the time came for Shenonymous and her minions to
define and give EXAMPLES of the “simple terms” THEY,
the masses of the American Populace, can understand that is
“the course in which Liberals ought to be committed.” that
Shenonymous proposed as an alternative, “you people,”
together with Shenonymous, started a Campaign of
Denigration and Personal Attacks AGAINST me to berate me
personally, rather than to provide definition and EXAMPLES with
regard to the “simple terms” THEY, the masses of
the American Populace, can understand that is “the course in
which Liberals ought to be committed.”
that
Shenonymous proposed.

Why is it that YOU attack me personally and denigrate me
personally, rather than to just provide the “simple terms”
THEY, the masses of the American Populace, can understand that
is “the course in which Liberals ought to be committed.”
that Shenonymous proposed.

The following from the AlterNet forum by Dr. Cynthia Boaz are 14
additional examples of binary emotional rhetoric that IS
propaganda:

http://www.alternet.org/news/151497/14_propaganda_techniques_fox_"news"_uses_to_brainwash_americans/

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 4, 2011 at 1:44 pm Link to this comment

Gary Mont, July 3 at 11:02 pm,

“I believe most people don’t know they are being
duped.  .....  Focusing on how to inform the ignorant public
that they are being propagandized in simple terms they
can understand is the course in which liberals ought to be
committed.  This is my agenda ....”
—By Shenonymous, July
1 at 9:07 am

Page 2 of 2

All I want “you people” and Shenonymous to do
is to define and give EXAMPLE of the “simple terms” that
“you people” advocate that “THEY,” the masses
of the American Populace, can understand that is “the course in
which Liberals ought to be committed.”
that
Shenonymous proposed.

“You people,” in HARSH, PROPAGANDISTIC fashion define
and provide EXAMPLE of me in propagandistic terms as an
EVASION, rather than to define and provide EXAMPLE of the
“simple terms” that “you people” advocate that
“THEY,” the masses of the American Populace, can
understand that is “the course in which Liberals ought to be
committed.”
THAT Shenonymous proposed.

All you people need to do is just to trot out YOUR “simple
examples”
and we can move on in our dialogue with regard
to the “simple examples” given; perhaps the so called
“simple examples” were a propagandistic play and the
“simple examples” do not exist.

Whatever the case is, attacking me personally as a solution to
solving the dilemma of you people’s own self inflicted
problem of “simple solutions” is not the answer; I am only
the messenger and killing the messenger will not change the
causal consequences of the message.

Rather than to continue YOUR attack on me personally to avoid
presenting definitions and examples of the “simple terms”
Shenonymous
proposed, I suggest that you
people
get together and trot out those “simple
terms,”
rather than to continue your personal attacks
AGAINST me as a propagandistic alternative to provision of
definition and EXAMPLES of those “simple terms”
Shenonymous
proposed.

The following from the AlterNet forum by Dr. Cynthia Boaz are 14
additional examples of binary emotional rhetoric that IS
propaganda:

http://www.alternet.org/news/151497/14_propaganda_techniques_fox_"news"_uses_to_brainwash_americans/

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 4, 2011 at 1:21 pm Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, July 3 at 8:04 pm,

You should be ashamed to come onto a Left-Wing forum and use Fox
Broadcastings Propaganda Tactics as the means of spewing YOUR
vitriol, but you are not; YOU have no shame and this we have
established from YOUR past shameless behavior.

http://www.alternet.org/news/151497/14_propaganda_techniques_fox_"news"_uses_to_brainwash_americans/

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, July 4, 2011 at 6:24 am Link to this comment

The Democrats—the leadership, that is—have a hard time resisting the Republicans because their class interests and values are much closer to the Republicans’ than to those of their own people.  Hence major opportunities, like impeachment of Bush in 2007, seizure and reformation of the financial industry in 2009, Single Payer in 2009-2010, and ending the various wars and the general policy of imperialism, all of which would have been quite popular and significant, have been foregone, taken ‘off the table’ in Pelosi’s words.  The issues, so-called, are differences of style and emphasis, not of substance.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 4, 2011 at 3:04 am Link to this comment

Random thoughts on that tip of the iceberg!

Just thinking out loud on further ideas in reference previous comments.  One thing the Republicans seem to be doing with their lock step marching sequence is the appearance of successfully fulfilling their benefactors agendas, far as I can tell the benefactors are the corporations and some of the elite known as the plutocracy, which could be anyone with money and their own ex congress person lobbyists pushing agendas. 

Republicans today do not believe in meeting half way or compromising. When you hear Republicans quoting Ann Rand with tears in their eyes, one should be prepared to bend over and spread them.

In the Red states the empowered Republicans obviously got their marching orders from special interests. Recently some red state governors met with special interests in Colorado to be filled in on the plan. Far as I can tell, not one Red State governor represents what is best for the state or the nation, nor the people of the state (well the majority of the people of the state).

The corporate manipulated plan seems to be going well, as long as the huddled masses keep fighting each other over superfluous issues, well planned issues of high emotionally manipulated value.  Issues which have little or nothing to do with the corporate and plutocracies agendas.

It always seems to be the same issues which I feel are always on the defense as political manipulations of the people,... for example,  gay rights, womans rights, aliens rights all social and high impacting in their emotional division to take focus off real issues.

So, what are the real issues?

It appears the Republicans are in the saddle for now and the Democrats are the enablers.

Tequila break!

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, July 3, 2011 at 11:02 pm Link to this comment

Cross-posted from “This is what resistance looks like”

A note to any who give a shit.
==============================

While I do not expect him to ever go away; as this blog gets global revue and more than anything else, Thomas wants as large an audience as he can get, I do expect that he and his minion Martha will show more and more of their true Republican colors and Brownshirt reversal techniques as fewer posters respond to their bevy of incredibly childish insults and accusations.

In case anyone has not noticed it, every one of Thomas’s posts are perfect examples of Republican Binary Emotional Rhetoric, using negative reverse-logic based insults to emotionally stimulate the posters to respond angrily, allowing Thomas to post further insults and innuendo based on accusing others of using his own methods.

As a means of redirecting the enemy’s dialogues and imposing his own subject matter on the group, it is a superb Brownshirt technique that has worked successfully here for weeks now.

Its actually ingenius. Pretend to offer a solution to the Left Wing Dilemna which is actually the Right wing Technique for propaganda that created the Left Wing Dillemna, and then berate the Left wingers for not agreeing to use the offered Magic Formulae.

In reality, Thomas’s advise boils down to:

“The best way to defeat the Republicans is to turn the entire population into Republicans.”

Reminds me of the oft-quoted line:

“The only way we will defeat the next Evil Empire, is to Become the Next Evil Empire.”

I think the best advice to all would be:

Please Do Not Feed the Trolls

Its advise I’m going to follow in future, as I’m certain that the success of Thomas’s campaign of disruption and redirection here at TruthDig will signal a wave of similar Brownshirt posters over the next couple months, using the same or similar techniques.

I suggest that any further discussion of Thomas or Martha be handled in private messages to reduce the amount of white noise on this forum.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 3, 2011 at 8:04 pm Link to this comment

Gee, MarthaA:
I’m glad you are here to teach all us morons who are so fucking stupid what’s propaganda being tossed at us by the various parties (LC “p”, not UC “p”).

Like it wasn’t so blatantly obvious even without your pompous arrogant condescension to “show us the way”.

I find your arguments redundant, readily and easily dispensed with (though you cannot seem to figure that out).  In fact, not only do you engage in the most blatant sophistry, it has become dreadfully boring.

You persist in misusing “Binary” “Emotional” and “Rhetoric” solely to suit your own ends so you can get an entry in Wikipedia.  It’s nothing but..
“Bullshit” “Emitted” “Rectally”

Enough already.  You have not been able to get published with this nonsense so you tried to sneak it on Wikipedia, where TM over there saw through you.

Enough.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 3, 2011 at 12:43 pm Link to this comment

**Truthdig Webmaster**

For some time now I have been and continue to experience Catch 22 Truthdigging problems posting on the Truthdig forum, problems of having the right to dig for the truth on all of the truth that I can’t be prevented from digging for by “Page Not Found” restriction of posting my dialogue on the Truthdig forum.

I would very much appreciate a solution to the “Page Not Found” posting restriction on the Truthdig forum that allows me to exercise FREE SPEECH on the Truthdig forum, rather than Catch 22 Free Speech that is edited by “Page Not Found” restriction of my posts.

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, July 1, 2011 at 7:38 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA for Thomas M: With regard to your mental skills, I agree with your assessment. Therefore, there is no reason to dialog with you further until you remedy that problem.

Done and done.
Have a good life.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 1, 2011 at 7:10 pm Link to this comment

Gary Mont, July 1 at 1:51 pm,

With regard to your mental skills, I agree with your assessment. 
Therefore, there is no reason to dialog with you further until you
remedy that problem.

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, July 1, 2011 at 1:51 pm Link to this comment

To Thomas M, (I’m assuming MarthaA is merely your lackey in all of this.)

I gave it all two reads and a long ponder, but in all honesty, I cannot detect any difference between this and standard bar room bullshit.

It is thus certainly propaganda of a sort, but how any of it is supposed to emotionally convince the reader that it is factual is way beyond my limited mental skills to discern apparently.

And where is the sublated balance of unity x=x dialectic in this supposed binary emotional rhetoric??

All I see is unsupported claims, outright deceptions and unfounded accusations, delivered as righteous sermons.

Apparently, all that Thomas M is offering, is to put new labels on stuff that has been with us nearly foerver - Hegelian Mathmatica - sublated unity of balance - binary emotional rhetoric…

Bullshit is always bullshit and hardly needs a new mega-complex name to make it any more obvious than it is already. Every ten year old learns how to do this kind of psuedo-logical lying, just to survive living with his/her parents. None of this is new or special dialogue, let alone logic of any sort. To be effective, propaganda must be convincing.

And nothing I can find posted in these examples gives even slight credibility to the idea that Propaganda should better be described as Binary Emotional Rhetoric, or that the new label would or could in any way benefit anyone in their analysis of propaganda.

In my opinion only of course.

Nonetheless, I’m done with it.

No more effort or time will I waste on this thesis of alternate language perception, or whatever it might be.

It is nothing more than making the simple complex, and thus, counter productive to finding solutions.

In fact, it more and more appears to be an attempt to misdirect honest efforts towards pointless discussions. Enough is enough.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, July 1, 2011 at 10:31 am Link to this comment

Thomas G, writing as MarthA, If your labels and examples were less loaded, your obvious intent to plant propaganda would not be so obvious.

Instead of “Positive Balanced Dialectic Used as Logic to Glorify:”  why not: “Propaganda disguised as rhetoric to glorify”  if your intent is really to educate what you call ‘Joe Sixpack’.

Your post contains numerous ‘examples’, which are merely dogmatic statements disguised behind a sham of an ‘intellectual discussion’, the purpose of said ‘discussion’, being to provide plausible deniability for dumping the name calling into the forum. 

The effect is indeed a propaganda miracle and coup.  ‘Joe Sixpack’ reads past your fancy pseudo-intellectual crap and sees the name calling, smearing, etc.  Those who actually try to understand the more complex (decoy) meanings of your post give you the benefit of the doubt and let your neo-con dogma stand as the examples you claim them to be. 

I’ll give you cleverness points, but I call out the BS on you.  You got flies.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 1, 2011 at 8:07 am Link to this comment

Binary Emotional Rhetoric—Propaganda - EXAMPLE I:

Conservatives are patriots to the United States because it is the best country in the world, the most preeminent democracy in the world that has the best economic system in the history of the world, Privatized Capitalism, and the Free Market System.

Liberals are all unpatriotic Godless Communists and socialist subversives that are plotting against America, want to destroy America and throw the world into economic and political chaos.

This is an EXAMPLE of “Glittering Generality” which is used to associate Conservatives and Liberals with virtue words “the best country in the world” based upon a binary choice between Liberals and Conservatives, the former who are trying to destroy the USA and the Conservatives, the latter, who are patriots defending the USA.

The virtue words, “the best country in the world” are used to make us accept Conservatives as patriots without examining the evidence.  The use of “virtue words” is the rhetorical device that leads to a conclusion that Conservatives are patriots because they support “the best country in the world” and because Liberals are trying to destroy “the best country in the world” they are unpatriotic—— This is an EXAMPLE of PROPAGANDA——binary emotional rhetoric.

***********

Binary Emotional Rhetoric - Propaganda - EXAMPLE II:

Liberals are lazy, uneducated, unpatriotic, mean, vile, and vulgar people who want to be taken care of by the government and live on welfare, rather than work for a living like good productive Conservatives that have worked hard to get an education and make the United States the beacon of democratic civilization and both the industrial and commercial success that the United States is in the world today.

This is an EXAMPLE of “Name Calling” which is used to reject and condemn based upon a binary emotional choice between Liberals and Conservatives with rhetoric to lead to a conclusion to reject and condemn Liberals and to accept and glorify Conservatives.

The binary emotional choice to be made is between Liberals and Conservatives.  The use of “Name Calling” is a rhetorical device that leads to a conclusion to reject and condemn Liberals and to accept and glorify Conservatives. ——— This is an EXAMPLE of PROPAGANDA———binary emotional rhetoric.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 1, 2011 at 8:05 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 29 at 5:56 pm,

Page 1 of 2

****Dialectic EXAMPLES of Propaganda—Part I ****

Example of Both Positively and Negatively Balanced Dialectic Used as Logic to Unite:

A successful nation is made up of more than polarized self serving Private Interests.  A nation to be successful depends upon communal assets of infrastructure, stable domestic markets for the products of its economy, a stable workforce to provide labor for its economy and stable communities as a tax base to provide the resources to serve Community Interests. 

A nation is made up of communities and of Community Interests as well as Private Commercial Economic Interests.

The United States as a nation has strayed away from Community Interests that provide stability of infrastructure, domestic markets, domestic work force; strayed away in general from domestic Communal Interests of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with freedom and justice for Community Interests in favor of the pursuit of Commercial Interests of life, liberty, and happiness with freedom and justice for Commercial Interests at the expense of Community Interests of the nation as a whole.

The United States has become a Polarized Nation that has a conflict of interest between Community Interests, Liberal Interests, and Commercial Interests, Conservative Interests.

The United States is a Polarized Nation, a nation divided between Liberal Interests and Conservative Interests, a nation that is no longer united for the Common Good of both Public Interests and Private Interests.

The population that make up the United States, as a people, are a conflicted people, conflicted between the Liberal Interests of Community and the Special Interests of Conservatism.

Liberal and Conservative is a very old concept that has been called by different names over the ages that go all of the way back to myths of creation and chaos.

The Conservative position is that of a stand against Chaos by conserving the established order, and the Liberal position is that of Progressive Creation of New Order that is in service to Community Interests; Conservatives seek to Conserve Order that is in service to Private Interests; Liberals seek to Create a better and more useful New Order that serves Community Interests.

Here in the United States the Established Order of Commercial Interests seek to Conserve the existing structure of an Established Order to maintain certainty and benefit for Commercial Interests and serve Private Interests to a greater degree than Community Interests; this is the Conservative perspective.

The Liberal perspective is one of Community Interests, Creative Interests for community benefit that conflicts with Private Conservative Certainty of Established Order benefit and certainty for Private Interests.

The United States, at the present time at the beginning of the 21st Century, is a Polarized and Fractured Nation.

There is a Natural Unity between the interests of Creativity and Conservatism, and when that unity is NOT fractured into Special Interests and polarized into Self Serving Interests separate and apart from the unity of interest between Creative Liberal Interests and Conservation of Advantage and Benefit that are Conservative Interests, the Greater Good of both Liberals and Conservatives have been, can be, and will be served in the past, present, and future.

As a nation all of the people of our nation, both Liberal and Conservative must learn to recognize Common Interests and Common Benefit that unite Liberals and Conservatives, rather than polarize and divide Liberals and Conservatives into divisive Special Interests, because we cannot continue as a nation divided, as a nation of Polarized Special Interests that are not united.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 1, 2011 at 8:04 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 29 at 5:56 pm,

Dialectic EXAMPLES of Propaganda—- Part I (cont.)

Page 2 of 2

We must strive to become what the name of our nation defines our nation to be, “The United States of America,” united for the Greater Good of both Liberals and Conservatives, rather than united for the Greater Greed of Special Interests that polarize and divide our nation in service to their own greedy Private Interests.


*******************************


***Dialectic EXAMPLES of Propaganda—Part II ***

Negative Balanced Dialectic Used as Logic to Accuse, Condemn, Denounce, and Kill:

At the present time here in the United States there is work available for all who want to work but Liberals do not want to work, they want a handout, instead of a hand up, and they will lay around and take welfare, rather than take honest work when it is available; this is the problem that has destroyed the United States as a nation, and until the Godless Liberals who are lazy slackers that want a hand out, rather than a hand up are dealt with the United States as a nation will continue to descend into a state of moral decay that pulls good Conservatives, that are doing everything that is humanly conceivable to do to save the country, from going down into the abyss of the lazy degenerate Liberals.

Proof of the Liberal problem is the September 18, 2008 Collapse of the U.S. Economy that was brought about by the Liberals and their Godless, lazy, self serving policies and practices from the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt to the present that has destroyed our country, the United States, and if we do not do something to solve the problem, a final solution, we who are the good people, the Conservatives, are going to have to live in the Godless, degenerate Communist and Socialist deprivation of the Liberals, because they are against God and God’s Will of a Free Market Economy and they will never change from wanting a hand out, rather than a hand up at our expense, and rather than from working and earning their way in a Free Market Economy as we, the good people, the Conservatives do.


******************************


***Dialectic EXAMPLES of Propaganda—Part III ***

Positive Balanced Dialectic Used as Logic to Glorify:

The United States is the best nation in the world and Privatized Capitalism and the Free Market Economy is the best system in the world, because it gives all who want to work employment and the highest standard of living in the world; Conservatives have worked from the time of the American Revolution to make commercial opportunity, educational opportunity, and opportunity for all who want to work a reality of day to day life in the Free Market Economy of the United States, but the Godless Liberals, the Liberal slackers who want welfare, rather than to do an honest days work for an honest day’s pay are destroying everything we have worked for in the United States from the time of the American Revolution to the present, a period of 235 years, and what happened on September 18, 2008, the collapse of the U.S Economy was created by Godless Liberals who want welfare, rather than to do an honest days work for an honest days pay is where Liberal policies and practices in the United States has taken our Great Nation.

We, the good people, the Conservatives, must do something, whatever it is necessary to do, to correct the abomination of the Liberal problem and effect a final solution, so that good people, the Conservatives, do not have to continue to suffer from Liberal policies and practices that destroy our way of life as a people and as a nation.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 29, 2011 at 9:58 pm Link to this comment

Disregard this post, this poster has asked to be disregarded because of his inability to comprehend the incomprehensible.

Actually this is a test via a different browser on a different computer.

Sincerly
Leefeller

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 29, 2011 at 9:41 pm Link to this comment

John and She, I see parables between the new world order the Greek happenings and here in the USA what is sponsored by the Republicans and their wealthy benefactors.

Privatization of government projects, no or low taxes paid by the wealthy, making the working class pay more while cutting their pay and benefits. 

You may want to see the new article on the financial happenings of Greece posted on TD home page?

By the way, there was a a beautiful comment on what the new Republicans stand for compared to the old Republicans, this evening on; “The Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell” tonight. An article from what is considered a real America’s News Paper. One may be able to check it out tomorrow on the web?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 29, 2011 at 4:47 pm Link to this comment

Oh I can read and interpret very well MarthaA.  You are ridiculous
to rhetorically ask if I am incapable?  You just want someone else
to do your work.  But no dice.  I charge that you cannot get over
your own rhetoric and give real life applicable examples, we, I,
only asked for one!  And you give song and dance crap.  Nope,
I will not be a browbeaten patsy.  If you want this forum to
understand you, you do your own f’n work! I’m not going digging
in your references, I said before I’ve already check out The Fine Art
of Propaganda (notice the word Propaganda that they use?)  Nice,
they are savvy of what the public needs to know.  You are the one
incapable of rendering an example of what you are talking about. I
don’t want links.  I want you to give an example.  I don’t want to know
from where you derived your theory, I want an example.  I am not
going to hunt newspapers or news broadcasts to find examples for you. 
You find them.  Give just one!  So far you would fail my class having
given back your paper five or six times!  M’thinks it is you who are
unreal and incapable and lost in your own theory. 

Yes I understand those multiple posts earlier.  I had to do that recently
where I posted 4 or 5 small posts in a row to get the entire thing to
post having gotten the same message you did.  But the problem was
overcome somehow because I was able to post longer comments, as I
see you just have.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 29, 2011 at 3:16 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 29 at 9:01 am , Shenonymous, June 29 at 9:51 am , Shenonymous, June 29 at 10:35 am, Shenonymous, June 29 at 11:15 am, Shenonymous, June 29 at 11:28 am,

“As I said, MarthaA, you may have a point, and you may be right,
but instead of more rhetoric, binary in this case between esoteric
(uncommon language) and exoteric (common language), give an
example of what you mean MarthaA, show that binary emotional
rhetoric is not an esoteric phrase but has application in real life.
Give an example of BER (propaganda is propaganda by any other
name is still propaganda)
You are equivocating in theory only.  By the way you have
misrepresented what I said.  I suggest you rerad my post of June 28
10:27pm.
—Shenonymous, June 29 at 9:51 am

With regard to your request for examples of propaganda as binary emotional rhetoric, Shenonymous, examples of the binary emotional choices of all seven types of propaganda identified by The Institute For Propaganda Analysis are given on Page 23 and 24 of “The Fine Art of Propaganda” and in Chapter XI, The Tricks in Operation, Page 109-131, examples of rhetoric is given, that leads those who are propagandized to an emotional conclusion to accept one of the two binary emotional choices provided by the propagandists—Read it.

If you are incapable of picking out the binary choices in the seven definitions of propaganda, I will render reluctant assistance and do the same with the citations of rhetoric given, but I do not feel that since you are claiming to be an academic, that I should have to hold your hand and point out to you each binary choice in each definition and each citation of rhetoric given that leads to acceptance of one of the two binary choices given by the propagandist. The following two links are sources on the internet:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_for_Propaganda_Analysis

http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/intro.ipa.html

BTW, You said, “If we want understanding, philosophy or the psychology of war and its origins is what would help. “Shenonymous, June 29 at 9:01 am

In that regard, here is a link with an answer from the belly of the beast, listen closely to Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s Chief of Staff, explain how WAR is NOT about truth, justice and the American way, but is a racket, a racket of propaganda:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/war-is-a-racket/war-from-inside-the-belly-of-the-beast.html

“Vietnam vet Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson was former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell during the blatantly fraudulent run up to the Iraq War.”

“He had the opportunity to see Dick Cheney, George Bush Jr,, Donald Rumsfeld and other assorted war criminals up close and personal.” —Brasscheck tv videos—www.brasschecktv.com

BTW, “The Fine Art of Propaganda” is derived from newspaper articles, all of which I have bound in paperback. The “Federalist Papers” and the “Anti Federalist Papers” are also derived from newspaper articles.

Newspaper articles from which “The Fine Art of Propaganda,” “The Federalist Papers” and “The Anti Federalist Papers” are derived are in NO WAY esoteric and are exoteric by their very nature of being derived from newspaper articles; therefore, your accusations of esotery, rather than exotery seems a bit peculiar when viewed from my perspective of newspaper rhetoric framed in binary emotional terms——how esoteric are newspaper articles, Shenonymous?——wouldn’t exoteric be more apt? I mean, get real.


FYI, The reason I posted my post in the manner I did was because it was the only way I could get them posted, as the network has been set to knock down the words in the context that I use them.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 29, 2011 at 12:37 pm Link to this comment

I meant we lost that one…....not me against you, but The People against the con-men who’ve been perverting the word.  When we lose what we have of language, it;s a terrible loss to us all.  Finally, I woke up.
ciao.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 29, 2011 at 12:07 pm Link to this comment

Don’t think of it as losing, John Best, think of it more as agreeing.
I can do it, so can you.  It ain’t that hard a bite of apple.

Have to run, hope to see you all later or tamarra.

And MarthaA, you know I’ve seen merit in some of your thought,
it is just that it frequently gets put in a strange form, it becomes
abstrusely complicated then you launch attack ads alienating those
who are capable of keen insight.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 29, 2011 at 11:56 am Link to this comment

“....they are all Republicans with a single agenda….”, so true and I agree with your general sentiment, but I like the label ‘neo-con’ or a new one, ‘nationalist Christians’, which sort of reminds one of ‘National Socialist’.  But ‘neo-con’, harkening to con-man, new-con, though they be old cons.

I just hate to concede the word ‘republican’, but you are probably right, it is too late.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic  Some ya win, some ya lose.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 29, 2011 at 11:28 am Link to this comment

MarthaA, June 29 at 11:02 am - Your attempt at didacticism is
pathetic.  I refuse to give anything more than a glance at your
fractured explanation of hegelian dialectic. When you write coherently
I will respond.  Your attack on me is aggressive and I will not take it. 
You do not give any example, most likely because you cannot apply
your theory to reality, so you do not get to dialogue with me.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 29, 2011 at 11:21 am Link to this comment

To everybody except Thomas G Miller (writing as MarthA)  you know where to find me.

Thomas G Miller, is there something below which you perceive as your sacred duty to your cause to bury?

Thomas G Miller, your history here at TruthDig indicates you are frustrated, rejected, and have not attained the status to which you feel entitled.  Apparently you have chosen to be a mole/troll, for some perceived or real group, and it fulfills your needs for belonging.  You feel as a part of a greater and noble group.  You feel your life has divine purpose.  Rest assured, you will be used as a pawn and will be rejected, spent.  You will never be good enough for the ‘inner circles’ of the Christian Nationalist movement due to your obvious social handicaps.

Thomas G Miller, Please, get back on your medication.  You have had a ‘flare up’.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 29, 2011 at 11:15 am Link to this comment

I was waiting for Pogo to show up.  But he is so overused!  In any
case John Best, you are right to remind me of your proposal, that
would hope to become memes.  I think it is a good plan, and I
believe I even said so at the time of your proposal so please accept
my apology.  We have covered much ground here, but I do not
excuse my lapse of memory.  Your cryptic statement, however,
that you do not wish to discuss tactics or strategy in an open
forum is odd.  But of course your desire is respected.  When do
we get started?!!!!  Meme creation is not so simple, we have to
put our heads together?  No?  Okay then, I’ll work on mine, you
work on yours.  No real need to collaborate.

I believe at the bottom (dollar or not) of every “allure” of mass violence,
is power and gold as you put it.  Could there be any other reason?  War
is a fact of life, tragic as it is. We have already gone over the idea that
aggression is innate.  Laws are not made for the peaceful, they are
made to control criminals.  War is not waged by the peaceful, the
irrational appetite for wealth which in effect spells power when used for
that purpose, is the province of the warmongers. 

You said John Best, “That said, a small but important component
would be to tune up the language tools people use to recognize, well,
I’ll just say BS.”
  It really looks as if you have succinctly put what
MarthaA has longwindedly been saying. 

I do not discriminate any longer between Republicans and
conservatives, neo or classic.  There are only Republicans on the
ballots, never the category conservative, neo or classic.  Whatever
euphpemism they are currently using, Tea Partiers, Right-Wingers,
Social Republicans (I really love the way they have confiscated the
language to try to paint themselves as more people oriented, what
hypicrisy!), whatever they want to call themselves, they are all
Republicans with a single agenda, to decimate and destroy the middle
and lesser classes of America for their own benefit.


MarthaA, the Webmaster does not always reply immediately.  Having
hundreds of problems to attend to, he has taken a few days sometimes
but he has always responded at least to me over the years and I’ve
contacted him more than several times.  I will try something else but it
may be a day or two before I can get back to you on this problem.  It is
a problem you should not be experiencing but I would say, I think there
are some website problems beyond present control and I think the
techs are working as fast as they can to fix them. 

As far as refuting what you have been saying, it is not clear what you
are saying to be able to refute it coherently.  I have lodged a form of
refutation in requesting that you provide an example of what you are
talking about.  Call me a fool if you like, that is one tactic to avoid
answering, it is a slithering out of an and unemotional intelligent reply,
which is what I expect from you. And yes, Truthdig is a forum where
everyone who participates sees what is said.  I’ve no fear or feel the
need to excuse myself for anything I’ve said even though I admit to
being a fool at times (I am not a deity contrary to what some may
thing).  When it has been shown that I’ve been in error, I admit it.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 29, 2011 at 11:02 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 28 at 10:27 pm,

h*e g-eli an dia le ctic is the concept of a sub l=ated un+ity of eq* u*al ba la nce between c*a *u* s*e and e* f* fe *ct and that the la*n gu age of c*a u*se and the la ng uage of e*f *fe *ct can be joined by la *n*g ua * ge that le* a*ds from c*a* u* se to e*f* f* e c t; this can be done with ne g a*tive b*a la*nce, po*s itive ba lance, or a un ity of eq ual po si tive and ne ga tive ba lance that exists in sub -lated un ity and le* ads from c*a -u* se to e*f f*e -ct.

We, here in the United States, really must, as a people, reject being led by unba lanced sop hism, ne gative di*a* le* ct *ic, and po-si*tive di*a- le -ct ic that en ab les pro pag anda; and insist upon dia le ctic logic that is a un ity of eq ual pos itive and neg ative ba lance that e x is*ts in sub*l ated un ity and le ads with ba *l a*nced po* s it*ive and ne* g ative lo- gic from c*a u- se to e*f& fe c t.

YOU can and do pretend that what I say with regard to unba*lanced sophism and di*a le ctic is a personal attribute related to me; this is diverting the logic of what I say to EMOTIONAL accusations of mystification and custom, and framing what I say as incomprehensible conjecture in order to avoid dealing with the problem on a rational and lo g ic al basis, but avoidance and personal recrimination as a cover up does not deal with the problem, and the problem is not going to go away by it being ignored and covered up——the “Cat is Out of the Bag” on unba lanced sophism and the use of ne g at ively and pos it ively ba la nced di a le ctic in place of a u ni ty of pos iti vely and ne g at ively ba la nc ed di*a lec tic that frames lo gic as a base for lin gu ist ics that is an expression of sub lated ba l ance that is more than just the hand maiden for PRO P AG ANDA, and I suspect that it will be difficult, as a result of internet dispersion, to get that Cat back into the Bag.

I am certain that YOU want to frame my exoteric dialogue on unbalanced sophism and both unbalanced and balanced dia le ctic as esotery, because that is what you have done, and that tells me something about YOU as a person.

However, your shouting esotery for that which is exotery is transparent, and I believe that the difference will be easily distinguished by my target audience, the masses of the populace.

BTW, do I need to post a dictionary definition of esotery and exotery to define YOUR deception of trying to frame what was meant for the masses as being only for the se *le ct fe *w?

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 29, 2011 at 10:54 am Link to this comment

Oops….  “We have met the enemy and he is us”  Can’t go misquoting pogo.  http://www.igopogo.com/we_have_met.htm

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 29, 2011 at 10:47 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 28 at 10:27 pm,


As I have said, “If you can refute what I have been saying for many years, please do so.” Otherwise, any fool can blather disingenuously about veering into esotery to frame what I presented as exotery in opposite context to cover up stinky lin guis tics in the American litter box of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with freedom and justice for all; I expected more from you and I got nothing but drivel——so be it——that is your choice and it is a choice made by you for all to see who read the Truthdig forum.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 29, 2011 at 10:46 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 28 at 10:27 pm,

“Your veering into some further esotery (yes,
for a select few) about the cloud appears to me to be your usual habit
of mystification and custom to present incomprehensible conjectures as
far as I am concerned.”
  —Shenonymous, June 28 at 10:27 pm

Been there and done that with the Web Master and the Web Master does not reply.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 29, 2011 at 10:38 am Link to this comment

Ladies before Gentlemen.

She: to June 29 at 9:01 am….. Indeed I propose an action of words, a rhetorical insurgency of carefully constructed memes, placed in specific local markets, and directed against specific politicians and the ‘ideas’ (dogma) they use to obfuscate their agenda.  There are legal means to penetrate print news media, online papers, the radio, and perhaps television.  On a large, large scale.  Beyond that statement, I do not wish to discuss tactics or strategy in an open public forum. 

If I may pick a bit? 
“.......and you can bet your bottom dollar that whatever is the form, the intention is to destroy human lives and cause much misery not only for us but for our progeny….....”  Uh, perhaps, and I wonder which is the primary and secondary goal, those you stated, or to gather or retain power and gold. 

The grow, grow, grow edict has produced slaves for generations.  And with sarcasm: isn’t war just the way to dispose of surplus?  Preferably the surplus which threatens the status quo?  Now seriously again, isn’t this what economic war accomplishes too?  But I digress. 

Albert Camus?  Can’t forget Pogo, who also said it so well, “We have me the enemy and he is us.”

“So how will we use our words?”  This would reveal the highest level strategy, which if known, could be countered.  That said, a small but important component would be to tune up the language tools people use to recognize, well, I’ll just say BS.   

“.......the precepts on which Republicanism operates must be removed…....”  You mean neo-conservatism I think, not Republicanism in the traditional ancient Greek sense.

Leefeller, look again at the commercials within ‘Meet the Press’.  Look at the type of audience that is likely watching a show with a high concentration of investment broker, bank and/or oil/chemical company commercials.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 29, 2011 at 10:35 am Link to this comment

MarthaA, don’t be ridiculous.  Your attack at me shows you
incapacity to reason through reality.  I am really sorry you are
unable to give examples which is really the burn you are feeling.

You know I am a liberal through and through, except I am not
a hard leftist.  Anything to the right of hard leftist is obviously to
the right side of the hard leftists.  I always support liberal programs
and rail against Republicans as my tunnel-visioned purpose.

So up your nose with a rubber hose, my dear and take your assault
and shove it.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 29, 2011 at 10:25 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 28 at 10:27 pm,

Shenonymous, you are trying to de fine my exotery as esotery and, to me, that tells me what YOUR real intentions are.

As a result of my originating and posting on Truthdig forum an exoteric defi nition of pro paganda as binary emot ional rhet oric that can be used by the masses for propa ganda ana lysis, YOU attacked the def inition as being esoteric, when in fact YOU know better, because YOU are an educated person.

YOUR behavior with regard to intentionally rede fining that which is exoteric as being esoteric says to me that YOU have esoteric interests, rather than exoteric interests, and that YOUR academic interests are inclined toward behavior as an esoteric mole with an exoteric sheep suit pretending to be a sheep, NOT for the benefit of the sheep, but to obtain benefit from the sheep as a commodity.

I have suspected as much for years because of your past association and defense of OzarkMichael, and that eventually you would shed YOUR exoteric sheep suit in favor of YOUR esoteric Conservative Right-Wing EXTREMIST reality of your true being sooner or later when pretense could no longer be maintained.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 29, 2011 at 10:11 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 28 at 10:27 pm,

YOU, Shenonymous, are trying to de fine my exotery as esotery and, to me, that tells me what YOUR real intentions are.

As a result of my originating and posting on Truthdig forum an exoteric defi nition of pro paganda as binary emot ional rhet oric that can be used by the masses for propa ganda ana lysis, YOU attacked the def inition as being esoteric, when in fact YOU know better, because YOU are an educated person.

YOUR behavior with regard to intentionally rede fining that which is exoteric as being esoteric says to me that YOU have esoteric interests, rather than exoteric interests, and that YOUR academic interests are inclined toward behavior as an esoteric mole with an exoteric sheep suit pretending to be a sheep, NOT for the benefit of the sheep, but to obtain benefit from the sheep as a commodity.

I have suspected as much for years because of your past association and defense of OzarkMichael, and that eventually you would shed YOUR exoteric sheep suit in favor of YOUR esoteric Conservative Right-Wing EXTREMIST reality of your true being sooner or later when pretense could no longer be maintained.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 29, 2011 at 10:00 am Link to this comment

She, occasionally I have had the same posting problems, I suspected it was bad weather, but I also suspect a third party manipulation or as you say it could be a TD problem?

If we had lots of money, we could buy our own politicians, but that leaves me out and 99 percent of the the people. Anyway that would be deceptive according to Ommmmm by infringing on the monopoly caucus of deception utilized by the Republicans.

As for doing something about this mess we seem to be in, I have no idea of what to do about it, other then be aware and be prepared and ready for the big shaft when it comes a calling.

The idea of a liberal or lefty, progressive or middle thought tank or a caucus of like minded folks seems to be already out there and I suppose they are money makers for the promoters, and in some cases probably already responser by deceptive Republicans doing what they do best, screwing the people.

Me the cynic, I really do not have any clear answers, just clear vision of the problems.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 29, 2011 at 9:51 am Link to this comment

As I said, MarthaA, you may have a point, and you may be right,
but instead of more rhetoric, binary in this case between esoteric
(uncommon language) and exoteric (common language), give an
example of what you mean MarthaA, show that binary emotional
rhetoric is not an esoteric phrase but has application in real life. 
Give an example of BER (propaganda is propaganda by any other
name is still propaganda)

You are equivocating in theory only.  By the way you have
misrepresented what I said.  I suggest you rerad my post of June 28
10:27pm.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 29, 2011 at 9:20 am Link to this comment

John Best, June 29 at 5:12 am,

“All:  I maintain that viewing propaganda as anything other than a continuous spectrum of influence is extremely dangerous.  A more binary view, if adopted, would remove all the subtle forms of persuasion and coercion from under the power word, propaganda.  This is what we need to be sensitive to, what I am calling ‘power words’.  These words carry an extra measure of legitimate ability to influence and motivate.

If, as stated, the subtle forms of influence are removed from the auspices of ‘propaganda’, a tool to fight said subtle influences has been removed.  That tool could normally be used to correctly label irrational psychological influences (pol ad, bombastic speech, subtle slur, etc) as propaganda.  An analogy would be, those who would defile the word, propaganda, have dulled a rhetorical knife we might need in self-defense against some imposing malady to the bits of Democracy which still survive. “ —John Best, June 29 at 5:12 am

To have a definition of propaganda, binary emotional rhetoric, that can be used as an analytic tool for propaganda analysis in no way diminishes the forms and complexities of propaganda; this definition merely provides the basic structure of all of those subtle forms and complexities of propaganda so that they can be analyzed and by propaganda analysis it can be determined whether they are offering binary emotional choices with rhetoric that leads to acceptance of one choice to the exclusion of the one remaining choice.

As Shenonymous claims, propaganda defined as binary emotional rhetoric is not esoteric in nature, propaganda defined as binary emotional rhetoric is exoteric in nature, because propaganda defined as binary emotional rhetoric gives the broad masses the ability to do propaganda analysis on all of those subtle forms and complexities of propaganda which you are concerned about.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 29, 2011 at 9:10 am Link to this comment

Ha! It came up!  The delay is confounding and maybe the reason
some posters have double or triple posts.  It is a website problem.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 29, 2011 at 9:09 am Link to this comment

I too am having website posting problems on a couple of forums.
I will repost something in a separate post as it’s length is just under
the limit, and if it shows up twice please accept my apologies.  I hate
to bother the Webmaster who must deal with MarthaA’s bigger
problem?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 29, 2011 at 9:02 am Link to this comment

Damn! I had ignored or missed the payoff media angle which is obvious, thanks!... (The forest for the trees.)

This means we the people as schmucks are subsidizing and payrolling the media to support bug business in their carnal symbiotic relationship.

Guess this is why the Clarence Thomas integrity questions are not even a blip on the MSN, main news!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 29, 2011 at 9:01 am Link to this comment

It is awfully interesting that so many are so aware of the corruption
that permeates our society yet we leak integrity as if it runs through
a sieve and no one has any idea of what in the hell to do about it. 
MarthaA drones on about binary emotional rhetoric, that I‘ve begun
to think is a distraction to acting on the real problem of propaganda. 
There are John Best, Leefeller, Gary Mont who mainly describe what
appears to be the reality. What action do they propose?

Words are all we have unless we want to resort to primitive gesturing
which is hard to do over the Internet!  That is the essence of this article,
Electronic Brownshirts. Words are inert and only potentially emotive and
become potent when a mind puts them in a specific order that carries
emotional content.  There are correlatives of words to mental states, yet
the words have to be put into a frame of reference where the content
carries the meaning intended.  The worst tyrants in history knew the
magic of words.  For instance, using the word ‘war,’ let me propose that
as this post is read, someone, somewhere in the world, is scheming a
war.  Used this way, the word war strikes terror into our hearts for we
do not know where this war will erupt.  We can guess, but we do not
know.  This war could be genocide, a rebellion, an invasion, a nuclear
attack by some irrational human minds, and you can bet your bottom
dollar that whatever is the form, the intention is to destroy human lives
and cause much misery not only for us but for our progeny.  I have
read where in the last 100 years over 200 million humans, mostly
civilians, not warriors, have died in wars.  And as we look around there
is no end in sight to continued slaughter.  The US is criticized for some
of this but Americans are by a long shot not the worst perpetrators. 
There is a constant and unrelenting threat of violence with us on a daily
basis.  That cannot help but have a psychic effect on how we perceive
the world and each other.

If we want understanding, philosophy or the psychology of war and its
origins is what would help.  We would have to engage in much self-
reflection on our own views of humanity and our relations with and in
it.  But that is not helpful in the short run.  We have to learn to put the
skids on and come to a screeching halt.  But we have momentum,
potential kinetic energy that will keep us propelled until all the material
of the physical world comes to a stop.  It is pure physics but a physics
based on the mind, the psychology to understand that we, as a human
race, are hastening our demise as a race.

Albert Camus was a prescient mind who wrote many philosophical
words wrote “We used to wonder where war lived, what it was that
made it so vile.  And now we realize that we know where it lives, that it
is inside ourselves.”

So how will we use our words?  To better humanity or to further its
misery?  But the thing is that we must do it cleanly with out obfuscating
embellishments.  Cut to the quick, for humans do not have all the time
in the universe.  I’ve often hypothesized on the forums that the earth
will take care of itself and does not care a whit if humans wipe
themselves out, or continues as part of the fauna that inhabits its
accommodations whatever they might be.

People like the current cataclysm of Republicans wish to exploit and
manipulate the majority of this country’s population.  We are able to see
this immediately through the optical miracle of the electronic media. 
We humans invented these devices and we can use them to help
ourselves.  We the people, must with every ounce of strength we have,
to vigorously resist, this encroachment on our natural being and rights
to a just and equitable life.  That does not mean we do not need a
government or a state, it means that the precepts on which
Republicanism operates must be removed and replaced with those of
liberal, social concerns.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 29, 2011 at 8:51 am Link to this comment

Yes Leefeller, propaganda is taking the form of ‘advertizing’.  ‘Advertizing’ doesn’t sound bad, it implies some service a well-intentioned company provides to inform customers.  ‘Propaganda’ implies a trick by bad people to entice people to surrender power. 

Many of the ads, especially the ‘energy company’ (read that big oil, coal, and chemical) and the financial (read that usury) are simply payoffs to the media to keep whatever good journalists there are at bay.  It is propaganda to even think a big oil company has the publics interest in mind when they ask to be entrusted with the ‘energy sources of tomorrow’.  Similar statements can be made about the financial industry. 

It all amounts to propaganda to keep people from realizing the fox is guarding the chicken house. 

It is not black-and-white argument.  It is varying degrees of pressure, varying degrees of falsehood to subtly influence thinking.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 29, 2011 at 8:34 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 28 at 10:27 pm,

The Truthdig Web Master puts up a “Page Not Found” screen when I try to make response to your post, as a means of denying the content of my response to your posts.

I am hesitant to change the context of my post to get around the “Page Not Found’ restriction of the Truthdig Web Master and ask that in the name of “Free Speech” ALL bloggers on the Truthdig forum and elsewhere post a denunciation of Truthdig’s <b>“Page Not Found” tactic as a means of limiting FREE SPEECH in the name of Digging for the Truth as the name “Truthdig ” implies.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 29, 2011 at 7:39 am Link to this comment

John, suggestions, not sure what you may be asking? Larry Gross on TD, usually on the home page, has what is called Larry’s List.  It is a list of links.  Right now he has a link to Truth Out not (TD) which has another article on Greece by Paul Krugman, which may be a different look at the problem. I will check it out when I have more time.

The ever present trolls may be paid for their political trolling? Apparently the money bag benefactors can hire opportunists or anyone to serve their cause from the oodles of money in their off shore bank accounts, (some of which may be tax payer money) to pay trolls, lobbyists, advertising and their representative politicians.  The trolling presence seems just as consistent as Republican Rhetoric and may only be the tip of the iceberg in the grand scheme of opportunistic never ending screwing of the huddled masses.

Hell,... we are subsidizing big oil to use propaganda and advertisements on how great and good they are for the environment, while they hire lobbyists with the rest of our money to gut and kill all regulations with their ex Congress person lobbyists,... now I hear Goldman Slacks is doing a bit of the same,  getting rid of jobs in the USA and moving them offshore, after we bailed their too big to fail ass out?

But subsidized people, that wpi;d be called socialism.  The propaganda machine is real and well oiled, we the people are so screwed and the Tea Bags seem late to the concept.

So Greece may be a template to our very own problem in the grand global scheme of things?... Now I need to make time and read the Paul Krugman article.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 29, 2011 at 5:12 am Link to this comment

For what it’s worth, the webmaster replied this Moday past (27 Jun) to a report I made by email on 10 Jun.  The problem seems to clear after you get past it by the ‘chop and multi-post’ work around.

Leefeller: Thanks for that article.  At least one concept, “Privatizing Greece” made me think.  I have an interesting story, which I would like to post someplace permanent, so if I take the time to type it up will be immune from trolls pushing it down, down, into functional oblivion.  Suggestions?

All:  I maintain that viewing propaganda as anything other than a continuous spectrum of influence is extremely dangerous.  A more binary view, if adopted, would remove all the subtle forms of persuasion and coercion from under the power word, propaganda.  This is what we need to be sensitive to, what I am calling ‘power words’.  These words carry an extra measure of legitimate ability to influence and motivate. 

If, as stated, the subtle forms of influence are removed from the auspices of ‘propaganda’, a tool to fight said subtle influences has been removed.  That tool could normally be used to correctly label irrational psychological influences (pol ad, bombastic speech, subtle slur, etc) as propaganda.  An analogy would be, those who would defile the word, propaganda, have dulled a rhetorical knife we might need in self-defense against some imposing malady to the bits of Democracy which still survive.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 28, 2011 at 10:27 pm Link to this comment

H e l l o ooo MarthaA.  On June 17 I wrote to the Truthdig
webmaster about your post that oddly would only print
backwards. He replied that he would look into it and his exact
words were that “it might be a technical mishap” and would check
with the technicians and get back to me.  That was June 21, he has
not re-replied, so my guess is that the problem has not yet been
figured out.  Regarding your June 28, 8:27pm post. You may contact
the Webmaster by clicking on the Contact Us link at the bottom of all
forum pages, and on the right side of the page that loads is a way to
contact the Webmaster.  Explain to him what happened and he will
courteously answer you.

Frankly, MarthaA, I am just too bored with the entire topic about
propaganda as you have presented it on this forum to continue any
conversation about BER.  Your veering into some further esotery (yes,
for a select few) about the cloud appears to me to be your usual habit
of mystification and custom to present incomprehensible conjectures as
far as I am concerned. 

It is utterly and wholly important to me to give articulate and rational
expression to what the Republicans are doing in the public political
domain and that all energy by those who are rational and articulate, in
whatever order is natural to them, be spent in defeating the
Republicans in any public office they seek and thwart their efforts to
make their intentions the law of the land.  Their agenda is the most
dangerous one this country has ever faced and I believe needs to be
stopped.  Evidence for my claim here is provided with every single
speech each of them makes and every single attempt to pass
legislation that would decimate all social programs for the middle,
lower income, and abjectly poor people of this country.  I suggest you
turn your complete attention to this program.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 28, 2011 at 9:37 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 16 at 9:29 pm,

select few

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 28, 2011 at 9:28 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 16 at 9:29 pm

If you have a valid point, please make it because I am presently of the opinion that YOU are engaged in the creation of a side show to obfuscate ulterior intent.

What is the point of YOUR implication that propaganda defined as “binary emotional rhetoric” is “Understood by or meant for only the [cloud people] who have special knowledge or interest.”?—unless, perhaps, you consider yourself one of that “cloud people” — YOU did not have a clue and YOU are backlashing out of spite, because it has become glaringly obvious to YOU from YOUR lack of understanding of propaganda defined as “binary emotional rhetoric” that YOU are not, perhaps, as select a member of that “cloud people” as YOU thought you were?

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 28, 2011 at 9:22 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 16 at 9:29 pm,

I have substituted cloud people for select few,
because “Page Not Found” shows up on my screen
when I try to post select few in context.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 28, 2011 at 9:16 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 16 at 9:29 pm,

Page 3

If you can refute what I have been saying for many years in this respect, Shenonymous, please do so.  Otherwise, what is YOUR point, other than to try to obfuscate an easy THREE WORD DEFINITION of propaganda that allows for analysis by the broad masses by YOUR creation of a side show??????

With regard to YOUR comment, “Understood by or meant for only the [cloud people] who have special knowledge or interest.” ——— “Binary emotional rhetoric” is a simplification for the common people separate and apart from the “cloud people.”

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 28, 2011 at 8:46 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 16 at 9:29 pm,

Page 2

My complete post of 6/28 at 8:27 pm has been
selectively edited, either by Truthdig or some
other invasive factor, so that ” Page Not Found”
appears on my screen and blocks all of my post
except for that small portion appearing in my
6/28 8:27 pm post.

It is difficult to have a dialogue on the topic of
propaganda when Free Speech is being
restricted by the use of “Page Not Found” to
selectively block the total content of my post
when I try to respond to assertions made
concerning what I have previously posted with
regard to propaganda.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 28, 2011 at 8:27 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 16 at 9:29 pm,

“Now I don’t mind if someone wants to perpetrate a pet
theory, but I do mind when it is sprung on a Truthdig forum as if it
were a practice or in common use when in fact it is quite esoteric,
or in the words of Dictionary.com, “understood by or meant for
only the select few who have special knowledge or
interest.” “
—Shenonymous, June 16 at 9:29 pm

Your Shenonymous post of June 16, 2011 at 9:29 pm is
a misrepresentation of what I have said with regard to
propaganda being defined as “binary emotional rhetoric.”

What I have said over and over and over again is that the SEVEN
Techniques of Propaganda listed on Page 23 of “The Fine
Art of Propaganda, A Study of Father Coughlin’s Speeches”
by
The Institute For Propaganda Analysis can be reduced to THREE
WORDS that are
common to all SEVEN (7) definitions.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 28, 2011 at 5:11 pm Link to this comment

John and She, I finally had time to listen to the Tiger video and found it very interesting. The concept of religion being sauce for the brain seems a worthy prospect. The emotional high as it is from the Sunday services is the exact same feeling I can achieve when I do hear great music or work on a project I love.

As for Greece, the anarchist are only one small part of the picture, you may want to this link; http://www.thenation.com/article/161685/greece-debt-eurozone-crisis?page=0,1&rel=emailNation 

I find what is going on in Greece more complicated then I can comfortably follow and understand. It seems we may be following in Greek footsteps if the Republicans have their way?

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 28, 2011 at 10:14 am Link to this comment

Well She,
Privacy.  Try explaining privacy concerns to most people.  Either they get it, or they give one of three responses.  ‘You’re paranoid.’, or ‘Do you think you’re so important they care?’, or ‘If you haven’‘t done anything wrong, why would you care if someone is watching?’ 

And everything is digitized and TCP/IP’d, meaning it has a source IP and MAC address, and a destination IP address.  If I understand it correctly, there is no longer a need for the Nielsen families because ‘they’ can tell what channel you are watching in real time because of the necessarily two-way TCP/IP communication between the TV and the video switches at the cable company.  I don’t know if they’re doing this quite yet, but my understanding is they have the infrastructure to custom program your commercials based on your ever-shifting profile.

And Leefeller, this twisting of words.  I picked this avatar for a reason.  I hate to think 2 or 5 or 10 years out.  How much additional will be available about you, beside your credit score? 

Now let’s throw in all you can do with that data and the GPS coordinates available because of your portable tracking device, the cellphone.  And one or two highway intersections in the US still don’t yet have a video camera. 

It’s an extraordinary age, the high level (real-time video and audio) connectedness we have on a peer-to-peer basis.  The naive say without thinking or experience that this is a good thing.  They even think that some magical recent changes in human nature made history irrelevant.   

These tea-baggers and libertarians are usually fairly anti-government, but the personal data wild-west is happening in the private sector.  With the governments blessing.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 28, 2011 at 9:06 am Link to this comment

Regarding TD ads, I’ve noticed and let them know my sentiments,
that even though I have a fast computer, iMac with OSX 10.6.7 a
nd everything is up-to-date, it takes what I consider eons for a
TD article page to load because it has to wait for all the marginal
ads to load up.  It is disgusting really, not just the waiting part but
the f’n ads.  Many of which I totally resent that advertise right-wing
positions and ads.  Of course I agree with most of the liberal ones,
but even among those I would not support!  Anyway I think it is an
assault on my intelligence and exploiting a captured audience if you
want to participate in any of the discussions.  Seems like something
unethical in that. 

No wonder the hard copy newspapers are becoming extinct.  I noticed
in the last decade the increased number of advertiser pages, and almost
no news.  I refused to pay for advertisements so I quit my newspaper
delivery years ago.  Now they are going defunct!  They and their
advertisers.  But of course the advertisers will find Internet websites,
tweeter, facebook, whatever.  Why even when you use certain browser
email services, no matter what you talk about in so-called private
emails, advertising comes up in the next email that expressly addresses
those topics.  A friend of mine and I have tested our theory that THEY
ARE WATCHING OUR EMAILS and laughed our heads off when very
esoteric topics were discussed (not erotic, mind you, as esoteric does
not mean erotic nor exotic! Way…ell maybe some of the topics were
exotic haha like Tahiti).  I think corporations are intruding just too
much.  Some how they need to be stopped.  I quit gmail as a mail
service because someone hacked my 3-years long site and sent out
embarrassing ads for sexual enhancement items, even to my kids since
they were in my address book!  I deleted the entire service and no
longer will use gmail.  If I want to talk about sexual enhancements I do
not need some f’n corporation nosing in giving me THEIR preferences! 
laugh laugh.  I guess some people get tickled by such stuff.  Maybe
more than I suspect.  But I like my privacy and really demand it.

So onward towards anarchy!  What is happening in Greece is a case of
quasi-anarchism as I think the protesters would form a government
once they get what they want, which are continued welfare services and
decent paychecks.  Same as here!  Same as what happened in Egypt. 
Only here the anarchists of right and left want total chaos, one to stop
continued welfare and less decent paychecks, the other to increase
them.  I do believe the right-wingish anarchists in the US are in cahoots
with libertarians and conservatives.  The difference among them are
that while libertarians want no government interference, the
conservatives want to tyrannize government and take it over as in
oligarchy, for the benefit of the few that they are.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 28, 2011 at 7:52 am Link to this comment

Anti cuts vs Anarchists In Greece? At first I wondered what made them anarchists, but if they are real anarchists, this sorta explains our resident anarchists never agreeing on anything, and sorta makes sense of her anti anything stance, so anarchists may just be libertarians with herpes!

The Republicans appear to be anarchists when they say they hate socialism, but from what they do and practice, their personal definition of socialism does not include subsides to their pet playmates like agriculture, big oil ect.  So Republicans support the doling out of huge moneys to special interests which is okay. But Sociable Secularity and Medical care for the masses, that is pinko Socialism. 

What I see is the twisting of words from their original intended definitions usually to suit some personal political preferences, this seems so more than previously noticed, maybe I am just more aware?

So for instance, the constant comment we are told, the USA is spreading democracy around the world is more of the same twisting of words. Even the idea of spreading a representative republic seems like it should be more correctly called an unrepresented republic especially as it appears here in the USA.

Far as I can tell the USA is spreading something… but it sure as hell is not Democracy.

So the willfully ignorant do not know the word anarchy just as they do they know the words democracy, republic socialist or finally one I feel is landing on our asses,.....Fascism.

By the way John, I prefer Opera and find it a superior search engine than the one you mentioned. TD over time, seems to hve been morphing into what it supposedly opposes! The adds are opportunist and annoying. Something like a Tevo for the web would be nice!

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 28, 2011 at 6:37 am Link to this comment

Oh, there may be a treat in store for us. 

First let’s dispatch this pesky electronic-brownshirts related privacy issue.  I use Mozilla Firefox as my browser, which has a status bar at the bottom which reports (too quickly) all the pages from which content is loaded.  Being suspicious, I wonder how much content (comments, cookies, browsing history) can be scavenged by these sites.  I’m fine remaining in a state of perpetual wonderment, I’m used to it. 

Now on to the treat…...shall we all fly off to Greece?  I hear ‘self described anarchists’ are in play.  I googled anarchy in Greece and was suprised to see they have quite the history of anarchy, and a number of known groups. 

I haven’t found anything more recent than June 15th, but here are a couple of photo’s of what I think are some anarchists doing their thing.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/866478-violent-anti-cut-riots-in-greece-spark-coalition-talks

Obviously this has nothing to do with the convoluted argument I was trying to fabricate.  (Yes fabricate.  Damn in, it is true, now I just have to prove it.) But, these kids with the black bandannas don’t look like they’re being non-violent.  And, there is a wikipedia article specifically on anarchy in Greece, they have a very recent tradition (over the last couple decades) of various sorts of bombings. 

I still say anarchists are a general scourge. I acccept that protest and perhaps violence may be necessary “in the course of human events”, but for the love of christ, have the energy to have a stated plan, a political objective.  Stand for something after the riots end?  Anarchists are just too much ‘somebody elses tool’.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 28, 2011 at 5:56 am Link to this comment

Nope.  Nothing like what you describe.  What I get is:

Thanks for your comment

You commented on: May 18, 2011 ‘Electronic Brownshirts’


What would you like to do next?

Di dat d’dat datz all foekz.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 28, 2011 at 5:54 am Link to this comment

Testing.  This is a bone I pick with Truthdig over and over when
some entrepreneur assumes to put a personal commercial ad in
the comments.  I invariably complain to Truthdig and they always
reply. I request these ads be removed as an assault on the privacy
of the Truthdig website!  Now I don’t know about the kind of
intrusion you are talking about John Best.  So this post is going to
check it out at least from my computer.  Submitting!

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 28, 2011 at 5:35 am Link to this comment

Yes, I get messages ‘Waiting for Truthdig”, and also some fast page loads from advertizers sites I suppose “Ad-something”, then “read-change.s3.amazonaws.com”
then after returning to the page here to comment “chitnet.com” flashes by?  I suppose this is all banner-ad crap.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 28, 2011 at 5:30 am Link to this comment

Testing….
Commenters, when you hit ‘submit’, please look at the status bar on your browser if you have one.  I noticed something interesting and I’ll report on this as soon as I do this test.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 28, 2011 at 5:27 am Link to this comment

I can’t agree the wires are in series.  Perhaps the wire passes through POTUS office, but it’s in a conduit.  He can’t stop the signal without getting out a fire axe. 

If you actually tries to diagram this, from the various points of influence within DOD, back and forth to the White House, and from both places out to the MIC (I like MIC better than IMC) Also, here is the quote: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/d/dwightdei164039.html Then, one must consider the committees of congress through which influence can be applied. The obfuscated pile of spaghetti that is the wiring diagram metaphor does it’s job well to disguise the objectives and cash-flow. 

But your point is good, a sufficient complexity to obscure corruption is a condition which allows us to initiate violence.  And I might argue that we generally permit this violence in a passive way, as it benefits our ‘lifestyle’.  The spaghetti diagram government gives us a perfect detachment from individual responsibility, even though I know I directly benefit from our aggression, I can throw up my hands, shrug my shouders, and with a quizzical look, say “what can be done”?

The culture of mass consumption, grow, grow, grow, with no social restraint on the ‘freedom to waste’. FDR forgot that one, so it was unofficially added by de-facto popular consent.  From the grassroots trickles up an energy requirement which goes through the plate of spaghetti and comes out aggression (or whatever it takes) against whoever has the resources we need.  And unfortunately, we have the global ‘tragedy of the commons’ in play, if we don’t grab whatever resources we can use, another population with a sufficiently powerful plate of pasta will do it. 

Again, I see problems as growing out of human nature, and governments good, better and worse being only manifestations of ourselves.  When we see someone reaching for a resource we need, or might need, and we think that grabbing person may not even need the resource, but may be grabbing it to waste…...well, we try to reach first.  This happens between individuals, governments and those families you mention.  We all know, if we care to search our souls, that all of us are hard-wired for self preservation rather than sacrifice to some common good.  Those who are wired for self-sacrifice get weeded our of the gene pool with each passing generation.

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, June 27, 2011 at 7:45 pm Link to this comment

John Best: Actually, to build on that analogy, suppose there are two wires either of which can trigger the attack.  One goes to the President, the other to a shadowy group of conspirators called the MIC (Military Industrial Complex).

Point taken.

I suppose you’re right to some extent, as the government is indeed not directly responsible for the violence it has the military carry out, even though its members do knowingly carry out the orders from Above -the IMC - and knowingly lie to the public about the true reasons for war.

The wires are in series. The Military Forces are connected to the wire that runs to government and the government is connected to the wire that runs to the IMC. 

The IMC demands war, as war is the source of its wealth, and the government carries out these demands in order to provide the IMC with its parasitic blood feast and to effectively misdirect the public anger away from the IMC towards government officials.

This hidden chain of command is used because, while the faces that populate government change every few years, the families of the IMC that profit from war and adversity remain the same generation after generation.

However, government is still effectively the greatest method of initiating violence ever devised, since it allows the real villains to hide in the shadows and its social enginnering processes trick the peasants, including the grunts on the ground, in the air and on the sea, into a patriotic fervor in support of the planned violence.

But I have to agree, the true villains here are as always, those families who have eternally profitted from adversity and suffering and death.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 27, 2011 at 6:36 pm Link to this comment

Prego.  A small token of appreciation for the refreshing wines you’ve poured here.

BTW, I’m not into tequila, a while back, I was chiding Leefeller a bit.  I like a nice brunello when I can get it, failing that, any decent dry red.

Gary, I’m not so sure the wires to that force run where we think they run.  Actually, to build on that analogy, suppose there are two wires either of which can trigger the attack.  One goes to the President, the other to a shadowy group of conspirators called the MIC (Military Industrial Complex).  POTUS cannot stop the MIC signal, but MIC does control a cutoff switch in series with the POTUS wire, which they never use.  What happened in Libya for instance, or Afghanistan?  Oil, Lithium, Copper and poppies.  Actually, I think in this case the POTUS wire is a big decoy, but the MIC wire is samll and obscure, but it is where the ‘Go’ signals originated.  Just thinking. Dunno.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 27, 2011 at 3:06 pm Link to this comment

The link to Lionel Tiger was a nice gift John Best.  I will spend my
leisure now listening to his many lectures.  Always open to new
ideas, and excellent explanations, I’m sure I will learn something! 
Grazie.

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, June 27, 2011 at 12:51 pm Link to this comment

In the case of a remotely detonated bomb, one usually considers the pusher of the detonation button to be the violent party and the bomb to be merely his tool.

When an army self motivates and wages war, it is called revolution, and this is the only time when the army is not the bomb, and government is not the button pusher.

If I sic my dog on a stranger for fun, who is the violent one? Me or my dog.

The military is and always has been, the favoured choice of weapon of all government forms. Its primary and essential purpose, is violence. It is trained to fulfill the orders of its government owners, conveyed through the chain of command - the equivalent to a remote control wire hook-up to a bomb.

The only reason any elected government does things like food stamps, welfare, or vaccination programs is because, if it does not, it fears it will not be re-elected. Otherwise, government would be entirely pro-business and entirely beyond public access, as seen in any dictatorship.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 27, 2011 at 8:51 am Link to this comment

“.............the single most violent organization ever devised by the mind of men - government” 
I take issue.  My local city council isn’t so violent, but if the police need to, they can get rough.  I’d say the single most violent force assembled by men are armies.  I just hate to see things like the WICC program, or a vaccination program, or a reading development program lumped together with a program to develop new cluster bombs.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 27, 2011 at 7:14 am Link to this comment

Some very interesting comments folks, ... !

I stated this before Anarchy sounds like a return to the primal cave man way of life. Just as in the animal kingdom, the cute fuzzy anarchist bunny rabbit minding his own anarchist business all of a sudden becomes the tasty morsel for the Anarchist wolf.

My pooch on the ranch would be an anarchist if she could,... except I am her king. lord and government for the time being, well until the revolution. She seems more the hunter then the gatherer, though when in season she picks her own blackberries. I suspect those anarchist mouses would have me become their lord and king if it would alleviate their anarchist plight,... but I am only speculating. Possibly Anarchy has in the animal kingdom lasted longer than the human hypothetical kind?

Then there is that anarchist gopher who just chewed the roots off my prize tomato plant,.. I am finding some of these anarchists a bit on the annoying side.  It seems I will need to ask Mr. Gopher to move on to his Utopia!

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, June 27, 2011 at 12:40 am Link to this comment

sigh….

The last paragraph below:

The chance of any group that attempts to create a system different than that which promotes only the wealthy, will….

Should read:

Attempts to create a government system different than that which promotes only the wealthy, will always fail because the members attempting the new form have to exist on a world that is already controlled minutely by the wealthy, who will use every trick in the very, very, very big book of tried and true dirty tricks to insure failure.

Sorry.
On the fly editing just sucks…. smile

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, June 27, 2011 at 12:28 am Link to this comment

I think in many cases, the term anarchist is being used to describe people who actually want the end of a particular government, but who also want to install their own choice of government once the government they oppose is overthrown.

These people cannot honestly be called anarchists.

They are simply revolutionairies, or the members of an opposing political faction masquerading as anarchists for political reasons.

Most commonly, anarchy is seen as violent because it stands against the single most violent organization ever devised by the mind of men - government - and to oppose such an organization; which normally resorts to violence to suppress all dissent, counter violence is a natural choice.

Anarchist is a massively misused term methinks, and one which has been distorted beyond recognition by every government that has ever existed, specifically because it offers the concept of No Government.

It is a term that describes something equally as ephemeral as the term utopia, as far its potential to become a reality, in my opinion. But I don’t think the reason is human nature, as much as royal nature.

Human nature could I think be molded into any form imaginable, as we are; if nothing else, adaptable critters. The fact that our history speaks volumes about our violent nature probably has a lot to do with the process of exploration and migration and establishing civilized centers wherever the farming or fishing was good on a planet that was basically uninhabited.

That situation has changed drastically, but we have not… at least, our leaders have not.

I think however, that the vast majority of non royal human beings, if they had easy access to all the things that made life enjoyable - food, shelter, sex, recreation, challenge, occupation, exploration, intoxication, fun - would simply live their lives through without bothering anyone beyond the simple disputes that occur wherever more than two people meet, due to emotions and accidents.

Our past and current world system works only for those who already possess wealth, and the very few peasants who become ruthless opportunist enough to climb the ladder to the top of the food chain.

Because this system works great for the very people who we have always charged with the creation and occupation of government, the chance of anything else ever being allowed to be tried out is slim to non-existent.

The chance of any group that attempts to create a system different than that which promotes only the wealthy, will always fail because they have to exist on a world that is already controlled minutely by the wealthy, who will use every trick in the very, very, very big book of tried and true dirty tricks to insure failure.

In my opinion only of course.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 26, 2011 at 4:56 pm Link to this comment

Thomas Paine: bravo.

Interesting, this Lionel Tiger. 
http://bigthink.com/lioneltiger

Tiger and Fox via She: “They theorize with much research, that violence is learned, and they also theorize that it can be ended by simply stopping to teach it!”

From Gary: “Human nature is, in my opinion, anything but set in stone. It is the result of purposeful indoctrination, environmental situation and occupational concentration,” 

OK, suppose it is true, that simply “stopping the teaching of it” would stop it.  If you could ‘rapture away’ all potential violence teachers, you might cure it, but how did they get here in the first place and wouldn’t they develop all over again?  One could say the original violence was a response to an environmental condition that no longer exists, but I’d say it is more likely that we have an inbred defense mechanism that pre-dates the species (the human one).  Imagine a near starvation population of chimps or pre-violent chimps.  What is the most efficient behavior to survive when faced with a conflict over who eats the last bananas?  It’s in us I say.  It’s something we must recognize and suppress individually and societally.

I am personally leaning toward utopia being at least damn near impossible because non-utopic characteristics are part of human nature.  But suppose we can repress a violent nature.  Suppose also that we can repress a sneaky thieving, greedy nature (assuming that is part of our nature).  What other conditions would preclude us from reaching utopia?  Inspired by Tiger and Fox, and thirsty for more, I say sex.  Hypothesize that utopia is impossible because humans will reproduce beyond the carrying capacity of whatever resources are available.  Please try that one on.  Thank You.

And why am I nearly obsessed with finding a contradiction in Merriam Websters definition of anarchy?  I had to think about this….what is it that ‘set me off’ on this definition?  Two things.  First, Anarchy is indeed a powerful word.  It creates a revulsion like the work ‘fuck’ no longer can.  Very few words carry this power.  2. The militiamen, the survivalists, the tea-baggers.  MAny of them have an attitude that in anarchy, they’d do just fine.  They have the guns, survival gear, woods, fields, whatever.  Enough ‘stuff’ to give a false sense they would not only survive under anarchy, but possibly bubble to the top.  So, anarchy can simultaneously upset white-bread America if it’s advocated by a bunch of kids at the G8.  It can trigger a massive police retaliation and in todays environment a suspension of civil liberty. (so what about tomorrow)  But simultaneous joy can be triggered in these Sarah Palin folowers when they think of ‘taking the government back’, revolt, anarchy. 

I may not have said this well, but anarchy is a dangerous and powerful word.  Webster may have tried to nail it down, for better or worse, but words are like nailing jello to the wall, we can let them slip away.  So, the proof eludes me, but this notion that anarchy equates with utopia must be fought.  The government, piece of counterproductive, ineffectual pile of resource sucking sh__ that it is, is what we got to work with. 

An aside….those survivalists?  If they think they’d survive the pressure of roving packs of predator hunter-gatherers, they completely lack imagination.  Anarchy is not their friend and they have no clue how dependent on the system they are.  I give most of them 90-120 days tops after a major economic and/or political meltdown.

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, June 26, 2011 at 4:15 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous:But isn’t that then ”true human nature” if it has “always been our way?”

Only if you consider that the term humanity refers to only those of us who own land, are royalty, or know the best way to steal a fortune, for it is only they who determine the path that the whole of a society will take and then fill the roster of the directors of that society.

The rest of us simply do as we are told, or suffer the consequences as laid down under law by the creators and occupants of the social order.

The notion that financial success equates to either genius or the blessing of god has formed the general belief of the peasantry since the beginning of man’s social journey on earth. This is of course, the prime fallacy and is as natural as plastic toys.

Can a trained misunderstanding actually be said to be a part of, or worse, the basis of a specie’s nature?

This indoctrinated misunderstanding has always been very advantageous to the ruling families and always will be as far as I can tell.

Perhaps some day when the origins of Godhood are understood by the peasntry as they have long been by the aristocracy, humanity might begin to form society based on some other criteria besides the protection and pleasure of the wealthy.

I won’t be holding my breathe in anticipation though.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 26, 2011 at 3:56 pm Link to this comment

Gary Mont – ”Humanity, in my opinion, has never seen true human
nature, for it has always been our way to form a social structure
fraught with tradition and custom, and a governing body to choose
the form of nature we shall inherit and display.”

But isn’t that then ”true human nature” if it has “always been our
way?”

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, June 26, 2011 at 3:48 pm Link to this comment

Just a small note.

Human nature is, in my opinion, anything but set in stone. It is the result of purposeful indoctrination, environmental situation and occupational concentration, to name but a few external influential determinants.

We are as much the product of the society we create as the society we create is a product of us.

If the ruling families choose customs that cause us to be pacifists, we become pacifists, however, in almost every case, the opposite has been the way of the world, as the ruling families want protection from the ruling families in the nation next door and thus prefer to create a society based on violence, warfare and martial acumen, combined with class servitude, patriotism and dedication to the state God, or the state itself.

Humanity, in my opinion, has never seen true human nature, for it has always been our way to form a social structure fraught with tradition and custom, and a governing body to choose the form of nature we shall inherit and display.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 26, 2011 at 3:38 pm Link to this comment

My fountainous reply is too long for one post.
1.
Generally, the term “anarchy” describes the simple absence of
publicly recognized government or enforced political authority. 
That is the unornamented version.  The reality is that in order to
achieve an anarchic state, a violent revolution has always been
the means. 

Just a quick count around my sunroom are about 45 books on the
moral or otherwise altruistic/non altruistic nature of humankind. 

Thoreau said in his “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, I heartily
accept the motto, - “That government is best which governs least;” and
I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically.
Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe, - “That
government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are
prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will
have.”
  Lofty sentiments, without a doubt. Let’s not not notice that
he gave himself the perfect out, “...when men are prepared for it,”
and admits to a government.

And in my copy of “Common Sense,” Thomas Paine said, wisely I
think, ” Some writers have so confounded society with government,
as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not
only different, but have different origins ... Society is in every state a
blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary
evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.“
  He does not preclude
the necessary existence of government, albeit, a necessary evil. 

Bakunin declares in his difference of “Statism and Anarchism,” that a
universal rebellion is how the will of the people, (in my often written
motto:  Volya Naroda!) is how to answer dictatorship.  But that was in
response to dictatorship, and he was right, in order to repel against
unfair and cruel treatment by a powerful person or government in this
case a cruel monarchical government.  It is reactive, perhaps with
justice reactive, since it had to be from the bottom up to readdress
society in a just way.  Mass rebellion is sometimes the only way.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 26, 2011 at 3:36 pm Link to this comment

2.
But they did behead Charles I and Louis XVI didn’t they?  And Marie
Antoinette?  And how long did Centrist Cromwell’s anarchy last? 
And it is said, “When he was gone,” as he departed the state he tore
down and rebuilt by what he thought was God’s will, the anarchist
against the monarchist, “the empty space he left was not merely the
size of a gruff, red-faced gentleman from Huntingdonshire; he
carried away with him all the moral ground his expansive conscience
had covered. The politicians, relieved, made haste to undo his legacy
...and the country returned to peace and pleasure.”  Cromwell turned
on his fellow rebels, the Levellers, the libertarian leaders, to form a
new State, and in his case, a replacement dictatorship. The anarchist
becomes a de facto monarchist, So writes Michael Kaplan, author of
“Bozo Sapiens: Why to Err is Human,” with a little of my own
embellishment.

So your question, John Best, is fair. What kind of a species is man? An
ancient question, one which thousands of books have been written
trying to come to terms with it. We all ask it, don’t we, in some form or
other.  Here we have the noble savage, or so it has been romanticized.
Tiger and Fox (not the beasties of the jungle or forest) but scholars of
anthropology and economics who wrote on social science, writes in their
“Imperial Animal,” that “...probably for the whole of its existence—the
species (the human one my parenthetical here) has deplored
violence and has taken steps to protect itself from the worst ravages of
violence. But it has accepted it as part of the natural world in the way
that it has accepted sex.”  They theorize with much research, that
violence is learned, and they also theorize that it can be ended by
simply stopping to teach it!  A provocative thesis, but written in 1971,
I ask how long does it take for such advice to sink into a species?  They
say near the end of the book, “...we cannot expect Utopias.  It is as
natural for man to create hierarchies, to attach himself to symbolic
causes, to attempt to dominate and coerce others, to resort to violence
either systematic or lunatic, to assert, to connive, to seduce, to exploit.” 
The only possible Utopia,...would lie in a return to a simple hunting
existence.” And they readily admit, “...this is impossible.”

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 26, 2011 at 3:31 pm Link to this comment

They say a large component of politicians can potentially be psychopaths, so if we did not have government, laws and politicians (not necessarily in that order) and we lived in Anarchy ... would this mean psychopaths would not exist?

(I do not know who they is or are,... possibly the same “they”  who provide the absolutist source of certainty for material used by the likes of Ozark Michael, Martha A and a few other posters who have graced this site)!

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 26, 2011 at 1:34 pm Link to this comment

“The logic is that being without law, uncontrolled
by laws, does not necessarily mean people will act unlawfully.”  Only a certain number need to act in a non-utopic way.  If in the

Acting in a non-utopic way is as much in mans nature as breaking wind. I know it damn well, but to prove it?

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 26, 2011 at 12:41 pm Link to this comment

...“positive report on anarchism which seems to have been dismissed, .......”  For clarification, I catagorized them as examples of communal situations, not anarchy, but, I did inkle the ‘Leaderless’ option for the definition, which brings communal governments, rule by committee, and those examples back into play. 

Forget webster and ‘lawlessness’ a minute. 
You say, “The logic is that being without law, uncontrolled by laws, does not necessarily mean people will act unlawfully.”  I’m actually taking a more difficult route and proposing that in the abscence of law, people will act violently.  Violence is the key component to exclude utopia, thus nulllifying Websters c. 

Is it not logical that if you cannot show peace can exist without law, then, lawlessness implies violence? Assuming peace and violence are mutually exclusive. 

Tough ‘proof’, and I’m not up to it.  It’s not the sort of thing that can be proven is it?  That man’s tendency is to violence in the absence of law.  Peace doesn’t even exit with law.  How would one go about this?  It’s all wrong in a way, having a conclusion then setting out to prove it.  One must first decide if the conclusion is right.  If it seems true, then in good conscience, one can go about a proof.

So, can it be said that peace cannot exist at all?  There’s a whopper, but I’ve got my neck out this far….....
Look at history, the amount of war relative to peace?  Even if it can be proven there has never been peace does it mean there can never be peace, no.  Not unless violence is included as a condition for being human. 

At the root of it, when it’s easier to steal than to produce, some man or group is going to choose theft.  Now, out on a branch farther, a link between mans inability to resist theft and plunder must be linked to violence, or perhaps mans propensity to theft can be used to disprove utopia directly. 

Well, I’m going to have to think about what I really tin about this species, man.  And I know I don’t think too much of us.  It does not have to be the nature of all to be such that utopia is precluded, it only has to be the nature of some.  But how many? 

Does anybody see a way out of this?  Does anybody agree that, utopia is impossible due to our nature, and if so, how can it be ‘proven’?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 26, 2011 at 11:11 am Link to this comment

Tending to be a bad girl at times, I was just having some fun at
anarchists’ expense.  No need to snarl at me and my fellow anti-
anarchists! tch tch I do not see any willful ignoramuses here. 
Make a case for anarchy and I said I’d listen.  So far those who
speak on anarchism on blogs are very much like the passive/
aggressive virtually defensive religious-right.  I’ve done plenty
of reading of the classic anarchists as well as contemporary ones,
and have their books in my personal library so I don’t need a
bibliography.  But others seem to want one.  It would be kind to
post one for them.  Heck, you might even get a convert or two. 
Just like I am not convinced of religion, I have not been persuaded by
any of the writers old school or new. One of my last posts was really a
positive report on anarchism which seems to have been dismissed, but
oh well, I have no emotional attachment.  I only wanted to show that it
wasn’t completely an ideological chimera. No one else had taken that
challenge!  I think it can work on a small-scale where the sheer
numbers of individual minds would be less prone to conflict. 

No, I do not agree that there is a contradiction between b and c
Merriam-Webster’s definitions of anarchy.  And you noted it correctly
in my view, The weak link, with no supposing, is that lawlessness does
not imply nor acquits the notion of violence.  Yes, confoundingly, it
could implicate either.  The logic is that being without law, uncontrolled
by laws, does not necessarily mean people will act unlawfully.  Violence
is most often associated with lawlessness but it is not semantically
correct to assume that it does.  Our Merriam-Webster defines lawless as
1) not regulated by or based on law; 2) a. not restrained or controlled
by law: unruly; b: illegal.  They want to give synonymical entries of
anarchic or anarchical, disorderly, lawbraking, unruly.  An encyclopedic
entry in reference.com gives lawlessness as possibly a lack of law, in
any of the various senses of that word (see also law using three
references of chaos;  randomness; and antinomianism*, none of which
specifically speaks about the law.  The site gives five related articles
none of which addresses anarchy as being involved, even the murder of
a Solomon Island Sport and Women’s Affairs Minister Augustine Geve
who had been shot and killed.
 
For clarification and eccentric interest only:
*antinomianism is German meaning against the law, and is the belief
that Christians are not bound by the moral law, particularly that of the
Old Testament. The idea was strong among the Gnostics, especially
Marcion. Certain heretical sects in the Middle Ages who practiced sexual
license as a lawless expression of Christian freedom. In the Protestant
Reformation theoretical antinomian views were maintained by the
Anabaptists and Johann Agricola, and in the 17th cent. Anne
Hutchinson was persecuted for supposed antinomianism.  The Biblical
reference is Rom. 6 for the usual refutation for antinomianism.

So make of these “facts” as you will but it looks to me as if Merriam-
Webster’s word nail-gun stands correct.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 26, 2011 at 9:35 am Link to this comment

“.........willful ignorance”?  I’m going to let that pass.  Just this once. 

“Without Leader” —So, the global economy is anarchy?  Perhaps.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=anarchy

For some reason my previous links to two definitions of anarchy didn’t work.  Perhaps these will…
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/anarchy?region=us
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy?show=0&t=1309104209

Shenonymous, did you agree or not that my statement that “merrriam-websters definitions of anarchy, b. and C. are contradictory”?  My argument was essentially that lawleddness implies violence which negates a necessary condition for utopis, namely peace, the lack of violence.  I suppose the weak link is ‘lawlessness implies violence’, which might not be true in every instance of lawlessness.  Actually, this is an interesting question (to me anyway).  Can it at least be said that it is possible to have peace and lawlessness?  If that argument can be made then it negates ‘lawlessness implies violence’. 

Anarchissie, please provide that ‘suggested reading again?  And, since you’re presumably familiar with it, might you provide the best case conditions where it is possible to have peace with lawlessness?

It is troubling when a word comes to mean two seemingly contradictory things.  Especially when the word is used in newspaper stories with things like rubber bullets and tear gas.  This is a word to nail down.  Depending on the resolution of this discussion, a letter to Merriam Webster may be in order. 

To Gary Mont, June 25 at 7:17 pm: to this fine post I wold add that government should not be doing human services for a profit.  Efficiently, and without fraud, and with the minimum effective overhead, absolutely.  The word profit is loaded with ties to the ‘free market’ ideology, which sounds good because it contains the word ‘free’, and ‘market’, but behind the pleasant words and ‘theory’.......  ‘every man for himself’, and ‘buyer beware’, and these are not operating principles for a health care system, or other human (humane) services.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 26, 2011 at 8:13 am Link to this comment

Sounds to me after all of the ruminating going on, Anarchy as a solid or even a toddling form of something, possibly an institution, a flock, a covy or even a clique, it seems anarchy has become the elusive nonentity on the block, just like truth, god and what comes from politicians.  After reading the article on Trumbullplex in Detroit I turned the clock back to the Hippies as Gary commented on. 

It seems Anarchy does not become anarchy when more than one person needs to decided on something,... maybe anarchy is more like those nonexistent marriages where the honey dews never exist?

Anarcissie,... it seems Anarchy can only exist as a fluttering thought in ones mind. Hoffer explains it so well, starting with A dislike something, in this case government or authority by showing something called deadly compliance, possibly even a Gothic show of defiance,... someone mentioned tattoos?

Saying actually admitting one is an Anarchist may be the real problem? What has been reducibly passing through these here posts, ....from the heavy breathing and the silly displays of reductionism, it sounds as if Hofferism exists and Anarchism does not?

Utopia!

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 26, 2011 at 7:43 am Link to this comment

Awhile ago I recommended some readings about anarchism which were evidently ignored.  I’m willing to argue political theory, but I’m not going to argue with willful ignorance.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 25, 2011 at 9:38 pm Link to this comment

Anarchists have no need for roads or bridges, no need for police
departments, no firemen, no hospitals.  Anarchists don’t need tall
buildings, or schools, or computers, they don’t need offices, or dens,
or theaters, or gas stations.  Anarchists don’t need clean water, or
canned spaghetti.  Anarchists don’t need safety belts in cars or
airplanes.  Anarchists don’t need imported cheese or inspected beef
or elevator safety rules.

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, June 25, 2011 at 7:35 pm Link to this comment

LeeFeller:Gary, I find your definition of anarchy seemingly descriptive of a commune or possibly Utah?

Well, the hippies probably came closer to creating a near-anarchy society than anyone else I can think of.

Of course, everyone had to stay stoned on pot 24/7, in order for order to remain in effect, and they had to live far from civilization or be mass-raped by the civilized city dwellers every friday night.

I think, if they had not been commercialized to death by Madison Avenue, that their concept of non-government might have lasted a decade or so at most in the mini-community form, before growth and necessity forced the creation of some sort of governing body.

I really don’t think we can get along without some sort of structural government, simply to plan and carry out massive operations such as bridge and road construction. However, I do think that the amount and quality of what gets done by today’s federal government could be better handled by three eightteen year olds with good computers and a grade eight education, in their spare time.

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, June 25, 2011 at 7:17 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous:I do believe people would naturally form a tribal system and slowly build up to the level of government and infrastructure much as we have today.

I do not disagree. I think it is natural for humans to form organizations to handle specific tasks that are outside of the abilities of any single individual to accomplish. Its just how we do things and it works.

It is the fact that all our attempts at making a good government fail, simply because we structure them in such a way as to insure they fail - and I do not think this is accidental.

In every case I can think of, we let the “leaders” of the community create the structure and then populate the structure they built, and because these “leaders” are always wealthy businessmen, they do so in such a way as to insure their own place of power and promise of profit. That is their nature.

As I mentioned, I think government of the people, should be government composed of the common people, not of tycoons, businessmen, lawyers and landowners.

Such people by their proven nature are opportunists and are accustomed to turning one dollar into three dollars repeatedly, for their own benefit and little else.

They are assuredly not accustomed to considering the plight of the poor, the elderly or the damaged, outside of their own families, unless there is some profit to be made from the act.

Government run as a business is fascism. Why would anyone want businessmen to operate government if they did not want fascism?

I realize that the public has been trained to believe that those who are financially successful are either geniuses, or blessed by god, and they are thus considered to be the best people to run a government, but in reality, if you make a government out of opportunists and businessmen and then let them operate in secret with an army to do their bidding, you will always end up with a fascist business instead of government.

The only thing that differentiates business from the MAFIA is law. Once the businessmen become the law, you have… well, today’s America, or what’s left of it.

Today we have a government that supports dishonesty and promotes propaganda and lies as standard operational procedure and breaks its own laws daily, and hides facts from the public to protect criminals and allows (if not actually pays) the electronic brownshirts to operate with legal immunity. Today’s government is composed of banksters, economists and tycoons.

Why is anyone surprised by its fascist activities?

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 25, 2011 at 7:10 pm Link to this comment

Long day, but I must comment Shenonymous, June 25 at 2:08 pm.  Patronizing?  C’mon.  That was a good natured jab. 

BYW, I was fairly close in my estimation of your scholarly prowess, and I have you down in my mind as having written more than one decent textbook or fairly definitive study. 

Patronizing?  Sheeeez.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 25, 2011 at 4:48 pm Link to this comment

Well of course to say anarchic government is an oxymoron which
is why I carefully chose to say anarchic societies.  Which of you
are talking about anarchic governments?  In spite of any virtue
that can be found in anarchism, in this country, anarchism is
impossible because of the layering of governments from the
local towns or cities to county, state, and federal governments. 
They would all have to disintegrate for us to lapse into anarchy.

The truth of the matter is that government structures are decentralized
systems at every level, and even if some of the governmental workers
were removed, the way it is organized there would be others to step in
with hardly missing a beat. If utilities such as electricity and water, or
telephones, and maybe the ‘Net are kept up and running it is not
inconceivable for there to be people to keep government running at
every level.  Then if the hypothesis says these all collapse we still have
the military to contend with.  Look at what is happening in the Middle
East!  Anarchy is running rampant, the military took over Egypt where
for the first time the people could have fallen into an anarchic society,
but they didn’t, and for a good reason.  Anarchy does not work.  Also
Gaddafi is using his military to squash anarchistic rebels who cry for
democracy, but they do not say what kind of government or non-
government they are wanting.  And so it is simililarly happening in all
the other Arab Spring revolutions, using military to solve the question. 
None of them will slip into an anarchic society.

But let our fantasy run rampant.  Say the military falls too.  Realistically
it would not be very long before citizens regroup into local organizing
groups as the need for crime control with police, and for home safety
an organization of firefighters, then schooling and of course the highly
governmental internalized structured churches would start up again. 
Then of course, organized crime lords would come marching in and
impose a fascistic state on everything or some other country would see
that defenses are down and attempt to conquer us.  Anarchy could last
a bit, but it would not last very long.  I read somewhere “ask three
anarchists what their ideal world would be and you’d get seven
answers!”  By its very nature, anarchism is not a unified social entity. 
Try to unify and you get government no matter how rudimentary. 

I tend to agree with the view that anarchy is not what I read most mild
mannered (non-violent) anarchists think it is. Human nature is to be
selfish, and, in anarchy, this is allowed completely. Rousseau’s social
contract was intuited for a reason.  There exists no real safety from
another’s will and, therefore, in reality, anarchy could never truly exist. 
I do believe people would naturally form a tribal system and slowly
build up to the level of government and infrastructure much as we have
today.

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, June 25, 2011 at 2:27 pm Link to this comment

John Best:The FDA had the guts to come out with that graphic new tobacco labeling, and I think that serves the common good against the special interest.

Probably just an other method of liability limitation to prevent suing the manufacturer of publicly ingestible toxins by issuing a declaration that use of the product can kill/harm you/your unborn baby.

Thus, since you were warned, you have no beef.

An excellent insurance ploy soon to become universal for use on any and all current and future addictive toxic substances.

Report this

Page 1 of 6 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook