America Lost the Civil War With The Lincoln War State

[American Dream]

I always think it's important to separate out the rat poison, isnt it?

I agree that Farley accepting counterterrorism funding is extremely problematic but do you think that makes the racist ideologues of the last couple of pages somehow ok?

[American Dream]

Racism Kills

[JackRiddler]

Some interesting thoughts from...

1) People are only focused on which political party a person comes from, not on whether they have integrity as a person and a desire to be of service to the community.

Some are, no doubt. And yet my perception of how "people" (the majority) see things is almost the opposite. They are focused on the integrity (here meaning the assumed good personal qualities, real or acted) of a person, rather than the ideas and politics that they fight for. I wish nothing more for Media America and the Median American that they spend a few years in Analysis Paralysis. It would do them good.

2) I do not want to have my taxes go to paying for a war machine, thank you very much.
Fred next door doesn't want his taxes to go into a universal health care system; I do
Why shouldn't both of us have our wishes respected, given the technical means to do so?

I assign my taxes as I wish? It's got good theoretical appeal. It's also a kind of retreat from public life into a private consumer mentality toward public life. Why shouldn't these neighbors have to figure out what makes sense in light of the actual facts in front of them, and on a truly level field of play? In any case, both uses claim universal good that can happen only if everyone participates. One says it's defense of all, the right to life; the other says it's the best way to deliver health care for all at the lowest cost, and as a right. When does the empirical reality come into it? What's the case for "defense," and what's the case for universal health care, based on evidence from practice of both? Can't we expect Fred to actually learn things? In the end you have to arrive at conclusions. Mine are, in answering your question, that this war machine kills and subjugages people who are neither you nor Fred nor US taxpayers, who get no choice in it, and is therefore wrong even if Fred volunteers his taxes for it, the dumb fuck. (Should people who hate Fred get to vote on whether he should be drone-bombed?) As for the universal health care, Fred should get over himself and accept that a distributed risk system is provably in the interest of the most Freds, that all Freds sooner or later experience catastrophes whether they're well prepared or not, and that all Freds begin and end their lives as helpless wads with zero say who should nevertheless be treated as human beings even if they cannot pay their premiums. Also, that the fruits of your labor are also always the fruits of a particular way of organizing all labor, and total individualism is a myth that makes enemies of all against all, not the true meaning of freedom.

3) Society is being systematically dumbed down - how does society in general develop the level of focus needed to grapple with complex, interconnected systemic issues in an inclusive, needs addressing way, when more people are interested in the Kardashians or Katie Price than in global sea level rise? If we were presented with an easy to use, self-organising mobile web based local governance system, would anyone actually USE it?
Or would most people be too busy watching the X Factor?

That's an interesting question. I think the answer is obvious. Most people, at least in this country, would "watch the X Factor." In many other countries, too, there would be large groups who would consider it something they should leave to others who give a shit about that stuff. Eventually, however, if this thing really was what you're imagining, almost every person would run into concerns that convince them they should figure out the system and make use of it. How long did it take before the telephone was near universal? I think such a thing would be adopted on a similar time-scale.

It occurs to me that no such system would fail to advantage those who were better at using it and disadvantage those who weren't, independently of the merit of their respective concerns and views. This is inherent in any machinery of governance, there is a minimum competence gap that will always arise.

.

[Searcher08]

I always think it's important to separate out the rat poison, isnt it?

I agree that Farley accepting counterterrorism funding is extremely problematic but do you think that somehow makes the racist ideologues of the last couple of pages somehow ok?

A_D, perhaps I am tilting at windmills a la Don Quixote, but my instinct says that there are very few ways that a WW3 can be prevented and that Ron Paul may be the last best hope for that.
When I went through some of the stuff that was presented in the 'Fvck Ron Paul' thread such as Alternet articles. A lot of the people who HATE Ron Paul are aligned with the Israel lobby.

I see so little dialogue happening between progressives and libertarians... when as people there is actually at this time much more that unites than divides. The situation of tuning others out because we disagree with them on certain issues, when we are both facing a potentially horrendous nuclear conflict seems like arguing about deck chair soft furnishings on the Titanic.
Because if WW3 arrives, Lady Fascism is going to come out in the open in the US - and she will be carrying a cross, dressed by AIPAC and glowing in the dark.

She is already putting her make-up on in Chicago.

If by some miracle he got the nomination and if by some other miracle Dennis Kucinich ended up his running mate, this would mean a chance of two people with integrity at the top.

Nuclear War with Iran would kill a lot more in 2012 than the KKK

[American Dream]

my instinct says that there are very few ways that a WW3 can be prevented and that Ron Paul may be the last best hope for that.

It is one thing to suggest that getting the U.S. and Israel out of the global and/or regional hegemony game would be good for the world.

It is another thing entirely to tacitly or expressly suggest that supporting the vile racists whose agenda has been critiqued in the last few pages would somehow be good for the world....


Do you understand?

[Searcher08]

my instinct says that there are very few ways that a WW3 can be prevented and that Ron Paul may be the last best hope for that.

It is one thing to suggest that getting the U.S. and Israel out of the global and/or regional hegemony game would be good for the world.

It is another thing entirely to tacitly or expressly suggest that supporting the vile racists whose agenda has been critiqued in the last few pages would somehow be good for the world....


Do you understand?

First, I think to equate nutjob KKK members with Ron Paul is poop.
Secondly, I see equating the influence of the modern KKK with that of the fascistic branch of Israeli politics and AIPAC as an orders of magnitude error.
Thirdly, why on Earth are you saying I'm tactitly supporting racism? HUH???
Fourth, why the sudden weird capitalisation and font sizes?

[publius]

The force of arms is determinate in American history I agree. Your posts AD bring out your passion for force of arms as a tool for ending slavery. This strikes me as a Neo-Con position. War is kind: so long as for a noble cause the death drives magical realist destiny. The War Dictatorship created a Dystopia in the conquered South. This is undeniable from the records of Reconstruction.

The North I see as a new type of managerial corporate military state emerging in European Macht Politik form in the aftermath of the Civil War. It is inderterminate as to it's post-war pure politicall form but remains the State of Exception, force. What evolves after Lincoln, by 1871, becomes the CORPORATE UNITED STATES. Prior to this was another world: yes there are slaves. Yes there is evil. Yes it is customary and legal to a degree. This is the case under President Lincoln.


From A Discourse on Involuntary Servitude:

It amazes us to hear accounts of the valor that liberty arouses in the hearts of those who defend it; but who could believe reports of what goes on every day among the inhabitants of some countries, who could really believe that one man alone may mistreat a hundred thousand and deprive them of their liberty? Who would credit such a report if he merely heard it, without being present to witness the event? And if this condition occurred only in distant lands and were reported to us, which one among us would not assume the tale to be imagined or invented, and not really true? Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude. A people enslaves itself, cuts its own throat, when, having a choice between being vassals and being free men, it deserts its liberties and takes on the yoke, gives consent to its own misery, or, rather, apparently welcomes it. If it cost the people anything to recover its freedom, I should not urge action to this end, although there is nothing a human should hold more dear than the restoration of his own natural right, to change himself from a beast of burden back to a man, so to speak. I do not demand of him so much boldness; let him prefer the doubtful security of living wretchedly to the uncertain hope of living as he pleases. What then? If in order to have liberty nothing more is needed than to long for it, if only a simple act of the will is necessary, is there any nation in the world that considers a single wish too high a price to pay in order to recover rights which it ought to be ready to redeem at the cost of its blood, rights such that their loss must bring all men of honor to the point of feeling life to be unendurable and death itself a deliverance?

[American Dream]

my instinct says that there are very few ways that a WW3 can be prevented and that Ron Paul may be the last best hope for that.

It is one thing to suggest that getting the U.S. and Israel out of the global and/or regional hegemony game would be good for the world.

It is another thing entirely to tacitly or expressly suggest that supporting the vile racists whose agenda has been critiqued in the last few pages would somehow be good for the world....


Do you understand?

First, I think to equate nutjob KKK members with Ron Paul is poop.
Secondly, I see equating the influence of the modern KKK with that of the fascistic branch of Israeli politics and AIPAC as an orders of magnitude error.
Thirdly, why on Earth are you saying I'm tactitly supporting racism? HUH???
Fourth, why the sudden weird capitalisation and font sizes?

First, I'm not saying that.

Second, I'm not saying that either.

Third, I'm not saying that either.

Fourth, I'm very upset- in good part because I really did think you could do better than that.

[Hammer of Los]

...

I wouldn't care to support Ron Paul either.

I suspect AD's intuition is good.

Although I'm all for left right synthesis or whatever.

Transcend the labels. Agree on what is right.

Can we not find agreement?

...

[Searcher08]

my instinct says that there are very few ways that a WW3 can be prevented and that Ron Paul may be the last best hope for that.

It is one thing to suggest that getting the U.S. and Israel out of the global and/or regional hegemony game would be good for the world.

It is another thing entirely to tacitly or expressly suggest that supporting the vile racists whose agenda has been critiqued in the last few pages would somehow be good for the world....


Do you understand?

First, I think to equate nutjob KKK members with Ron Paul is poop.
Secondly, I see equating the influence of the modern KKK with that of the fascistic branch of Israeli politics and AIPAC as an orders of magnitude error.
Thirdly, why on Earth are you saying I'm tactitly supporting racism? HUH???
Fourth, why the sudden weird capitalisation and font sizes?

First, I'm not saying that.

Second, I'm not saying that either.

Third, I'm not saying that either.

Fourth, I'm very upset- in good part because I really did think you could do better than that.

I'm sorry if something I have said or have not said has upset you - it wasn't my intention.
We seem to be at cross purposes, because I don't support racism of any form.

[American Dream]

We seem to be at cross purposes, because I don't support racism of any form.

So I wonder if we can agree that Ron Paul's stance on U.S. foreign interventions and the military is good, and that the crypto-Racism of the neo-Confederates is bad?

[American Dream]

http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2007/02/ ... ho-in.html

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2007

League of the South and Racism (Or Who in Vermont is kidding Whom?)


It would be very instructive to read the lead article on the League of the South webpage http://leagueofthesouth.net/index.php titled, "Let's Drop the 'R' Word," by Mike Tuggle which you can read at this link. Link to article here..

The article argues that the term "racism" and the concept are invalid. Tuggle claims that the concept of racism was and is a attempt by Marxists to attack the West. So if you asked a League of the South member if they are racist, they would deny it since they don't see it as a valid concept. Tuggle likens using the term "racism" to using Scientology terminology. Concluding:

"Don't laugh. As obvious as the above may seem, many conservative Christians have unknowingly adopted a term that undermines their own beliefs while promoting the ideology of their enemies. By accepting the term "racism" from the Marxist secular humanists, mainstream Christian conservatives are promoting the radical, anti-Christian ideology that invented it. "

One reason the League of the South has taken this approach to the concept of racism is that it has been all too well documented the racist agenda of the League of the South. So the term "racism" itself is attacked as "anti-Christian ideology." Of course this entire line of reasoning is to support a racist agenda and an attack on anti-racism at a most fundamental level.

Who is Naylor kidding, the League of the South is very serious racist group.



POSTED BY EDWARD H. SEBESTA

[slomo]

Not to hijack a thread on the American Civil War, but while while we're on the subject of racism, I just wanted to throw this little gem into the mix. In particular, I draw your attention to the alternative title, appearing just beneath the title that is well-known in popular culture.

Make of it whatever you will, but don't forget to remember the most common application of this monumental work, which has actually been in the social sciences, not as much in the biological sciences.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming...

[American Dream]

Make of it whatever you will, but don't forget to remember the most common application of this monumental work, which has actually been in the social sciences, not as much in the biological sciences.

Meaning the Eugenics Movement?

[JackRiddler]

Not to hijack a thread on the American Civil War, but while while we're on the subject of racism, I just wanted to throw this little gem into the mix.

In particular, I draw your attention to the alternative title, appearing just beneath the title that is well-known in popular culture.

I've read it cover-to-cover twice, and it uses "race" predominantly in the sense of "species."

Did you know Darwin was a committed abolitionist? That abolitionism so to speak ran in his own family, and was the subject of conflict among them?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/books ... wanted=all

Adrian Desmond and James Moore published a highly regarded biography of Darwin in 1991. The argument of their new book, “Darwin’s Sacred Cause,” is bluntly stated in its subtitle: “How a Hatred of Slavery Shaped Darwin’s Views on Human Evolution.” They set out to overturn the widespread view that Darwin was a “tough-minded scientist” who unflinchingly followed the trail of empirical research until it led to the stunning and unavoidable theory of evolution. This narrative, they claim, is precisely backward. “Darwin’s starting point,” they write, “was the abolitionist belief in blood kinship, a ‘common descent’ ” of all human beings.

SNIP

For Desmond and Moore, the voyage of the Beagle was less important for the accumulation of finches and barnacles than for giving Darwin an eyewitness experience of slavery, which “put shredded flesh on the Wedgwood cameo.” Particularly poignant was a scream overheard when he was canoeing through the “putrid exhalations” of mangrove swamps in the Brazilian interior. “To this day,” Darwin later wrote in his journal, “if I hear a distant scream, it recalls with painful vividness my feelings, when passing a house near Pernambuco, I heard the most pitiable moans, and could not but suspect that some poor slave was being tortured, yet knew that I was as powerless as a child even to remonstrate.”

There's a great one-hour interview with one of the authors on Against the Grain.
http://www.againstthegrain.org/program/ ... nd-slavery

[/quote]Make of it whatever you will,[/quote]

Arguably his work should be noted more for moving away from the racist paradigms of the time than for the ways in which it undoubtedly remained within them. His involvement with those who later became known as Social Darwinists was at a distance. Fundamentally, the idea of a common human ancestry, all of us descended from apes no less, militates against ideas of supremacy for a given human sub-race. Insofar as these even exist. The modern Darwinian synthesis in relation to empirical genetics have done much to undermine the very idea of "race." The eugenics movement of the 20th century with its pseudo-scientific basis can hardly be blamed on him. And today I believe you'll find more racism among those most provoked by the idea of evolution.

but don't forget to remember the most common application of this monumental work, which has actually been in the social sciences, not as much in the biological sciences.

That's an incredible statement to make about the central paradigm of the biological sciences and I doubt you'll let it stand to your own scrutiny.

.