Apotheosis of Abraham Lincoln: Savior God to Savior State

[publius]

No in other words white nationalists presently rule, have ruled, and will rule tomorrow unless I am heeded.


But The Wise Perceive Things About To Happen

For the gods perceive things in the future,
ordinary people things in the present,
but the wise perceive things about to happen.

Philostratos,
Life of Apollonios of Tyana, viii, 7

Ordinary mortals know what's happening now,
the gods know what the future holds
because they alone are totally enlightened.
Wise men are aware of future things
just about to happen.

Sometimes during moments of intense study
their hearing's troubled: the hidden sound
of things approaching reaches them,
and they listen reverently, while in the street outside
the people hear nothing whatsoever.

Constantine P. Cavafy

[Searcher08]

My interest in politics rests entirely on human dignity.

Yes, but I'm asking about the people involved with the 75 Right-Wing Terror Plots.

It would "be really, really bad for most all of us if violent, hateful people like the ones described there were running things, even if only in certain regions"...

Your proposals for local control would make such things much more possible.



I'm asking what you think about that....

Your argument that State government would be more likely to create some form of government by Rightist Psychomeanies is absolute nonsense - and acts as an apologia for a bankrupt centralised fascistic Federalism ruled by a form of Roman Law, where only things on your approved list are legal. It is paranoid, poorly thought-out, uncritical total pants.

Take that straw man somewhere else- those are your words, not mine, and they do not represent what I think!

Besides which, do you know much of anything about the agenda of Third Positionists- in particular The American Third Position Party, or maybe know something of "National Anarchism", or the ever wonderful Troy Southgate?

A lot of this has been coming up in the news lately- perhaps you've noticed?

Disengage your "random strawman accusation generator"

Your logic is as clear as minestrone

[American Dream]

No in other words white nationalists presently rule, have ruled, and will rule tomorrow unless I am heeded.

What is this supposed to mean, publius?

What about the white nationalists and other violent, hateful wackos behind the 75 Right-Wing Terror Plots?

They are not the people currently in power.

If your proposals were followed, it would provide them with a big, big opening to rule certain areas.

Do you think this would be somehow OK?

[Sounder]

AD wrote....

They are not the people currently in power.

These are the people in power

They are racist, paternalist psychopaths, but sure by all means lets keep chasing after their puppies until they are all rounded up and put back in their cage. Then all the Lansdales of the world will be really quaking in their boots, cause they will know that someone that’s really serious is coming after them now.

Remember people, they play on your beliefs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2 ... art_9.html

Go to link for Lansdale picture

Then there was the extraordinary Colonel Edward Lansdale. He was an advertising executive who invented what he called "psywar" when he almost singlehandedly stopped a communist takeover of the Philippines in the 1950s.

To do this Lansdale employed anthropologists to research into the fears and beliefs of the Huk rebels. He then used the information ruthlessly to create more fear. He described how he used the terror of vampires.

"One Psywar operation played upon the popular fear of asuang, or vampire. When a Huk patrol came along the trail, the ambushers silently snatched the last man of the patrol.

They punctured his neck with two holes, vampire fashion, held the body up by the heels, drained it of blood, and put the corpse back on the trail.
When the Huks returned to look for the missing man and found their bloodless comrade, every member of the patrol believed that the asuang had got him and that one of them would be next"

Lansdale said these techniques were incredibly effective.

Oh right, I forgot, we are modern folk and not prone to superstition like those other people.

[Luther Blissett]

I can vouch for AD's all-around good citizenry; he's an intelligent, anti-fascist humanitarian. I find all these attacks on him…humorous? I don't know what else to say, but not sure he really needs the personal references of anyone. Vanlose Kid vs. American Dream? Sheesh.

[Luther Blissett]

I think she's mostly just a fool. Or that's the impression she makes, anyway. It certainly could be that she's something worse but just not showing it. Of course.

ON EDIT: Got totally turned around, then righted myself.

I follow or am friends with her on facebook or whatever, and she posts frequently. She's just a flawed human and often makes mistakes or posts unverified information too early sometimes and is later proven wrong or certainly made to look a fool, but nothing worse than what I do on the internet sometimes (or at least, used to do, often), with links from whatever johnny-come-lately blogger. But hero worship is for the dogs. I'll judge the works.

[JackRiddler]

I can vouch for AD's all-around good citizenry; he's an intelligent, anti-fascist humanitarian. I find all these attacks on him…humorous? I don't know what else to say, but not sure he really needs the personal references of anyone. Vanlose Kid vs. American Dream? Sheesh.

I don't see that the last is a dichotomy worth fighting out. Both contribute enormously to this board.

Having talked with AD a few times and seen his work here, I think the abuse aimed at him from some quarters is ridiculous.

[vanlose kid]

I can vouch for AD's all-around good citizenry; he's an intelligent, anti-fascist humanitarian. I find all these attacks on him…humorous? I don't know what else to say, but not sure he really needs the personal references of anyone. Vanlose Kid vs. American Dream? Sheesh.

oh, right. hadn't noticed. but since you say so the "choice" is soooooo clear.

meow ||||

*

[Sounder]

I think that AD is a good guy. At the same time I'm not impressed at the lack of engagement at the level of ideas.

I am trying to make a few somewhat simple points and the loss of pride at having to acknowledge those points cannot be all that bad.

First off, institutional forces have centuries of practice at creating narratives that serve to strengthen insiders and to weaken outsiders. When we wash ourselves in bought and paid for narratives we are self brainwashing toward the interests of the sponsors of those narratives.

Next, when we pin blame on specific incidental actors or theories we become distracted and/or disinclined from considering other causal elements.

Corrupting narratives use emotional triggers as a basic means of subverting analytical efforts and transferring attention away from central causative elements and onto incidental causal influences.

Thank-you for your consideration,

The irrational gasbag

[JackRiddler]

First off, institutional forces have centuries of practice at creating narratives that serve to strengthen insiders and to weaken outsiders. When we wash ourselves in bought and paid for narratives we are self brainwashing toward the interests of the sponsors of those narratives.

Next, when we pin blame on specific incidental actors or theories we become distracted and/or disinclined from considering other causal elements.

Corrupting narratives use emotional triggers as a basic means of subverting analytical efforts and transferring attention away from central causative elements and onto incidental causal influences.

These are all fine principles as stated.

The fun begins when we start trying to apply these terms to real world examples. Because you and I may or may not see the same institutional forces, narratives, insiders, outsiders, incidental actors or theories, emotional triggers, central causative elements and incidental causal influences. Why don't you present your thinking cleanly again, by identifying what each of these eight (8) terms are to you, in the present case?

.

[brainpanhandler]

It seems clear that remote, powerful, intrusive, militaristic central state is not a political good. I rather like the idea personally of local control and I think it would work out to promote the maximum in political liberty. Why? There would be an actual stake in doing it right.

Would a centralized federal government have any role? Like for instance, would you support the repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[Simulist]

It seems clear that remote, powerful, intrusive, militaristic central state is not a political good. I rather like the idea personally of local control and I think it would work out to promote the maximum in political liberty. Why? There would be an actual stake in doing it right.

Would a centralized federal government have any role? Like for instance, would you support the repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Good point. Because white supremacists have unusual, and notably tragic, ideas about their "actual stake in doing it right."

[Sounder]

JackRiddler wrote...

Why don't you present your thinking cleanly again, by identifying what each of these eight (8) terms are to you, in the present case?

Thank-you Jack, I really should try to give that a spin.

[brainpanhandler]

It seems clear that remote, powerful, intrusive, militaristic central state is not a political good. I rather like the idea personally of local control and I think it would work out to promote the maximum in political liberty. Why? There would be an actual stake in doing it right.

Would a centralized federal government have any role? Like for instance, would you support the repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Good point. Because white supremacists have unusual, and notably tragic, ideas about their "actual stake in doing it right."

I mean if your going to write:

It seems clear that remote, powerful, intrusive, militaristic central state is not a political good. I rather like the idea personally of local control and I think it would work out to promote the maximum in political liberty. Why? There would be an actual stake in doing it right.

then I would think it would have to be the case that you had imagined what the effects of such a change would look like.

Are we eliminating federal anti-discrimination legislation? The EPA? The department of education? Social security? The IRS? The 14th amendment?

[brainpanhandler]

Well?