The assassination and aftermath in three sentences

[Michael Hogan]

Upton Sinclair said it in one sentence: "Fascism is capitalism plus murder"

[Guest Tom Scully]

....What has happened to the "American dream" ?

Why, it is gone, and the cuffs are being slapped on, before anyone is even inclined to grab a pitchfork.

At least the Syrian population is well aware that the water is too warm, and many have already hopped out of the pot. Almost everyone in the post industrial societies expects that someone else will do it for them, or they have become too distracted to care. I expect there will be no real concern until it is no longer permissible to post on a thread like this one, or even have access to do it. Impregnable, aggressive, and unresponsive is the authority we are up against. Alternatives seem few, relocating in retirement seems an attractive idea for us older folks. A long shot is to go all out in support of Ron Paul, give him a crack at dismantling/de-funding some of the state security apparatus, even as his domestic policies further concentrate wealth, and the pain of the have nots. If Paul can knock any of it down, and at the same time, motivate enough of the still sleeping to wake up and fight back, at least it will be a fight against a less impregnable, plutocratic security apparatus.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/08/29/terrorism/index.html

...Second, while the Security State has little to do with addressing ostensible Terrorist threats, it has much to do with targeting perceived domestic and political threats, especially threats brought about by social unrest from austerity and the growing wealth gap. This Alternet article by Sarah Jafee, entitled "How the Surveillance State Protects the Interests Of the Ultra-Rich," compiles much evidence -- including what I offered two weeks ago -- demonstrating that the prime aim of the growing Surveillance State is to impose domestic order, preserve prevailing economic prerogatives and stifle dissent and anticipated unrest.

Pointing out disparities between surveillance programs and the Terrorist threat is futile because they're not aimed at that threat. The British Government, for instance, is continuing its efforts to restrict social media in the wake of the poverty-fueled riots that plagued that country; as The New York Times reports today, it is secretly meeting with representatives of Twitter, Facebook, and the company that owns Blackberry "to discuss voluntary ways to limit or restrict the use of social media to combat crime and periods of civil unrest." That revelation prompted taunting condemnations of British tyranny from China and Iran, both of which have been routinely excoriated for surveillance abuses and Internet suppression of the type increasingly common in the West....

[John Dolva]

....What has happened to the "American dream" ?

Why, it is gone, and the cuffs are being slapped on, before anyone is even inclined to grab a pitchfork.

At least the Syrian population is well aware that the water is too warm, and many have already hopped out of the pot. Almost everyone in the post industrial societies expects that someone else will do it for them, or they have become too distracted to care. I expect there will be no real concern until it is no longer permissible to post on a thread like this one, or even have access to do it. Impregnable, aggressive, and unresponsive is the authority we are up against. Alternatives seem few, relocating in retirement seems an attractive idea for us older folks. A long shot is to go all out in support of Ron Paul, give him a crack at dismantling/de-funding some of the state security apparatus, even as his domestic policies further concentrate wealth, and the pain of the have nots. If Paul can knock any of it down, and at the same time, motivate enough of the still sleeping to wake up and fight back, at least it will be a fight against a less impregnable, plutocratic security apparatus.

http://www.salon.com...rism/index.html

...Second, while the Security State has little to do with addressing ostensible Terrorist threats, it has much to do with targeting perceived domestic and political threats, especially threats brought about by social unrest from austerity and the growing wealth gap. This Alternet article by Sarah Jafee, entitled "How the Surveillance State Protects the Interests Of the Ultra-Rich," compiles much evidence -- including what I offered two weeks ago -- demonstrating that the prime aim of the growing Surveillance State is to impose domestic order, preserve prevailing economic prerogatives and stifle dissent and anticipated unrest.

Pointing out disparities between surveillance programs and the Terrorist threat is futile because they're not aimed at that threat. The British Government, for instance, is continuing its efforts to restrict social media in the wake of the poverty-fueled riots that plagued that country; as The New York Times reports today, it is secretly meeting with representatives of Twitter, Facebook, and the company that owns Blackberry "to discuss voluntary ways to limit or restrict the use of social media to combat crime and periods of civil unrest." That revelation prompted taunting condemnations of British tyranny from China and Iran, both of which have been routinely excoriated for surveillance abuses and Internet suppression of the type increasingly common in the West....

Sounds like a desperate hope to me, Tom. I really think the answer lies in all wage slave class members throughout the world forming a united front that fights the real enemy. This of course means having channels of communication open, by any means necessary.

I think the failure in Wisconsin shows clearly that a reliance on the government to ultimately solving things is futile. There are lessons there for the union movements, similarly a study of labor history, which is covered by many topics on this forum, is helpful re tactic and strategy. These fights have been fought before. There are many lessons to be had. Perhaps the most important being : if you don't fight, you lose.

[Jim Phelps]

Ron Paul gets a lot of things right, but I fear not everything. Paul's stand on going after the Federal Reserve will cut some of the controls of the International Oligarchy on the US, if he succeeds there.

Paul also has to go after the rest of the Mil / Ind Network's controls and those are their IG Farbin like internatioal system for corperatate ownership. That effect on the US is just like it was upon Germany, as Farben was a state within the state. In the US, we have a state within the state due to this effect that elects almost all the US politicians.

Ron Paul has allied with the John Birch Society in its present day form, and I am not sure that is at all wise or prudent as it was their Dallas membership of capitalistic extremists associated with Rockefellers that had JFK killed using the net equilavent of the IG Farben security network with PERMINDEX and DISC. I think it not wise to link up too closely with JBS for RP, as it perhaps helps the JBS hide their dirty laundry.

In the US, almost everyone is fed up with the business as usual from the Democrats and the Republicans, as we all know they are bought. So, the move in the US will be to move toward Independents and to toss everyone out after one term. So, they don't have time to become extremely corrupt. Don't elect anyone with corperate sponsors, find the little guys that only want to become good stewards for society. Seems like Canada did this recently, and elected every unknown on the ballot.

Perhaps, we ought to point out to Ron Paul that he hooked himself to a flip-flop Rockefeller originated organization that first jumped on Communists and billed and killed JFK as a Communist in Dallas, then belatedly jumped on Capitalist Oligarchs while not admitting their extremes along the way caused the very problem.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Jim Phelps