Re-Branding Dissent - The Quiet Destruction Of Democracy
I am one of those who thinks that democracy is being destroyed. I know its fashionable to play cynical one-upmanship and say – ‘we’ve never had democracy’, or, ‘it was destroyed long ago’, but that game aside, I think its worth actually thinking about how, many forms of democratic expression, effective dissent and peaceful self-determination are being buried.
In “The Next Crisis” I argued that the Global Over-Class have decided that Democracy is a threat to their wealth and power and have more than likely given some thought to how best to neuter it while appearing to do no such thing. I suggested they would wish to keep the outward form of democracy, so as to keep us reassured and entertained, but remove any substance from it, leaving us with an empty but colourful stage show.
In part two of the series, I offered a list of the various ways this could be done (a sort of manifesto for the Over Class or, as I have called them elsewhere, The Disloyal and noted how many of those things were clearly already underway.
For example item three of the manifesto said,
3) professionalized Governance. Democracy can be and must be neutered, and an effective way of doing this is to insist that amateur, elected officials MUST take the advice of professional (read corporate) advisors. Expand current law to enforce this.
If this seems monstrous now, their argument, I suspect, will be that in an increasingly crowded, interconnected and globalised world we can no longer leave critically important decisions in the hands of the uneducated, in-expert and amateur. We must, of course, still be free to choose but must, from now on, be helped to choose ‘wisely’. And how can we choose wisely if we aren’t given wise choices to choose from? Oh, the Orwellian beauty of it! No prizes for guessing who will decide what is and what is not wise.
We cannot any longer allow you to choose unwisely! There is so much at stake and so much you and your representatives simply do not fully understand.
You only need think how much legislation is already written by these ‘advisors’ and how many ‘experts’ are routinely seconded from corporations in order to ‘help’ the government departments regulate those same corporations to appreciate how far towards this we have already come. Two examples of ‘expert advice’ spring readily to mind. Back in May 2014 Citi drafted, word for word, many of the ‘amendments’ to the Frank Dodd financial regulation law. While professional experts from J PM Morgan did the same for the new derivatives trading law which puts the US tax payer back on the hook for any really serious losses.
Choose wisely
‘Choose wisely’ is a good first step in neutering democracy. It is easy to sell, appears wise, benevolent even, and who could advocate the opposite? But being admonished to ‘choose wisely’ is quite different to being forced to do so by having ‘experts’ pre-choose your range of choices for you and having your representatives forced to follow the pre-narrowed ‘wise’ choice or choices handed to them by paid-for lobbyists and seconded experts. However I think the Over Class knows ‘Choose wisely’ and Professionalized Governance are not going to be enough on their own – given the scale of unpleasantness which will have to be imposed and maintained on voters if the current structures of power and privilege are to be maintained.
‘Choose wisely’ and Professionalized Governance are an efficient and well camouflaged way to stop radical democratic ideas getting traction in Parliament or Congress or ever making it in to law. But, they leave unaddressed the more urgent task of how to properly neuter the people at source – in their own minds. How much better and stable it would be, for the Over Class, if the people voluntarily shied away from dissenting opinions rather than having to corral such opinions once they are voiced and people start voting for them.
I began to look at how this second front in the war on democracy might be fought, in part three. I suggested that what you and I might call public engagement would be re-branded as ill-informed ‘populism’. And wouldn’t you know it, Prime Minister David Cameron speaking – or should I say condescending – in the House of Commons on 17.11.15 about opposition to the TTIP trade agreement, said,
…when you [Members of Parliament] get that barrage of emails – people sometimes have signed up without fully understanding every part of what they’ve been asked to sign – people want to spread some fear about this thing, and we have a role, I think, of trying to explain properly why these things are good for our country.
Et voila! A wonderful early example. This is the start of the re-branding of political dissent.
But wait , as the old advertizing saying goes, there’s more!
From ‘Professionalize Democracy’ to ‘Demonize Dissent’
The key problem for the Over Class is that no matter how much they might like to, they cannot just come out and say dissent – AKA radically different opinion – is a bad thing. Being able to hold a dissenting opinion, even a radically dissenting opinion, is, after all, the core of democratic freedom.
So I think the Over Class’ task is two-fold. First, create conditions which will make people want to stifle dissent; other people’s first then even their own – or at least start to see a dark and threatening side to it – and then give them a whole new vocabulary of catchy new phrases and ideas with which to express their new-found caution about dissent and dissenters. Seen this way it is clear that this re-branding of dissent is a psychological/marketing/propaganda problem.
Of course it is relatively trivial to get people to accept that while many kinds of dissent are acceptable, some kinds just aren’t because, for example, they’re felt to be dangerous. We already accept that certain kinds of ‘extremist’ dissent is dangerous and unacceptable. And while some are uneasy, sensing how the term ‘extremist’ could be softened and inflated to accommodate everyone from animal rights activists, to – oh I don’t know…how about ‘militant peace activists’, or those who oppose austerity, people are just about willing to be bullied and frightened into accepting this ‘extremist’ curtailment of democracy.
‘Extremists’ and ‘Extremism’ have been the millennial threat-du-jour and have done wonders for justifying any and all actions claimed to be essential for ‘protecting national security’. No one wants to be accused of supporting ‘extremists.’ In America, Extremism is the new Communism. The rhetoric and paranoia around the ‘threat from Extremism’ in America and in Europe looks and sounds, to me at least, very similar to McCarthyism. In the UK another new Bill will soon give the British security services and police yet more powers to stop travel, cancel passports and even ban people from talking at universities.
But the “extremist’ narrative is not going to do what needs to be done. The problem is the terms currently used to label people as dangerous are less than perfect for demonizing the dissent that worries our leaders most: those to do with economics, finance and globalisation and the environment. ‘Extremism’ and ‘extremist’ are, perversely, just too …well, extreme. Talking about National Security, is very effective in its sphere, but it is just too specifically military to be very useful when it comes to undermining most peaceful, domestic, democratic dissent. What the ‘extremism’ narrative has done, however, is get people used to the idea that there can and should be limits to democratic dissent.
What I think the Over Class now need is a new label for the mind-set of dissenters and their dissent which can be applied to those who oppose the ‘necessary welfare and economic reforms’, ‘essential austerity cut backs’, ‘misunderstood’ trade agreements and environmental problems. They need a label for a mind-set which they will readily admit isn’t ‘extremist’ but which they can argue ‘can lead to extremism’; much as people used to talk about marijuana being the gateway drug leading inevitably to harder drugs.
What will that label be? Well I think the clue is there in the drive to ‘professionalize’ governance. ‘Professional’ is already a shorthand for the claim that someone or something is rational, balanced and ‘evidence based’. The term ‘Professional’, all on its own, already implies that those opposed to the ‘professional’ opinion/plan, are probably slightly ‘irrational’ and quite likely to be advocating actions and opinions that are without a firm base in scientific evidence. After all if that were not the case the professionals would have advocated it themselves.
Of course this brings us wonderfully back to the questions of who claims to have the authority and expertise to say what is and isn’t good solid rational and evidence-based. We are already mired in such arguments.
The threat from the Irrational
I suggest the new label will be ‘Irrational’. “He’s irrational!” “You’re being irrational.” “That’s irrational.” Irrational is already a term of abuse. What’s needed is to suggest that being irrational can be much more than a personal intellectual short-coming. That in fact, people who support irrational causes, and have irrational beliefs – who are …irrational, can be a dangerous threat when they organise their irrational beliefs into a political cause. Because, the argument will go, irrational fears can be used by those who have ulterior motives to prey upon the ordinary but unwary citizen, by creating irrational fears and then offering a seductive but irrational solutions.
And of course what will be held up as acceptable rational beliefs will be generally those which the Over Class, their media outlets, pundits and paid for political lick-spittles say are rational.
In this new narrative of demonizing dissent,
“It is not what you chose to believe – you are free to believe what you want – but HOW you believe it.
Believe it rationally, based on evidence and with regard for how your belief affects the well-being and security of those around you and there is no problem.
But choose to believe irrationally and without regard for how your irrational belief may harm others and you are an Irrationalist. “
This leaves intact your right to believe what you want but adds a subtle but insidious ‘responsibility test.’
If I’m right then we will soon see a broader new narrative built around the idea that Irrationality and an irresponsible disregard for the well-being of others, together, pose a grave threat to Stability and Safety. These four notions, Irrationality, Irresponsibility, Stability and Safety will form the central mechanism for re-branding dissent. ‘Safety’ people will recognise from its National Security guise. But by pairing it with ideas of Stability it helps bridge the gap between national security (safety) and national economic security (stability). Security becomes more than simply physical safety and is expanded to include economic stability.
And the enemy of both, of course, is the Irrational Dissenter. Being irrational is, we will be told, particularly dangerous when it is paired with fervent claims that we are in danger and we should all act now to fend off the danger. Such people will be likened to idiots who shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre.
A new mental condition could be coined for them – something along the lines of Attention Seeking Disorder – people who get a perverse pleasure simply from dissenting. How easy it would be to cast doubt on someone’s dissent if you suggest it is not about caring for others but actually a disorder of the ego. A desire for notoriety above all else with total disregard for what effect they might have on the stability and safety of those round them.
Troublesome dissent could be rebranded as a thoughtless and selfish advocating of something knowing it will cause widespread harm to others but not caring.
Extremism is a problem out there on the fringes of society – Irrationalism – The paranoid fear of imagined dangers and those who promote such fears – is the enemy within. They are the sinister fringe who constantly look to radicalize the inexpert.
So let us all recite the liturgy our leaders would have us believe, that in the 21st century –
- Democracy is the freedom to choose wisely.
- In a globalized, inter-dependant world we cannot afford to choose irrationally or disastrously.
- It is not what you believe but how you believe it.
- Believe things rationally, based on evidence, with regard to how your beliefs affect those around you.
- If you know someone who doesn’t, they may be irrational and suffering from a mental disorder in which the personal notoriety of being contrarian matters more to them than any harm they might do to the safety and stability we all depend upon.
(12 votes)
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
FREEDOM!!!!
As an American born back in 65' i can Honestly say
it is STUNNING how much We've lost in the last 20 years.
A country without effective critics is doomed.
its the jews stupid. http://thegreateststorynevertold.tv/
Even the ACLU has to agree.."dissent is patriotic"
https://www.aclu.org/blog/tell-everyone-dissent-patriotic
99% of what is being written about the Fed "rate hike" is a load of steaming &*it. Credit is useless to the average Joe. That's why its cheap. Nobody can use it. And that's just the way the big boyz like it. Competition is "unhealthy"
Regulation, taxation, licensing and legal tort threat has shut down all small business competition to the big boyz. That's precisely the way the big boyz want it. The rest of us peons and peasants are just gonna have to get used to 21st century serfdom.
The "rate hike" is simply the fee Fed.Gov is charging the big boyz for having kicked out the competition, put heir boot on the neck of the middle class, and helping them to implement and support their monopolies.
that's all. The one piece left in the puzzle is just exactly how 'Bammy is to deep six the 2nd Amendment.
Pesky little item
If, in 1970, you had stood in the center of any town USA and described out loud what America would become [patriot act, war on drugs, prisons for profit, wars of choice, police executing people in the streets, 4 billions dollars spent on a political season, etc.], they would have thrown you out of the city square. People would have laughed at the idea Americans would sink so low as to allow today's system.
take back your media or there's no chance to change the course to woar, it's all the USSA wants!!
Exactly, you hit the nail squarely on the head.
http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-6-other-russian-dissidents-who-a...
Boris Nemtsov is not the first Russian dissident to be killed in mysterious circumstances in recent years.
Paul Khlebnikov, an American journalist and editor of Forbes Russia, was killed with a machine gun outside his office in Moscow in 2004. A fluent Russian speaker, Khlebnikov, aged 41 at the time of his death, was known for his investigations into corruption and the murky world of Russian business and politics in the 1990s, and his exposes of the business empire of Kremlin kingmaker Boris Berezovsky. A group of three men from the North Caucasus republic of Chechnya were acquitted of his murder in a trial in 2006. The case has never been solved.
Anna Politkovskaya, a journalist and fierce critic of the Kremlin, was shot in the entrance to her apartment building in Moscow in 2006 aged 48. She was known for her reporting on human rights abuses in Russia's troubled North Caucasus. Supporters have always maintained the murder was political. Five men were found guilty of carrying out the hit in May last year, but the person who ordered the contract-style killing has never been identified.
Alexander Litvinenko, 44, a former KGB officer, died after being poisoned with radioactive polonium-210. Two former Russian security services men allegedly added the isotope to his tea when they met him in the restaurant of a London hotel. Litvinenko was an associate of the self-exiled oligarch Boris Berezovsky. He had accused Vladimir Putin of being corrupt and a paedophile, according to evidence given by his widow at a public inquiry into his death.
Abducted in the Chechen capital of Grozny in July 2009, Natalya Estemirova, a 50-year-old human rights campaigner and activist, was later found dumped by the side of the road with bullet wounds to her head. The case intensified scrutiny of local leader Ramzan Kadyrov, who was accused of creating a climate of fear and violence. Estemirova's killers have never been brought to justice.
Anastasiya Baburova, a trainee journalist, and Stanislav Markelov, a human rights lawyer, were shot in broad daylight as they strolled away from a press conference less than a mile from the Kremlin. The main target was assumed to be Markelov, 34 at the time, and a lawyer who had represented left-wing activists, journalists and victims of a 2002 Moscow theatre siege when Russian special forces killed over 100 hostages during a rescue operation. Baburova, aged 25 when she died, worked for opposition newspaper Novaya Gazeta. In 2011 a Moscow court convicted and imprisoned two neo-Nazis, Nikita Tikhonov and Yevgeniya Khasis, of the double murder.
It is not clear whether Boris Berezovsky was murdered but a coroner recorded an open verdict after he was found dead at the age of 67 with a ligature around his neck in the bathroom of the mansion where he lived in Surrey. The businessman fled to Britain from Russia in 2000 after falling out with Vladimir Putin, and used London as a base for criticising his former protégé. It is thought most likely that he took his own life because of financial troubles. However, the coroner said the burden of proof was not sufficient to conclude that this was certainly the case, raising speculation that Berezovsky was assassinated.
Visit: https://stopputinregime.wordpress.com/ to learn more about criminal putin regime crimes
I see he's back looking for moar potatoes.
Sure miss akak and his side kick 4th stooging.
Two all-time great ZH'ers.
What the hell happened to 4th stooging?
I think akak was pissed off about something but 4th stooging just faded away. ZH ain't quite the same as it used to be.
I know the story with AKAK, he was totally pissed off with Tyler's pro Putin slant and complained bitterly about it, then left in disgust.
I spoke to 4S not too long back, or so it seems. I'll never forget the video he posted ... that was so fucked up. LOL
this is still a free country in one regard-he has the right to throw a tantrum and threaten to 'take away all his dollies' and run home to mammas apron strings-"and i aint never coming back! so there!!!"
Know what happened to headbanger ? chunga
No, now that you mention it...poof...he's gone.
He kicked off since a few months after too critical cartooner Ramirez comment made.
Dare I ask - DutchBoy and I think he had a later incarnation but can't remember the name?
Trick question ?
"
Some idiots, some criminals, some both.
Latvia - Europe's crime capital:
http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/20903/
That's nothing compared to the 50 or so that have died crossing a Clinton.
Links to info about each of those 50 or more dissidents. Or that's only your fantasies you are talking about.
Here you go.
http://www.rense.com/political/clintondeaths2.htm
So I opened your link and can I ask you - what makes "Colonel Robert Kelly, V Corps Chief of Intelligence. Former Clinton bodyguard." and dissident and what proves that Clinton killed him? huh? In your source are simply written random names. That's all. That is no list of killed dissidents. So why did you post that link?
You're gonna vote for hillary, aren't you?
https://stopputinregime.wordpress.com/
Is it normal if people can’t imagine their country without current president? I think not. President should not become czar / emperor / dictator. But this is what has happened in Russia Federation. Putin has became a czar and people has been brainwashed by putin regime propaganda so far – that they can’t imagine world without putin. Putin from KGB to president of Russia Federation has been for 15 years. Whole generation has been raised by knowing only putin.
hitler rising in Russia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY3s4CpAtkg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5E_qMHTO0U[
There are no real opposition for putin regime. If some political opposition appears than he get's arrested and jailed:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/24/russian-opposition-leader-j...
Or killed:
https://youtu.be/SgBNmFarW1w
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Nemtsov
Anyone who speaks against putin regime get’s killed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Politkovskaya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalya_Estemirova
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Magnitsky
There is no freedom of speech under putin regime – because it’s one of most dangerous country in the world for journalists. You get killed if you speak against putin regime. All main stream media brainwashes people minds 24/7 just like Hitler did:
All three TV channels are controlled by the state: the majority share of Channel One belongs to Rosimuschestvo (the Federal Agency for State Property Management). Other shareholders include National Media Group (controlled by the structures of Yuri Kovalchuk, Chairman of the Board of Rossiya Bank, one of the largest banks in Russia, and Vladimir Putin’s personal friend; and Roman Abramovich, owner of Chelsea football club and Putin’s ally). Rossiya 2 is a part of VGTRK (All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company) which is owned by Rosimushchestvo. NTV is also controlled by the state through Gazprom Media. TNT and Pyatiy Kanal that come respectively fourth and fifth in the top TV channels by audience reach, are also controlled by the state. TNT belongs to Gazprom Media, while Channel 5 is controlled by National Media Group.
http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2013/12/brief-history-russian-media/
And if anyone tries to sneak in with truth using internet .. well than Putin regime iron fist is also there:
Everything You Need to Know About Russia's Internet Crackdown
That is why in Russia there is allays at power "dear leader" Putin.
16 Years KGB agent
1999 to 2000 - PM
2000 to 2008 - President
2008 to 2012 - PM
2012 to 2018 (2024) - president / czar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin
Of course, Latvian potato troll brings out Hitler, the classic of his Baltic genre of lies.
Must be getting close to time of year for Riga annual parade commemorate third reich Latvian SS stormtroopers.
https://uprootedpalestinians.wordpress.com/2014/05/27/jewish-takeover-of-ukraine-has-the-holodomor-been-forgotten/
"Jewish takeover of Ukraine, has the Holodomor been forgotten?
Posted on May 27, 2014 by michaellee2009http://www.jta.org/2009/06/15/news-opinion/world/jewish-group-objects-to-great-famine-case
A Jewish group in Ukraine is objecting to a criminal case brought over the “Great Famine” committed in the 1930s.
The nation’s security service is pressing the case against a list of former Soviet officials accused of committing the Holodomor, which caused the deaths of millions in Ukraine in 1932-33. Most of the names on the list were Jewish.
Ukrainian lawmaker Aleksandr Feldman, leader of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee, said last week that it was “a farce” to press the case.
“All organizers of the Great Famine are dead,” he said.
ALL THE ORGANIZERS OF THE “HOLOCAUST” ARE DEAD BUT THAT DOESN’T STOP CONSTANT REMINDERS AND DEMAND FOR COMPENSATION
Jews declare victory in Ukraine
http://rehmat1.com/2014/05/27/jews-declare-victory-in-ukraine/ The Ukrainian Jewish community and the organized Jewry around the world are celebrating Jewish ‘Chocolate King’, Oligarch Petro Poroshenko’s victory in country’s presidential elections. The election was sponsored and supervised by the US and EU on Sunday. Poroshenko, country’s former foreign minister whose “father was Jew who took his wife’s name,” reported Jewish Daily Forward on May 23, 2014. Majority of country’s Jewish community supported Poroshenko."
The Jews will still be whining about the 'Holocaust' in the year 2525 and asking us to feel sorry for them
I think that all that Latvian Vodka has addled you brain, supposing you had a brain to begin with.
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Editorials/2015/September/28%20o/Zionist-Controlled%20NATO%20Intervention%20in%20Ukraine%20Aims%20at%20Creation%20of%20a%20Second%20Jewish%20Homeland%20By%20Henry%20D'%20Souza.htm
http://www.texemarrs.com/082014/serpent_people_return.htm
https://uprootedpalestinians.wordpress.com/2014/05/27/jewish-takeover-of-ukraine-has-the-holodomor-been-forgotten/
"Jewish oligarchs had staged a coup by ‘deposing’ pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovich.3 .... “So one thing is clear: Jews helped to finance this ‘revolution’ in Ukraine, and Jews benefit mostly from it – notably the wealthy Jewish oligarchs, the new Jewish Prime Minister and various Jewish government officials who have now sprung to positions of power.” Darkmoon adds, “In essence the Ukraine coup d’état can be seen as a Jewish takeover of Ukraine,” in some ways, more like the 1917 Jewish-led Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.5
Victoria Nuland, a spokesperson for the US State Department, financed the Ukrainian revolution with $5 billion of US taxpayer money. The surname ‘Nuland’ is a corruption of a Jewish name, Nudelman, and she is married to Robert Kagan, described as a ‘neo-con Jewish war-monger.’6 Kagan is allegedly the founder of Friends of Palestinians and Israelis (FPI) an extreme Zionist think-thank that promoted war with Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.
Additional funds came from other organisations, like Freedom House, the German Marshall Fund, the Omidyar Network, George Soros Open Society Institute and its Ukrainian NGO, the International Renaissance Foundation. Kapner’s web-site offers evidence to show that John Kerry is, himself, a Jew and his State Department is “Jew-ridden.”7 NGOs are a way of tapping government funds. The technique reminds one of ancient cormorant fishing: constrict the throat and collect the fish that the bird catches. When applied to government, constrict the government, like impeaching the president, and obtain the funds or desired policies. "
Easy to call kettle black....
Andrew Breitbart, Tom Clancy, Steve Bridges, Michael Cormier,
Michael Hastings (died of "unintended acceleration" :)
and (drumroll please) Loretta Fuddy!
Business Insider has a Capital/Statist agenda-you cant really trust their toothfairy tales
American Progressive Manifesto
We American Progressives believe it is self-evident that government has the power (or should have the power) to implement any good idea, and that when we are all on the same page, everyone benefits, but now, let’s think for ourselves, and explain why.
Effective government is necessary for the health and prosperity of everyone today and for future generations. A threat to government is thus a threat to the health and prosperity of everyone.
Government has some powers delegated from the power of individuals, such as the power to borrow and spend, and government also has unique powers that may not be legitimately exercised by individuals independently of government, such as the power to kill or to tax other individuals. Government thus has these unique powers, not because they were delegated by individuals who do not possess such powers, but because those individuals agreed to be bound by government.
We know that 97% of individuals, if given the choice, would agree to be bound by government rather than live without the benefits of government. Every individual instinctively knows that his life without government would be short, nasty, and brutish.
Although we would like to grant the 3% the right to live without government, many of those reactionaries would not get vaccinated, and many more would possess weapons. Therefore, it is self-evident that the health and prosperity of the other 97% dictate that all 100% of individuals must agree to be bound by government.
Everyone must be bound by government at all times, even when they disagree – especially when they disagree. Otherwise, Rule of Law would devolve into chaos and threaten the health and prosperity of everyone. No one can be above the law.
While we Progressives do not always agree with each other, we always accept the authority of government because effective government requires that 100% accept the authority of government. Anyone who does not accept the authority of government is thus a threat to the health and prosperity of everyone.
We are glad government forces us to pay taxes because even the most noble progressive are only human, and we would not always voluntarily pay taxes if we could avoid it. We know that about ourselves because we are also the most in touch with reality, and yet, we are so noble that we want to be forced to pay taxes anyway because we must for the health and prosperity of everyone.
Some governments have committed atrocities in the past, but we will not let our governance commit atrocities. However, individuals and businesses will always allow themselves to be ruled, and thus, if Progressives do not rule, then a worse faction would rule. Any other faction would be less effective and may even commit atrocities, and thus a threat to our rule is a threat to the health and prosperity of everyone. In other words, we are the good guys, in the vernacular, as it were.
Given that we are the good guys, and that we know we are right, then if we think for ourselves, we can deduce many other self-evident corollaries, such as the fact that it is OK to lie to maintain our rule. Such action is not only OK, but it is indeed noble. It is the Noble Lie advocated by Plato.
For all these reasons, it is thus legitimate for progressives to take any action up to and including killing any number smaller than a majority in order to maintain our rule. Obviously, if we had to kill a majority to maintain our rule, then our rule would not have been legitimate. We are people of principle after all.
More important than maintaining our rule is defending government itself. Government would be justified in killing a majority rather than letting anarchy prevail. Then, at least, the surviving minority would have the blessings of government.
More important than maintaining government and defending our rule is defending the future. For example, defending the planet is the most critical element of defending the future, and thus we would be justified in killing all but a tiny remnant of individuals if that were necessary to stop a threat to the planet, such as Global Warming, but of course, if it were possible to save the planet by merely sterilizing (instead of killing) all but a small remnant of humanity, then we would do that instead.
Another threat to the future is bad genes. In order to improve the human gene pool, it could be necessary to kill and/or sterilize all but small remnant of humanity. It should be self-evident that any such eugenics program should begin with those reactionaries who are least progressive.
By now it should be clear that only by our rule can everyone experience the full blessings of government; and though we mean to rule with benevolence, make no mistake, we mean to rule.
That's fucking awesome ;-)
That's fucking scary!!!
Yes but it is f'ing true.
Insanity
Hi Jim.
There are so many wackos out there, one can never tell if a post is serious or sarcastic. A little "<sarc>" at the end would help. The manifesto is so absurd, I had to go to your website to be sure you weren't serious.
By any chance did you plagiarise Cass Sunstein?
Obama’s Progressive Fascist Science Czar
Why We Elites Manage Innovation
Should America Save Detroit?Sarcasm is notoriously difficult to detect in written form. But what rules this website is not wit or sarcasm; it is fatalism and cynicism.
Says the racist.
not progressive but very fascist....progressives believe mightily in dissent, its only the right wing that gets all upset and huffy puffy over dissent or alternatives to their thought processes by transference of their own characteristics such as fear and loathing-hate of the other or different. which is what the right always looks for while progressives tend to look for similarities or what unites...so go pork yourself with your bumper sticker understandings.
You are so full of shit scarlet that we would bet the ranch that you don't know that you are a communist.
well, we already KNOW that you are a crack-addled moron! It not hard to see -really
you know what makes that so funny? billary said as much during her attempt to fashion a bit of healthcare legislation a few years ago.
you play stupid (or maybe you really are) but the above sounds like the kind of government that you masturbate to nightly-Republicans/Capitalists wet dream
Snowden is the secret weapon... along with Republicans like Paul Ryan.
Relax, don't worry.