Comments on: Obama, The Ruling Class and the Future of Secession

By: Alexwebmaster

Alexwebmaster — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:02:34 +0000

Hello webmaster
I would like to share with you a link to your site
write me here preonrelt@mail.ru

By: rmangum

rmangum — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:49:50 +0000

Yes, Obama and the liberals want to exert control over the financial sector, and markets more generally. But what we have here is a sibling rivalry, or rather a shell game, between the statocracy and the plutocracy. Yes they may oppose each other in many ways, but they also buttress each other in more important yet largely unseen ways. “Tweedledum and Tweedledee agreed to have a battle”: but who can imagine one without the other?

The banking sector could not exist in its present, cartelized form without government injunction and force of law upholding its fiat money, and no sweeping legislation like the “stimulus” (and New Deal/Great Society “reforms” also) could be passed without approval from a significant proportion of the plutocrats- so rest assured they will land softly no matter what “socialist” legislation comes through.

By: john munion

john munion — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 02:45:58 +0000

I’m continually amazed at how two different people can look at one President and come to two different conclusions. Only in America? Obama seen as an establishment man, classic. if spending 2 trillion dollars on basically social programs is spending it on business cronies who helped him into the White House is helping business, I guess you could see it that way. Remember the old line by Jimmy Stewart in “Its a Wonderful Life”, ” Potter isn’t selling, he’s buying”, which means you missed the boat, the whole crux of his action. Obama’s bailing out the banks not to help them, but to own them, control them. maybe because your stance is so to the left of Obama’s your missing the point. Obama is going to dictate policy to the banks, thats why the market has reacted so negative, the idea of government owned banks. You know how you liberals feel about big brother watching over you with national security, imagine power over your coin in the bank. Look at Kansas and California with state income tax refunds, government keeping Your money. I know its tough because libs trust government with their money, infact they don’t mind them having even more. But you have to look at it as spying on you then you’ll get the idea.
Obama is trying to pull off the same BS with states, saying you can have this little amount of money but there is one catch, you must change your unemployment laws to get it, permanently. More power grab from the central government.
Obama next wants too dictate who lives and who dies with Nationalized Healthcare. Immigration is nothing more then allowing in more democrats to control elections for decades to come.
Secession, something many laughed about just a few years back now gives many pause when they hear it suggested. That is really what curbing second admendment rights is about, hard to overthrow or seceed without weapons, infact impossible. Obama knows this. And you thought it was about inner city crime and small children shooting themselves or others, silly you. You thought they cared.
In closing, my last sentence above is the saddest. Its not about change, its about he’s doing something, he cares. Its the sincerity of his cause not the results which matter to most liberals. Thats why they hate the market, its where all that silly give little billy an A for effort stuff gets thrown out when little Billy meets the real world, and only Billy’s performance matters, Its just not fair, thus Obama’s policies.

By: keith

keith — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:44:00 +0000

Polarization has the effect of making “divide and conquer” easier for the ruling class/state. However, if polarization goes too far, the center can lose control and break because the two sides ending up hating each other so much that a consensus on core values becomes impossible.

I know what you’re saying about those who take a “neither left nor right” perspective becoming suspect. I’ve experienced quite a bit of that myself. My comment about Franken/Coulter was simply a recognition that, whether we like it or not, the PC Left and the Neocon Right are the two dominant factions right now. The best hope for a breakdown of the state at present would be for the two sides to develop so much acrimony that governing from the center became impossible. If the US split up into Red Zones and Blue Zones, then the lack of central power might allow for pockets of liberty to emerge at scattered locations.

By: rmangum

rmangum — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:42:23 +0000

I don’t think I agree that polarization per se is a good thing. For one thing, it generates so much fear that the other side will take over Washington that the left and right each become far more devoted to and apologetic for their party (not so good for third party outsiders), which gives a lot of leeway for each party to move to the center. As I wrote at http://rmangum2001.wordpress.com/2009/01/20/return-to-clintonia/, such partisanship blinded left-liberals to how awful Clinton was even from the perspective of their own professed values. Furthermore, anybody with a point of view that is neither liberal nor conservative, or a hybrid, becomes suspect and a figure of ridicule on both sides. (Like, whose side are you on man?)

On the other hand, imperial overreach and too much domestic tyranny can create a polarization between anti-statists of the left and right, and statists of the left and right. This happened to some extent during the Vietnam era. This kind of polarization is fertile ground for real revolution, as I think your points 2 and 4 indicate.

But if the choice is between Ann Coulter and Al Franken, we’re screwed.