Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: imperial obama

Posted 5 months ago on June 8, 2014, 6:07 p.m. EST by flip (7590)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The Empire’s New Clothes by paul street

In a similar vein, Obama has dramatically expanded the number of “sovereign” nations in which US Special Forces are deployed from 60, at the end of the Bush43 administration, to 134 today. According to the antiwar journalist Nick Turse, in a passage that deserves lengthy quotation:

“This 123 percent increase during the Obama years demonstrates how, in addition to conventional wars and a CIA drone campaign, public diplomacy and extensive electronic spying, the US has engaged in still another significant and growing form of overseas power projection. Conducted largely in the shadows by America’s most elite troops, the vast majority of these missions take place far from prying eyes, media scrutiny, or any type of outside oversight, increasing the chances of unforeseen blowback and catastrophic consequences….”

“Although elected in 2008 by many who saw him as an antiwar candidate, President Obama has proved to be a decidedly hawkish commander-in-chief whose policies have already produced notable instances of what in CIA trade-speak has long been called blowback…the president has presided over a ramping up of the US military presence in Africa, a reinvigoration of efforts in Latin America, and tough talk about a rebalancing or ‘pivot to Asia’….”

“The White House has also overseen an exponential expansion of America’s drone war. While President Bush launched fifty-one such strikes, President Obama has presided over 330, according to research by the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Last year, alone, the US also engaged in combat operations in Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. Recent revelations from National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden have demonstrated the tremendous breadth and global reach of US electronic surveillance during the Obama years. And deep in the shadows, Special Operations forces are now annually deployed to more than double the number of nations as at the end of Bush’s tenure.”

“In recent years, however, the unintended consequences of US military operations have helped to sow outrage and discontent, setting whole regions aflame….A more recent US military intervention to aid the ouster of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi helped send neighboring Mali, a US-supported bulwark against regional terrorism, into a downward spiral, saw a coup there carried out by a US-trained officer, ultimately led to a bloody terror attack on an Algerian gas plant, and helped to unleash nothing short of a terror diaspora in the region….And today South Sudan—a nation the US shepherded into being, has supported economically and militarily (despite its reliance on child soldiers), and has used as a hush-hush base for Special Operations forces—is being torn apart by violence and sliding toward civil war.” (emphasis added) [9]

As the Obama White House and Pentagon surely know, Washington’s arch-criminal drone campaign – in which the US “peace” president acts as personal executioner (without trial) of officially designated enemies (serious controversy arises in the “homeland” only when those executed are US citizens) – kills a large number of innocent civilians (so-called “collateral damage,” more honestly described as “bug-splat” by military insiders) and breeds terrorists in tribal societies [10]. Top-down terror from the imperial core breeds “blowback” from and across the Muslim periphery, promising more lucrative cost-plus “defense” contracts for the president’s “friends atop Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon, etc. Another large Islamist attack on the imperial “homeland” (a revealing militarist phrase Obama44 has picked up from Bush43 and run with) waits in the wings.

A “return of great power conflict” has emerged in the interim, courtesy of “antiwar” Obama. US Special Forces and military hardware are now provocatively deployed in former Soviet republics on the western border of Russia, with whom the Obama administration has sparked a potentially disastrous conflict over strategically super-significant Ukraine [11], through which Western armies have repeatedly charged into Russia with catastrophic consequences over the last two centuries. Meanwhile, Obama is menacing China, whose “containment” is the essential goal behind his much-ballyhooed “pivot to Asia.” “By 2020,” John Pilger noted last April:

“almost two-thirds of all US naval forces in the world will be transferred to the Asia-Pacific area. This is the greatest military concentration in that vast region since the Second World War….In an arc extending from Australia to Japan, China will face US missiles and nuclear-armed bombers. A strategic naval base is being built on the Korean island of Jeju less than 400 miles from the Chinese metropolis of Shanghai and the industrial heartland of the only country whose economic power is likely to surpass that of the US. Obama’s ‘pivot’ is designed to undermine China’s influence in its region. It is as if world war has begun by other means.” [12]

In a recent saber-rattling speech at West Point, Obama said the following: “Let me repeat a principle I put forward at the outset of my presidency: The United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interests demand it… International opinion matters, but America should never ask permission to protect our people, our homeland or our way of life.”The left analyst Mike Whitney offers a useful and accurate translation on Counterpunch:

“In other words, the United States will do whatever the hell it wants to and if you don’t like it: ‘Too bad.’ This is the Bush Doctrine verbatim. The West Point oration proves that the new administration has simply modified the Bush credo to suit Obama’s pretentious speaking style. Strip out the visionary formulations, the grandiose bloviating, and the sweeping hand gestures and the ideas are virtually identical; unilateralism, preemption, and exceptionalism, the toxic combo that has spurred 13 years of war, occupation, regime change, black sites, extra-judicial assassinations, drone attacks, and hyperbolic state terror most of which has been directed at civilian populations whose only fault is that they occupy regions where vast petroleum reserves have been discovered or which have some fleeting strategic importance to Washington’s war planners.” [13]

By “our core interests…our people, our homeland” and “our way of life,” Obama does not mean “we the [American working class majority of] people,” whose living standards continue to deteriorate in the current US New Gilded Age of savage inequality and abject plutocracy. He means the stupendous profits and right-figure salaries of the nation’s top investors and corporate managers, whose shameful shocking fortunes are rooted in the ruthless exploitation of working people and the natural environment at home and abroad.

US military contractors got another opportunity to lick their lips when Obama recently announced in Warsaw that he will ask Congress to spend $1 billion to expand the US military presence in Eastern Europe.The Guardian reports that Obama plans “to rotate more troops in and out of Poland, to strengthen air patrols over the Baltic, and to beef up naval operations in the Black Sea off the Russian and Ukrainian coasts” (emphasis added).[14] (Dominant US mass media had nothing to say about how that $1 billion might be better spent to help some among the more than 16 million US children who scandalously live beneath the nation’s notoriously inadequate poverty level [15] – this in a nation where six Wal-Mart heirs possess between them as much total wealth as the bottom 40 percent of the population.[15A])

Obama does and says all this and more (unburdened by translations in US “mainstream”[16] media) while claiming to honor “international accurate law” to and to guard against US global “overreach.” He saves his loftiest oratorical passions for standard presidential phrases about “exceptional” and glorious America’s grand and selfless commitment to defending peace, freedom, security and justice around the world. In France for the 70th anniversary of the D-Day invasion last week, Obama made sure to remind his audience that “the United States of America is and will remain the greatest force for freedom the world has ever known” and asked God’s continued blessing for all the US and Western troops who sacrifice and “serve today for the peace and security of our world.” [16A]

The vast US military Empire (which continues to account for nearly half the world’s military spending) is not retreating from “overreach” under Obama. It is repositioning and expanding in a stealthier way than it did under the more club-footed Dubya and his neoconservative posse of mad-dog-killers (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Libby et al.). The “peace and security of our world” is the last thing really on the mind of the Pentagon and White House’s imperial planners in the Obama era as during the Bush43 years.

65 Comments

65 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by beautifulworld (22254) 5 months ago

"The vast US military Empire (which continues to account for nearly half the world’s military spending) is not retreating from “overreach” under Obama. It is repositioning and expanding in a stealthier way than it did under the more club-footed Dubya and his neoconservative posse of mad-dog-killers (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Libby et al.)."

That is the key thing. Understanding Obama in the context of George W. Bush. Specious much?

[-] 0 points by flip (7590) 5 months ago

it is a real shame - he could have changed the world. he was elected to make real change but instead made the changes the elite wanted. there we some who knew this long before the election of 2008. I hope ows is listening to those people now.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22254) 5 months ago

Agreed, and another shame is that our government has been co-opted by corporations so that all we get are corporate stooges for politicians, Obama being no different. He was full of rhetoric but his actions did not back any of it up.

And, don't forget, war is money and corporations know it and support it.

[-] 2 points by flip (7590) 5 months ago

i ski in aspen every year - the ski company is owned by the crown family. they are big defense (sorry war) contractors. when ms obama and the girls go to aspen to ski they stay with the crown family - what more does anyone need to know - here is some info on the crown's - "One family stands out as playing exactly that role in the political career of Barack Obama: the Crown family of Chicago. The importance of this relationship in Obama’s career exposes some of the roots of his subservience to the government of Israel, his threats of aggression against Iran, his expansion of the JSOC/CIA targeted killing program, and his unswerving commitment to record military budgets in a time of economic and fiscal crisis.

The Crowns are the children and grandchildren of Henry Crown, who made a fortune in the building materials business, had reputed links to the Chicago Mafia, and discovered the armaments business as a military procurement officer during the Second World War. Henry Crown bought a controlling interest in General Dynamics in 1959 and developed it into the largest weapons maker in the world, building the Trident submarine, the Atlas rocket, the F-16 fighter, the Abrams tank and much of America’s Cold War arsenal. The General Dynamics board forced him out as CEO in 1966, but he bought back a 20 percent share in the company and regained effective control in 1970.

Henry’s son Lester succeeded him as chair of General Dynamics in 1986 and as president of Henry Crown & Co, the family’s private investment firm. Lester is 86 now, but still takes a keen interest in politics. He is chair of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and founded the Crown Center for Middle East Studies at Brandeis University, which also received a $2.5 million grant directly from General Dynamics. He supports the arts in the U.S. and Israel—the Jewish Symphony Orchestra plays in Henry Crown Hall in Jerusalem. The Crown family is worth at least $4 billion, making it one of the richest families in America.

Under Lester Crown’s watchful eye, his children now handle most of the family’s business and political interests. His son James became President of Henry Crown & Co. in 2003 and sits on the board of General Dynamics. Altogether the Crown family gave at least $128,000 to Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign, in which Henry Crown & Co. was also Obama’s third largest institutional donor. In 2008, James Crown and his wife Paula were Obama’s fundraising chairs in Illinois and his fourth largest “bundlers” nationwide, raising millions of dollars for his presidential campaign.

Lester Crown first met Obama when he was a 27-year-old intern at the Sidley Austin law firm in Chicago in the summer of 1989. One of Obama’s law professors at Harvard, Martha Minow, had recommended Obama to her father, Newton Minow, who was a partner at the firm. Minow took Obama under his wing and introduced him to his friend Lester Crown. Crown recalls that Minow called him and “said we have in our office a young man who I think is really going places and I’d like you to meet him.” Crown says he has been a supporter ever since.

Israel, Palestine, and Iran

Lester Crown was speaking to the Chicago Jewish News in 2008 to allay fears among American Zionists regarding Obama’s views on Israel and Palestine. He stressed that, “knowing him long before he got into politics, I know he is completely supportive, without any question or equivocation, of Israel’s security. He is only interested (in a two-state solution) if Israel’s security is absolutely assured, and that was his position long before he ever went into politics.

His speeches to AIPAC are not new positions, merely the vocalization of what he has always believed.... From the time I met him, the times we talked about Israel, and we talked about it several times, he has been an ardent backer of Israel’s defense position, Israel’s security position. He has been a proponent of the two-state solution, but only on the hopes that you will have a demilitarized peaceful Palestinian entity, which you do not have now.”

If Crown is correct, President Obama only supports a Palestinian state as a “demilitarized...entity,” even as he pours U.S. military aid into Israel. In a world where every other state has a recognized right to arm and defend itself, a “demilitarized entity” would only be a sort of semi-state. In effect, what Crown and Obama favor is a “one-and-half-state solution,” precluding the genuine sovereignty for Palestine that the U.S. government officially supports and that Palestinians are struggling for. If Obama’s views are as close to Lester Crown’s as Crown thinks they are, it is little wonder that he has made no progress toward resolving the conflict.

As chair of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs (CCGA), Lester Crown knows very well that CCGA’s biennial Globalviews surveys have documented for decades that most Americans want their government to “not take either side” in the Middle East conflict. In the 2010 survey, this view was held by 66 percent of Americans surveyed, while only 28 percent want the U.S. to “take Israel’s side,” as Crown and Obama do. In the 2004 survey, when the consequences of U.S. involvement in war in the Middle East were more obvious, the imbalance was 74 percent to 17 percent.

Lester Crown takes an even more extreme view of U.S. relations with Iran. In fact, when he and his wife, Renee, hosted a fundraiser for Obama at their home in 2007, the invitations made it clear that their support was based not just on Obama’s unconditional support for Israel, but also on his willingness to start a war with Iran.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22254) 5 months ago

And here I thought it was the Pritzker family of Chicago that bolstered Obama! Very, very interesting. Perhaps they are all working together. It'd be dumb of us to think that the wealthy are not working together! Truly fascinating. Thanks.

[-] 2 points by flip (7590) 5 months ago

for you - anytime!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (22338) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 months ago

another shame is that our government has been co-opted by corporations

True - And I think the likely cause of Can't-or's failed campaign.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22254) 5 months ago

Agreed. Not that Brat is on the right track, being a libertarian Tea Partier and all.

The thing to be careful about here is this: People like Brat are concerned about the favor given to certain corporations and so they say they want a "free market system." They're all about the free market. But, when you have a free market, something happens. Exploitation happens. Exploitation of the rich over the poor. Exploitation of corporations over the people. This is serious stuff not to be swept aside in a fervent hatred of government (which is really a hatred of government controlled by corporations.) Giving full control to corporations will be even worse!

So, we need to be very careful here. Libertarian Austrian economics is right on the path of Rand and is very evil at it's core in how exploitation becomes the main basis of the propagated free market, unregulated capitalism. Beware.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22338) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 months ago

Not that Brat is on the right track, being a libertarian Tea Partier and all.

Absolutely true = Brat not likely to be a good choice for the people - but his campaign worked as it pointed out the major failings/wrongs of Can't-or and his ilk.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22254) 5 months ago

Cantor failed because he is not a good guy and the people came to realize that. Those who voted for Brat want change and are a bit misguided just like tea partiers, in general, are misguided. They're angry at their government but they don't realize that it is the control of corporations that has ruined it, not the government in and of itself.

We need better education regarding both economics and politics or "government," their purpose and history. And, in my opinion economics is particularly important because it trumps politics as "politics" are almost always driven by economics.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (22338) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 months ago

" Those who voted for Brat " are likely somewhat the same as those who voted for Jesse Ventura = sick of the professional ( bought and paid for ) politician.

Yep - education is key - education showing how things can be done properly - cleanly and prosperously for all - an education that puts the lie to current practice - in this country as well as the rest of the world.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (22338) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 months ago

On trying to express an educational concept:

https://occupywallst.org/article/climate-change-real/#comment-1035119

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 5 months ago

Wait, you said " he could have changed the world"?

So you ARE one of those people who thought he was gonna do everything for you? You believed the campaign slogans.

Well I apologize. I didn't mean to call you a "naïve fool" "low info voter"

I will edit.

"YOU are the change we've been waiting for"

(stop expecting politicians to do everything for you. Protest, VOTE, repeat)

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 5 months ago

Agreed. What naïve fool (ed: notflipper) thought that one politician was gonna change anything?

You?

Not me!

I suppose the low info voters (ed: not the FLICKman) who wait around for someone else to solve their problems are gonna buy into campaign slogans.

Meantime, all the issues we care about have to take a back seat while we spin our wheels complaining about one politician or another, or some party isn't doing everything for us.

Those who care about partisan politics can waste their time with that distraction. Not us.

We will be in the street agitating for change that benefits the 99%

Solidarity flipper

[-] 1 points by flip (7590) 5 months ago

so you and hc are the same medicated junior high schooler - I thought so. now are you assaying here -

How did that work out for them? that the indains were wiped out by the European because of their system of governing? you should read some history - I know you have not had a good education but no time like the present to start.

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 5 months ago

Well versed in indigenous peoples history. Thank you very much.

As always you have no substance, only dishonest personal attacks, & Net fantasies as distraction.

Would be funny if it weren't sad

[-] 1 points by flip (7590) 5 months ago

ok mr substance - respond to the point - are you saying here - How did that work out for them? - with that horribly flippant remark about the slaughter of the Indians that it was because of their system? come now answer it - then say your sorry for appearing callous - now don't be funny or sad - just a simple answer and while you are at it why not take up the debate about anarchy - you alter ego says Anarchism=violence. Without order, violence is inevitable. ........Anarchy literally means "without rulers". What do I not understand? Anarchy is nothing but anomie. ..........You keep saying "anarchy! anarchy!". You obviously want a state with no rulers. That means NO rulers. In a state of anarchy, it is illegal to be a ruler" - now is he right or wrong - stick to substance - too tough for you - oh how sad

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 5 months ago

LMFAO!!! That was good. flippant callous remark? agreed. Discuss why Europeans obliterated them? For what? Please.

I rather discuss the issues that are currently affecting the decent working class. Wages, healthcare, jobs, housing, racism, etc.

Perhaps indigenous peoples governing structure falls into the current issue of governance. You make the connection, I don't see the value.

In regards to governance as a current issue that affects the working class, and specifically your questions on Anarchism:

I refuse to get into a debate about what 'Anarchism' is.

Nor a debate on whether 'Occupy is/was/should be 'Anarchist', or communist, or capitalist, socialist or any other ism/label that gets pulled from the communal a@#.

Waste of time, sorry.

Now our existing corrupt corp controlled governance must be addressed by 1st getting corp money out of politics.

Public campaign funding,

Overturning Citizens United (& other cases),

As well as other election/campaign reform efforts/issues.

Finally, I only post with one login. this one Not gonna spend anymore time on that distraction. Sorry. Also insubstantial.

Peace!!!

[-] -1 points by flip (7590) 5 months ago

exactly what I expected from you- nothing of substance - no answer to a simple question. what did you mean by - How did that work out for them?

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 5 months ago

I thought we agreed I was being flippant & callous.

Read back. I think I answered everything

[-] 0 points by flip (7590) 5 months ago

we agree on all but one thing here - there were plenty on the left who felt Obama would make real change - I think you will have a tough time finding those who knew he would not. a search on google will turn up many who hoped for the best in late 2008. nader and Chomsky saw through the mask not many others. as to the rest - right on bro!

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 5 months ago

But the distraction of debating who knew what, & when rather than pushing economic justice, public health expansion, jobs, wage increases, serves those opposed to our agenda.

Seems a bit obsessive & partisan to focus on one politician when our agenda is being blocked by many.

[-] -2 points by flip (7590) 5 months ago

I am not really interested in debating who knew what but some people have more credibility than others. it is a good thing to try to track that so we have a better idea of who to listen to carefully and who to be skeptical about. too many "experts' are wrong time and again yet still seem to maintain some credibility in our movement. I am not at all focused on any politician or party - the far right gop is literally insane - the dems are not crazy but not really helpful. I heard stiglitz on moyers last night - the median income for men is lower than it was 40 years ago! both parties have participated in that fact - I am not trying to debate or provoke - seems we agree on most of this. i would like to keep it that way

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 5 months ago

LOL! No your not obsessed w/ party or particular politicians. Hence the thread (& the rest of your posts)

You are too funny

Which issue is this thread about?

We may agree on many issues. I have no idea what your position is on any of the issues I post on.

I know how you feel about one politician & his party. THAT much you are clear about.

Right? Your not gonna pretend now are ya'?.

[-] -2 points by flip (7590) 5 months ago

you are boring - and stupid - a bad combination

[-] 1 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 5 months ago

I'd rather be boring and stupid than whatever you are.

[-] -2 points by flip (7590) 5 months ago

then you are in luck

[-] 2 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 5 months ago

Better lucky than good. Suffering is a voluntary condition. I pity you. 😜

[-] -1 points by flip (7590) 5 months ago

thanks for that - I have none for you - there are none so blind as those who will not see - good thing you are lucky

[-] 1 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 5 months ago

I be here till Thursday. Try the veal!

[-] 1 points by flip (7590) 5 months ago

please read carefully - this is an anarchist sentiment - "When the subject has refused allegiance and the officer has resigned his office, then the revolution is accomplished."

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 5 months ago

No where in that statement does he express a desire for "no rulers". He wants individual autonomy. He wants people to think for themselves and act accordingly in their own individual best interests. He want people to rule themselves.

When the officer resigns, one is then free to rule their own mind and body.

[-] 0 points by flip (7590) 5 months ago

well then in going to jail he certainly disobeyed his government - his rulers! and now we agree - he was hoping - that humanity will someday move forward past democracy into freer and more just forms of government - that would be anarchy - stupid - sorry for the stupid but I see no other way to sum up. like I said - 'there are none so blind as those who will not see"

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 5 months ago

Disobeying the government is not the same as wishing for its demise. Not all protests are conducted in the name of anarchy. LeaderFULL is different than leaderless.

Where does he say once "I am an anarchist"?

[-] 0 points by flip (7590) 5 months ago

then why was he in jail?? and how do you explain the above quote?

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 5 months ago

He was in jail because he refused to pay a poll tax which would have gone towards the Mexican war effort, not because he favoured anarchism.

The above quote expresses Thoreau's hopefulness that humanity will someday move forward past democracy into freer and more just forms of government. No where does he say there should be no rulers.

[-] 0 points by flip (7590) 5 months ago

hey - do you know Thoreau was an anarchist - how about this for a quote - "When the subject has refused allegiance and the officer has resigned his office, then the revolution is accomplished."

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 5 months ago

Thoreau was not an anarchist.

[19] The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to — for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well — is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher (8) was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.

[-] 1 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 5 months ago

You're the one who keeps bringing Noam Chomsky into it. I agree with 99proud. Other people exist too you know.

[-] 2 points by flip (7590) 5 months ago

name them - tell me who predicted that Obama would be a corporate shill in 2008 - a war monger and defender of the banks and the rich - who besides nader, noam and probably hedges - go ahead I will wait. don't like noam because he is too much on point - ok tell me who you think is good - who should I read?

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 5 months ago

Why? Who cares. You just said you're " not really interested in debating who knew what "

How does that push the issues you support forward?

What issues do you support (besides bashing one party & it's leader)?

[-] 0 points by flip (7590) 5 months ago

because you keep responding but you are right - I will stop now

[-] 1 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 5 months ago

I exist. 99proud exists. Lady Gaga exists. Angela Merkel exists. Rob Ford exists. Lots of people other than Noam Chomsky exist.

I don't like Noam Chomsky because he promotes socialism and anarchism and collectivism.

Read Thoreau or Emerson or Spinoza or TS Eliot or Maggie Fuller. All of which are much better writers. And people.

[-] 1 points by flip (7590) 5 months ago

not surprising but you did not answer the question. you are not on a free market capitalist site in case you didn't know. says right on the site - this site is brought to you by various radicals at the Occupy Solidarity Network - here is another bit to fill you in - Several commentators have stated that the Occupy Wall Street movement has roots in the philosophy of anarchism.[1][2][3] David Graeber, an early organizer of the movement, is a self-proclaimed anarchist.[4] Graeber, writing for The Guardian, has argued that anarchist principles of direct action, direct democracy and rejection of existing political institutions are the foundations of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Graeber also believes that radical segments of the civil rights movement, the anti-nuclear movement and the global justice movement have been based on the same principles.[5] - go back to the junior high school "democrats for Obama" - I am sure you were passing out buttons for him then

[-] 2 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 5 months ago

I tell you to read Thoreau and Emerson and you call me a conformist? Right! Cuz that makes soooooooooo much sense.

[-] 1 points by flip (7590) 5 months ago

I didn't call you a conformist I said you were stupid! you are on an anarchist forum and don't like anarchism - yet you like Thoreau who was spouting anarchist ideas and would be urging you to resist Obama and his war mongering. cant answer the question since you don't remember what it is - go back in the thread and find it - rather not - I don't blame you since you cannot answer it - now say something stupid - go ahead - it is what you do best

[-] 1 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 5 months ago

Thoreau was NOT an anarchist. He didn't want less government, he wanted BETTER government.

Anarchism=violence. Without order, violence is inevitable.

Why do you keep accusing me of supporting Obama?

[-] 2 points by flip (7590) 5 months ago

first of all you do not understand anarchy - you should at the very least read up on anarchism if you want to be taken seriously on an ows site. the term means literally - without rulers not without rules. didn't I give you the definition of anarchism before or was that the 99 idiot - either way look it up and stop with the nonsense - anarchy = violence - childish!

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 5 months ago

Anarchy literally means "without rulers". What do I not understand? Anarchy is nothing but anomie.

[-] 1 points by flip (7590) 5 months ago

in response to this - You keep saying "anarchy! anarchy!". You obviously want a state with no rulers. That means NO rulers. In a state of anarchy, it is illegal to be a ruler. - have you read anything about American indian chiefs - do you understand their power and limitations? Indians lived in a state of basic anarchy - the chief was usually the poorest man in the tribe since he was selected for his qualities of wisdom and generosity. just the opposite of our leaders who enrich themselves like big bill Clinton and Nixon etc. now the indian chief had no power to make a member of his tribe do anything - not go to war or build shelter. each person did what he or she wanted. that is why many Europeans who were captured by them did not go back to the white man.

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 5 months ago

How did that work out for them?

[-] 1 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 5 months ago

So you want to set up US government like a Native American tribe? Didn't Ben Franklin already claim to have done this? Iroquois Confederacy?

[-] 1 points by flip (7590) 5 months ago

no anomie is anomie - you said this about anarchy - Anarchism=violence. Without order, - that is exactly the opposite of the truth - read orwell "homage to catalonia" and see what violence you see there. if you really want me to answer the question - What do I not understand - it might take days and you would have to learn the rules of intelligent discourse - you seem incapable

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 5 months ago

And you have to learn the rules of unintelligent discourse. Not everyone is as smart as you.

Anarchy is anomie. No one rules over anything, not even themselves. What kind of system bans individual decision making. You can't even rule yourself! Come on man!

[-] 0 points by flip (7590) 5 months ago

Back up your opinion

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 5 months ago

You keep saying "anarchy! anarchy!". You obviously want a state with no rulers. That means NO rulers. In a state of anarchy, it is illegal to be a ruler.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by flip (7590) 5 months ago

nice - so let me get this straight - you are (well hcab - same thing it seems) on an anarchist site and putting up corporate elite definitions of anarchy. when I point out that they are incorrect and that you should at the very least read about anarchist theory before you pontificate you say I am - Ignorant smallminded little distractoid - I think you have demonstrated once again that you are too immature to be involved in serious issues

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 5 months ago

What does anarchy (& your net fantasies) have to do with you callin me "99 idiot" & me responding?

You can't even deal with this directly. You are so trained to distract and confuse at everyturn you can't even discuss simple, out in the open comments without adding some dishonest deflections.

Priceless as all hell man.

Wow.

LMFAO!!!

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (4835) 5 months ago

This article plus Leo's USDA submachine gun article, accounts for everything.

[-] -1 points by flip (7590) 5 months ago

what a shame - we deserve better

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4835) 5 months ago

All so strange, as it did not have to be this way.

[-] 1 points by flip (7590) 5 months ago

“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” - Fredrick douglas - we clearly have not demanded enough

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (4835) 5 months ago

Thank you flip-----This says so much.

[-] -1 points by wickerman (62) 5 months ago

Sadly this all may mean that the chances for a peaceful resolution have passed. Let's hope not.

[-] -1 points by flip (7590) 5 months ago

as usual it depends what "we the people" do - we need to re occupy!