Posted on 03/23/2002 12:46:30 PM PST by antidemocommie
Nonsense. Small "l" libertarianism just says that governments jackboots with guns are not the answer to all of societies ills. I know you don't agree because you enjoy the slaughter when you agree with the cause.
--wouldn't you say the push for international corporatism to be just as much a "cultural war" as anything else?
This is very true, as is what you go on to say. That "cultural war" is felt very strongly in some countries. But I have to wonder if America hasn't already gone through that conflict. It looks like our world is already shaped by corporate power. The conflict may flare up again as corporations further transform the world, but in 2002 the divisions aren't as deep as in 1902, 1932, 1952 or 1972, because the small independent producers are much less important than the big players.
The lines are immeasurably blurred now, I can't see where there's even a practical "left and right" difference anymore, except for theoretical discussions.
This is also true and related to the previous topic. A generation ago there seemed to be more behind political conflicts, because the conflicts involved farmers, small businessmen, shopkeepers, independent factory owners. Today the we are all much more a part of the corporate system.
Statistically it may be that there are as many entrepreneurs and small businessmen now as there were in past years, but franchising by big corporations has surely helped to transform the country. Culturally we've all been drawn into the orbit of the big media as well, and this is probably even a bigger factor. The educational establishment has had a similar homogenizing effect.
Basically most of our ideologues left and right come from the same segments of society. They have the same experiences and same investments in society. This is in contrast to how things were in previous decades. The older ideological religions -- socialism above all -- have declined and the divisions between various segments of society have been bridged to a degree by mass culture. It may be that racial and ethnic divisions will open up on a massive scale in the future, but for now people do tend to get co-opted and shaped by the system to become more alike.
At some point, all the cultural divisions will open up again. Marriage and "reproductive issues" will be important. The push for gay marriage, the blurring of the legitimacy/illegitimacy line, the issues surrounding cloning and genetic research will reemerge in the next decade. These conflicts will embitter ethnic differences and divisions. And with these issues the globalism of modern capitalism will also become an issue. If things go wrong, this will be felt quite strongly as offensive, both here and abroad. But for now, these issues are in the background.
One big question is what globalism will lead to. How deeply is it going to change the world? Will the world become a giant strip mall? Or will we having become globalized, put our money behind local enterprises, rather than the McDonald's or Starbucks? Will we see ever greater centralization, or will technologies also make decentralization possible?
Welll, libertarians are Repbulicans minus God. I like God, so I can't walk that walk. But, I am so amazed how fast things are changing. Its as if Bush had an agenda all planned out prior to entering the WH. Once there, the New World Order agenda became his agenda. We could not be moving faster towards the loss of US sovereignty than we are today. America is about to become just another trading partner in the new continental trading agreement, but our border will basically cease to exist, as well. Bush sayd "the free flow of goods and people" EU, here we come.
Water resources will fall under UN mandate for the most part, local state or even national control will be minimalized. Very severe water use restrictions and meters on even privarte wells will become normal.
Firearms ownership again will start to fall under more and more centralised control under these UN treaties/agreements/ whatever they are called. One step at a time, nothing terribly dramatic overnight that might spark any resistance movement of note, just creeping incrementalism. Their formula is fabulous, work on types, never entire classes or the entire spectrum all at once. "Assault" weapons is a good example.
The media-more and more mega corporations control at the top, and with the political power to institute change to both protect their monopolies and to shape public opinion. Control of internet content-happening in many nations already, my guess is here in the US in not the too distant future. Broad classifications of "hate speech". The ability of foreign nations to institute lawsuits against us companies/content providers and prhaps even solitary individuals. The france/yahoo case comes to mind now.
Perpetual war for perpetual profits-already sorta obvious. We have a war against the al queda, but it happened in the midst of other wars, with more to come. In the background as always, large international corporations who are "cvonveniently" there to egg it on for their "bottom line" purposes. Always denied of course, but after 6783 "coincidences" of this nature it's hard to not notice the parallels.
Banking and finance. Small town individual banks are disappearing. Regional banks are now more the norm, and my guess is international will be next.
Retail-more entities like superwalmarts-much less local independent merchants-simply no possible way they can compete. Every area that has one of these large places built loses perhaps dozens of local merchants. Watched a funny King of the Hill cartoon episode last week on this. Hank Hill works for strickland propane, the local propane supplier. Megalomart moves in, undercuts them so bad they go under, Hank is forced to lose his job when they shut down, he eventually becomes just another low paid "associate" in the propane department at megalomart. Pretty obvious again this is a takeoff on that. Centralised control.
Public education. Federal government now is inexorably intertwined with local school boards. Carrot and the stick. Must follow federal guidelines, which in turn have come from UN guidelines. Want money beyuond local propoerty taxes? Again, centralised federal money transferred, obviously to help promote centralization. Class/school/community projects directly out of the UN like community 'earth day" efforts. Dumbed down US history taught. and etc. outcome based education as worker classes are identified early and steered into the appropriate social strata. things of this nature.
Policing. Major efforts to bring state and local policing under the aegis of the federal government-dual badging is now common, even if severely under reported or admited to. In addition the blurring of military and police. Now in full swing, quite common for even tiny towns to have full 'swat' teams and to have federal "officers" with them on 'raids".
I could go on those are just some of the obvious ones. My suspicion is the bulk of them have all originated behind the scenes from international profits perspectives. I call it ideaology laundering- a spin on money laundering- wash and obscure and hide as much as possible the origins of the efforts, slap a label on them for public consumption, then they become law and "culture". The buzz words change constantly, but the direction is always constant and one > way, towards centralization and global corporatism. When one faction of the globalists is in temporary "power", it's 'for the children", now that it's done it's normal choice "switch" it's called anti terrorism and patriotic. Like who wants to be labeled as anti-children or anti -anti- terrorism or anti patriotic or against "homeland defense'?
Centralised command and control, the control part is the most insidious as most of the time the control isn't even noted in it's entirety, with the command aspect exactly that- you are commanded to be under control, you may talk about dissent, but you may not DO dissent. A very large difference there. . Sometimes small snippets of the control are fought over, but this increases lower level fractional and factional differences that keep people from "noticing" or responding to what I see as the gestalt of the centralization efforts.
Interesting times
It was Republican Senator Robert Dole that in 1968 dragged a reluctant Democrat Senator Hubert Humphrey into passing Affirmative Action for Black Americans. Thirty years of experience taught America that Affirmative Action evolved into a quotas program based on racist principles.
Reagan was interested in reducing government regulation, reducing the stranglehood of union power over commerce, reducing inflation and creating an environment for innovative entrepreneurs to prosper.
Twenty years later we know that amnesty or quest worker programs create budget stress in schools, hospitals and courts with calls for tax increases. Although this was not the intent, this is the result.
The road to Hell is lined with good intentions.
Right now we need less of these good intentions and more common sense. America was not made great by good intentions but by practical common sense and an environment for the expression of liberty.
If I'm inclined to see cause for hope, it's in the fact that we are less childishly grateful to governments and other powers than our fathers, grandfathers or great-grandfathers were to Mr. Roosevelt.
Most people do lack the physical bravery and self-sufficient economic independence of past generations, but their minds are freer. Many of them at least are more inclined to question. The personal computer in particular may have a decentralizing effect both in terms of communications, education and knowledge and in terms of production. What it will take to crush this intellectual independence is another big crisis or collapse on par with the Great Depression or the World Wars that would turn apathy and cynicism into enthusiastic acceptance of a new order.
I could be wrong about this. Maybe passive acceptance is enough for the system to increase its power over people. Maybe a crisis when the system ceases to provide for us would spark rebellion rather than repression.
But it's hard for me to visualize such a future tyranny. Would people be mindless drones or automatons? Or would they be more or less as we are now when we obediently comply with income tax and other laws? And if they will be they are now, could it be that the change has already happened and that we ourselves are what we fear?
In a future tyranny would we would lack the power to change things? Would we become such slaves that we would embrace things as they are and not want to change them? Or would we think of UN or corporate or federal control as something like Social Security or TVA that's there and too much trouble to get rid of.
Of course technologies do exist and can be developed that would change humanity to such a degree that these questions will all become moot. All bets on the human mind and spirit's ability to rebel would be off. Maybe that is what will happen.
I think you are right about "divide and conquer." A town like Ithaca, NY or Amherst, MA might oppose chain stores and multinational corporations but enthusiastically embrace political correctness and the UN agenda. Another might complain about what they teach in the schools, but have no objection to things going on far away, whether in the Rockies and Alaska or in the "Third World." Yet another community might reject all these things, but sell its soul to get a prison or a public works project. By giving people what they want on one set of issues shrewd powers can get what they want out of them on another.
Finally, your idea of "ideological laundering" is an important one. Many people turn to journalists and columnists to find out what they should believe as conservatives or liberals, rightists or leftists. The journalists who put newspapers, magazines and websites have their own agendas and interests which don't always conside with those of the many readers or the general public. It pays to ask when you read something, "How am I being manipulated?" or "What are they trying to get me to think?"
The idea that the media has that you, the reader, and your attention is the product that they are buying and selling is true, and not just in terms of advertising. All of us and our attitudes are also things that they are buying and seling, processing and changing, so it pays to beware.
The problem is that if one rejects all prefabricated ideologies and try to figure it out for oneself from scratch, one wouldn't be able to get anything done. People rely on the situation close at hand and fall back on the idea that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," because if you are always thinking that the "enemy of my enemy may also be my enemy" it would make life unbearable. Certainly, though, it is important not to let oneself be manipulated.
Bill and Hillary Clinton also did a lot to weaken the Dimocratic Party! They single-handly took the DNC from black to red ink paying for lawyers for all of his various scandals. The Clintons cost the Dimocrats control of Congress, and (ultimately) the Presidency. The Clinton Sex Scandal tarnished the image of the Office of the President of the United States. This remains the main thing that the Clinton administration will be remembered for in the Historic perspective. Bill and Hillary Clinton have also undermined the trust that people once had in the Dimocratic party- thank God!!
Is this a result of economic laws or of our real, as opposed to our professed, preferences as consumers? Or are other factors involved? Are we fated to end up with a handful of big banks running things?
That's what happened with railroads and other businesses, and it may be how things are in other countries. The same information technology that makes it theoretically possible for people to enter a business may make also it nevertheless inevitable that big competitors will be more profitable and squeeze you new small entrants. The degree of regulation and paperwork is also a major factor.
Is it economically inevitable given the way banking and other businesses work that mergers will continue concentrating the market in ever fewer hands? And is it a given that we won't change the laws back to restrict chain banking as they once did? These are questions that touches our lives everyday, and I'd be interested if anybody had any answers.
"The fight against liberalism is a long tedious war. Things don't go 100% right all the time."
Thank God there are still some FReepers that realize this fact! I swear I think a lot of you expected G.W. to wave his magic wand, or open his Conservative bag of tricks, and fix everything- instantly! Well, real life doesn't work that way. It will take a long time (yet) to undo the damage that has been done to our country over the last 50 years!
1. The slavish media was complicit in repeating all the lies by the Democrats.
2. In the Senate, Bob (let's make a deal with the lying Democraps) Dole caved in and gave the Senate Dem's what they wanted, which allowed the House Dem's to paint the House Republicans as unreasonable and unable to be good guys like the Senate Republicans.
BUT ... here is the thing. I HAVE YET TO SEE ONE REALISTIC GAME PLAN FOR RESTORING OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC OF LIMITED GOVERNMENT BY THE whining Libertarians and whiners who complain about the conservatives who compromise.
The ONLY PATH TO VICTORY IS TO WIN A MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE, and KEEP THE WHITE HOUSE. ONLY THEN CAN THE REPUBLICANS DEFEAT THE LAST GREAT ENEMY .... THE LYING, $H!T for BRAINS MAINSTREAM MEDIA.
The conservatives AREN'T GOING TO WIN BY SPITTING IN THE FACES OF THE MODERATES. The conservatives can't get elected if they appeal to ONLY the conservatives. Doing that will guarantee a Democrat House, Senate and someone like Al Gore for President, and we will see nationalized health care, senior citizen drug plans, etc. etc. etc.
And my frustration is that too many "conservative" whiners, and Loosertarians contribute to the problem by ONLY whining, and not by working to elect conservative REPUBLICANs (not Libertarians, Constitutional Party, Reform party people ... ) REPUBLICANS. They won't write letters to the editor, they won't let local businesses know that they will boycott supporters of left wing media. They won't support fair/balanced media, etc. They sit on their rear-ends and do nothing but complain about the lack of conservative agendas .... but do nothing to forward one. Let the Congress talk about cutting welfare benefits, and people come out of the woodwork by the droves to protest. Let Congress talk about a tax increase on the wealthy, and there is less than one-tenth of a backlash by businesses and people complaining to Congress as to why that it bad.
No ... face it, the majority of conservatives don't do much to get their message out except whine.
Instead of whining, commit to being a PCO for your local precinct. Commit to writing 2 - 3 letters to the editor to EACH paper in your town. Be more pro-active in "spreading the gospel" of good Republican style government. Avoid businesses that are support liberal causes.
Mike
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.