user name

password   (forgot)

   Register





radlure
Profile
Blog
Comments
  blog rss


            
The End Of Guardian Angels
Wed Sep 1, 2010 8:13:15 pm


Gorbachev to Reagan: "I'm going to do the worse thing one human can do to another. I'm going to take away your enemy." It appears Gorbachev was correct.
It always has seemed surreal to me that the majority follow the directives of their masters so well.
Of course in the US we don't even believe we have masters. It's a really good inside joke I suspect.
To me it seems that the most constant of these directives is who we should hate. In the past we hated the communists even while we knew very little about them. Today we hate liberals and anyone who opposes our interference in their land. I don't think "their land" is a useful expression except to say that there is land that certain peoples occupied. Like the ancient Roman Empire we don't recognize ownership of land by people who are "less" civilized than us. We never have recognized the rights of indigenous peoples because if we didn't take their land someone else would. I know of the US Supreme Court decision that recognizes the rights of American natives reservations but those rights have been violated very frequently so I don't considered that a very recognized, acknowledged or more importantly implemented Supreme Court decision.

The myth the US population operates under is that of individual independence. Groups that ban together for the benefit of their members are distrusted usually. Exceptions to that would be noble groups with altruistic purposes like the Ku Klux Klan. Is that nervy of me to post about the Kan like that? Yeah maybe since except for the name people like Beck and Limbaugh are using the very same tactics and language and at last look becoming very popular. With the resurrection of the white male system of bully-ism is there any question who will be devalued?

I recently re-watched Cool Hand Luke-a film of the late 60's featuring Paul Newman. What hit me most was that the film makers were able to portray prisoners in a sort of compassionate light. My friend who watched the film with me said it even stronger-Our sympathies now are with the Bosses, the prison guards and management. Anyway I suspect most people can't enter into the set up of Cool Hand Luke anymore and that's because the Bosses, Owners, Management, or Masters have paid people like Limbaugh to convince us that compassion is for idiots.

Being older and having watched Cool Hand Luke not long after it first came out I can remember that people who called themselves Americans once considered compassion a human trait. Those same people once thought about people who had had some bad luck or fell through the cracks. Americans once actually rooted for the underdog, and we reflected on the phrase "There for the grace of God go I." American Government and those entrusted to performing duty for that service tried however imperfectly to improve the lives of the citizenry but now government itself is bad just like those groups who try to help their members.

In the aftermath of the re-privileging of the Bosses, which is mostly just returning them to favored public status since they never lost any privilege, all your interactions with government will be handled by Corporate Directors.
And then you will learn why compassion is an essential part of being human but it will be too late for you.
1) erdos0,
Wed Sep 1, 2010 11:05:36 pm

The Ku Klux Klan is altruistic?
2) evilserif,
Thu Sep 2, 2010 5:42:15 am

re: comment#1
The Ku Klux Klan is altruistic?
clearly.
3) erdos0,
Thu Sep 2, 2010 5:44:35 am

re: comment#2
clearly.
Because they want to better the world by removing what they believe is bad?
4) evilserif,
Thu Sep 2, 2010 5:55:54 am

re: comment#3
Because they want to better the world by removing what they believe is bad?
Oh I don't know. I was being facetious.
5) erdos0,
Thu Sep 2, 2010 6:01:46 am

agrees with: comment#4
Oh I don't know. I was being facetious.
6) radlure,
Thu Sep 2, 2010 4:45:38 pm

Calling the klan altruistic was a tongue in cheek device and yes if you asked them if what they were doing was for the good they would answer that it was I believe. There are very few people that go to bed believing that they are bad-everyone has justifications for what they do.
7) erdos0,
Thu Sep 2, 2010 5:46:50 pm

agrees with: comment#6
Calling the klan altruistic was a tongue in cheek device and yes if you asked them if what they were doing was for the good they would answer that it was I believe. There are very few people that go to bed believing that they are bad-everyone has justifications for what they do.
8) monkeysoup,
Thu Sep 2, 2010 8:37:00 pm

What tactics and language are being used by Beck or Limbaugh that are the same as the KKK?
9) radlure,
Thu Sep 2, 2010 9:02:04 pm

Don't Beck and Limbaugh divide the population up into groups and they then decide some of the groups (which are mostly labels they themselves have created) are bad for the country? That is not different from the Ku Klux Klan or other rightward-fascist groups. Indeed we all label but I don't generally hear people from the left calling for violence, oppression and other harsh measures.
10) monkeysoup,
Fri Sep 3, 2010 10:06:04 am

re: comment#9
Don't Beck and Limbaugh divide the population up into groups and they then decide some of the groups (which are mostly labels they themselves have created) are bad for the country? That is not different from the Ku Klux Klan or other rightward-fascist groups. Indeed we all label but I don't generally hear people from the left calling for violence, oppression and other harsh measures.
Certainly both label people, politically, but are they calling for violence, oppression and other harsh measures? I don't see that. Limbaugh is a stooge who appeals to people who are content to accept his basic conservatives vs. liberals rally cries, as if supporting either the Republican or Democratic party in the US right now is anything but perpetuating the two-party, symbiotic entrenchment. Beck is on a more intermediate level, where his is calling for a schism between what he labels “progressives” and those who believe in the principals upon which our nation was founded. Both disseminate false or misleading information, and that is where I find fault with them, not the extremes of measures they call for.
11) radlure,
Sat Sep 4, 2010 6:14:48 pm

Like everything this is subject to your own personal views. This mediamatters article ( http://mediamatters.org/research/201007290032 ) summarizes Beck's verbal attack on a "liberal" group in the US and the results of that.

If someone makes exaggerated and even false statements about certain groups of people and then shrugs their shoulders when people respond to that hyperbole I believe that to be a fascist tactic. I'm not saying that Beck officially supports violence but he's rather apathetic about it because I suspect that he hopes it will intimidate those he opposes.
12) monkeysoup,
Sat Sep 11, 2010 9:29:50 am

The link was very informational, but describing Byron Williams' actions as an act of terrorism is not equitable to a shrug of the shoulders and the “violent” rhetoric is, in every case except for concerns about his own well-being (no doubt due to the threats he has received) obviously either a metaphor or dark humor. They are different than a direct call to commit violence against a person or persons. The distinction is especially important in consideration of what speech is protected under the 1st amendment.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007270046

“Beck isn't the only major right-wing media figure who pushes extreme, often violent rhetoric, but he is the only one who admonishes his audience against violence.”

The article draws a big question mark about why that is necessary, but I think it is more pertinent to consider that he openly advises his listeners to not be violent.

That is not apathy.

Also, it is helpful to use the Reply link when responding to someone else's comment, because then that person will receive notification that someone has responded. It is one of the convenient features of this site. If the quoting of the comment to which you are replying annoys you, you can uncheck the box next to “automatic quote” before you submit your comment.
13) radlure,
Sat Sep 11, 2010 5:19:55 pm

re: comment#12
The link was very informational, but describing Byron Williams' actions as an act of terrorism is not equitable to a shrug of the shoulders and the “violent” rhetoric is, in every case except for concerns about his own well-being (no doubt due to the threats he has received) obviously either a metaphor or dark humor. They are different than a direct call to commit violence against a person or persons. The distinction is especially important in consideration of what speech is protected under the 1st amendment.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007270046

“Beck isn't the only major right-wing media figure who pushes extreme, often violent rhetoric, but he is the only one who admonishes his audience against violence.”

The article draws a big question mark about why that is necessary, but I think it is more pertinent to consider that he openly advises his listeners to not be violent.

That is not apathy.

Also, it is helpful to use the Reply link when responding to someone else's comment, because then that person will receive notification that someone has responded. It is one of the convenient features of this site. If the quoting of the comment to which you are replying annoys you, you can uncheck the box next to “automatic quote” before you submit your comment.
OK reply link noted. I think I was trying to give general replies and not "single" anyone out-at some point in this.

I am glad for all the thoughtful responses here. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with them, but then I don't even always agree with myself. It is possible to state one is against violence while at the same time that it's being supported or inspired. Violence is reprehensible primarily when it's used against "your" cause; otherwise it's too bad but couldn't be helped.

History is filled with examples of that including the extralegal ouster of the original US Congress-the Continental Congress.
14) monkeysoup,
Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:32:58 am

re: comment#13
OK reply link noted. I think I was trying to give general replies and not "single" anyone out-at some point in this.

I am glad for all the thoughtful responses here. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with them, but then I don't even always agree with myself. It is possible to state one is against violence while at the same time that it's being supported or inspired. Violence is reprehensible primarily when it's used against "your" cause; otherwise it's too bad but couldn't be helped.

History is filled with examples of that including the extralegal ouster of the original US Congress-the Continental Congress.
Although I got caught up in questioning your parallel between Glenn Beck and the KKK, because I find accusations of racism and the like against him to be incorrect, I do agree with the thesis of this post.

What better way for the plutocracy to better entrench themselves than to make any affront to their stranglehold seem as if an affront to the freedom of common folks and a theft of their “hard-earned” money? Why DO we now sympathize more with the extra-privileged and oppressors?