4um: The Conservative Movement: From Failure to Threat

Title: The Conservative Movement: From Failure to Threat
Source: Rockwell
URL Source: [None]
Published: May 19, 2008
Author: Paul Craig Roberts
Post Date: 2008-05-19 09:39:44 by ghostdogtxn
Keywords: None
Views: 1963
Comments: 154

Well, free speech should allow the rest of us to complain about assassination talk, I should think.

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

ari, your "complaint' is that such talk exists. Like all censors, you work diligently to stifle out our 1A. Shame on you and anyone who thinks such censorship is American.

Lew Rockwell had it right. What the GOP advocates isn't conservatism at all, it's "Red State Fascism." Does Commentary or any other neoconservative magazine ever print anything that Taft or Coolidge would agree with? Probably not.

They may be holding the paperless voting machines as their hole card because the GOP wants to run their highly outraged moralistic campaign against easy targets, the oh so wormy Bill and Hillary. If Obama wins the nomination then millions of bux in already-produced-and-in-the-can campaign ads will have to be discarded, and the GOP will be dead in the water.

The only thing they could harp on would be Obama's relative lack of experience, because what they really want to say, (he's black and therefore less qualified and don't forget to count the silverware, he's loyal to Arabs instead of Jews, He'll be pawing the white wimmen in the Oval Office! OMG! HOW CAN YOU SLEEP KNOWING THAT??? and, he may have "unusual appetites" that are completely unacceptable for Democrats who haven't had enough "Jeremiads and lightning bolts religious upbringing" to dew it in the dark and then be ashamed about it) are all off limits for reasons of which you're well aware.

Who cares, I mean who gives a rat's ass what you would do if you were owner of 4UM?

A dog barking at the end of a tether is just a role that someone with the opinion they have of themselves should be doing, so do us all a favor; go start your own forum then.

Oh yes, but that is right; you would be there all alone with nobody to belittle of insult to amuse you. So it's a given you would never do that.

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

Now Mr. ari, if memory serves you're an OXFORD educated attorney, and at the very least the beneficiary of a frightfully pricey education.

Your incessant reliance on tactics that would be actionable in court and in state bar proceedings is clearly indicative of your frustration with your own impotence.

You may not know this but, CarolOnTheWeb once wrote "I wish (George HW BUSH) was dead!" and was immediately visited by the secret service.

When she answered the door and was asked about her comment she replied, "Yes, I wrote it, do you want to arrest me now?" or words to that effect while extending her arms for cuffing.

After several failed attempts to intimidate this feisty gal, the secret service said "We just want to make sure that you aren't a threat to the president!" and left with no apology or repudiation from her.

JT sometimes employs a tactic that keeps the SPLC and their dutiful DOJ friendlies in states of flux. He reminds them that their plans to shove their Amerika down our throats can be derailed and despite the climate of fear they've wrought upon the nation there are and will always be some people who aren't afraid to remind the enemy that their big plans are not a given.

One has to admire Hal Turner on this point. he has his enemies foaming at the mouth, and he can actually take credit for turning the senate around on a "death to America" immigration vote by publishing senators' home addresses and phone numbers!

I didn't hear anyone of your political ilk complain when a national news reporter (on Geraldo's show) stood in front of Thom Metzger's home and showed the best place for a sniper to get a clean shot!

And, if you cannot satisfactorily counter any of the points that are so upsetting to you with stand up debate, then would you please concede the inherent flaws in your position and behave like a world class lawyer instead of an anonymous, dirty trickster hack?

If the law allows JT to say what he does, how can my words about what he says be actionable?

Henry See
SOTT.net
January 15, 2008

Dave Neiwert at Orincus recently wrote a blog post describing how rabid, right-wing talk show host Hal Turner was outed as an FBI agent when hackers found incriminating emails on his server. Neiwert cites a report from the SPLC that says in part:

On Jan. 1, unidentified hackers electronically confronted Turner in the forum of his website for "The Hal Turner Show." After a heated exchange, they told Turner that they had successfully hacked into his server and found correspondence with an FBI agent who is apparently Turner’s handler. Then they posted an alleged July 7 E-mail to the agent in which Turner hands over a message from someone who sent in a death threat against Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.). "Once again," Turner writes to his handler, "my fierce rhetoric has served to flush out a possible crazy." In what is allegedly a portion of another E-mail, Turner discusses the money he is paid.
On Thursday, as the E-mail exchange was heatedly discussed on a major neo-Nazi website, Turner suddenly announced he was quitting political work. "I hereby separate from the ‘pro-White’ movement," he said, adding that he was ending his radio show immediately. "I will no longer involve myself in any aspect of it."

Paid agents who spread disinformation is a topic we return to over and over again at SOTT and on our forum. Why is it that people are so gullible, that they refuse to admit the possibility? The use of provocateurs goes back thousands of years. Why should we think it is any different today, or that it only happens elsewhere?

Hal Turner’s job was to be a right-winger nutzoid agent, but there are such agents on the left, in the so-called 911 Truth Movement, and in every other channel by which information is broadcast and transmitted. Disinformation is pervasive. It is the water in which we swim every day. The water is filled with sharks who play whatever tune they are are paid to play.

The only way to see it is to be aware that it exists and to THINK! We have to use our critical capacities and understand the system in which we live. The system is controlled by powerful forces that act through corporations, government, intelligence agencies, police forces and the courts, the education system, and on and on. Why would they leave alone alternative news sources, sources that could potentially work to unite normal people against the pathocrats?

They would never leave such channels free. On the contrary, they would spend large sums of money to control them to ensure that the only news that people receive keeps them within the bounds that are permissible in the pathocracy. Opposition must be controlled. People need to have the appearance of free speech and of a certain choice in where they get their information. That is just part of the capitalist marketplace that promotes the illusion that it is your choice in what you consume that makes you free. News and information are no different. But that means that even news and information that appears to be oppositional must really be held within certain acceptable boundaries.

That is why critical thought and analysis are so important. Nothing can be accepted at face value. Just because someone claims that they are in opposition doesn’t mean that he or she really is. If they are not exposed, they become Pied Pipers leading their followers deeper and deeper into the swamp. Anger at current policies and injustices can be used and then spent to fuel pointless and even dangerous responses that accomplish nothing positive and that in fact simply make the situation worse and feed into the long-term plans of the pathocrats.

An example is what Neiwert calls "exterminationist rhetoric": the calls to violence that we hear from so many right wing talking heads. Turner may have gone far beyond what we hear from the pundits on Fox News, but he lays the groundwork and pushes the boundaries.

As part of his job, Hal Turner took positions were extreme, calling for people to take the law in their own hands up to the point of murder. He was being paid out of your pocket books and wallets. However, his rhetoric was just a bit more extreme than the nonsense one hears from Michelle Malkin or Anne Coulter when they also speak of violence against liberals, even if they claim they are joking and shrug it off. Turner paves the way, pushing the limit on what is permissible. It is a dangerous game.

And he was doing it as his job for the FBI.

Moreover, it only takes a few agents like Turner to influence others, to set an agenda, to set an example on what is permissible and what is not in terms of "exterminationist rhetoric". Such extremes can be used to justify paramoralisms from the mouths of the likes of Malkin and Coulter.

When psychopaths and other deviants assume the major roles in society, we all become infected by their conscienceless world view. It permeates every corner of life from politics to professional sport, from entertainment to the education system. To pull oneself out of it is hard work. It means being continually aware.

There are people, like former FBI agent Mike German cited in the Neiwert peice, who then call for a public airing of questions, because they are shocked that the FBI or the government would go so far:

Potok also spoke with Mike German, a former undercover FBI agent whose work I once covered. "This certainly raises a whole lot of questions that need to be answered in a public forum," he said. "There are strict rules about what an informant is allowed to do, and certainly encouraging or instigating others to commit acts of violence is far beyond what FBI agents should have their informants doing. Aside from the fact that you’re possibly encouraging someone to commit an act of violence, there’s also the danger that you’re actually entrapping that person, which means he would get off."

German would like to draw a line somewhere between informants and provocateurs. He thinks the first are necessary while the second go too far. But isn’t the idea of informants itself pretty sick? Doesn’t it suggest that there is something fundamentally wrong with society?

Neiwert concludes his article with:

This deserves to be a significant scandal. We’ll see if the press can divert its attention long enough from Britney Spears to bring it to the public’s attention.

The answer to Neiwert’s rhetorical question is obvious. Of course not.

But until one understands the true nature of the US political and economic system, that it is completely pathological, one will not realize that such appeals will amount to nothing. That is why information such as this must be put into the larger context as we attempt to do here at SOTT. Until one is able to look at the reality as it is and see the true depth of the horror, until the truth of the unmitigated terror of our situation has knocked the wind out of one’s gut, we will continue to look for solutions that are part of the problem and well within the official limits set by the pathocrats for what the opposition may or may not do.

But don’t think I am suggesting we need to take arms. This is not a battle cry for revolution, for revolution, too, falls within the bounds of what is permitted. One group of deviants replacing another doesn’t change anything in the long run, it merely perpetuates the myth that violence is the answer and reinforces the enslavement of normal people to the pathocrats.

The first step in real change is to understand what normal people are up against. For that, there is no better place to start than the book Political Ponerology, A science on the nature of evil adjusted for political purposes by Andrew Aobaczewski available from Red Pill Press.

source

If 4um is going to serve as a Commie-Establishment propaganda delivery system, then I say let it die.

Your shabby tactics would soon prove tiresome to any trial judge, and that's a slam dunk contempt citation.

If you threatened (or raised the spectre of) criminal charges to gain advantage in a civil action that is a breach of the ABA canon of ethics! (which are mirrored in many state ethics codes)

Now, if a lawyers' professional ethics are an obstacle or simply of no use in heated and protracted political discussions, then will you start by conceding that point?

Or, you can adhere to the rules of professional conduct and present cogent facts to support your position, if you have any.

It's my position that I could argue your case better than you've been doing, without "passion or prejudice". But, then again I'm from the home of Thomas Jefferson, and you're influences are no doubt the likes of Cecil Rhodes. It's becoming more apparent each passing moment that an Oxford education leaves you somewhat under-gunned against me or JT in an honest to by God stand up political debate.

Your words imply (falsely) he openly advocates or has expressed a desire for such. Imasmuch as that is a federal offense, your tactics are tantamount to accusations which are harmful to the poster and the forum.

I've been working with AIP (CP affiliate) for months now. I was disappointed in the last central committee meeting though and may switch to Libertarian. I'm waiting until after the June primary to change my registration.

The language I cited in #37, given the context, can quite reasonably be so interpreted.

You're very slippery here, but we both know that no judicial officer would permit that, and it's still no substitute for intelligent debate including followups to JT's frustrating counters to your "cogent facts in #37."

In short you seem to want to corner JT on one point: He has alluded to some secret wish that an assassin's bullet would change the course of history.

My point is, If so, then so what? As Carol amply demonstrated it's not against the law to openly wish that terrible misfortune befall some unpopular and/or treasonous politico who wants to run our lives and steer the ship of state right up onto the rocks.

I for one hope that someday Bill Clinton ODs on Viagra and he has to pole vault to the nearest ER to seek emergency medical assistance and it's printed in the New York Daily News, while Hillary is in China or Bangladesh!"

Something can be permitted by the law, but nevertheless be morally reprehensible and worthy of severe condemnation.

I am fed up and more than ticked off by most of the Congress and by the Democratic Presidential candidates. Remember the expansion of the Bush’s illegal wiretapping?

Remember the temporary expansion of the FISA extension than Representative Harman was passed based on hyped security threats? WHY are the Democrats passing these attacks on civil liberties and Constitutional protections?

This just makes my jaws ache. For our elected representatives, and in particular the Democrats, to vote for these things is not an issue of "fear." If they are willing to destroy our rights because they are "afraid," then one must assume that they actually believe that Constitutional abridgements are "necessary" for our security. Bull. A total surveillance society (in other words not the one we thought we were living in) is not safer, and it certainly does not have the wall of privacy that is needed for a free citizenry.

While I appreciate Harman stepping up and speaking about this, it is just pure cowardice that our elected representatives would throw away our Constitution because they were scared. Apparently, that was a fairly self-serving fear, because the "hyped" threats were to Congress. COWARDS and fools.

How many times can the administration lie, deceive, obscure, cherry pick, and "hype" before the Dems wake up? What ever happened to "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me?"

Or how about the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 that passed the House on September 25, 2007? That is the bill to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard (their military) a terrorist organization. Excuse me? We want to declare a government's military as a terrorist organization? Seems to me that the U.S. is on very shaky ground there. What about the School of the Americas now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation? You remember SOA is the one that trains Latin American military and police in torture, supression of "insurgency" and other means of controlling an "unruly" population? Since this is part of our military, should it be considered a terrorist organization? Or what about the CIA? The U.S. has an fairly long list of "helping" certain factions to power, arming "insurgents" to overthrow their government, etc. In fact, the U.S. has been aiding "dissidents" inside Iran to take over that government. Sounds like any of those might make the U.S. ripe for claims that we are state sponsors of terrorism. In fact, we are even arming and training "insurgents" (or those formerly labeled "insurgents") in Iraq.

The list could go on and on, but I'll just add one more that sticks in my craw - the hyped indignation about MoveOn.org's add prior to the Petreaus report. What pray tell happened to free speech? Why are our elected representatives taking time to "condemn" free speech? Why did they not do the same for Max Cleland, John Kerry, or John McCain. Shall we really get into personal attacks and defamation of character? Yet a number of Democrats in both the House and the Senate somehow felt they need to spend time and breath on some sort of display of false patriotism.

I am tired of the cowardice of Congress. I am tired of Democrats supposedly taking a stand while too many seem to be voting right in lock step with the Republicans. I am tired of excuses that are totally off the point. They can all - Dems and Republicans - start representing us, or they can get the hell out of Washington. That same message needs to be sent loud and clear to the Presidential candidates. We (and by that I mean the almost 75% of citizens of the United States) do not want more of what we have seen and experienced for the last seven years.

The Democrats also knew the Administration's history in willfully violating the warrant requirements of FISA, and they knew the Administration has yet to explain what it is doing and how it can be legally justified. They knew the Administration had engaged in activities that were so blatantly unlawful that the previous Attorney General, the acting Attorney General and the Director of the FBI were prepared to resign if the activities continued. Yet knowing all this, they passed a bill written entirely by the Administration and never vetted through hearings that gutted FISA, a 28 year old statute that had been carefully crafted and updated after extensive public hearings. They recklessly gutted a statute designed to protect our rights against government abuses that had occurred during the Nixon and prior administrations, abuses that, given the Bush/Cheney regime's history and statements, the Democrats knew were probably at risk here.

Second, the article confirms the suspicions that the Administration knowingly misled Congress, claiming a limited FISA amendment was necessary to correct the foreign-to-foreign intelligence gap when in fact they knew that the bill language they drafted went far beyond that limited fix. The Administration denies it would ever interpret the statute in ways that pushed an extreme view of executive power; are we to believe this from an administration that has never held back on pushing extreme views of executive powers?

Do the Center Party members of the Reichstag who joined in voting Hitler dictatorial powers bear equal responsibility with Nazis for the crimes of the Third Reich?

There is a difference, in asmuch as there's a big difference between having a Marxist and having a Fascist in power.

I don't say Marxist or Fascist just to call people names either. McCain's advocacy of endless war could have come from the mouth of Mussolini, and Obama's proposal of a global welfare tax sounds like something out of the Marx/Engels Communist Manifesto.

Is there a difference between a Marxist and a Fascist? Definitely. Does it mean that I'll be voting for one or the other? Definitely not.

ari, point of information. I retired from the NYPD a full 20 years before Homeland Security was established, so your attempt to connect me to it is, well, weird.

And I bet those retired generals who pushed a pro-war propaganda line on the networks for which they were advisers had nothing any longer to do with the Department of Defense.

My point is you keep revisiting the same "AHAH! GOTCHA!" for something he did not say, but only alluded to. If JT wished that Obama is removed from the political process by some misfortune he'd say so in clear and unambiguous language.

He's a retired police officer and he spent many years deterring crime and/or investigating violence, and there's simply no reason to repeatedly try to put him on the defensive for the crime of upsetting your Pollyanna sensibilities.

Lord knows if you want to wring your soft, pink hands, your buddies on that side of the isle have made enough people go away to prevent exposure of their lies and crimes.

How is it that you don't understand why most Americans (including JT, chris and me) would resent anyone changing the course of history that way again?

Had I and JT been old enough we almost certainly wouldn't have voted for JFK, but neither of us wanted him murdered by a cabal who preempted the will of the voters with contract killers and scope rifles.

And, JT's allusion to violence was wildly successful, because here you are still trying to punish him for the non existent crime of reminding you that as FDR said "In politics, nothing is as it seems."

Is it "morally reprehensible" to put you in a continuous loop that has you chanting something like "precious bodily fluids" because he made you unhappy? Perhaps you should leave political discussions to those who won't lose their perspective and resort to an ad nauseum tactic that's grating on others' nerves.

If he said "You better hope that a sniper doesn't murder your boy, DAWG" I'd say, "For your and your ilks' sake you'd better hope so, too!" And that would be the end of it.

If I'm unhappy, it's because I think every mention of possible assassination -- especially when it appears to be an approving mention -- makes that dreadful event more likely to occur.

If SOA/WHINSC doesn't expose the true evil in our "servants'" hearts then nothing does.

With the installation of ubiquitous cameras and REAL ID our servants become our masters, and they'll effect a bloodless (for them) coup against us and the constitution.

And Alan Dershowitz and the AG du jour are always ready to opine on how to make it all nice and legal like.

Again let me mention Red Beckman, one of the researchers who visited the 48 state houses to obtain (certified, he had to do it twice) copies of their 1913 house journals, and he proved that the 16th amendment was not ratified. (as he told me "Don't say not {properly ratified}. It wasn't ratified, period!")

Beckman also said "It's a race between the collapse of the economy and the grabbing of the guns. And, which comes first will determine the future course of America!'

Those who have no doubt what the shadow govt types are planning for us will have choices, not unlike those faced by the signers of The Declaration. And Ben Franklin understood all too well when he said that "it's better to fight and die on your feet than to live on your knees." After what this govt has done to innocents in the name of the WOT (actually, Eretz Israel) there is no doubt in my mind that I don't ever want to be reduced to federal custody, at least not while I'm alive.

I don't threaten or menace anyone, but, "If they mean to have a war then let it begin here."

Hard to want more of them if they are given such absolution when they are the majority.

I have seen some way dumb comments posted on various message boards but this one is surely in the top ten. LOL, I can't conceive of anyone getting the VP nomination if they were dead. Of course, there is something to be said for that. His upkeep wouldn't be all that great and he wouldn't need the protection of the gestapo and all that goes with being a live Veep. ahaha.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

Not to any reasonable person. Wishing for a person to die falls far short from advocating assassination, as you have accused.

It is ever so clear to all, 75% of America knows what some will not admit. Every individual takes a different path, save the few who benefit from the chaos.

Beckman also said "It's a race between the collapse of the economy and the grabbing of the guns. And, which comes first will determine the future course of America!'

You might have to... the few have decided we should not be allowed to fight or speak. While we can, we should.

yes, ari, it does, but, again, your taking that one innocuous post and another from another poster, the other day, and attempting to characterize them as assassination threats is more than a complaint (imo). and, btw, "assassination talk" encompasses a lot of talk like that in the Cogburn article i posted to you above.