Interesting piece in the LA Review of Books: The Supermanagerial Reich

It's a tad long, so I suggest the last two paragraphs to get a taste, see if it's to your liking.

Small bit:

If there is going to be a politics that overcomes the new fascist threat, it must address the fact that the crisis is not now, the crisis has already been for some time. By focusing only on the threat of our homegrown Hitler caricature we have failed to notice the facts right in front of our faces: the uniquely parallel structures, the same winners, the similar losers, the crimes, the human degradation. We are already living in our very own, cruel 21st-century Supermanagerial Reich.

Oh my God! Samantha Bee is interviewing one of our very own sifters! @bobknight33, you're famous!

*promote the 'homegrown' troll.

The sad thing is this is a state where you can still be fired from your job for being gay. So, you know, be careful where you throw stones. One might argue he was inspired as much by good old fashioned homegrown 'murican hatred as he was by Islam.

Since we are getting homegrown weather reports, @deathcow, can you tell me if this has ever happened before? This late into December with only a few inches of snow for the whole season?

*promote Crudbump & his
sickest homegrown grooves

*promote the homegrown director from Texas

Pfft. All these damn whistleblowers. You know I hear this latest one was even an American! Imagine that, homegrown whistleblowers in the US of A, You ask me what you need is more surveillance so you can catch these buggers before they even get to inhale the breath to blow them blasted whistles.

Muslim fundamentalists seem to be more numerous and powerful than the Christian ones. The reasons for this have little to do with the religious fundamentals themselves as laid out in their holy books. Both books are full of soaring praise of peace and execrable lust for vengeance over imagined slights. Both books really do say that those who don't worship your way should be put to death. Whether you listen to the nasty parts or the nice ones has everything to do with your relative economic situation. If you are satisfied with your lot, it is easy to find the passages of your screed that advocate peace, harmony, and tradition. If you are unhappy and see yourself as oppressed, it is easy to find the passages that advocate war, upheaval, and radical acts of violence against the oppressor. Muslim fundamentalists are more numerous and powerful than the Christian ones because the Muslim countries are poorer. The radical messages get more traction among them. The more poor Christians we accumulate in this country, the more our own homegrown radicals, the WBC, will be taken seriously.

Lol funny AND accurate. I don't smoke nearly as much as I used to, but my old dealer 'is' an upstanding member of the community. She works on the board of elections and ran for local office (and almost won). She also has some sick homegrown bud.

Did I mention she's my mother?

That's a pretty long picket sign. I'm just saying that they should focus. As an engineering student, the biggest thing I learn is that in order to solve a problem, you have to break any problem into smaller bite-sized problems. That's the only way to solve things without confusing the situation. I would totally jump on the protester's side if they started to make specific demands like: stop allowing government officials taking campaign money from lobbyists/corporate interest groups. It's clear, concise, and there's and end goal in sight. You can't just say "boo this system sucks!">> ^zombieater:

I'm pretty sure most of these people are the same ones who are going to farmers markets, avoiding big chains, and are supporting local businesses. The problem is that's not enough if only a minority of the population gets involved.
On that end, I think that OWS is more than just asking for change (which they certainly are doing in clear statements), it's about waking people up. Making people see the injustices that are taking place right under our very noses. In fact, many signs say that exact thing: "WAKE UP!" People should realize that they should be utilizing credit unions instead of banks, that they should be supporting local businesses as opposed to large chains, and that they should be buying products that are produced locally (your example of farmers markets is a good one for food).
As David Korten said, it's about dismantling large corporate power, especially those that produce nothing (read as wall street investment firms), and supporting local, more homegrown groups.
Now, granted, small homegrown companies grow into large powerful companies, and the cynic would say that it's a waste of time because it will happen all over again once these small companies increase in size. True, if things continue unchecked. But that's where the change part comes in - increasing oversight and regulation has the power to prevent this "too big to fail" bullshit.

I'm pretty sure most of these people are the same ones who *are* going to farmers markets, avoiding big chains, and are supporting local businesses. The problem is that's not enough if only a minority of the population gets involved.

On that end, I think that OWS is more than just asking for change (which they certainly are doing in clear statements), it's about waking people up. Making people see the injustices that are taking place right under our very noses. In fact, many signs say that exact thing: "WAKE UP!" People should realize that they *should* be utilizing credit unions instead of banks, that they should be supporting local businesses as opposed to large chains, and that they should be buying products that are produced locally (your example of farmers markets is a good one for food).

As David Korten said, it's about dismantling large corporate power, especially those that produce nothing (read as wall street investment firms), and supporting local, more homegrown groups.

Now, granted, small homegrown companies grow into large powerful companies, and the cynic would say that it's a waste of time because it will happen all over again once these small companies increase in size. True, if things continue unchecked. But that's where the change part comes in - increasing oversight and regulation has the power to prevent this "too big to fail" bullshit.

take all news channels with a grain of salt, because they all either have corporate interests or personal interests involved...

its better to be informed, and that means taking in different viewpoints, and drawing one's own conclusions...

but to say RT is any worse than FOX, MSNBC, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, etc... is wrong and naive
better to take homegrown propaganda and scarf it down I guess... right?

better to shop around

>> ^enoch:

then you misunderstood my answer.
ii was not attempting to conclude nor answer the impetus of possible conspiracy of either terrorists of muslim origin or a homegrown attack from within our own government.
i left that to you and duckman to argue.
my conclusion can be based on either scenario with the exact same outcome.
and in the context of those scenarios:
1.muslim attack by plane destroying the towers=government uses this time of fear and grief to enact the never-ending and vague "war on terror".
2.a government planned attack on its own people by demolition.using planes as a cover.which in turn the government uses this time of fear and grief to enact said "war on terror".
now this is where the argument and debate resides but the outcome is always the same.
along with the 'profit" and "gain" question.
maybe i am misunderstanding your question but history has shown that governments/kings and dictators have gone to elaborate lengths to confuse and exploit times of fear and grief to punch through unpleasant legislation.
lets remember that even by 2005 35% of america believed that iraq had something to do with 9/11 even though by that time the evidence clearly indicated that was not the case.
again i refer to history as my guide.


I think I understand your answer just fine, it just doesn't seem you were trying to answer my main question... Let me try and phrase it again and explain it more clearly.

I'm not asking why an inside entity would want to make the attacks, or where their profit in it would be. I repeat, that is not what I'm asking.

I am asking why any entity would choose the METHOD that the conspiracy crowd is proposing. I am asking where is the profit in pre-planting explosives in all three buildings AND later hijacking planes and crashing them into the same buildings? Where is the profit in that method?

I can't see any benefit, reason or rational explanation for why any entity would benefit from pursuing both causes. It is not a situation where one can act as 'insurance' against the other. They both can accomplish the goal all alone, and pursuing both just doubles the costs and risks of exposure or being caught.


35% of america believed that iraq had something to do with 9/11
I don't wanna perpetuate a tangent, but you may want to choose more specific language. Iraq wasn't directly responsible or even aware of planning for 9/11. Saddam did however actively support terrorists, including offering safe haven to the man that mixed the chemicals for the 1st WTC bombings, and al qaeda linked extermists interested in killing the Kurds. Not coincidentally those extremists are now Al Qaeda's arm in Iraq.

then you misunderstood my answer.
ii was not attempting to conclude nor answer the impetus of possible conspiracy of either terrorists of muslim origin or a homegrown attack from within our own government.
i left that to you and duckman to argue.
my conclusion can be based on either scenario with the exact same outcome.
and in the context of those scenarios:
1.muslim attack by plane destroying the towers=government uses this time of fear and grief to enact the never-ending and vague "war on terror".
2.a government planned attack on its own people by demolition.using planes as a cover.which in turn the government uses this time of fear and grief to enact said "war on terror".

now this is where the argument and debate resides but the outcome is always the same.
along with the 'profit" and "gain" question.

maybe i am misunderstanding your question but history has shown that governments/kings and dictators have gone to elaborate lengths to confuse and exploit times of fear and grief to punch through unpleasant legislation.
lets remember that even by 2005 35% of america believed that iraq had something to do with 9/11 even though by that time the evidence clearly indicated that was not the case.
again i refer to history as my guide.

"Open borders" is one of the dumber schizophrenic ideas espoused by libertarianism, which in turn is its own wortst enemy.

Holier-than-thou libertarianism demands that no human infringe on the rights and property of another human. But we have a welfare state, like it or not, and it attracts the parasitic from other countries while indulging too many of our own homegrown slobs.

We legal citizens pay into our flawed system for entitlements; illegals do not. The bulk of the money illegals make here gets sent back to Mexico. Illegals drain the government school system (which should be scrapped, but that's another post), they burden the criminal justice system, they bankrupt hospitals and are spreading once-under-control diseases like leprosy. Cull the cited number of 25 Americans killed daily by illegals' crimes and driving to 10. Is that acceptable?

Racism? Whom invades whose country and then refuses to assmilate?

Mexicans do not have any 'right' to America's bounty, nor any other countries' wealth or resources, without just compensation. We should be fining the Mexican thugverment a barrel of oil per day for every illegal here.

As evil as government gets, it is not always the root cause. There are real external threats in the world. In days of yore, people tolerated the reigns of foolish or cruel monarchs in exchange for keeping barbarians outside the gate.

Without common borders, language and culture a nation is doomed.

Research how Mexico defends its southern border. That's diversity worth celebrating.

http://www.usillegalaliens.com/