The battle of freedom vs. slavery is constant regardless of the current situation – in a state of freedom would-be masters try to enslave others, while in a state of slavery would-be freemen try to become free.

I don’t know what the exact outcome would be if a mass movement tried to arrest the government, but it would surely take a lot more than some rifles and handguns and a lot of people to be successful. Probably what would happen is the military would be called in, lots of arrests would be made (not of the people you hope for), or if the people became violent in order to avoid arrest there would be sufficient violence used against them to pacify them, regardless of how much violence it took, up to and including killing all of them. It’s not inconceivable that all of this would have a positive outcome (except for those who sacrificed their lives or non-jailed status), but I have no confidence in that.

Arresting someone is a matter of superior use of force. So unless you believe that the American people have more force than does the American state it’s unwise to pursue a policy of arresting the government, or at the very least it’s a policy that has far too much risk for it’s expected pay-out, especially for those people taking the risk upon themselves.

In terms of violence it’s probably far wiser to use *explosives* against the elite, especially since they sometimes convene together at various corporate headquarters, conference rooms, and governmental facilities. It’s a lot easier to kill someone than to arrest him, at least for the relatively powerless, which is why Al Qaeda is a death force rather than a police force.

One nice thing about how far weapons technology has progressed is that it’s relatively easy to obtain powerful weapons. A weapon doesn’t ask questions about which human being is at it’s receiving end.

As long as the people understand that the targets are *just* the elite, they have no (direct) reason to fear the violence and no justification for turning against the elite-killers.

But violence should never be used as a substitute for a mass movement for freedom, and without going hand-in-hand with that mass movement will surely fail.

Probably the best thing about a mass movement having a violent ally is that the elite can’t simply crush the mass movement with impunity. Violent capability acts as a deterrent.

“brian, i do have to call you on this really dumb line you wrote,
“There’s no proof that getting rid of chattel slavery was a good thing.”
if massa’ had sold your children and taken your woman and daughter as a concubine you would say something very different about “chattle slavery” slavery was is and always will be imoral and wrong. and the slave has the right to do ANYHTING to free his self and other slaves.
ANYTHING.”

All forms of slavery should always be destroyed.

My argument is for the recognition that the elite got credit for “ending slavery” and they leveraged the resulting populist good will into increasing their own power. The result of ending chattel slavery, however much better it made the lives of African-Americans as well as white chattel-masters (masters are enslaved too – just on the other end of the chain), increased the power of the elite, which they then used to increase their imperial domination of the world finally resulting in neoliberal monstrosities.

To be a successful activist then is not just to “do a good deed” – it’s to make sure the elite don’t *exploit* that good deed thus not only making all one’s hard work for naught but converting a good deed into a bad one.

“The point of activists is not to save the world or really even help the world – it’s to feel good about what they are doing. At that they always succeed.”
hello brian, i agree with you except it seems there are a few activists who really do put themselves on the line. seems a few understand that hardship and sacrifice are the keys to real change.”

I’m always worried when people talk about hardship and sacrifice, because what often follows from it is a jail sentence or getting run over by a bulldozer.

Hardship and sacrifice come with the territory of course, but it seems to me that the things most lacking among activists are wisdom, education, and organizational vision. A lot of times the best thing an activist can do is to read an important book. Though I suppose that isn’t sexy enough or raises his social standing among his peers.

Perhaps the next best thing an activist can do is to attain solidarity with activists in other movements – for various activist groups to join together in their fight against the elite.

Another good step is to increase the intimacy between the people of the activist group. This makes the activist experience more rewarding to individual activists and encourages them to become more committed and become ongoing activists, as well as decreasing the likelihood of a traitor in the ranks.

Chew on that for awhile.

Get back to me.

Looking for a better way forward.

some call me frank

others call me crazy.

This is the goal toward which we must aim and short-term strategies must never lose focus on the ultimate aim. A number of forces are converging in the present crisis. David Harvey’s analysis of the bailout strategy highlights one element: “…the banks are using the money not to lend to anybody but to buy other banks. They are consolidating their class power.”

In other words, the bailout is part of a new power consolidation by the ruling elite who understand that the current class division is insufficient to maintain their dominance in the face of ecological crisis and resource wars. Therefore, we explain the crisis as “a class event in which a certain structure of exploitation broke down and is about to be displaced by an even deeper structure of exploitation.” as David Harvey puts it.

The fact that bailout money is being redirected to troop buildups demonstrates that the elite is placing its faith in military force as the guarantee of continued dominance. The recent Gaza massacre in which new DIME weapons were tested on a captive population is indicative of the repression strategy likely to be pursued in case of civil unrest.

The Obama phenomena has managed to absorb and divert most of the progressive political forces that might have been able to work for fundamental change, as was Wall Street’s intention in promoting him. The “Obama strategy” has turned out to be a brilliant move so far. It has allowed them to cover the renewed centralization of their financial power through the transfer of Treasury funds to their coffers. This accomplishes two key purposes: 1) It weakens the financial power and capacity for independent action of the majority; 2) It allows them to consolidate bank ownership into a few major players.

What’s remarkable about this web site is how many of the commentators are starting to converge in their analysis of the phony progressivism of Obama. This sentence from Brian Koontz summarizes the attitude well: “With this additional power and people’s trust they further entrench their power. We can trace Neoliberalism from this line.”

I would also like to add an obligatory denunciation of conspiracy theories. They are counterproductive and unnecessary. The motivations behind this “conspiracy” are not hidden. They are summarized in a recent blog post in the Nonviolent Jesus blog (http://nonviolentjesus.blogspot.com): “It is very doubtful that the elite gather together in secret to plan world domination. It is simply the case that those who control political and economic power instinctively understand the best ways to continue their dominance and act on that understanding both individually and as a class. They are not “evil”, but are usually acting in good conscience, though with a conscience formed in a peculiar way. Their conscience is formed by their experiences of economic success, which they generalize into working tools for the formation of mass economic policy. They do not speculate on the roots or final ends of their policy, but they are certain that obedience to their policy will maintain their control and their success. And for them that is only goal worth achieving.”

“Sure doing away with slavery was a good thing … but it was strictly a side affect of the war … not a cause.”

The best slave is one who doesn’t realize he’s a slave. Getting rid of chattel slavery led to the integration of imported blacks into imperial America.

It was a huge propaganda and mind control victory. By eliminating chattel slavery and instituting wage slavery throughout the states, the elite could claim that they had “eliminated slavery”, and most of the people believe it. The people also believe that Lincoln himself “eliminated slavery”, thus making it all the easier for the executive branch to increase it’s power.

There’s also “moving up the corporate ladder” – which is another way of saying “I’m a slave now, but I might become a master later (and my life’s work is to become the most powerful master I can be)”. This is appealing to Americans, to become a master and have slaves of one’s own. “Everyone can be a plantation owner” is another phrase for the American Dream. In terms of morality there is no difference between a corporation with masters (executives) and slaves (workers) and a plantation. The same shape with a different paint job.

Examine Americans and their historical reaction to the “end of the American Dream”. The primary reaction was depression and despair – depression and despair at no longer having the expectation of mastery and possessing slaves. How many Americans celebrated the end of the American Dream? Does Hunter S. Thompson’s “life as burnout” strike you as a celebration? Yet we are told by the left of all people that Thompson is a “good guy”. Americans of all political persuasions need to take a very hard look in the mirror.

There’s no proof that getting rid of chattel slavery was a good thing. It’s riddance led to a relatively unified America and paved the way for American Imperialism, which officially began in 1898 and increased dramatically after WWII. If we use the judgment that what is good for the elite is bad for the people, the elimination of chattel slavery was a terrible thing.

One might note that this kind of analysis applies to many other “activist” issues. An activist is someone who pressures the elite to institute some change. But since the elite control the propaganda machine, any change they institute (pressured or otherwise) they can and will claim credit for, thus building their own power in the minds of the people. Thus, according to Americans, Lincoln was a “hero”. According to this thinking, Obama is a “possible hero”. Thus they have “hope in Obama”. With this additional power and people’s trust they further entrench their power. We can trace Neoliberalism from this line.

The only way around this problem is to seize power from the elite, such that the people themselves become the power structure. The elite *as a class* must be destroyed.

Activists who don’t see the big picture and act accordingly often do more harm than good. And they are the people who are the most self-righteous, the most incapable of believing in their own errors. Everything they do is fine as long as it’s “for a good cause”. The point of activists is not to save the world or really even help the world – it’s to feel good about what they are doing. At that they always succeed.

Activism is the greatest drug in the world. They get high and then get higher, and then go home while the people give the elite all the credit.

Regarding the OBAMA DECEPTION … what the hell did you expect? That the world really worked the way those idiot government/civics teachers you had claimed? BS! In the MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL/CORPORATE-CONGRESSIONAL world that runs our kives, an honest politician simply can not exist. [At the end of the last sentence is a PERIOD ... see it?]

In cynicism and disgust,*
RG the LG

—
* – I am disgusted by how damned naive most people are. Democracy, my ass … isn’t now and ain’t never been. And as greedy as Home Americanus is, NEVER will be.

The Obama Deception