Variations on a Theme: Authoritarian Deliberation -

Do you mean the economic collapse was a success *for them*, or for us because it will force us to face the failures of the current system?

Do you mean the economic collapse was a success *for them*, or for us because it will force us to face the failures of the current system?

You would not happen to have any larger versions of that pic, would you? I really want to print a poster.

You would not happen to have any larger versions of that pic, would you? I really want to print a poster.

Which one – top or bottom? I’m guessing the bottom. Here’s where I found the original, and here are two variants.

Which one – top or bottom? I’m guessing the bottom. Here’s where I found the original, and here are two variants.

Success for the oligarchs. Travesty for us all.

Success for the oligarchs. Travesty for us all.

So are you saying that the past 20 years of Presidents have all been working toward this goal? I mean, the collapse of our economy appears to be based on a series of causes that stretch all the way back to Mr. Regan and his friend Mr. Greenspan in the 80's… then added to by Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and now Obama. So are they all the Oligarchs?

If so, how will anything other than a full revolution change the situation?

So are you saying that the past 20 years of Presidents have all been working toward this goal? I mean, the collapse of our economy appears to be based on a series of causes that stretch all the way back to Mr. Regan and his friend Mr. Greenspan in the 80's… then added to by Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and now Obama. So are they all the Oligarchs?

If so, how will anything other than a full revolution change the situation?

So are you saying that the past 20 years of Presidents have all been working toward this goal? I mean, the collapse of our economy appears to be based on a series of causes that stretch all the way back to Mr. Regan and his friend Mr. Greenspan in the 80's… then added to by Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and now Obama. So are they all the Oligarchs?

If so, how will anything other than a full revolution change the situation?

So are you saying that the past 20 years of Presidents have all been working toward this goal? I mean, the collapse of our economy appears to be based on a series of causes that stretch all the way back to Mr. Regan and his friend Mr. Greenspan in the 80's… then added to by Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and now Obama. So are they all the Oligarchs?

If so, how will anything other than a full revolution change the situation?

So are you saying that the past 20 years of Presidents have all been working toward this goal?

Not necessarily. They’ve been following a trend set in action long before Reagan ever started whoring for GE.

So are they all the Oligarchs?

Yes. Do you have a different interpretation of oligarchy?

If so, how will anything other than a full revolution change the situation?

Well, change comes in many packages, no?

So are you saying that the past 20 years of Presidents have all been working toward this goal?

Not necessarily. They’ve been following a trend set in action long before Reagan ever started whoring for GE.

So are they all the Oligarchs?

Yes. Do you have a different interpretation of oligarchy?

If so, how will anything other than a full revolution change the situation?

Well, change comes in many packages, no?

Well first, my view of an oligarchy is one where you have a small segment of a given society being the only people that can run the government. Particularly, a small segment that conditions, indoctrinates and grooms their successors.

To the best of my knowledge, Barack Obama was not hand selected by a few elites to run the country after years of indoctrination. Rather, he competed in an open election and more people voted for him than the other options (whcih as far as I can tell upset the old guard that was used to being in control). But, maybe he's a red herring eh? Maybe they let the black guy that didn't come from a background of privilege and power to be elected so no one would suspect their dastardly scheme?

Again, don't get me wrong… I think the US government is the height of incompetence, power grabbing, cronyism and greed. As far as I can tell, though… every other fucking system of government on the planet, past and present is the height off incompetence, power grabbing, cronyism and greed.

My problem is in assigning the fault to a shadowy "conspiracy" of THEM who want to take over our government ('our' government LOL). It seems to me that it clouds the real issue… as though our homes were being pillaged while we're out tilting at windmills.

If our argument is an argument for liberty, Obama isn't our enemy… indeed, I agree with Lysander Spooner, Lincoln's decisions and the Civil War is want took our liberty, while trying (in good faith I think) to liberate others. Since that time, its just been in degrees where our liberty and freedoms have been trampled on. For Eris' sake, even if we want to have a good whipping boy, Obama seems to have done less to fuck us over than the past 5 or 6 Presidents. Now, given time, maybe he'll give us a good raping as well, but at this point… things the patriot act, GitMo, holding people without trial, spying without FISA, etc are what concern me… where were our Libertarian voices then? Where were those who now throw Tea Parties? Where was WND's reporting staff?

I prefer to look at where my freedoms have been trampled on, than where the market is, who's got what bailout and if the government secretly is controlled by a shadow cabal.

Perhaps, to extend the metaphor…

Are you retreating into fantasy with imaginary enemies, to block out the rape scenario in front of you?

to me, thats the single most dangerous thing about ALL of the current anti-Obama rhetoric. In many cases it seems so fantasticly absurd, that any legitimate concern about freedom, liberty and the future of this nation is lost in arguments about birth certificates, shadow governments, evil socialists bent on destroying America etc etc ad nausea. Its as though some people woke up, realized they were being raped by both sides of 'their government' and went to their Happy Place, where they can label and blame the 'enemy'.

Hail Eris

Well first, my view of an oligarchy is one where you have a small segment of a given society being the only people that can run the government. Particularly, a small segment that conditions, indoctrinates and grooms their successors.

To the best of my knowledge, Barack Obama was not hand selected by a few elites to run the country after years of indoctrination. Rather, he competed in an open election and more people voted for him than the other options (whcih as far as I can tell upset the old guard that was used to being in control). But, maybe he's a red herring eh? Maybe they let the black guy that didn't come from a background of privilege and power to be elected so no one would suspect their dastardly scheme?

Again, don't get me wrong… I think the US government is the height of incompetence, power grabbing, cronyism and greed. As far as I can tell, though… every other fucking system of government on the planet, past and present is the height off incompetence, power grabbing, cronyism and greed.

My problem is in assigning the fault to a shadowy "conspiracy" of THEM who want to take over our government ('our' government LOL). It seems to me that it clouds the real issue… as though our homes were being pillaged while we're out tilting at windmills.

If our argument is an argument for liberty, Obama isn't our enemy… indeed, I agree with Lysander Spooner, Lincoln's decisions and the Civil War is want took our liberty, while trying (in good faith I think) to liberate others. Since that time, its just been in degrees where our liberty and freedoms have been trampled on. For Eris' sake, even if we want to have a good whipping boy, Obama seems to have done less to fuck us over than the past 5 or 6 Presidents. Now, given time, maybe he'll give us a good raping as well, but at this point… things the patriot act, GitMo, holding people without trial, spying without FISA, etc are what concern me… where were our Libertarian voices then? Where were those who now throw Tea Parties? Where was WND's reporting staff?

I prefer to look at where my freedoms have been trampled on, than where the market is, who's got what bailout and if the government secretly is controlled by a shadow cabal.

Perhaps, to extend the metaphor…

Are you retreating into fantasy with imaginary enemies, to block out the rape scenario in front of you?

to me, thats the single most dangerous thing about ALL of the current anti-Obama rhetoric. In many cases it seems so fantasticly absurd, that any legitimate concern about freedom, liberty and the future of this nation is lost in arguments about birth certificates, shadow governments, evil socialists bent on destroying America etc etc ad nausea. Its as though some people woke up, realized they were being raped by both sides of 'their government' and went to their Happy Place, where they can label and blame the 'enemy'.

Hail Eris

To the best of my knowledge, Barack Obama was not hand selected by a few elites to run the country after years of indoctrination.

Really? Where'd he go to school? How'd he get to where he is today? Remember Rezco? How about the CFR's endorsement of Obama's candidacy? The Trilateral Commission?

Based on the evidence I've come across, I'd say that Obama *was* picked by shadowy elites who knew full well what he embodied.

Have you read any of Zbigniew Brzezinski's books? He's rather candid about how the elite pick their puppets. Further, he openly gushes over the confluence of politics and celebrity, and wistfully discusses how the presidency is a cult of personality orchestrated from behind the scenes (by people like him and Kissinger).

Maybe they let the black guy that didn't come from a background of privilege and power to be elected so no one would suspect their dastardly scheme?

Obama doesn't have a background of "power and privilege"? How much have you dug into his career in Chicago?

As far as I can tell, though… every other fucking system of government on the planet, past and present is the height off incompetence, power grabbing, cronyism and greed.

Not really. How about Iceland? Ecuador? How about Taiwan, where they tried and imprisoned their former president and his wife?

My problem is in assigning the fault to a shadowy "conspiracy" of THEM who want to take over our government

Well, I wouldn't argue there's an effort to "take over" the American government. I'd say the system itself is designed to "take over" the American government. The various personalities that prop up leviathan are interchangeable.

If our argument is an argument for liberty, Obama isn't our enemy.

I disagree. I think Obama *is* an enemy of liberty as I understand it. Saying that he's not the only enemy – or even the primary one – takes *nothing* away from the fact that he is far more a part of the problem than the solution. Take, for example, his strenuous efforts to extend Bush-era secrets, his total disavowal of accountability, or his disgusting pandering to Israel. I can't imagine anyone thinking Obama *isn't* an enemy of liberty when he's actively working to squash the Goldstone report and has been aggressively pushing Democrats to remove any mention of a public option in health care legislation. If he isn't an "enemy" of liberty, no one is.

I agree with Lysander Spooner, Lincoln's decisions and the Civil War is want took our liberty, while trying (in good faith I think) to liberate others.

I'd definitely root a good deal of the problem back to Lincoln too. His actions make an interesting contrast with Canada, which began with the top-down federalist model instead of degrading into it.

things the patriot act, GitMo, holding people without trial, spying without FISA, etc are what concern me… where were our Libertarian voices then? Where were those who now throw Tea Parties? Where was WND's reporting staff?

Well, Obama has continued those illegal detentions and torture. He's also worked hard to protect telecoms from being called to trial for all that wiretapping (that's still happening). He's also leading the charge against Iran's nuclear "ambitions" and is aggressively expanding the war into Pakistan. Every single minute of the day there are drones flying over Pakistan. That isn't Bush's doing, it's Obama's.

But, insofar as where's the legitimate disgust for what the US is doing, I'd agree that it's far more muted than warranted. However, we've got the benefit of multiple generations of thorough indoctrination to help keep the masses ignorant, docile, and squabbling over irreverent matters (e.g., race baiting, religious fundamentalism, GLBT). With this foundation in place, expecting widespread disgust seems a bit wishful. Schools are far too successful in what they do.

to me, thats the single most dangerous thing about ALL of the current anti-Obama rhetoric.

I think we're pretty much in agreement here. I agree that much energy is being wasted on the irreverent. I'd definitely prefer people to begin addressing the actual causes of our loss of freedom. As I see things, this requires a *systemic* critique. Targeting a single agent within that system advances discussion, but things need to be taken further.

It doesn't really seem as though there's a great disagreement in priorities between us. Both of us seem to target more foundational causes to the decay and would love to see more people critically engaging with the institutions that are oppressing them. And, above all, I think both of us would like to see the enslaved begin to demand the freedom they deserve.

To the best of my knowledge, Barack Obama was not hand selected by a few elites to run the country after years of indoctrination.

Really? Where'd he go to school? How'd he get to where he is today? Remember Rezco? How about the CFR's endorsement of Obama's candidacy? The Trilateral Commission?

Based on the evidence I've come across, I'd say that Obama *was* picked by shadowy elites who knew full well what he embodied.

Have you read any of Zbigniew Brzezinski's books? He's rather candid about how the elite pick their puppets. Further, he openly gushes over the confluence of politics and celebrity, and wistfully discusses how the presidency is a cult of personality orchestrated from behind the scenes (by people like him and Kissinger).

Maybe they let the black guy that didn't come from a background of privilege and power to be elected so no one would suspect their dastardly scheme?

Obama doesn't have a background of "power and privilege"? How much have you dug into his career in Chicago?

As far as I can tell, though… every other fucking system of government on the planet, past and present is the height off incompetence, power grabbing, cronyism and greed.

Not really. How about Iceland? Ecuador? How about Taiwan, where they tried and imprisoned their former president and his wife?

My problem is in assigning the fault to a shadowy "conspiracy" of THEM who want to take over our government

Well, I wouldn't argue there's an effort to "take over" the American government. I'd say the system itself is designed to "take over" the American government. The various personalities that prop up leviathan are interchangeable.

If our argument is an argument for liberty, Obama isn't our enemy.

I disagree. I think Obama *is* an enemy of liberty as I understand it. Saying that he's not the only enemy – or even the primary one – takes *nothing* away from the fact that he is far more a part of the problem than the solution. Take, for example, his strenuous efforts to extend Bush-era secrets, his total disavowal of accountability, or his disgusting pandering to Israel. I can't imagine anyone thinking Obama *isn't* an enemy of liberty when he's actively working to squash the Goldstone report and has been aggressively pushing Democrats to remove any mention of a public option in health care legislation. If he isn't an "enemy" of liberty, no one is.

I agree with Lysander Spooner, Lincoln's decisions and the Civil War is want took our liberty, while trying (in good faith I think) to liberate others.

I'd definitely root a good deal of the problem back to Lincoln too. His actions make an interesting contrast with Canada, which began with the top-down federalist model instead of degrading into it.

things the patriot act, GitMo, holding people without trial, spying without FISA, etc are what concern me… where were our Libertarian voices then? Where were those who now throw Tea Parties? Where was WND's reporting staff?

Well, Obama has continued those illegal detentions and torture. He's also worked hard to protect telecoms from being called to trial for all that wiretapping (that's still happening). He's also leading the charge against Iran's nuclear "ambitions" and is aggressively expanding the war into Pakistan. Every single minute of the day there are drones flying over Pakistan. That isn't Bush's doing, it's Obama's.

But, insofar as where's the legitimate disgust for what the US is doing, I'd agree that it's far more muted than warranted. However, we've got the benefit of multiple generations of thorough indoctrination to help keep the masses ignorant, docile, and squabbling over irreverent matters (e.g., race baiting, religious fundamentalism, GLBT). With this foundation in place, expecting widespread disgust seems a bit wishful. Schools are far too successful in what they do.

to me, thats the single most dangerous thing about ALL of the current anti-Obama rhetoric.

I think we're pretty much in agreement here. I agree that much energy is being wasted on the irreverent. I'd definitely prefer people to begin addressing the actual causes of our loss of freedom. As I see things, this requires a *systemic* critique. Targeting a single agent within that system advances discussion, but things need to be taken further.

It doesn't really seem as though there's a great disagreement in priorities between us. Both of us seem to target more foundational causes to the decay and would love to see more people critically engaging with the institutions that are oppressing them. And, above all, I think both of us would like to see the enslaved begin to demand the freedom they deserve.

Right on… this will be a fun blog to hang out at

Right on… this will be a fun blog to hang out at

Ok… well lets start slowly with this, because I admit there may be something I'm missing since I refuse to pay much more than the occasional Golden Apple to most obviously partisan sources

1. Obama's schooling:

Here's what I think I know.

1. He started in a Catholic school in Indonesia… later transferred to a Public school in Indonesia.

2. He moved to Hawaii with his Grandma. Grandma had a government job and could afford to send him to a good school on the island.

3. He went to Occidental College (liberal arts) for his first two years and then transferred to Columbia for the last half.

4. After working for a non-profit for three years, he went to Harvard Law School.

That's what I understand to be the case, so what am I missing?

Ok… well lets start slowly with this, because I admit there may be something I'm missing since I refuse to pay much more than the occasional Golden Apple to most obviously partisan sources

1. Obama's schooling:

Here's what I think I know.

1. He started in a Catholic school in Indonesia… later transferred to a Public school in Indonesia.

2. He moved to Hawaii with his Grandma. Grandma had a government job and could afford to send him to a good school on the island.

3. He went to Occidental College (liberal arts) for his first two years and then transferred to Columbia for the last half.

4. After working for a non-profit for three years, he went to Harvard Law School.

That's what I understand to be the case, so what am I missing?

Who is “Barry Soetoro”? Where’s his father in that picture? Did his father have any connections with American intelligence agencies? While living in Pakistan, what type of “consulting” was his mother doing? What did he study at OC/Columbia/Harvard? What activist organizations did he assist with? In the essays and articles he wrote during this period, what types of political philosophies was he endorsing? What type of “non-profit” work did he do? Who was he working with?

Who is “Barry Soetoro”? Where’s his father in that picture? Did his father have any connections with American intelligence agencies? While living in Pakistan, what type of “consulting” was his mother doing? What did he study at OC/Columbia/Harvard? What activist organizations did he assist with? In the essays and articles he wrote during this period, what types of political philosophies was he endorsing? What type of “non-profit” work did he do? Who was he working with?

Barry was a nickname for Barack, and Soetoro was his stepfathers(?) last name, but apparently not legally his (at least according to the information I've processed).

I would assume that since he had a 'step-father' at that point, his father was either out of the picture, or not around a lot…

The bigger question is why the hell do I care if he went by his step father's last name and used a nickname… I had a friend named Tommy… but his real name was Thomas and he used his step fathers last name even though he hadn't been legal adopted. Maybe that's unusual, I dunno.

I have no idea if his father had contact with American Intelligence… in fact, I'm not sure how I would actually know if he did, didn't, did but was covered up,etc… what do you have on that?

His mom, as far as I know did bank consulting in Pakistan… again, what do you have on that?

As for what he studied, I think he was PoliSci and International Relations, then later studied law at Harvard… is that correct?

I know he worked for some Catholic non-profit after school… and a number of others after his Harvard years… but I didn't see any that seemed particularly suspicious.

So, I have done a lot of looking into Obama's past, And I have talked to plenty of people that ask the kind of questions you asked… but I haven't heard anyone put forth a compelling argument that they're doing anything more than liberally applying the Law of Fives. If you have something, by all means share it! Maybe I'm dense on something here….

Barry was a nickname for Barack, and Soetoro was his stepfathers(?) last name, but apparently not legally his (at least according to the information I've processed).

I would assume that since he had a 'step-father' at that point, his father was either out of the picture, or not around a lot…

The bigger question is why the hell do I care if he went by his step father's last name and used a nickname… I had a friend named Tommy… but his real name was Thomas and he used his step fathers last name even though he hadn't been legal adopted. Maybe that's unusual, I dunno.

I have no idea if his father had contact with American Intelligence… in fact, I'm not sure how I would actually know if he did, didn't, did but was covered up,etc… what do you have on that?

His mom, as far as I know did bank consulting in Pakistan… again, what do you have on that?

As for what he studied, I think he was PoliSci and International Relations, then later studied law at Harvard… is that correct?

I know he worked for some Catholic non-profit after school… and a number of others after his Harvard years… but I didn't see any that seemed particularly suspicious.

So, I have done a lot of looking into Obama's past, And I have talked to plenty of people that ask the kind of questions you asked… but I haven't heard anyone put forth a compelling argument that they're doing anything more than liberally applying the Law of Fives. If you have something, by all means share it! Maybe I'm dense on something here….

Yes, there’s much more to his story than you’ve described here. It has nothing to do with “density” and everything to do with image.

When did he “go by” the name “Barry Soetoro”? How did he use the name?

… Maybe I should just add this to the list of topics I need to write up… yeah, that’d probably be more efficient.

Yes, there’s much more to his story than you’ve described here. It has nothing to do with “density” and everything to do with image.

When did he “go by” the name “Barry Soetoro”? How did he use the name?

… Maybe I should just add this to the list of topics I need to write up… yeah, that’d probably be more efficient.

Right, cause from what I've read on the topic, he went by the name while living with his step father in Indonesia and used it for awhile afterward… but that doesn't seem suspicious to me. I think thats what's missing… there are a lot of things mentioned around Obama's past, but I have yet to see an argument that wasn't steeped in crazy and pattern matching… If there's something legit somewhere I'd love to see it.

Right, cause from what I've read on the topic, he went by the name while living with his step father in Indonesia and used it for awhile afterward… but that doesn't seem suspicious to me. I think thats what's missing… there are a lot of things mentioned around Obama's past, but I have yet to see an argument that wasn't steeped in crazy and pattern matching… If there's something legit somewhere I'd love to see it.

Oh yes, this is looking juicy… Stay tuned!

Oh yes, this is looking juicy… Stay tuned!

Hey there everyone i was just introduceing myself here im a first time visitor who hopes to become a daily reader!

Hey there everyone i was just introduceing myself here im a first time visitor who hopes to become a daily reader!

Hey, Tosk, I haven't forgotten about this topic! So far I've accumulated 20+ pages in research notes, and I'll be compiling it into an essay as I get the opportunity.

Hey, Tosk, I haven't forgotten about this topic! So far I've accumulated 20+ pages in research notes, and I'll be compiling it into an essay as I get the opportunity.