|
Zonie63 -> RE: The Year in Hate and Extremism (3/11/2013 11:54:26 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
The Federal Reserve Board of Governors are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, so the same government of the people, by the people and for the people is very much involved in this "rigging" you were alleging. So, why do you say that that aspect is rigged, while suggesting that it's "tinfoil hat" thinking to suggest that there might be other aspects of the government that might also be rigged?
Nevertheless, the Federal Reserve acts independently. The Fed is the banking system. It was meant to be independent and it was meant to serve the interests of the banks from the start. Is it farfetched to surmise that Alan Greenspan's easy money policies contributed mightily to the housing bubble?
No, it's not far-fetched at all, but I don't think he would have stayed in his post for that long without tacit support from the elected officials (both Democrats and Republicans). They may operate independently, but there are provisions for removal from office.
quote:
Should we be blind to see that Bernanke's less than zero interest rates serve the banks and harm Savings?
No, but if our elected officials are blind to that and do nothing about it, whose fault is it? I think it would be a mistake to say that just the Fed is rigged when there are elected officials who have the power to remove them from office yet refuse to do so. Obviously, more than just the Federal Reserve has to be rigged in order for these actions to have taken place.
quote:
What other aspects of the government do you think are rigged? And how so?
Some have charged that the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a result of governmental rigging (fake revelations about WMDs). Some have made charges against the government regarding Vietnam, Watergate, the 1973 coup in Chile, the 1953 coup in Iran, the Bay of Pigs, U.S. interference in Latin America and elsewhere around the world. One of our European posters a while back came up with a whole list of countries where the U.S. government is alleged to have interfered with their affairs. In a political system where "money talks" and anyone can be bought, just about anything is possible. I don't see why this should be considered so far-fetched or out of the question.
quote:
I apologize for the "tinfoil hat" remark.
Thank you. I generally tend to eschew most conspiracy theories, not because they often come across as loose charges with scant evidence, but also because they tend to distract and take public opinion into bizarre directions. However, I think that we should be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.
quote:
quote:
Also, just to make this perfectly clear, I do not sympathize with these patriot groups. I think our main disagreement here is that you see them as THE problem, while I see them as an unfortunate symptom of a deeper problem. That deeper problem is more the fault of the government and our political leadership than a few malcontents with two-digit IQs who call themselves a "militia."
I do not think militia groups are THE problem. I think they are the problem for the topic in this thread. They are the hoodless scions of the KKK and fascism. They see all government as tyrannical. Basically, like the sovereign citizen movement they are anarchists on the Right. I do not see them as a symptom of government mismanagement. And saying the "deeper problem" [whatever that is] is the fault of our government and political leadership is unformulated considering we have a government derived from 50 different States and 330 million people, the most diverse and complex society and people ever in the world.
I didn't say they were a symptom of government "mismanagement." Ultimately, I think the government and political leadership have failed in their job to lead.
I once knew a guy who promoted sovereign citizenship. His motives were actually more religious than anything else, as he believed that God would hold anyone accountable for the sins of the U.S. government if they paid taxes to it. So, in order to get right with God, his view was that one would have to become a sovereign citizen and cut all ties with the government. He actually pissed off the local Christian community more than anything else, as he accused many of them of hypocrisy and apostasy. Some in the local Atheist group and some left-wing quasi-anarchists thought he was pretty cool, though. I don't think that made any of them into believers, but they liked his brash, offensive style which riled the local establishment. He had a certain Rasputin-like charisma about him.
There is a "deeper problem," though. Why do you think that they see the government as tyrannical? They're not the only groups that might have that perception, as there are both left and right groups which have similar perceptions. You're correct that we have a very diverse and complex society, with different sub-cultures and political factions (and with different agendas and objectives), but when I look at dissenting factions all up and down the political spectrum, they all seem to identify and criticize the same pile of excrement. That's the one commonality that I see, even if they might be looking at it from different angles and perspectives. Even our many non-American posters here seem to have identified and recognized this pile, and they don't like it either. The sharp criticisms of our government come from within America and outside of America, from a diverse assortment of sources.
As for our government, it does seem a bit odd that, considering that we have 50 different states and 330 million people, the most diverse and complex society in the world, that only two political parties dominate at all levels of government - federal, state, and local. The local politicians are beholden to the state and national party hierarchies, and they're expected to support the party platform.
quote:
quote:
It's a law enforcement problem, not a matter for the military. If it ever does become large enough or serious enough to warrant a military response, but your calls for "the full wrath of our defense forces" seem premature and a bit too cavalier, in my opinion.
It became a military problem in the context of this thread when someone proposed a potential civil war and another poster made the silly claim that a small group could disrupt civil order and best our military. That is what I responded to. There is a big freakin difference between combating an insurgency among a foreign population and putting down an armed rebellion in our native land. Ask Shay and his followers or Jeff Davis and his traitorous band.
With Shay's Rebellion, even though it was quashed, it did lead to some reforms which addressed their grievances. One doesn't have to condone violent revolt to at least understand the reasons for it.
I agree that if it comes to an armed rebellion or civil war, then the U.S. military would have no other choice but to respond and defend against it. The military and civilian government have a sworn duty to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution, but I'm not sure if that obligation includes feeling any "wrath" about it, depending on the reasons and motives behind such a rebellion. That's what I'm addressing. I am a U.S. citizen, and as a voter and taxpayer, I believe I have the right to question the motives of those who would attack our government, as well as question the methods by which our government may or may not deal with dissent or rebellion, armed or otherwise.
The way I see it (as has been mentioned by many others), with the combined power of the U.S. military, law enforcement, and intelligence communities on their side, the U.S. government is in no real danger of being overthrown. For this reason, I don't really worry about the U.S. government being threatened, as I'm sure they're able to take care of themselves. What I'm worried about more are the innocent civilians who either might get caught in the crossfire or have to endure more governmental intrusions "for their own protection." The top-level government officials will likely be safer than the rest of us, as they'll have all the guards, troops, and police protection, while the rest of the great unwashed will be left in a more vulnerable position. If the U.S. government uses its muscle to protect us, that's great. I'm all for it. If the government uses its muscle to protect itself, that's another matter entirely.
quote:
quote:
You've made a number of references to the Civil War and about not having learned the lessons of that war. There are many lessons from that war and its aftermath, and I would hope we would have learned them by now. But I don't see that any of these patriot groups are threatening to fight for the right to own slaves. From what I can tell, they're saying that they would fight so that they don't become slaves, but they don't want to own any slaves. I could be wrong, but that seems to be a major difference right there.
Whatever the present day motives, the aim is the same: disunion.
That may be the case for the secessionists, although I don't think that idea is really taken seriously enough to be viewed as anything than symbolic speech and grandstanding. Politically, it's practically an impossibility. Even during the Civil War, the whole thing was a bit of a mess, with Southern politicians still remaining with the Union government and some Union border state politicians going over to the Confederacy. Even if the South had won the Civil War, I have my doubts as to whether the Confederacy would have even survived. I think it probably would have eventually collapsed on its own. The states might have either broken up and formed their own countries - or perhaps eventually absorbed back into the Union.
I don't think we have anything remotely comparable today to the situation America faced prior to the Civil War. Even despite all the "red state"/"blue state" rhetoric that gets hyped up, I don't see us anywhere near the brink.
Whether or not this country ever gets to the brink of disunion would partly depend on the decisions we make today, regarding our government, political leadership, and the direction we want to take this country.
quote:
And where has there ever been a threat that they are in danger of becoming slaves. Their claim of impending governmental tyranny in the face of so complex a system of checks and balances between the branches of the federal government and between the federal government and the states is laughable and feeds upon black helicopter hysteria.
So, the problem at hand is mental illness? It could be, although I can see how some people might believe that they are in danger of becoming slaves. Maybe not "slaves" in the literal sense, but slaves to debt, to a political/economic/social system that keeps them dependent and unable to find control over their own destiny. There are people out there who work hard, who bust their ass to put food on the table, yet can't ever seem to get ahead. It many ways, it might feel like slavery.
There's an underlying feeling that the "system is rigged," a point we discussed earlier, and even if people may not believe some of the wilder conspiracy theories, the general idea that special interest groups and big monied interested have undue and excessive influence in politics is generally accepted in the body politic. Even the politicians themselves use this perception for political gain, claiming that they'll be ones to fight the special interests and the fat cats, while fighting for the common man in the street. I hear politicians say stuff like that all the time, so they're adding some of the kindling in all this, too.
We do have a complex system of checks and balances in our governments, federal and state, but again, we still only have two main political parties, both of which $eem to be intere$ted in the $ame thing.
To be honest, I don't believe that our government or current political leadership actually wants Americans to become slaves. I just think that their irresponsible leadership and fiscal recklessness may put us in a position where we'll end up stuck between a rock and a hard place. It seems that we're heading in that direction, if we're not there already. I don't think that we'll be actual "slaves," per se, but we may not be very "free" either.
It's not that I believe that there's any conspiracy or ulterior motive today (other than blind, irresponsible greed), but I think that our governmental stupidity now will lead us to the point where the issue may be forced somewhere down the line. Either the government itself might be forced to drastically change - or there could be a revolution from either the right or the left, at which point some other potentially tyrannical regime could take charge.
So, the fear may not be due to what the government is doing now, since we do have a system of checks and balances, but more a fear of what could happen somewhere down the line if the government doesn't mind its P's and Q's. The people also have a role in this, too. In a representative democracy, each voter must be as wise as any king or judge. That's another part of the problem, since many of the aforementioned groups similarly believe that the electorate is voting us into slavery, as the "sheeple" being led to the slaughter.
So, there's not just a lack of faith in government or democratic principles, but a general lack of faith in the people as a whole. That seems to be the underlying problem here, and I worry more about that than black helicopter hysteria.
It's not just political cynicism or paranoid conspiracy theories, but there's also a great deal of fear, despair and hopelessness that seems to be more widespread, cutting across cultural, political, and even class divides. And yes, ignorance, hatred, extremism, and outright insanity seem to come part of the package. Insanity breeds more insanity.
Some of it may also be part of our culture. We have a history of insanity in this country. That's part of the reason why other countries around the world tend to fear us. They think we've gone crackers. I can see where they might think that.
quote:
quote:
But there are other examples of groups taking up arms against the U.S. government, and they may have felt they had a justifiable reason for doing so. If we're going to talk about the Civil War, then let's talk about John Brown. I'm not saying that I condone what he did, but to some degree, I can understand his reasons for doing so. He was ultimately hanged for what he did, and maybe he might be called a "traitor." But I'm not sure if I can judge him that harshly.
To understand the incendiary madness of John Brown you have to look at the actions taken by him and his sons in Kansas prior to the raid in Virginia. His action at Harper's Ferry ignited a war that took 600,000 lives. Slavery was already dying. The aftermath of the war lead to 90 years of Jim Crow. Black people were not free until they took their freedom in the 1950s and 60s.
I'm not sure that you can blame John Brown for all that, though. There wouldn't have been 90 years of Jim Crow without the complicity and tacit approval of the national government. Eventually a different generation took power and more progressive ideas gained prevalence, and the national government changed its position. Perhaps when the government listens to its people and responds more favorably to calls for reform and change, insurrections and rebellions can be avoided.
And you point up another reason why people tend to mistrust government, since the checks and balances are oftentimes the result of legal machinations. On paper, in the eyes of the federal government, black people were free and equal. Slavery was outlawed, and the government said they were "separate but equal," which gave their assent to the Jim Crow laws (and many other racist practices which also existed in Northern states). But it was a lie - perpetrated by the same government of checks and balances.
It seemed like there was some political wrangling which went on. The Union won the Civil War, but the post-war situation seemed riddled with corruption, intrigue, and economic instability. The West was pretty violent, as mining, ranching, and railroad interests were acting in a rather brazen manner, backed by the federal government and all their might. Back east, there was growing labor unrest, as sweatshops, child labor, and grisly conditions for mine and railroad workers were becoming intolerable in the industrial North. So, the Northern politicians had quite a few irons in the fire and pretty much let the South do whatever it wanted - just as long as they didn't try to secede again. They were too busy "taming" the West, before they moved on to bigger and better things in the Pacific.
quote:
quote:
At the time, slavery was legal and its legality upheld by the power and might of the U.S. government. He bitterly detested and hated the institution of slavery to the point where he thought that armed insurrection was the only way to stop it. As bad as the U.S. government seems now, it was much worse back then. It got better after the Civil War, but not that much better when you really look at it. It would take quite a bit longer before any true reforms in our social and political system would come about, and it still seems as if there's much room for improvement even today.
Agreed about the governmental process if you factor in the role of sectionalism which was the source of great rancour then and returned with the "southern strategy" of Dick Nixon, and is still at the source of many of our present day problems. The US government was controlled by the 'slave power' in its efforts to maintain its 'peculiar institution.' Prior to the Civil War most presidents and supreme court justices were from the South.
quote:
But I don't think that we're in much danger of a repeat of the Civil War or anything of that magnitude. The major political factions have been able to maintain at least a veneer of "civility" and compromise (well, sort of). Even despite the rhetoric and saber-rattling, we can still maintain law and order and some level of stability. But there's a question of how long this stability can last.
Mostly, I agree with this.
quote:
Also, if we are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then isn't it up to us, the people, to resolve the differences and political divides which face this country?
There are deep philosophical differences which may never be resolved. I think the Civil War never really ended. So far, it is not being fought on the battlefields of the nation. I am not as sanguine about national unity and civility as you are.
Thank you for your thoughtful remarks.
Thank you, as well. I'm glad we could come to an understanding.
|
|
|
|
