In The USA: the Next Revolution

[Bob's World]

Um... now, let me preface this by saying that I'm very much in favor of gun rights. But to say that an armed populace is not a threat to a nation doesn't really make sense. Of course it's a threat to a nation--that's the whole point, as you outlined yourself in the paragraphs following. An armed populace is an explicit threat that if the government of the nation fails to execute its duties properly, it will be removed.

The problem, such as it is, is that the entirety of the armed populace isn't in agreement about what proper execution of government duties consists of. In a less beneficial sense, a subsection of the armed populace can be just as much of a threat--as in, actual threat, not enforcer of the national will--to the nation as, say, nineteen guys and two airplanes can. It's as unwise to turn a blind eye to that sort of threat as it is to turn a blind eye towards union violence.

What concerns me on a personal level is who the most vociferous gun-holders are. If they had their druthers, people like me would be as unwelcome as if those nineteen guys had gotten theirs.

But you are right, we often confuse the two. An armed populace is no risk to a nation, but is indeed a tremendous risk to governments who lose their focus on what is truly important. Most of the most drawn out messes we have gotten ourselves into (Vietnam and now Afghanistan to name but two) are where we come to mistake the preservation of a government for the preservation of the Nation.

Often the government we are working with is the problem and must either evolve or be replaced by legal or illegal means by the populace of that land (the land and the people and the heritage being the greatest components of a "nation," with government being perhaps the least imporant component of any equation that adds up to equaling "nation.")

Trees are to Forest as Government is to Nation. Sometimes you have to burn some trees to make the forest healthy again.

[slapout9]

Link to live stream of pending Wall Street Demonstration tomorrow.



http://www.livestream.com/globalrevolution

[motorfirebox]

Trees are to Forest as Government is to Nation. Sometimes you have to burn some trees to make the forest healthy again.

I agree in principle, but two things concern me. The simple concern is that those who seem most enthusiastic about that sort of thing--the burning down of the old order to make way for the new, etcetera--are not, by and large, people whose rule I want to be under. Nothing against them personally, I just don't trust them to offer me the freedom to live my life the way I see fit. Social conservatism seems, to me, to be as large or larger a factor in those sorts of movements as political conservatism.

The more complex concern is that it just doesn't seem like we're on a path that ends in burning things down. It seems more like we're on a path to burning out. There are lots of angry people, but very few of them agree on much. So if widespread fighting does break out, it's not going to be a revolution, it's going to be pretty standard-issue sectarian violence. The best case scenario there is that everyone who believes in something enough to die for it actually does so, leaving everyone else to rebuild.

[Bill Moore]

Social conservatism seems, to me, to be as large or larger a factor in those sorts of movements as political conservatism.

Please explain the difference? Most conservative politicians focus on conservative social issues (anti-abortion, religion, state's rights, protecting big business, and so forth), and liberal politicians focus on gay rights, equal rights for illegal immigrants, social programs run by the gov, and so forth. Even the economic debates largely center over social/cultural values, not fixing the problem.

[motorfirebox]

Please explain the difference? Most conservative politicians focus on conservative social issues (anti-abortion, religion, state's rights, protecting big business, and so forth), and liberal politicians focus on gay rights, equal rights for illegal immigrants, social programs run by the gov, and so forth. Even the economic debates largely center over social/cultural values, not fixing the problem.

By political conservatism I mean states' rights and limited federal government--as actual principles, not just as dog whistles.

We need to move past our Western bias born of hundreds of years of setting up and defending Colonial and Containment-based governments; designing or allowing them to grow to treat their own populaces with impunity under the protection of some Western power; and then coming to see the protection of such governments against their own populace as "COIN." That thinking is at the root of our current challenges around the globe, and the days of "friendly despots" as a tool of foreign policy is as outdated today as slavery was in 1860. Time to move on.

It's an interesting balance-of-power issue.

[slapout9]

Californian initiative to create a State Bank to defend from the Wall Street Tali-Bankster Empire. Several States are doing this by the way.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLDjl...&feature=feedu

[Fuchs]

State banks in Germany fared especially poorly in the crisis (and before).

The real reason for their existence is that they give governments a para-budget that's not under parliamentary control. You want to push a prestige construction project? Arrange for a way too cheap credit to the private company that orders its construction.

These banks were also staffed with party top level people who had been chased away from power, into a lucrative 'private sector' job as a kind of retirement. The incompetence trickled down.

These banks lacked the competence to understand that CDS and other financial 'products' are a ####ty racket, became greedy at the sight of the promised interest rates and bought a lot of that crap.



The real way to go is different.
LOCAL savings & loan cooperatives
REGIONAL savings & loan backing companies (that also handle the really big credits for multi-billion € projects and medium-sized companies as customers)
Corporations issuing their own bonds or shares at exchanges
NATIONAL central bank

Nothing more is necessary.

[jmm99]

Bank of North Dakota (Wiki and webpage) founded in 1919. I supported this concept for Michigan back in the 1970s, as well as a state-owned and -run insurance company similar to Saskatchewan Government Insurance (Wiki). The ideas ran pretty well in Northern Michigan, but foundered in downstate party politics.

And, for motorfirebox (from a very vociferous gun-owner and 2nd Amendment person ), I give thee from Mother Jones, How the Nation’s Only State-Owned Bank Became the Envy of Wall Street (Josh Harkinson, 27 Mar 2009).

Regards

Mike

[Bob's World]

I agree in principle, but two things concern me. The simple concern is that those who seem most enthusiastic about that sort of thing--the burning down of the old order to make way for the new, etcetera--are not, by and large, people whose rule I want to be under. Nothing against them personally, I just don't trust them to offer me the freedom to live my life the way I see fit. Social conservatism seems, to me, to be as large or larger a factor in those sorts of movements as political conservatism.

The more complex concern is that it just doesn't seem like we're on a path that ends in burning things down. It seems more like we're on a path to burning out. There are lots of angry people, but very few of them agree on much. So if widespread fighting does break out, it's not going to be a revolution, it's going to be pretty standard-issue sectarian violence. The best case scenario there is that everyone who believes in something enough to die for it actually does so, leaving everyone else to rebuild.

I agree, and I certainly do not endorse insurgency as a first resort for any populace, but equally, I recognize (as our US founding fathers did) that is the right and duty of last resort for EVERY populace.

We need to move past our Western bias born of hundreds of years of setting up and defending Colonial and Containment-based governments; designing or allowing them to grow to treat their own populaces with impunity under the protection of some Western power; and then coming to see the protection of such governments against their own populace as "COIN." That thinking is at the root of our current challenges around the globe, and the days of "friendly despots" as a tool of foreign policy is as outdated today as slavery was in 1860. Time to move on.

Governments have always been the primary source of "radicalization" of insurgent populaces. We need to accept that and stop blaming the "malign actors" who will always emerge to exploit such situations for their own gain; or on the ideologies applied by "good" and "bad" insurgents alike to advance their movements. Once we shift our thinking we can begin to shift our focus.

Afghanistan, for example, should not be a debate about "COIN" vs CT; or Nation-Building vs Counterguerrilla focused operations. It should be a debate about do we put the screws to the Karzai/Northern Alliance government to evolve to offer equitable governance to ALL Afghans, or do we step aside and let the chips fall as they might with an open invitation to work with whatever government emerges so long as they are willing to engage the entire populace equitably. As you notice, far too often the insurgent who prevails often is very quick to exact revenge on the losers and adopt an equally bad system of governance as the last guys.

This is unfortunate, but not our job to police around the world either. We are best served in our own interests by being true to our own professed values. I think we can work with governments who are radically different than us in that regard. We just shouldn't protect them from their own populace when the inevitable occurs. Listen to the advice of guys like Washington and Jefferson; and not the CEOs of Exxon, Chevron, etc, etc, etc....