After Alex Jones’ Prediction Of Civil War, Here Are The Best #SecondCivilWarLetters – Talking Points Memo


via After Alex Jones’ Prediction Of Civil War, Here Are The Best #SecondCivilWarLetters – Talking Points Memo

Alex Jones has another conspiracy theory, that liberals planned to start a civil war on July 4th. The right-wing is proving to be a lot of fraidy-cats; during the Obama administration, they stocked up on firearms, thinking that he’s take them away-but if they stockpile firearms, that’ll just be more arms for him to confiscate (duh!). For decades, liberals and leftists have been called “weak” on law and order (meaning the repressing of minorities in the name of “public safety”) and weak on national defense (meaning the starting of wars against people who are fighting a repressive regime). Now, the rightists are scared that the big, bad leftists are DARING to stand up to them. Let ’em BE scared! They’ll continue to assert our rights.

The Mason Missile, July 2, 2018


This is Independence Day-what do we have to celebrate? We have a regime (I won’t call it an “administration”) that separates immigrant children as young as several months from the parents, as a bureaucratic form of punishment for entering this country “illegally” (which is classed as a misdemeanor).

That has never happened before, and this practice inflicts trauma upon these children and their parents-but what to the alpha males ruling our affairs care? They show what kind of big strong men they are by terrorizing people who can’t resist, talking about a “zero tolerance policy,” and have sadistic fun doing it.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions used the Bible, the Apostle Paul letter to the Romans, chapter 13, verses 1-7, (RSV) as an excuse to justify this: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience.  For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is due them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.”

That verse had always been a favorite of slaveholders and authoritarians, using some biblical justification for their domination of their subjects. It would not hold sway except for some true believers of the Leader.

(Were he to go further down the chapter, Sessions would have found verses 8-10 “Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet”; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”  Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.”)

This is the kind of thing that conservatives, who have whined about “big government taking control of our children,” have warned us about- but it’s happening to dark-skinned foreigners, so they say nothing. I’m pleased, though, that people have risen up against this; I doubt, though, if it would influence this regime from ending the practice, but hopefully, it would make people on the ground ashamed to implement such policies on behalf of their superiors up the chain. There is also institutional resistance to this evil practice, as several state governors have refused to send their National Guard units to the border for this kind of duty.

There is also publicly confronting the top officials responsible for these policies, such as the crowds shaming Stephen Miller and Kristjen Nielsen-as they ate at MEXICAN RESTAUANTS-and Sarah Huckabee Sanders being asked to leave the little restaurant. Now the conservatives complain that the officials are being oppressed and bullied-any worse than the little kiddies in the detention centers separated from their families, scared out of their minds, feeling lost and abandoned, put through possibly all kinds of abuse, not knowing if they’ll ever see their parents again?  Can’t we look at THAT, Americans, and know the shameful thing going on in our name, and with our tax dollars?

With protests against unjust conditions, there are always complaints about how the protestors behave-“They’re not polite, they’re not civil, they use such bad language!” But what about trump’s line in a rally, “I’d like to punch him in the face”? His instigating violence against protestors by his fans? The incidents of white people calling the police on African-Americans for such crimes as sitting in a Starbuck’s, playing golf, napping in a dorm at Yale, holding a cookout in Oakland, mowing a neighbor’s lawn for a few bucks, selling water for money for tickets to Disneyland?

It’s as if we need permission by our conservative superiors to protest unjust conditions, from which they benefit, and the consequence of which they don’t suffer (so it’s no skin off their asses)-and such permission won’t be forthcoming. No one will give us our rights-we’ll take them. It’s just a way for them to not deal with it-but there are people who deal with it every day, and they won’t take it anymore, and will let everyone know they won’t take it.

Again, let’s discuss “big government“-the boogie of right-wing propaganda for decades, since the New Deal and beyond. This is the scare used when the issue is using the mechanism of government, local, state, or federal, to restrict the ability of corporations to swindle consumers and oppress workers. Added to this is the Labor movement, the institutional gathering of workers for their mutual benefit, to prevent corporate bosses from forcing workers into long hours, in oppressive and unsafe worksites, for merger pay.

With the Janus decision of the Supreme Court-which says workers who don’t want to be in a union do not have to pay the “agency shop” fee, but would still be protected by the union-The ability of unions to protect workers is in trouble. But do we take it lying down? No, we organize, just like our forbearers did a century ago, in the face of company thugs, police and militias, and hostile courts, judges, and governments. We have a history and tradition to draw our strength from.

Indeed, activism abounds throughout the nation against the trump agenda-and NO, I will not show him any respect! Along with the protests against the immigration policies along the border, there are protests by high school kids against the gun violence they witnessed, when they had to see their friends killed by gunmen who had too easy an access to an AR-15, and the #MeToo movement of women who refuse any longer to put up with sexual harassment from rich and powerful men.  The Labor movement can tap into that energy, and once again be the insurgent force our plutocratic masters fear it to be.


The Nature of Liberalism

For decades, “liberal” has been bandied about as a term of abuse in US politics. The term “liberal” has been defined as “soft on crime,” “soft on communism,” soft on defense,” and “tax and spend,” among others.

Political figures defined as “liberals” have never challenged the capitalist system; they believed that “capitalism works wonderfully, but we have to fix the problems it creates, such as unemployment, poverty, and corrupt government.” So, liberals have advocated such regulations on corporations as occupational safety and health, pollution, racial and other forms of occupational discrimination, etc. In the liberal scheme, capitalism is monitored, but it stays intact.

The Origins of Contemporary Liberalism in the United States

The New Deal of FDR, coming upon the 1929 Stock Market Crash and subsequent depression and the resulting unemployment of millions of workers, along with the fear of, if not the real possibility of, revolution-was the basis of contemporary liberalism. To head off the danger of revolution or other upheavals by workers and low-income people who lost their jobs and so turned against the economic system, FDR implemented series of programs that collectively were called the New Deal; there was no strategy involved, it was a series of expediencies that took place in order to put unemployed workers to work immediately, and to place corporations under control so that a depression would not occur in the future.

After consulting with the British economist John Maynard Keynes, the FDR administration took the risk of bringing the federal government into deficit, to put workers to work in public works jobs so they would have money to spend in local stores to stimulate the economy. Keynesianism was a doctrinal basis of the New Deal, giving it a strategy.

Throughout all this, the liberals of the FDR administration never challenged the idea of capitalism, , denying that they were seeking “socialism;” but conservatives, through the FDR administration and beyond, complained that the administration was leading the country into “socialism” and eventually “communism,” with its effort to control the worst parts of capitalism and thus avert social upheaval.

The Conservative Reaction To The New Deal

The movement known as “conservativism” also began with the 1929 Depression; but it was a reaction against the New Deal, attempting to reestablish total corporate control without any government regulation, denying that the capitalist system needed any policing, clinging to the faith that the system would correct itself.

Corporate leaders are convinced of their superiority as a class, resisting the idea that they needed policing of their management of their corporations by the government or workers organizing themselves into unions.

Thus, much of what we know today as “liberalism” and conservativism” is descended from the struggle over the New Deal and the 1929 Crash era. The corporations were placed under regulation, but they were never disbanded or nationalized; however, the popular belief in their infallibility, cultivated during the “prosperity” of the 1920s prior to the Crash, fell apart, and many corporate leaders, such as Henry Ford, expressed admiration for the fascist regimes in Europe, admiring how they kept order and averted the communist threat.

Liberalism and Conservativism After The Second World War

After the Second World War, conservatives sought to regroup as a political and intellectual force. During the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, the established economic belief was one of a tripartite system of government, private enterprise, and unions, with the NLRB, workers had the legal right to establish unions for their mutual benefit.

As a movement, conservativism carried with it a sense of superiority, in moral behavior and “knowing how the world really works,” with the aura of past beliefs accepted over decades, ridiculing and mocking liberals for challenging their privileged position or these long accepted beliefs that have been accepted as reality.

Conservatives see the advancement of former outcast groups-workers in the 1930s; African-Americans, LGBT, and women in the 1960s-as interlopers people who stole their rightful position of dominance, and blame liberals for accommodating them and supporting their advancement with the use of the government apparatus; but in the liberal scheme, the rise of the former out-groups is within the established economic and social structure, with the legitimacy of neither capitalism or the government challenged. The dream of conservatives has been to regain their power and dominance. To them, the rise of the former out-groups was conducted by the federal government, under the control of people whom conservatives have lumped together under the title ‘liberal,” whether they truly deserved the title or not. Any concession to the former out-groups was looked upon by conservatives as s sign of weakness, and the conservatives have insisted that the out-groups be smashed down and put in their place.

The real idea of liberalism, however, is to raise up the out-groups within the social system as it is established, while keeping the social system intact, utilizing the federal government and political apparatus to elevate the out-groups; and at the same time, trying to manage and direct the movements of the out-groups, to absorb its members into the political and social apparatus to deal it their issues.

Liberalism and conservativism, consciously or unconsciously, are two sides of a continuum, a line, a gauge, like a thermometer, compatible to the good-cop bad-cop routine you see in police dramas; the “bad cop” tries to terrorize the perpetrator into submission, whole the “good cop” tried to “befriend” and soothe the perp into cooperating with the police, i.e., the state and the society it serves.

Often, socialists, progressives, “radicals,” people favoring more advanced policies than liberals have offered, have gone along with the liberals, for practical purposes of getting the legislation passed in the legislative system, operating through public demonstrations, journalism, scholarly research, and often electoral campaigns; but often the liberals, closer to conservatives in wanting to keep the social-economic system in place, try to control the “radicals,” telling them “don’t go too far,” (whatever that is). At this point, the “radicals” have to decide whether to go along with the liberals, who are closer to the established powers, or go it alone and risk the wrath of the police system and its repression, which often liberals have gone along with? Which actions on the part of the ‘radicals” would be most effective-civil disobedience, street demonstrations, or selective acts of violence against state facilities?

These are no small questions; mainly it would be a matter of tactics. I do not have any answers, I simply want to raise questions.






After The Election

The supporters of Donald Trump have indicated they would not graciously accept that they would lose the election; many have threatened violence and “civil war,” which I seriously doubt they are capable of. They would be, however, capable of localized acts of terror, like trying to destroy houses of worship or murder, on an individualistic basis rather than as part of a conspiracy. With the Internet, however, such terrorists could network ideas and information of events and tactics with each other.

And yes, I called them “terrorists;” self-proclaimed white “Christians” have been terrorists-look at the Klan and the medieval Crusades and the Inquisition.

Trump has been of no help; he had indicated that he may or may not make a concession speech or accept the outcome of the election WHEN he loses. His campaign has been one long trip of narcissism, barroom brags and threats passing as policy statements, assaults real and threatened upon his critics, and, worst of all, his welcoming into  is coalition the most notorious racists and neo-fascists in the nation, bringing h=them back into the political mainstream, giving them a platform to spout from.

After the election, these are the elements who will scream that the election was stolen from them, and who threaten violence; this is the comeuppance of the Republican party, which has worked form before Obama was inaugurated to deny his legitimacy as President, who has fostered the “birthers” like Trump, who thought the “tea party” phenomenon would bring them back into power, but has instead turned on the party establishment. After the election, one fight ends, and another begins; let’s be ready.

Oklahoma Joining Texas In Their Effort To Rewrite US History

Conservatives use the “libertarian” title for themselves when protecting corporate interests; and they complain of public schools as indoctrinating kids with leftist propaganda. But look at this, they are trying to stop kids from learing the negative side of US history, a history we’re ashamed of but must face if we are to do better as a nation. Censoring our history, like the conservatives are doing, don’t advance this country one bit.

Oklahoma Joining Texas In Their Effort To Rewrite US History

via Oklahoma Joining Texas In Their Effort To Rewrite US History.

“Fascism is rising in America”: The Koch brothers and democracy’s dispiriting demise –

The danger of Fascism in this country is REAL! IT’s the organized people againt organized money.

“Fascism is rising in America”: The Koch brothers and democracy’s dispiriting demise –

via “Fascism is rising in America”: The Koch brothers and democracy’s dispiriting demise –

Watch: Mike Huckabee Featured in One of The Most Absurd Anti-Gay Videos I\’ve Ever Seen

Interesting how a once-dominant group, if its dominance is challenged, acts like they will be oppressed the way they oppressed the subordinate group. It’s like conservatives have no idea of compromise, it’s either dominance or submission. Plus there’s nothing like a good dose of hysteria to rile up the base for their votes and their checks.

Watch: Mike Huckabee Featured in One of The Most Absurd Anti-Gay Videos I\’ve Ever Seen

via Watch: Mike Huckabee Featured in One of The Most Absurd Anti-Gay Videos I\’ve Ever Seen.

Debunking the Myth of the Fiscally Responsible Republican – Forward Progressives

The conservatives are fiscally conservative when it comes to social spending, schools, roads, pensions, etc., but when it comes to military spending on planes that can’t fly, and tax breaks for billionaires, that’s a whole other story.

Debunking the Myth of the Fiscally Responsible Republican – Forward Progressives

via Debunking the Myth of the Fiscally Responsible Republican – Forward Progressives.

Paul Ryan: Lowering Minimum Wage to $0 an Hour Will Get 0% Unemployment

THIS is the Republican economic policy, proto-slavery, and denial of historical fact. This shows Republicans must NEVER get back into power AGAIN.

Paul Ryan: Lowering Minimum Wage to $0 an Hour Will Get 0% Unemployment

via Paul Ryan: Lowering Minimum Wage to $0 an Hour Will Get 0% Unemployment.

What\\\’s in a Name: Senate Subcommittee Drops \\\’Civil Rights and Human Rights\\\’ From Name | Bernice A. King

Conservatives have constantly been in denial of the need for dealing with Civil Rights; after the ‘sixties, their attitude has been, “We don’t want to talk about it, ever.”

What\\’s in a Name: Senate Subcommittee Drops \\’Civil Rights and Human Rights\\’ From Name | Bernice A. King

via What\\\’s in a Name: Senate Subcommittee Drops \\\’Civil Rights and Human Rights\\\’ From Name | Bernice A. King.