Can You Feel It? People are Getting More Tense as Anti-Human New Political Order Takes Shape

[Jackpine Radical]

(Yeah. I can feel it.)

http://www.alternet.org/economy/neofeudalism-and-obama?akid=10838.187861.bbz6sv&rd=1&src=newsletter885835&t=19

It isn’t just that the economic rights for ordinary workers and the social safety nets of the New Deal and the earlier labor movements here and abroad are being demolished. Major elements of a broad social and political architecture that served as the foundation for the Industrial Revolution are being torn apart: the Statute of Fraud (essential to give people of every level of society decent protection of property rights) and access to legal remedies; basic protection of personal rights (habeas corpus, due process, protection against unlawful search and seizure); local policing (as in policing being accountable to local governments). Decent quality public education and the freedom of the press are also under assault. People here have used various terms for this new political order that is being put in place; neofeudalism works as well as any, but it looks intended to dial the clock back on many economic and civil rights of ordinary people, not back to the Gilded Age, but to before the French and American Revolutions.

The sense of heightened tension isn’t that this program is underway, or the recent phases have moved rapidly (that’s bad enough) but that ordinary people are increasingly aware of it, and the folks behind it didn’t want to be caught out at this delicate stage. Imagine if you were executing a coup and got exposed, before you had seized all the critical installations you needed to capture for your victory to be complete.

The collective awareness of the degree of loss of economic and political rights we had all taken for granted, has risen considerably as a result of the Snowden/Greenwald/Poitras revelations. If you haven’t read it yet, the fact that the New York Times ran a favorable Sunday magazine cover story on Laura Poitras (in striking contrast to its earlier hatchet job on Glenn Greenwald) and discussed in some detail how routine communication on the web are simply not secure and depicted the considerable measures Snowden, Greenwald, and Poitras have had to take (and by implication, ordinary people ought to be taking) is an indicator of the fault lines among the elites. A story like that (a story! not My Eyes Glaze Over reports on what sorts of surveillance might or might not be permissible under various programs most American can’t bother to keep track of) brings home in a visceral way how far Big Brother has gone to a large national audience. As Atlantic put it:

The New York Times Magazine cover story by Peter Maass detailing how Edward Snowden reached out to the two reporters that broke the NSA surveillance story isn’t about that surveillance. It’s only sort of about journalism. Instead, it’s largely a story about how close to the boundaries of civilization you must get — literally and figuratively — to be assured that you can protect your privacy. And it’s about how the United States government pushes people there.

[99th_Monkey]

1. Yep. I'm feelin' it. Good read. K&R. nt

[Ocelot]

2. K&R (n/t)

[Initech]

3. We're living in a post Citizens United world. And it's going to get ugly.

Can you imagine a ticket where Rand Paul and Sarah Palin actually had a chance? Would you really want them shaping SCOTUS for decades to come?

[Jackpine Radical]

4. CU was a major strategic blow, but the problem long antedates

that horrid ruling.

[Unknown Beatle]

14. What would be worse for me would be

Paul Ryan & Louis Gohmert.

My dream ticket would be Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders/Alan Grayson. Or any combination of the three.

[Demo_Chris]

21. Not to diminish your excellent post, but...

No one is EVER going to select Sarah Palin as their running mate. The only reason McCain did was that they made a critical mistake in vetting -- they assumed, without bothering to check, that the (then popular) governor must obviously be at least somewhat intelligent. It was the single most critical error in his campaign -- nothing helped Freshman Senator Obama more than this critical failure in judgement on the part of the McCain team.

Had McCain picked someone else, Romney for example, he might very well have won. He would have spent the entire campaign highlighting the freshman Senator's complete lack of experience. It would have hurt Obama badly.

[Initech]

22. Yes I saw Game Change.

Sarah Palin is an even bigger moron than I had originally thought. I mean the fact that they made her take history lessons (which she, apparently flunked) is telling even of itself. It's truly horrifying to think that someone that dumb could be a hair's away from the vice presidency.

[Demo_Chris]

23. Never did see it, but everything I said was clear...

From the media reports at the time. If I recall, McCain had spoken to her one time on the phone and they had never met and actually talked. In a sense it's understandable to ASSUME, if the people of Alaske elected her and seemed to like her, that she couldn't possibly be an idiot, but there you go. I can only assume McCain made a last minute change in his strategy to take advantage of Hillary losing the nomination -- something no one predicted at the time.

I believe that had McCain picked virtually anyone else as his running mate he would have won. But instead of the charismatic junior Senator facing off against experience and wisdom, it was the charismatic junior Senator facing off against the senile old man and an illiterate baffled small town mayor. And even so, McCain came bloody close to winning.

[Initech]

25. They actually found her using Google.

Meg Whitman - who ran one of the most extremely negative, polarizing campaigns in California history - was their initial first choice. And then it was all downhill from there.

[Demo_Chris]

34. Amazing. nt

[Initech]

40. My jaw hit the floor when I saw that.

You could tell the McCain campaign was desperate, but I had no idea they were *THAT* desperate.

[Demo_Chris]

43. I don't think they were desperate at all, I think they were overconfident...

Why in the hell would they be desperate? The opponent they were REALLY scared of had just been eliminated, leaving McCain -- a seasoned veteran Senator (one of the most powerful and experienced men in the Senate) and war hero with a track record of reaching across the aisle (so much so that the GOP fringe was perpetually angry with him) -- going up against a hyalf-term freshman Senator with no experience in Washington, no experience in foreign policy, no experience in the military (during a war no less), and the first African American to boot.

The ONLY thing McCain had going against him the mess Bush had made of things and war fatigue. This was as close to a free ride as you can get.

Then he picked Palin, and the rest is history. He picked Palin, and not only cast serious doubts as to his own fitness for office, but he threw away the best weapon in his arsenal. Suddenly, experience was out the window. If Palin, the imbecile from Alaska, was supposedly fit to be President, Barrack Obama damn sure was. McCain couldn't even bring it up.

[sabrina 1]

29. Or that someone that dumb was actually the Governor of a State.

[kentuck]

5. Oh yeah!

But, in my opinion, it is a rapidly changing struggle between new technology and our present system of government and the rights guaranteed by our Constitution, such as the Bill of Rights. We tend to think it is inevitable that technology supersedes our 1st and 4th Amendment rights and there is nothing we can do about it. That is a dangerous and defeatist attitude, in my opinion.

Technology only makes protection of our Bill of Rights more challenging - it does not make them obsolete. It is not carved in stone that we must surrender any of our rights simply because corporations or the government have the capacity to go around our rights and freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution.

It only means that we need to double our efforts to protect our rights and to make new rules and new laws to protect the freedoms of our people.

[JDPriestly]

9. +1000

[Maedhros]

15. I was working with a grass roots environmental and consumer rights watchdog group

in the 1990s, and even back then we were very concerned about identity theft and who owns the information about ME.

In the current context, this question is even more vital to ask. My phone records, my browsing history, my credit card history: who really owns this information? It's my activity, shouldn't I have some say over who can catalog and store it? As you pointed out, far too many people are willing to just concede that corporate America/the government can gather, store and manipulate this information about me with no restrictions whatsoever. It's as if the ability to do so somehow is equivalent to the authority to do so.

They've taken a page from the Aperture Laboratories book: "We do what me must, because we can."

[sabrina 1]

30. We need new laws to make it clear that the people own their data. We pay for it, how dare they

take something WE PAY FOR and then tell us they own it.

I was not aware they were passing laws like that. How do the people challenge bad laws? Is there a process, or do we have to rely on Congress? If so, we are doomed. For now.

[kentuck]

35. I agree sabrina...

It was only as the Internet progressed with improvements in technology that some companies pretended that they owned your personal information. Why do they still have "agreements" when you download their software? Why not just use all your information without any permission? In my opinion, "cookies" are a violation of your rights if you do not know they are being used on "your" computer. That computer is your personal property. That information is your personal property. Simply because they have the technology to steal your information does not automatically make the 4th Amendment obsolete. We need new laws to protect ourselves from the new technology. Once something is illegal, it is a different ballgame.

[sabrina 1]

41. Well said, I agree with everything you said. THEY got laws passed which most of us did not know abou

Now knowing about this decision that we don't own our data, makes me think there were plans in place to control the whole issue before the people became aware of what was going on.

We definitely need laws to protect ourselves from them. THEY have made that perfectly clear.

Good question about the 'agreements' also. I called to cancel our Verizon cell phone account last week and told them we did not appreciate being spied on. I had taken out their Privacy Agreement before calling and pointed out that nothing in there told us they would be handing over our data to the Government.

They denied the whole thing. Of course this was just an agent and she tried to 'keep you as a customer'.

But yes, if the law says they own the data, then why do they have those agreements, and why do they need a warrant to take their own data?

This needs more research as there are many more questions than answers.

[bobthedrummer]

6. k&r n/t

[Phlem]

7. Oh yea I can feel it.

I've discovered I have no more patience for the "Everything's just fine" club here in DU. I try not to put anyone on ignore but the list is now growing. I've isolated at least 4, and I know there's more, of these fine folks. I can't stand when people perpetuate ignorance, my #1 pet peeve.

But yea, it's been growing some time, I see it at the grocery store, in the local paper, and on the streets.

-p

[greiner3]

17. Want to Trade names?

JK

[Phlem]

38. Not in my lifetime!

Last edited Fri Aug 23, 2013, 03:03 AM - Edit history (1)

It's been used against me on so many ridicules it's a love hate thing, you know?

Peace brother.

-p

[WillyT]

8. Yep... K & R !!!

[Fire Walk With Me]

10. GHW Bush on the "new world order" : "When we are successful...and we will be..."

Note that the surveillance state is a direct result of the Bush family and that they just made $2 billion from Booz Allen alone:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023490164

And hey, how about them banksters:

Larry Summers and the 'End Game' memo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023513088

[Rex]

11. ALEC let the cat out of the bag.

They could not hide their disdain for human life and it showed through their monstrous intentions. People understand now; special interest groups run the country.

[Dustlawyer]

13. Lets take it back by demanding Complete Campaign Finance Reform including Publicly Funded Elections!

[ancianita]

19. It will take an army of lawyers to fight that fight from DC to the state and county levels. nt

[Dustlawyer]

20. No, it will take a huge army of protestors/voters to get the politicians to enact campaign finance

reforms!

[ancianita]

28. Right, because that's worked so well up 'til now. Not that I don't have hope.

No amount of crowds or protest can force those people to change rules that enrich them.

[Dustlawyer]

39. If those people vote as well as protest it could work.

As long as the politician believes you will vote them out, change may be made that way to get the campaign finance reform done and keep our politicians ours! I hope it will happen before things get really bad, but I believe that if it happens, it will HAVE to be bad to work. I'm just not sure if it would succeed. They are ready this time!

[ancianita]

45. Like I said, with the militarized 'security response' history, the lawyer army has to be ready.

If waves of people hit legislatures, DC and local counties, it could work. But then, people are trapped into having to work. So, it might have to be up to fighting lawyers. That's my line of thinking.

[sabrina 1]

32. Yes, that is part of the solution, but how do we get a Congress that is toally dependent on

Corporate Funds to get elected? How many of them would vote to cut off their own money supply and the perks that go with it should they leave Congress?

Can the people file a Class Action suit and take it all the way to the SC, not that I think they would ever strike down that law, the passed it after all.

But I don't have much faith in Congress unless we manage to get rid of the Third Way element and replace them with real Progressives.

[Dustlawyer]

55. Libertarians would join us, Republicans should be for this but for the, "If their for it, I am

against it" attitude. We would have to convince people from all walks of life, beliefs, and attitudes that this is no longer America, home of the free land of the brave if our government is so corrupt that the only ones represented are the 1%!!!

[NealK]

12. Great post. K&R

[snooper2]

16. May be the heat too...

We have had a pretty mild summer in the DFW area, but past week it's been "summer" again...

Of course, I noticed some of the leaves starting to turn yellow in the Live Oak in the back yard, falling in the pool of course. (Yes, bad idea to stand up pool under a tree )

I think people will be more relaxed around Halloween....

[gulliver]

24. Snowden/Greenwald have created a major setback.

The Bush/GOP recession pushed back the anti-human sentiment, but Snowden/Greenwald threaten to bring it back. If there are no terrorist attacks, then I think we will get past the Snowden/Greenwald media mishap and continue on the path that got us President Obama, Senator Warren, etc.

If there is a terrorist attack, then expect Snowden, Greenwald, and their fans to be blamed, possibly with justification. If some Al Qaeda informer clams up because he or she doesn't know what is in the Snowden/Greenwald press releases, key information could be missed. The Republicans will probably blame that kind of thing whether it is true or not. Then all the cooperation and compassion we learned from the Bush/GOP recession could be out the window, because people will be scared and pissed off.

The one thing I wonder is whether some of the people supporting Snowden and Greenwald aren't basically doing it out of a desperate longing to shake things up and shuffle the deck. And yes, if we get into another anti-human, anti-cooperative tailspin like we had, in my opinion, in the Bush years, then the deck will be shuffled and things will be shaken up. But it will all be bad.

[mick063]

26. A major terrorist attack

Will set us back regardless of any circumstances you have described.

It would change attitudes for more "security". It would funnel more money into NSA and DHS. It would introduce addendums into the Patriot Act. If anything, there are financial, political incentives in place to encourage terrorism.

All regardless of anything Snowden, Greenwald, Bush, Obama, Republicans, or Democrats have done.

How convenient to create such a narrative.

It makes me sick to think people might actually use it.

Disgusting.

To believe your narrative, you have to first believe that Snowden has given terrorists a tactical edge. I do not. My belief is that the surveillance state "accidently" collects domestic data for other reasons. That the term "terrorist" is intentionally vague to be applied as needed.

[baldguy]

31. And yet Snowden/Greenwald are supported by the most insideous fascist contingent in America.

Ron Paul is the antithesis of being the champion of civil liberties that he claims to be.

[sabrina 1]

33. Most insidious? More so than Cheney, the Bushes, Ari Fleischer, Peter (we count the votes) King

Sarah Palin, John Bolton?

You have got to be kidding.

All of the above SUPPORT the NSA and oppose Snowden, Manning, Drake, Binney, Tice et al.

I think you were trying to be funny.

Seeing who is SUPPORTIVE of the NSA's surveillance programs, for 'terror! terror! terror!' of course, I am so glad to say I am NOT on the side of those War Criminals who escalated all of this while they lied us into war and torture and economic collapse.

Ron Paul opposes Cheney/Bush and their cabal of criminals.

You definitely need to revise your thinking on who our 'most insidious' are.

I'll take anyone who is willing to join us in ending these egregious Bush policies. The more the merrier.

I am working on Republicans to jump ship, join Paul, Ron Wyden, Udall, Grayson and all the other Democrats who are trying to reign all of this in, so we have overwhelming support for finally beginning the long overdue job of dismantling Bush's fake 'security' state.

Sometimes it's hard for me to tell if someone is kidding or not.

[baldguy]

37. Most insudeous because the Paulites have millions of fools believing they support civil liberties

When, in fact they wish to destroy those civil liberties.

If you really want to see greater respect for civil liberties in America, then the crackpot racist corporatist homophobe and his freinds & allies (like Snowden & Greenwald) ARE NOT YOUR FREINDS.

[sabrina 1]

42. I would be seriously worried if I found myself on the same side as Cheney and his cabal

of torturing War Criminals. They are responsible for the murder of over one million people.

Do you support the prosecution of War Criminals Cheney, Bush et al? Do you support the prosecution of the Wall Street Criminals who crashed the world's economy?

[baldguy]

44. Snowden and Cheney are birds of a feather.

Ask Valarie Plame if Cheney isn't above breaking the law like Snowden did.

[sabrina 1]

49. Lol, I've seensome stretching of the facts since Whistle Blower Snowden first came to our attention

this one is up there with the most imaginative.

Cheney supports the NSA Massive Surveillance Programs and supports the Obama adminstration 'for understanding the need for Bush's policies on protecting our security'.

Cheney has been validated by the continuation of Bush Spy Policies. That is not what we expected when we worked so hard to put Democrats in power.

And he is only too thrilled to boast about now having support from the 'left'.

Snowden saw the dangerous threat, as did Ron Wyden and Udall and so many other Democrats and decided to do something about it.

He provided the American people with material that they should have been provided with during Cheney and Bush trials for War Crimes and for lying to the American people.

Nice to have Cheney praising a Democratic Administration now, no? Not if one's principles have not changed since the Bush years.

[baldguy]

50. Presenting false insinuations like this proves that even you know your position is indefensible.

You want one set of rules for those you see as your political enemies, and another for those you deem to be political friends.

Sorry, but that's not how justice is supposed to work in a free country.

[sabrina 1]

51. Actually my position has been the same since the Bush years. Hasn't changed a bit. And if

Snowden and Manning had exposed the corruption and war crimes they have exposed back then, those who have CHANGED their positions now, would have been fully supportive of them then.

Someone actually did a little research on that and it was amazing to see the most ardent anti-Whiste blowers now, sounded exactly like me back then regarding the FISA amendment. Nothing more needs to be said.

It's called 'situational ethics', and it's pretty reprehensible.

Snowden and Manning are heroes as history will show. Just like Ellsberg, who afrees btw.

[baldguy]

53. Practicing situational ethics is precisly what you're doing, and it is pretty reprehensible.

It's also hypocritical to the extreme. You want to put Cheney's & Bush's heads on pikes in front of the White House, yet you want to parade Snowden & Greenwald around like some kind of heroes. Treating two sets of criminals differently based on their supposed political views is the very definition of situational ethics.

The sad fact is Snowden and Cheney share more politics than they differ.

[sabrina 1]

54. Manning exposed Bush/Cheney war crimes. Why are you not supportive of that?

I'm against violence of any kind, including the DP, your violent language 'heads on pikes' is disturbing to me. What I want is the to see the rule of law applied to Bush/Cheney. And that is why I support anyone who has the guts to do what the Media failed to do, expose their crimes, which both Manning and Snowden have done.

I don't think you know the meaning of the phrase 'situational ethics'. Mine haven't changed. I have no idea what you thought of Bush Cheney back then. But now I see you protecting them. Because most of Manning's leaks were from the Bush era. Why would any Democrat want to protect Bush/Cheney?


Snowden's exposed Bush's spy policies. It's about time someone did.

Both are heroes for exposing the corruption brought to us by Bush. You want to silence them? Why?

[arcane1]

27. Appearing every hour, worldwide, above millions of people's heads, is a light bulb

The new currency will be LUMENS!

[railsback]

36. Maybe you feel it because you want to feel it

Problem is, all the outrage is already condensed into small pockets. You will NEVER see anything like the Vietnam protests, when society as a whole banded together and fought the government.

[img][/img]

Call this country detached. Whatever. They don't see the NSA drafting and sending our friends and loved ones to die on foreign soil. Snowden/Greenwald disappear off the radar for a couple of days and nobody gives a shit. Promised bombshells turn out to be nothing but theoretical 'maybes'. Outrage? Hardly. More like 'Oh, yeah, that spying thing is bad. Anywho, let's go get some dinner, beer and watch the game tonight'.

No, there's nothing growing, only dissipating. Now that Manning's trial is over, his name won't even be mentioned here in about a month. Greenwald will certainly pop up sometime to stoke the fires but he's really wearing thin on a lot of people. There's no MLK to rally the troops and force government to bend. No giant, massive protests across the country. Its a pipe dream.

[99Forever]

46. The storm on the horizon...

... I have spoken of for years, is growing in intensity and coming ever closer. If the tipping point hasn't been reached, it will be soon.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Let the games begin.

[Romulox]

47. Even here on DU, I notice many "Good Germans" preparing for a seat (under) the new table. nt

[Katashi_itto]

48. Lots of good Germans, but society still has to sink alot farther down before anything happens

Think more like a cross between "Elysium, Dredd, and Solent Green" before people wake up. They still think they have something to lose yet.

[KoKo]

52. An Interesting Weekend Read...K&R!