If this is a Ron Paul guy, he seems pretty well disguised.

And peeved. Very peeved.

How about it, IBB? Whether or not tm is correct about your PR firm, it would be helpful if you could stop pounding your iron bolt on the floor to the beat of the Techno-Nietsche-MetalMusik long enough to tell us a little about how you came to be. The performance art bomb, while impressive, isn't likely to score you many conversational points here.

(And I say this as a person who probably doesn't like PNAC any more than you do.)

Just my two cents.  If you are intending to persuade people to join you (maybe some of thos those 312 million mostly clueless Americans) you might want to avoid using the term "Fascism."  Regardless of the similarities of the current political environment to definition of Fascism, it has been so overused by people that people just tune out anyone who employs the term. 

Moreover, it's all fine and dandy to call for there to be no left or right, that it is time to unite, to stand and fight (even though it rhymes like a nice Madison Avenue slogan), but, at least for me, unless if you have something to offer as a replacement once the fighting has had a successful conclusion, then whatever is being said comes across as empty revolutionary rhetoric.  The reality is that there is the right and the left, that some of the people in this country are very conservative and some of them are very liberal, that some of people want big government and some want small government, that some think it's everyone for him or herself and some who thinks it takes a village.  All of this in what is a democracy.

I guess my question is what good is it to go around call for a revolution when you believe most of the 312 million Americans are clueless.  And this brings it back around to using the word Fascism.  Using such a term is almost as if you want people to remain clueless (as opposed to talking to them in a way that might understand), that way you can go around as one of those elite few who have a clue.

Just a few more two cents and I speak only for myself here: Don't assume I'm sitting on my ass, that I don't take action. Don't assume I am one of the clueless and in some kind of state of denial.  Maybe I have a different notion what the path way forward is. You can jump on one of my blogs and give me you two cents (although I notice you don't comment on other people's blogs - not that you have to or anything, but this does strike me as someone who just wants to say 'how it is' and isn't too interested in engaging in a dialogue going forward IMHO).  It seems, and I might be wrong, that this sentiment seeps up through your words, it is off-putting - to me, at least.  Your comment here just kind of reinforces that.  For what is worth.

And tell me - when have the wealthy not controlled things.  Whether it was the landed gentry in the early days and now the corporations (hell, Virginia was founded as a business venture), those with money ultimately don't let things happen they don't want to happen and make things happen that they do.  Occasionally they throw a bone, or look the other way, enough to keep the people happy - it is easier to rule through legitimacy than through coercion.

If one just say 'corporate+government=Fascism' then we have always been Fascist, and it is very unlikely that will change in the near future. Some of that has to do with some people being clueless, or apathetic, or discouraged, but it also has a lot to do with people not willing to risk what they do have for the promise of something better.  For example, the median household income in this country is nearly 50K.  That means, of course, half of the households are in a relatively ok place financially themselves.  Getting them out on to the barricades is difficult (but not impossible).  But a good number of them don't have a problem with the general principles of our mix of capitalism and socialism. 

But as I mentioned to one your supporters - for me it isn't about whether we are moving toward Fascism or already there.  It is that people don't respond well to it because it is a loaded word that has been overused and misused.  You are free to use it, but as bit of constructive criticism, if you want to persuade people to get off their ass, if that is your true intention, you might want to find a way to express the same thing that doesn't cause people to throw up barriers to what else you have to say.

This is an interesting point.  Because I'd argue that, in a lot of ways, people are freer now than they once were.  Free to board an aircraft with a bottle of water?  No.  Free to send an email without the government intercepting it and vetting it through a computer looking for keywords and signifiers?  No.  But freedom to vote as a non-landowner?  Freedom to vote as a woman?  To marry outside of your race or  within your gender?  Freedom to enjoy transgressive art and music?  There is no golen past of liberty in America.  Most of us would not be able to function within the stricter societal codes of even our grandparents' generation, much less the norms of the 19th century, when people  could be legally owned, or the century before that, when witches were burned.  Which is not to say that there aren't deep problems now.  Heck, the war on terror is the old war on witchcraft, in a lot of ways.  But we were no better off back in the day.

Here's the thing: either you're basing that entirely off what they wrote here, or you're not. Either way, that's the most ludicrous thing anyone's written at dagblog, including a couple of people who've been right-wingers.

Perhaps you should lurk a little around here and get to know these people before you make such reputation* forming statements.

*And not in a good way.

Bruce, the conditional tense is not a magic key to bypass the ToS. Ad hominem attacks aren't permitted here. This is your first warning.