ironboltbruce's picture

    Freedom to Fascism Redux: A Timeline of Recent U.S. History

    Freedom to Fascism Redux: A Timeline of Recent U.S. History

    - - - Original Message - - -
    From: VVV PR [mailto:[email protected]]
    Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 8:31 PM
    To: '[email protected]'

    Subject: [ Freedom to Fascism Redux: A Timeline of Recent U.S. History ]

    "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." - Abraham Lincoln

    Dear Wayne Bowen,

    If you had read this first...

    ...then perhaps you would not have written this:

    Let me give you a timeline for the last few years of American history:


    Here is what all that means...

    FREEDOM: What the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights once guaranteed to all American Citizens.

    PNAC: Our wars for oil and profit were planned LONG before 9/11, but an excuse was needed to justify them.

    [ Note: This letter was dated JANUARY 26 1998 and the last paragraph reads "We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk." ]

    9/11: The excuse that was needed to sacrifice lives and liberties while corporations raided our treasury.

    AUMF: Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40), a "war against terror" carte blanche.

    PATRIOT ACT: 68,000 words worth of Orwellian "1984" legislation supposedly drafted and passed in six weeks.

    CITIZENS UNITED: The U.S. Supreme Court decision that gave corporations a legal way to buy U.S. elections.

    NDAA: The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which codifies indefinite detention without trial.

    SOPA/PIPA: The proposed Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP Act, euphemisms for Internet censorship.

    EEA: The proposed Enemy Expatriation Act, under which dissent could result in revocation of citizenship.
    FASCISM: Rule by corporate elite we can only reverse by waking up 312 million mostly clueless Americans.

    Related Image:

    Related Video:

    Unrelated Video:


    IronBoltBruce via VVV PR ( | @vvvpr )

    Tags: 9-11, 911, aumf, authorization for use of military force, bill of rights, citizens united, citizens united v fec, constitution, corporate fascism, eea, enemy expatriation act, fascism, freedom, freedom to fascism, national defense authorization act, ndaa, patriot act, pipa, pnac, project for a new american century, protect ip act, seditious conspiracy, sopa, stop online piracy act, u.s. constitution, united states constitution, usa patriot act, wayne bowen

    CYBERACTIVIST ALERT: Emails like this one are being blocked by Network Solutions and other ISPs using Cloudmark Authority and other Internet censorship systems euphemistically referred to as "spam filters".  Sadly, those who most need to see this warning never will...


    IBB you are nothing more than a propagandist for Ron Paul, just admit it right now. I have done a little research on Professor Wayne Bowen, a known Republican and a known Ron Paul supporter, just like you right, your firm works for  Ron Paul's Super PAC don't they?

    I think you should be more upfront with what you mean to accomplish. Your over-reliance on fear tactics in order to spin up some anti-government types, from anarchists to libertarians, is obvious. That means you are no different that any other GOP PR firm, except you are specifically pushing Ron Paul's agenda. Ron Paul is a Christian Fundamentalist Reformer, who is no hero to human rights anywhere. If he had his way, we would be little nation states and not a nation, we wouldn't have a national highway system there would be no social services for anyone, health care would be for the rich, corporations would own this nation even more than they already do, and that my friend is real fucking fascism.

    I don't like what your firm does IBB, I don't like that they pretend they have the corner on truth, when all your firm does is exploit fear. This degrades us as a nation, it separates us into our corners, and it makes us view each other as enemies. This hurts our country IBB. And I will never succumb to the fear you are spreading across the web and I suspect no one else here will either.

    I agree that the fear style doesn't work for me, but I think this was meant as a rebuttal to Bowen, not in support of him. IBB appears to hold Libertarians in low regard, so I doubt he is a fan of Ron Paul.

    IBB appears to hold Libertarians in low regard

    Where did you get that impression? In this post with the Libertarian & Anarchist cartoon he said:

    ( Just thought we'd throw a little levity into the Revolution, folks... )


    Most of his posts sound to me like attempts to publicize common ground issues for liberatarians & anarchists

    Just askin' in case maybe I missed some hints....


    Yes, that's been the point of Occupy Wall Street - unite, don't divide - we're all the 99%.

    So instead of throwing out useless labels to polarize everyone, we can focus on common cause issues and push politicians to actually address them, or replace them with someone who will.

    We're all being screwed. Whether someone believes in the gold standard is as irrelevant to me as whether they believe in the flood or low-gluten diets. I care whether someone stops the stealing.

    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.)


    What in the world makes you link IBB to Ron Paul as "propagandist"? If you have something aside from your visceral hatred of Paul, then out with it. What I see is someone unhappy about the NDAA, who smacks down a letter defending it, and then you launch into a Ron Paul conspiracy routine.

    For someone who day after day acts like they have the corner on the truth, I don't get where there's no room for another self-righteous person on this blog? Is it under the T's & C's?

    Yes you said up front the only thing you care about is re-electing Obama, but perhaps not everyone else has such a simplified political goal, though stopping the corporatist hammer-lock on American choice might not be the worst angle, even if it means gasp talking to the Republican enemy to bring people with mutual self-interest together. (Happened with Bob Barr and the ACLU, for example).

    Anyway, if no one can write anything about anything without being hammered with any suspected link to the deep dark underground of Tea Baggers, Spectre & KAOS, we might have to bring back Don Adams as official mascot. Shoe phone anyone?


    If there's only room for one self-righteous person on this blog, I better start looking for a new place to hang out.


    Once again, a dagblog comment thread that talks about everything BUT the focus of the original posting.  And clearly the initial comment was by someone who didn't even bother to READ the original posting before making a lame attack that was as pointless as it was wrong-sided.


    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.

    Gee, thanks Mom. I'll wash my face and wear a nice starched shirt as well.

    And you only get one chance to make a good impression.

    Now, go to your dictionary. Look under "fa", between "fart" and "fatuous". Do you find a word "fascism"? Good, because it's a real word with real meaning, and you might find this hard to believe, actually allowed to be used despite your scolding.

    I don't particularly feel that "fascism" applies in this case, but if Bruce wants to use it for the buddings of totalitarian crony corporatism (tied in with our militaristic state and bought-and-sold political system), well, there have been worse mistakes.

    The voting-enabled in this country elected George Bush twice, including over Al Gore, and haven't seen fit to punish politicians for supporting our expensive wars and enabling our financial meltdown. So they may not be "clueless", but they're certainly clue challenged.

    And the basic point, that left and right can come together to be pissed off and start to unravel a rigged system - well, that's been the point of Occupy Wall Street and the 99%, no? If you get rid of all Republican 99%-ers, then you certainly don't have 99%, you have another lame left-leaning organization that can't influence anyone to save their lives.

    It is just my own sense of blogging etiquette - once you criticize people for failing to discuss what you blogged about - 'damn it, you weren't inspired to write about what I wanted you to write about - then you open yourself to constructive criticism as to why that might be.  I offered my opinion. 

    It does amuse me when people get bent out of shape when people offer criticisms, especially in response to another's criticism, but only when they disagree with the criticism.  When they agree with it, then there isn't any 'gee thanks mom.' 

    And did I say Fascism wasn't a word.  I even alluded to the fact there are characteristics of our political environment which are aligned with Fascism.  Maybe I was being too subtle for you.  Sorry.  What I was saying is that if you want to united the 99%, then using a loaded word like Fascism might not be the right term.  But hey it is a free country (for now), and he and you can use it 24/7 if you want.  In the end no skin off my nose.  I was as said just giving my two cents.

    And did I say it was worst mistake he could have possibly have made? No I didn't.

    But guess what?  I am part of the 99%.  And I am, although special in my own way, not entirely unique as Americans go.  If his presentation don't resonante with me, then if I was him and in the business of trying to unite the 99%, I would like constructive criticism.  If you're going to go about trying to awaken the sleeping 312 million Americans, but only if they "get it" and awaken the way you want them to "get it" then I can tell you are going to be spectacularly unsuccessful.

    So to wrap this up - a sizeable number of the Republicans, as evidenced by their rallying around Mitt and the Bain issue, don't see corporations as the enemy.  Capitalism is not only good, it is the path to prosperity and freedom. That and a strong military (which brings along with it the military-industrial complex). Which is only one angle as to why the word Fascism is not the best word to toss around if you are truly going for the 99%.

    If you read my last blog, you would realize that this issue of finding a way to find common ground is something I do think about, I think it is possible, if not incredibly difficult, because if it is not possible we are truly doomed.




    Ok, I'll bite. 

    You seem to feel that the events/legislations to which you refer represent the creeping up of fascism into our previously relatively free lives. I appreciated your timeline and links. I'm pretty sure there are quite a few people here on dagblog who would look at your timeline and agree that they're also uncomfortable with it. (However, there would be significant resistance to use of the word Fascism, for plenty of good reasons.)

    But here's what's bugging me. You seem to be at a loud and strident place, which is fine, except that you don't lay out how you got to this place, or how you see people coming together, from what groups. Then, there's the whole question of what people would be uniting and fighting for, and what things would look like when the fighting is over.

    In this piece, it's like you've built up to a big TAH DAH! which will inevitably be followed by the sound of crickets and eventually, "Hey, what's for lunch?"

    There's not a lot to talk about without a sense of what's for lunch.

    I once heard a delegate at a Peace Conference say, "I have trouble talking about poverty when I'm hungry". Without irony. What's for lunch, a Wish Sandwich & a Rubber Biscuit?

    Better a Rubber Biscuit than a Rubber Bullet, I suppose.

    Well as my friends who were Earth Firsters would say: "Food First!"

    Two quick replies:

    1. Where and how I use the term "Fascism" is both accurate and unoriginal.  Mussolini, who I trust you will concede knew something about the subject, defined fascism simply as "a merger of state and corporate power".  Should you be disturbed by my use of the word in here? NO.  Should you be disturbed because it's happening out there? YES!

    2. What should you be doing about it?  First, get past your fears and denial.  Then, get off your ass and take action.  Start here:

    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.

    Ahem, a reminder

    ..there are basically two very different audiences on group political blogs....

    These two groups irritate and sometimes even anger each other; they do not communicate in the same manner and are looking to do very opposite things

    It may also be the case author of this post is doing a poor job of being a member of Audience #1. But I am reminding that at first step, it might be helpful to recognize he clearly is one. And that to analyze what he is doing is to irritate him. wink

    If all readers took a moment to look at all his posts, they would realize he is not here to discuss anything, but to lecture,  motivate and instruct (no differently than, say, Rush Limbaugh does, including the looking for dittos.) And that if he himself argues differently, that he is indeed here to discuss something, then he doesn't know how to write for Audience #2.

    Thanks for the reminder.  enlightened

    I went to your call to action link and here's what I came up with.

    I thought the idea of using the "suspicious behavior" forms could be a nifty mode of protest. But other than that, I couldn't make it through the first page. I don't think I'm dealing with fear and denial, it's just that the heroes versus supervillains approach to political writing doesn't do much for me, never has. And I usually try not to call people I don't like "vermin." Even Newt Gingrich. Although I will admit to calling Newt a douchebag a few days ago. I feel kind of bad about that, but he'll probably never see it.

    Anyhoo, what I did do was go to the "please donate" link. And there, I saw a nice note about how you're a grandfather, not a graduate student, and you're working to try to make sure that when your grandkids grow up, they'll be able to live in freedom. 

    That note did more to keep me on the site than anything else. It was a reminder that in the end, every revolution worth its salt is motivated by love--not of freedom as some abstract political idea or agenda, but love of life, love for the world, love for our kids and grandkids. It's an attempt to push back the ever-present forces of darkness, meanness and confusion so that the sweet people who come after us will know what it's like to experience light, warmth and love in the way we cherish. 

    A revolutionary needs to love the future more than he hates the moment, or else he's not much more than a lost soul with a strong motivation toward wrecking stuff. I think the way you write leaves out the love and makes it look like you don't have much by way of a long view. If you do have a long view, find a way to lay it out there, in all your work--don't just save it for your donations page.

    I know I'm just one person, and you sure don't have to change just to make me happy. But I'm a pretty average person, so if you get me on your side, you probably get some other people who are a lot like me. Assuming you want us.

    Oh, and I liked your poem.


    I have read many accounts of German citizens shocked and crying - but otherwise doing nothing - as their Jewish friends and neighbors were quite literally rounded up with IBM efficiency and gassed with Bayer purity:

    Groupthink and political correctness saved neither the Jews from the German Nazis nor the German citizens from ultimate justice.  What makes you think you can find safe haven in either now?

    Rise Up!


    A few months back, someone was up in arms that 2 accounts of anti-Semitism at OWS events could lead to a new pogrom/holocaust unless someone stopped in and denounced it.

    Acting hysterical doesn't describe an actual response. While there are issues, and disturbing loss of freedoms, you don't define an actual cause-and-effect with way to respond. Just do what? Yes, many people are upset. But corporations do help us distill wealth efficiently - if they don't raid the coffers in the process.

    Your definition of fascism leaves out the militaristic process - meaning on the homefront, whatever Mussolini said. (He doesn't have to reveal all his cards, does he?).  While our increase in surveillance and home use of drones is disturbing, and the NDAA is a chip in the armor, if you compare any of this to how countries went fascist or totalitarian, we're not obviously on a direct path, are we? The worst crackdown on OWS was a pepper spray and some short-term arrests. The Tea Party protests at one point seemed like part of the going-fascist process, but besides turning out non-violent (despite concerns early with the open-carry of weapons and gasp, one person saying something violent about Obama at a rally), they've been non-violent, and only halfway irrelevant. (if our politicians stood up to them on legislation, they'd be gone by now - but we don't have useful politicians with tactics).

    So take a breath, figure out how far the problem is going, and a few effective techniques - organizational and political - to take in the right direction. The sky isn't falling, we're not going to have a totalitarian/fascist state tomorrow. But life conditions are taking a turn for the worse, and these need reversing.

    And yes, a lot of people suffer from bad indoctrination - politics for Dummies, blame taxation for all ills. Believe it or not, most people aren't that in bed with any particular issue - they can be talked to. With a sensible, non-hair-on-fire argument. (okay, if hair is actually on fire, use it, but from my place at the table, we're just complaining that the food is late and the cooking ain't what it used to be)


    First they came for the communists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

    Then they came for the Catholics,
    and I didn't speak out because I was Protestant.

    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left to speak out for me.


    "First they came..." is a famous statement attributed to pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.

    Blah blah blah.

    They're just ripping everyone off - there's no big selective process.

    If you own a home, they'll come for you, if you have a bank account they'll come for you, if you vote in elections they'll come for you, if you're of any minority color they'll come for you...



    While I concur that reductions of civil liberties should be resisted, having your timeline begin with "Freedom" makes it sound like our country had never known any abridgement of personal rights before the PNAC pounded the gavel to call their first meeting to order.

    What you refer to as Fascism is the Right and has been for centuries.


    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.

    Yours is an excellent comment to make on this Martin Luther King Jr. day. He always made clear that the struggle for racial equality has always been part of something that has gone on for a very long time and will continue in the future. In 1957 he said:

    Democracy is the greatest form of government to my mind that man has ever conceived, but the weakness is that we have never touched it. Isn’t it true that we have often taken necessities from the masses to give luxuries to the classes? Isn’t it true that we have often in our democracy trampled over individuals and races with the iron feet of oppression? Isn’t it true that through our Western powers we have perpetuated colonialism and imperialism? And all of these things must be taken under consideration as we look at Russia. We must face the fact that the rhythmic beat of the deep rumblings of discontent from Asia and Africa is at bottom a revolt against the imperialism and colonialism perpetuated by Western civilization all these many years. The success of communism in the world today is due to the failure of democracy to live up to the noble ideals and principles inherent in its system.

    If I were a betting man I'd wager that Bill and Ted - sorry, I mean "moat" and "destor23" - are either idiots, pussies or regime plants.  But I have no extra cash right now, and to make such a wager might either (a) breach the TOS or (b) offend some tender albeit clueless sensibilities.  So I won't.

    And I'd wager you're a big-mouthed half-wit. I'd say my odds are better.

    And now, pleasantries exchanged, somebody outta throw out this trash, eh?

    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.

    If they were regime plants they'd be getting paid, so I think you're stuck with the first two possibilities. But in any case, I'd bet that your bet would indeed meet the requirements for (a).

    (P.S.   Q is known as quite the bare-knuckle fighter in these parts, so if even he thinks you're acting like a jerk, you just might want to rethink your approach. Just sayin'.)

    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.

    IronBotBruce: Let's discuss paid operatives, we need to. You work for VVV PR, and according to their site VVV PR is a: Righteous Negative Publicity and Black PR firm.

    I know it's fun to spread misinformation and propaganda and it is fun to make sure you have some enemies, some targets like des and moat, because you know, they don't agree with you, making them the enemy. Disagreeing with you also means they are obviously paid by Barack Hussein Mao Hitler O'Bushma from Kenya, Manchuria, the 57th state. But one thing we know for certain is that you are here because you work for someone.

    I love Orwell too IronBotBruce but remember this, the majority of people here at this blog, are  pretty smart, they are able to think for themselves, and because of this your blogs will always be full of fail. Here is why, you seem to believe most of us can be swayed by pure fear induced propaganda. Sorry buddy, you are wrong again.

    It looks like a pretty small firm...


    This should clear up the mission and ownership of VVV PR for you:

    We appreciate your setup for the plug, and hope we can count on your continued support!

    IBB :-)


    A Screaming example of Irony: Accusing others of being paid operatives while you come here representing a PR firm who pays you to write propaganda. Newspeak, not just for SciFi novels in the new millennia.

    Tm, do you know who might be paying ibb big bucks to write his stuff?

    'cause if somebody's paying, I'd like one of those jobs too.

    Forward your resume to [email protected]

    You are correct in part, Teresa:  Propaganda is defined as "information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc." And YES, VVV PR spreads propaganda so long as it is truthful and factual, i.e. information or ideas but not rumors. We explain that clearly here:

    And thanks again for the setup! :-)


    1. If you type "outta" to mean "should", next time try "oughta".

    2. If you still think the artificial "Right/Left" political paradigm is constructive, you have plenty of company but none of my respect.

    3. If you use terms like "bare-knuckle fighter" to describe distance-insulated pseudo-anonymous virtual posters, you really, REALLY need to move out of your momma's basement.

    4. Do yourself and your grandchildren a favor, kids.  Stop trying to make the coolest post, and start trying to make the biggest difference...


    I think you should rethink #4. While I read every post by Destor, Moat and many others, I only scanned yours. Their posts are engaging, which you dismiss as cool, while yours are preachy. IOW, you aren't making a difference.

    Thanks for your feedback, but I'm fine with #4 - and with being seen by some as preachy.

    For me, it comes off less as preachy and more as the young kid thinking he knows more than everyone else. The response to destor and moat really sealed it.

    Everyone on this blog including myself comes across as preachy and like the smarmy kid next door. So can we debate some issues already?

    Actually, the necessity of avoiding being preachy in blogs is an issue which can be debated.

    (How's that for smarmy? cheeky)

    Once again this comment thread drifts far from the very significant focus of my original posting.  I will post this to remind you all that while you bicker over seating arrangements on the sundeck, our ship is sinking:

    And while the ship is sinking, you, and a dozen others, are each claiming that you have the only life raft, and are calling us fools for not trusting you.

    Really? Does he say he has a life raft? Or simply points out which legislation he considers leading us down the tubes and which needs to be reversed?

    Read his post again - he says to get the corporations and money out of our political system - kinda the thought behind Gramm-Rudman and our complaints about Citizens United, no? Unlikely as it is that we'd get corporate money out of elections (even Obama's famed 2008 "grass roots" effort was much more of a corporate bundling affair than populist fund-raising)

    Wikipedia is down today to protest SOPA. Numerous blogs protested NDAA as well as the Keystone pipeline. Occupy Wall Street says the 99% should unite against the [crooked part of the] 1%. How is what Bruce is saying much different?

    Bruce links these together & notes they're all since September, but that we need to roll back further. Well, a lot of people trace the 2008/9 meltdown to the revocation of Glass-Steagal.

    Again, don't understand all the visceral venom spewed at Bruce - is it because he's a stranger or used the word "fascism" in his first post or what?

    He's essentially posted a timeline and a bunch of links, insulted two commenters (people I respect a lot) that dared to question his timeline, then demanded that we discuss his post some more, presumably so he can insult us some more.

    People can respond if they want, but remember that dag doesn't dispense moist towelettes.

    Go look at what moat and destor posted here, then look at IBB's response (we already have a Bruce). I've really been trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but...

    Or don't look. I think we've done a pretty good job of explaining to IBB that we're familiar with his timeline (although it's always helpful to see it presented with links) and that although we agree that it's troubling, the whole Boot Camp Jingle approach just doesn't resonate here. We're not willing to dismiss many years of democratic muddling through, solely because Bruce thinks stronger measures are required.

    If IBB's not willing to see the inherent shallowness of the way he's going about this, I don't think there's much more we can do except understand that if we respond, we're really just toying with him and vice versa. Unlike tmccarthy, I don't think he's the tip of some sort of Black PR iceberg--I think he's one guy who refuses to realize that in terms of organizing any type of effort, he's in a very small pool and not much is likely to change there. 

    I mean, he posted the "They came for the...." story as if none of us, presumably, had heard it before. 'Nuf said, ya know?

    Jeebus erica20, no where did I say he was the tip of some black PR ops, I pointed out, as it is printed clearly on each of this blogs, he is doing this as a hired hand of a black PR firm, according to their site, they do nothing more than do propaganda, they say their approach to propaganda is cleaner than every other firm. Which is exactly what I would expect people selling their services to write, it's called PR. That explicitly means he is paid to do this. It means he is doing this as his "work" like when I go to work and analyze data or build databases or simply plug in some noob's computer cause it wouldn't turn on. His job is to produce propaganda, that is what the website states.

    The real question is, who or what entity does this firm represent?

    Pssst...tmc, I'm pretty sure it's just him, and if anybody at all is paying him, it's not much. Here's why I think this.

    --There's no client list in sight. Of course, such clients would of course want their privacy... (yeah right.)

    --There's a donations page that specifically refers to IBB.

    --All the Google references to the site were of the type that could easily be self-generated.

    Next we'll be seeing references on his site to "political writing featured on such respected sites as Dagblog." Which is how one-person-shops make themselves seem bigger than they are. Anyhoo I'd bet $5 that IBB's been a fledgling operation for quite some time!


    I used to know this totally insufferable guy (we'll call him John Smith) who portrayed himself as a big Republican political consultant with all kinds of influential clients and associates. I wondered who on earth would hire or associate with him, but I figured when it comes to Republicans, you never know. Then when he gave me his card and the name of his organization was "The Smith Group" I almost choked laughing. He had a website, too--which also implied a big list of clients and employees without actually naming them. It was a hoot.


    Apologies if I exaggerated your position. I really, really wanted to write "tip of a Black PR iceberg."   ;^D

    Well, if he's overenthusiastic and unrealistic, that makes him what? Someone to insult and jeer at? This place could use a dose of the unreasonably idealistic.

    Re: Visceral Reaction  - a personal viewpoint

    1) It wasn't that the word Fascism was used, but that there was a seemly complete discounting of the negative consequences of the use of the word in terms of reaching the people he claims to want to be awaken

    2) There is a fine line between writing blogs that are informative and coming onto a site like this and seemingly having the attitude that one is informing people of things they were completely unaware of.

    3) There is a fine line between expressing one's opinion about the way forward and seemingly asserting one know's the only way forward while everyone else are idiots or deluded (and typing from their mamma's basement) and doing nothing to help the country

    4)  There is a fine line between providing constructive criticism and completely discounting the writings of other bloggers because they are not in the style nor content-based the way one believes all political blogs should be.

    Well, I didn't see a lot of people trying to engage him or ask for clarification - seems they started off insulting and dismissing.

    And people should engage self-identified professional P.R. writers, when the same people are of the opinion that their writing sucks, and instead of criticizing their writing, should ask them for clarification? Because?

    Seems to me that if one was attempting to be a professional P.R. writer, trying to inspire people to act on something, or trying to put a spin on something, one would actually welcome knowing why one's writing wasn't accomplishing that for some folks.

    Unless, of course, the "fuck-you-audience" thing is part of the writer's shtick, and the writer thinks he is a performance artiste posing as a PR writer. In which case, criticizing or booing or applauding the work, or saying meh, is exceptionally appropriate.

    The weren't criticizing his work - they were asking who sent him, calling him a Paultard, and whatever else necessary to avoid evaluating his work.

    I disagreed with his definition of fascism because it left out the domestic street violence and general thuggery. Other than that, I still don't see what he said is so much different than anyone else.

    I didn't insult him. I took his position seriously by challenging one part of it. If he had replied to my comment, I would have tried to reply to that too. But he didn't reply.

    Nothing comes from nothing.



    That he would choose to go after destor and moat specifically when they had only challenged his position, and had done so without any ill nature demonstrates why many have decided that IBB is not worth engaging. If you'll look back (Peracles), I did try to engage and even defend him, but as I've said above, he's exceeded my ability to assume good faith. (I like to think that I generally do a pretty good job of assuming good faith.)

    The first reactions to him were highly insulting.

    Perhaps he didn't notice a change of heart, but TMac certainly hasn't let go of the bone.

    Then why focus his energy on moat and destor (calling them Bill and Ted), two of the few people who had not insulted him, but had rather actually discussed the issues? What does that choice tell you?

    Maybe he was trying to be funny with "Big Adventure"?

    Maybe he just didn't back up.

    It truly saddens me that with all the things you could be doing to wrest control of our nation from the global corporate fascist elite and restore our Constitutional Republic, you instead prefer to childishly continue throwing insult spitballs at an impervious battleship.  I will try once more to get you to focus on the Message more so than the Messenger:

    Latest Comments