NationStates Jolt Archive

Ever since the 60s or so, it seems "cool" to be rebellious, to have no respect for authority figures. Do people forget all the good things that the establishment is responsible for, like law and order, education, police, military, healthcare, or is it just an identity to be anti-establishment?

I think institutions of a free society should be respected. Doesn't mean they can't be modified to suit the changing needs of society, but the anarchists' talk of doing away with the government, and the communists' talk of a utopian paradise seems laughably ridiculous to me.

It's all drug enduced. (trust me)

Why is your name RocktheCasbah then?

Why is your name RocktheCasbah then?

that was my first reaction too. a man with a clash song giving out about people questioning authority? :confused:

Why is your name RocktheCasbah then?
It's a good song. Actually, it was National Review's list of the top 50 conservative songs.

Establishments are great places to get established. :)

the problem with the establishment is its so darn established

And the fact that Anarchists and communists can be anti-establishment is a sign that they are worth it no matter how crazy there ideals are (and every opinion has equal value under the establishment which makes them a tad hypocritical?)

It's a good song. Actually, it was National Review's list of the top 50 conservative songs.

it was a clash song, how the fuck is it conservative?

it was a clash song, how the fuck is it conservative?
If you read the lyrics, it's actually about the hypocrisy of mid east mullahs who like to ban things like rock music and other Western exports while being more than happy to enjoy them themselves.

the problem with the establishment is its so darn established

And the fact that Anarchists and communists can be anti-establishment is a sign that they are worth it no matter how crazy there ideals are (and every opinion has equal value under the establishment which makes them a tad hypocritical?)
But why are you assuming that it's a good thing to be anti-establishment? Don't you think that maybe making peace with the establishment is a sign of maturity?

It's a good song. Actually, it was National Review's list of the top 50 conservative songs.

Isn't that the same magazine that said the Reagan Youth were some of Reagan's best supporters with their lyrics?

If you read the lyrics, it's actually about the hypocrisy of mid east mullahs who like to ban things like rock music and other Western exports while being more than happy to enjoy them themselves.

Uh, that's hardly Conservative there, bucko...

But why are you assuming that it's a good thing to be anti-establishment? Don't you think that maybe making peace with the establishment is a sign of maturity?

I would never say giving up on your beliefs and accepting what the establishment wants out of lack of will is ever a mature thing

Then again when has politics ever been mature?

But why are you assuming that it's a good thing to be anti-establishment? Don't you think that maybe making peace with the establishment is a sign of maturity?

Depends what establishment we're talking about. Powerfult institutions must be closely watchedto ensure that nobody is abusing their power. Blind respect is the worst thing ina democratic society.

If you read the lyrics, it's actually about the hypocrisy of mid east mullahs who like to ban things like rock music and other Western exports while being more than happy to enjoy them themselves.


But why are you assuming that it's a good thing to be anti-establishment? Don't you think that maybe making peace with the establishment is a sign of maturity?

The irony....

I would never say giving up on your beliefs and accepting what the establishment wants out of lack of will is ever a mature thing

Then again when has politics ever been mature?
I'm not saying you should blindly follow, but saying that we should just do away with it all and believing that you would still have a good lifestyle is ridiculous.

Real rebels don't support centralized state authority :p

From the very start, nobody has been as easy to recognize as a "rebel". Why? Because they all look the same. They are uniform. The hippy, the goth, etc. Think about it. Members of outcast groups in society often make an effort to look and act exactly like each other, in turn becoming more constricted in dress and behavior than they were in the first place. Besides, the "system" is what gives us all food, clothing, and shelter, along with the many other pleasant things that go along with modern free society. :D

From the very start, nobody has been as easy to recognize as a "rebel". Why? Because they all look the same. They are uniform. The hippy, the goth, etc. Think about it. Members of outcast groups in society often make an effort to look and act exactly like each other, in turn becoming more constricted in dress and behavior than they were in the first place. Besides, the "system" is what gives us all food, clothing, and shelter, along with the many other pleasant things that go along with modern free society. :D
True, so true.

Amazing, sombody agreed with me on a social issue on this forum. Impressive. :D

To either rebel against or support the establishment simply on the principle of doing so are both signs of stunted emotional growth. Maturity looks at the facts, then decides for itself, and is not afraid to support or oppose the norm where such action is required.

To either rebel against or support the establishment simply on the principle of doing so are both signs of stunted emotional growth. Maturity looks at the facts, then decides for itself, and is not afraid to support or oppose the norm where such action is required.

*hands you a cookie*

I'm not saying you should blindly follow, but saying that we should just do away with it all and believing that you would still have a good lifestyle is ridiculous.Why is that?

To either rebel against or support the establishment simply on the principle of doing so are both signs of stunted emotional growth. Maturity looks at the facts, then decides for itself, and is not afraid to support or oppose the norm where such action is required.

Very true,but there is a huge gap between opposing the establishment and actualy being a rebel against it. For example, I do not like the establishment position on abortion, but you won't see me writhing around on the ground with tape over my mouth on the steps of the Supreme Court. Nor will I shoot an abortionist. But I will use the system itself to try to get my way. I send money to pro-life organizations.

Ever since the 60s or so
Correction: Since the dawn of government.
it seems "cool" to be rebellious, to have no respect for authority figures.
What, you like being told what to do?
Do people forget all the good things that the establishment is responsible for, like law and order, education, police, military, healthcare,
war, nuclear weapons, genocide, vx nerve agents, and all that pleasant stuff...
or is it just an identity to be anti-establishment?
Yes? WTF does this question mean?

I think institutions of a free society should be respected. So, you're a supporter of CRASH, then?
Doesn't mean they can't be modified to suit the changing needs of society
It's not that they can't be, but that they won't be.
but the anarchists' talk of doing away with the government,Anarchists talk of order by choice, instead of order by force.
and the communists' talk of a utopian paradise seems laughably ridiculous to me.
And why is that?

Isn't that the same magazine that said the Reagan Youth were some of Reagan's best supporters with their lyrics?

Well... In a party full of semi-facistic totalitarians, that might not be so hard to recognize:

"We are the sons of Reagan ...Heil!
Gonna kill us some pagans ...Heil!
The right's your sacred mission
Start an inquisition
Gonna purge the heathen minds!

We are Reagan Youth! ...Heil! Heil! Heil!
Reagan Youth ...Zeig Heil!"

Fallwell and his ilk would just take them seriously.

Well... In a party full of semi-facistic totalitarians, that might not be so hard to reckognize:

"We are the sons of Reagan ...Heil!
Gonna kill us some pagans ...Heil!
The right's your sacred mission
Start an inquisition
Gonna purge the heathen minds!

We are Reagan Youth! ...Heil! Heil! Heil!
Reagan Youth ...Zeig Heil!"

Fallwell and his ilk would just take them seriously.

Got that right.

Correction: Since the dawn of government.

What, you like being told what to do?

war, nuclear weapons, genocide, vx nerve agents, and all that pleasant stuff...

Yes? WTF does this question mean?

So, you're a supporter of CRASH, then?

It's not that they can't be, but that they won't be.
Anarchists talk of order by choice, instead of order by force.

And why is that?

Rebellion has been cool since the dawn of Government? You obviously never took a passing look at a history book. Usually you got murdered.
If you can't see that since the 1960's a new view of "alternative" lifestyles that is more lenient to them has developed I don't know what to tell you. Are we better off for it? NO.

Correction: Since the dawn of government.

What, you like being told what to do?

war, nuclear weapons, genocide, vx nerve agents, and all that pleasant stuff...

Yes? WTF does this question mean?

So, you're a supporter of CRASH, then?

It's not that they can't be, but that they won't be.
Anarchists talk of order by choice, instead of order by force.

And why is that?
I don't like being told what to do, but I am mature enough to realize that there is a reason for it, and that in a civilized society you need people to command and obey.

So I suppose we should do away with the government and live like monkeys because they're responsible for some bad things.

The establisment is always getting changed. Remember the civil rights movement?

Communism has failed everywhere because it's a moot economic and social theory. The definition of insanity is to try something that failed and expect it to succeed.

If you can't see that since the 1960's a new view of "alternative" lifestyles that is more lenient to them has developed I don't know what to tell you. Are we better off for it?Absolutely.

Rebellion has been cool since the dawn of Government? You obviously never took a passing look at a history book. Usually you got murdered.
If you can't see that since the 1960's a new view of "alternative" lifestyles that is more lenient to them has developed I don't know what to tell you. Are we better off for it? NO.

It must be so horrible for you to see niggers in our nation's classrooms.

Without rebellion, we'd still have segregation. Women would be confined to the house. And, without rebellion, we'd not be our own sovereign nation.

Communism has failed everywhere because it's a moot economic and social theory. The definition of insanity is to try something that failed and expect it to succeed.Except for the fact that it hasn't been tried.

Besides, the "system" is what gives us all food, clothing, and shelter, along with the many other pleasant things that go along with modern free society. :D


and backwards closed societies dont feed and clothe their people?

why does being opposes to the 'establishment' automatically imply you want to 'destroy' the system that the establishment run?

its typical of conservatives to put words in peoples mouths like this.

It must be so horrible for you to see niggers in our nation's classrooms.

Well, interesting that you should say that. Schools are just as segregated now as they ever have been, so your point is nonsensical.

Ever since the 60s or so, it seems "cool" to be rebellious, to have no respect for authority figures. Do people forget all the good things that the establishment is responsible for, like law and order, education, police, military, healthcare, or is it just an identity to be anti-establishment?

I think institutions of a free society should be respected. Doesn't mean they can't be modified to suit the changing needs of society, but the anarchists' talk of doing away with the government, and the communists' talk of a utopian paradise seems laughably ridiculous to me.

What the fuck has Communism or Anarchism got to do with "The Establishment"? They are an establishment of their own at this point. The government is an insignificant part of the real establishment.

The real establishment is the force which wants to cram us all into 50's suburban homes where we can watch mindless football games, get drunk, and curse about "Them damn hippies". It's the force that wants every man to work at a boring corporate job doing the same thing day in, day out, and every woman to slave in the kitchen. It is the force which causes so many Americans to hate intellectuals and to declare that their furry, smelly, brutes can beat up honors stidents. It's the force that wants us to look, act, and think the same. It crushes creativity, destroys disent, undermines the ability to think an act, rather than to simply exist. It is the force of decay and the harbinger of stupidity.

Who in their right mind wants to live in a box?

Except for the fact that it hasn't been tried.

Communism has been "tried" dozens of times. In each case they only way to enforce it was through oppression, thereby making it an unworkable system that..in the end, was worse then Nazism. That is why it is as dead as a coffin nail.

Well, interesting that you should say that. Schools are just as segregated now as they ever have been, so your point is nonsensical.

Oh, they are?

Every school I've attended has had a balanced mix of students. What's more frightening about your post is that you didn't deny my accusation.

What the fuck has Communism or Anarchism got to do with "The Establishment"? They are an establishment of their own at this point. The government is an insignificant part of the real establishment.

The real establishment is the force which wants to cram us all into 50's suburban homes where we can watch mindless football games, get drunk, and curse about "Them damn hippies". It's the force that wants every man to work at a boring corporate job doing the same thing day in, day out, and every woman to slave in the kitchen. It is the force which causes so many Americans to hate intellectuals and to declare that their furry, smelly, brutes can beat up honors stidents. It's the force that wants us to look, act, and think the same. It crushes creativity, destroys disent, undermines the ability to think an act, rather than to simply exist. It is the force of decay and the harbinger of stupidity.

Who in their right mind wants to live in a box?
Interesting you should mention the bit about dissent. The PC-nazis aren't exactly the biggest fans of free speech, and most of them aren't conservative. You make it sound like there's some big conspiracy turning us into mindless drones. There is no conspiracy.

What the fuck has Communism or Anarchism got to do with "The Establishment"? They are an establishment of their own at this point. The government is an insignificant part of the real establishment.

The real establishment is the force which wants to cram us all into 50's suburban homes where we can watch mindless football games, get drunk, and curse about "Them damn hippies". It's the force that wants every man to work at a boring corporate job doing the same thing day in, day out, and every woman to slave in the kitchen. It is the force which causes so many Americans to hate intellectuals and to declare that their furry, smelly, brutes can beat up honors stidents. It's the force that wants us to look, act, and think the same. It crushes creativity, destroys disent, undermines the ability to think an act, rather than to simply exist. It is the force of decay and the harbinger of stupidity.

Who in their right mind wants to live in a box?
Well said

It is about breaking out of societal norms not just about the government, sometimes the government enforces thoes norms and we fight against them, but thoes norms can and do exist outside of the government

Oh, they are?

Every school I've attended has had a balanced mix of students. What's more frightening about your post is that you didn't deny my accusation.
I think you're going way out of line to accuse him of racism. You don't know him, and he hasn't said anything that would imply racism. Of course, you're free to slander and make wild accusations, what with freedom of speech and all.

and backwards closed societies dont feed and clothe their people?

why does being opposes to the 'establishment' automatically imply you want to 'destroy' the system that the establishment run?

its typical of conservatives to put words in peoples mouths like this.


Well, I don't know who's mouth you think I put words in, but I was talking about those who rebel, in my post which you cut in half to respond too. :p
If you reject the society that you live in you become a non-member of that society,thereby losing your social capital and your ability to imporve your own lot. No business executive wears tie dye to important trade negotiations, no politician runs for office with a lip ring. We don't let spanish speakers pilot American airlines planes. In order to make the most of yourself in society, you must be an enthusiastic melter in our melting pot.

Communism has been "tried" dozens of times. In each case they only way to enforce it was through oppression, thereby making it an unworkable system that..in the end, was worse then Nazism. In which case it wasn't communism, and therefore communism hasn't been tried.

That is why it is as dead as a coffin nail.Anarcho-communism is a growing movement.

Interesting you should mention the bit about dissent. The PC-nazis aren't exactly the biggest fans of free speech, and most of them aren't conservative. You make it sound like there's some big conspiracy turning us into mindless drones. There is no conspiracy.
No conspiricy, that implies active controll of events we are talking more social pressures.

And while I hate PC a lot of idiots on the right push their own version of PC. Look at thoes that freaked the hell out over the myspace group on here called "Fuck the troops" or something to that effect. They just like PC applied to their pet groups

It's a good song. Actually, it was National Review's list of the top 50 conservative songs.

This is the same list that declares the Sex Pistols' "Bodies" to be anything other than a song designed to piss everyone off, Blue Oyster Cult's "Godzilla" to be about the "Folly of liberalism", and Bob Dylan of belonging on a Conservative Rock list...

In short, the list is full of shit.

Well said

It is about breaking out of societal norms not just about the government, sometimes the government enforces thoes norms and we fight against them, but thoes norms can and do exist outside of the government
I think fighitng against injustices like racism, or no women's rights, or slavery, is an honorable thing, but fighting against the government simply because it is is just immature.

I think you're going way out of line to accuse him of racism. You don't know him, and he hasn't said anything that would imply racism. Of course, you're free to slander and make wild accusations, what with freedom of speech and all.

Well, I got exactly what I wanted out of you. At least you don't mind free speech, eh?

Now, will Barry be as willing...?

I don't like being told what to do, but I am mature enough to realize that there is a reason for it, and that in a civilized society you need people to command and obey.
Why is there a need for people to command?

So I suppose we should do away with the government and live like monkeys because they're responsible for some bad things.
Some bad things? Try most bad things. The only bad thing that government hasn't created is disease.

The establisment is always getting changed. Remember the civil rights movement? So black folks can piss where they want. Doesn't change that fact that they're still getting fucked over by government.

Communism has failed everywhere because it's a moot economic and social theory. The definition of insanity is to try something that failed and expect it to succeed.
Your screwed up Ben Franklin quote is incredibly persuasive :rolleyes:
And, just FYI, the actual quote is "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
Communism is just as bad as any other system, and could be better in the right conditions.


And you should change your name, people might think you're a fan of The Clash.

The real establishment is the force which wants to cram us all into 50's suburban homes where we can watch mindless football games, get drunk, and curse about "Them damn hippies". It's the force that wants every man to work at a boring corporate job doing the same thing day in, day out, and every woman to slave in the kitchen. It is the force which causes so many Americans to hate intellectuals and to declare that their furry, smelly, brutes can beat up honors stidents. It's the force that wants us to look, act, and think the same. It crushes creativity, destroys disent, undermines the ability to think an act, rather than to simply exist. It is the force of decay and the harbinger of stupidity.

Who in their right mind wants to live in a box?

Yet, somehow, in 1776-1960 America led the free world and became a superpower of both foreign affairs AND CULTURE. You missed out on American history classes.

Interesting you should mention the bit about dissent. The PC-nazis aren't exactly the biggest fans of free speech, and most of them aren't conservative. You make it sound like there's some big conspiracy turning us into mindless drones. There is no conspiracy.

PC-Nazi's certainly aren't anti-establishment...

As to "No Conspiracy", I agree entirely. Society doesn't need a conspiracy. It has a stronger force at it's disposal.

Sex.

What the fuck has Communism or Anarchism got to do with "The Establishment"? They are an establishment of their own at this point. The government is an insignificant part of the real establishment.

The real establishment is the force which wants to cram us all into 50's suburban homes where we can watch mindless football games, get drunk, and curse about "Them damn hippies". It's the force that wants every man to work at a boring corporate job doing the same thing day in, day out, and every woman to slave in the kitchen. It is the force which causes so many Americans to hate intellectuals and to declare that their furry, smelly, brutes can beat up honors stidents. It's the force that wants us to look, act, and think the same. It crushes creativity, destroys disent, undermines the ability to think an act, rather than to simply exist. It is the force of decay and the harbinger of stupidity.

Who in their right mind wants to live in a box?
Who in their right mind calls themselves "Kinda Sensible People" and then makes posts which contain nothing BUT nonsense? Sheesh! :rolleyes:

No conspiricy, that implies active controll of events we are talking more social pressures.

And while I hate PC a lot of idiots on the right push their own version of PC. Look at thoes that freaked the hell out over the myspace group on here called "Fuck the troops" or something to that effect. They just like PC applied to their pet groups
1. That may be true in some places, but I think most families won't something more for their kids. For instance, most families are against their sons joining the military.

2. Fully agreed. I hold liberals responsible for the rise of PC, but conservatives are also just as guilty. Flag-burning amendment? Regulating the internet? I expect more from conservatives.

Oh, they are?

Every school I've attended has had a balanced mix of students. What's more frightening about your post is that you didn't deny my accusation.

Well, lets look at where I lived in my public school years....Alabama. We had some blacks but not many. Once I moved to NY's suburbs there were NONE. NONE. They cram them all into failing inner city schools and don't even teach them how to read. Yet the lefties in NY still praise Brown v. Board of ed. Amazing.

1. That may be true in some places, but I think most families won't something more for their kids. For instance, most families are against their sons joining the military.

2. Fully agreed. I hold liberals responsible for the rise of PC, but conservatives are also just as guilty. Flag-burning amendment? Regulating the internet? I expect more from conservatives.
How are liberals responsible for the rise of PC?

Yet, somehow, in 1776-1960 America led the free world and became a superpower of both foreign affairs AND CULTURE. You missed out on American history classes.

You mean with our musical influence on the world? While the rest of the world was creating masterful classical music, we had no famous (or credible) composers at all (and, TBH, we still don't).

How about our artists? American art... Well, it was beautiful for it's natural landscapes, but there are no "great American painters" either.

Now I'll grant you our writers. Twain, Thoreau, Emerson, Stowe, Steinbeck, and Fitzgerald. All of them were anti establishment.

So much for "American Culture" eh?

I think you're going way out of line to accuse him of racism. You don't know him, and he hasn't said anything that would imply racism. Of course, you're free to slander and make wild accusations, what with freedom of speech and all.

Yeah, I am not a racist in any way. I have even had an interracial relationship. He should enjoy his freedom of speech by slandering sombody else.

Well, lets look at where I lived in my public school years....Alabama. We had some blacks but not many. Once I moved to NY's suburbs there were NONE. NONE. They cram them all into failing inner city schools and don't even teach them how to read. Yet the lefties in NY still praise Brown v. Board of ed. Amazing.

Nah, couldn't be because their parents don't make enough money to live in the nicer parts of town...

...Wait a minute, I thought you were PRAISING the establishment here! How things change.

Who in their right mind calls themselves "Kinda Sensible People" and then makes posts which contain nothing BUT nonsense? Sheesh! :rolleyes:

Adress the arguement or go back to sitting on your couch watching talk shows and obsessing about meaningless tripe.

In which case it wasn't communism, and therefore communism hasn't been tried.

Anarcho-communism is a growing movement.

You don't get it. Communism cannot be enforced without DICTATORSHIP. THAT IS WHY ANY COMMUNIST SYSTEM ALWAYS ENDS UP WITH ONE. Communism has always been a front to establish a rabid absolute ruler. It is a useless ideology because they only way to enforce it is to destory its most basic concepts. That is why it is dead.

I think fighitng against injustices like racism, or no women's rights, or slavery, is an honorable thing, but fighting against the government simply because it is is just immature.
Did you read what I wrote? did you actualy read it?

Ok I will simplify it for you ... fighting the establishment is fighting social norms in all their forms

If the government is the enforcer of thoes norms we fight the government if not we dont

You are trying to create almost a borderline strawman there we are Not fighting against just the government

No conspiricy, that implies active controll of events we are talking more social pressures.

And while I hate PC a lot of idiots on the right push their own version of PC. Look at thoes that freaked the hell out over the myspace group on here called "Fuck the troops" or something to that effect. They just like PC applied to their pet groups

So now "the troops" are the right wing's pet group? Funny to hear that coming from you.

Why is there a need for people to command?


Some bad things? Try most bad things. The only bad thing that government hasn't created is disease.

So black folks can piss where they want. Doesn't change that fact that they're still getting fucked over by government.


Your screwed up Ben Franklin quote is incredibly persuasive :rolleyes:
And, just FYI, the actual quote is "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
Communism is just as bad as any other system, and could be better in the right conditions.


And you should change your name, people might think you're a fan of The Clash.
People need to be commanded because every one needs a job, and not everyone can be at the top. Therefore, the ones at the bottom or in the middle need to be told by the guy at the top what to do because most likely he knows what he's doing. Just like in any corporation.
If you don't the government so much, why don't you pack your bags and head out for the Amazon? Or sub-saharan africa? You're more than happy to bitch about the establishment, but when payday comes, you're the first one there aren't you?
Black people can vote in every state now. Blacks are making more and more progress in government, economy, culture, and education than ever. Your statement of them "being allowed to piss where they want" is not only extremely patronizing, but also does a huge discredit towards the civil rights movement.

I am a fan of the Clash.

You mean with our musical influence on the world? While the rest of the world was creating masterful classical music, we had no famous (or credible) composers at all (and, TBH, we still don't).
We make up for it with folk music. House of the Rising Sun FTW!

How about our artists? American art... Well, it was beautiful for it's natural landscapes, but there are no "great American painters" either.
...No? What about Grant Wood?

You don't get it. Communism cannot be enforced without DICTATORSHIP. THAT IS WHY ANY COMMUNIST SYSTEM ALWAYS ENDS UP WITH ONE. Communism has always been a front to establish a rabid absolute ruler. It is a useless ideology because they only way to enforce it is to destory its most basic concepts. That is why it is dead.

Check out the Paris Commune and Spain during its civil war in the 1930's.

"anarchism: the drug enduced fantassy of the politically uninformed"

If the “establishment” or parts of it are inefficient, then they should be changed, yes, but some authority must always be preserved. People are far too stupid, irrational, hateful and selfish to make decisions that affect anything more than their own lives, businesses and families. Even then they fail more often than not.

Only a strong central authority made up of the right people can ensure freedom, comfort and peace for the most people possible, and only a central authority can properly administer aid to those without freedom, peace and comfort.

I expect more from conservatives.

I expect less. They've always hated free speech and always will. How can you lie to people when someone else speaks the truth?

We make up for it with folk music. House of the Rising Sun FTW!

As may be. He talked about American culture on the World Stage. We didn't have any.

Hell, even the first "modern" Rock came from Britain after they picked up the first wave of American Rock 'n Roll.

So now "the troops" are the right wing's pet group? Funny to hear that coming from you.
Its all about view ... they view the troups as a traditional right wing voting block (which as of late is true)

Personaly I would like them to see the left as someone that does not hate them in general

But as things stand right now the right wing has seemed to have it in their mind to support that voting block at almost the exclusion of any one else other then the christian block.

They seem to want a corner on the "True patriotism" market as well

Either or they have shown over and over a will to try to enforce PC on anyone that likes to speek out about the troups or the government

Why is there a need for people to command?


Some bad things? Try most bad things. The only bad thing that government hasn't created is disease.

So black folks can piss where they want. Doesn't change that fact that they're still getting fucked over by government.


Your screwed up Ben Franklin quote is incredibly persuasive :rolleyes:
And, just FYI, the actual quote is "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
Communism is just as bad as any other system, and could be better in the right conditions.


And you should change your name, people might think you're a fan of The Clash.
You got it backwards, there is no need for people to command, there is a need for people to do the commanding. Society without leadership in anarchy. Anarchy breeds chaors, which in turn decreases quality of life.
I agree that government is not the solution to our problems. It is the problem. It is a huge wasteful mess. This does not mean we destroy it. It means we fix it. How are blacks getting screwed by the government? They certainly get a lot more help than I ever will, and they get affirmative action even though they are per capita a bigger security risk. Communism killed...
USSR, 20 million deaths; China, 65 million deaths; Vietnam, 1 million deaths; North Korea, 2 million deaths; Cambodia, 2 million deaths; Eastern Europe, 1 million deaths; Latin America, 150,000 deaths; Africa, 1.7 million deaths; Afghanistan, 1.5 million deaths; the international communist movement and communist parties not in power, about 10,000 deaths. Just as bad as "any other system"? You be the judge. They even beat the Nazis hands down.

Now I'll grant you our writers. Twain, Thoreau, Emerson, Stowe, Steinbeck, and Fitzgerald. All of them were anti establishment.The last of which lived in Europe for a sizable portion of his career.

You don't get it. Communism cannot be enforced without DICTATORSHIP. THAT IS WHY ANY COMMUNIST SYSTEM ALWAYS ENDS UP WITH ONE.No, you don't get it. If there is a dictatorship, it isn't communism. That is why those systems weren't communist. (Never minding the fact that a dictatorship isn't necessary.)

Communism has always been a front to establish a rabid absolute ruler. It is a useless ideology because they only way to enforce it is to destory its most basic concepts. That is why it is dead.Which is yet another reason why those systems weren't communist systems. You said it yourself - they wanted to be dictators, and used communism as a way to achieve that. It wasn't the other way around.

And, once again, I have to mention that anarcho-communism is growing.

You mean with our musical influence on the world? While the rest of the world was creating masterful classical music, we had no famous (or credible) composers at all (and, TBH, we still don't).

How about our artists? American art... Well, it was beautiful for it's natural landscapes, but there are no "great American painters" either.

Now I'll grant you our writers. Twain, Thoreau, Emerson, Stowe, Steinbeck, and Fitzgerald. All of them were anti establishment.

So much for "American Culture" eh?
No great American composers? Hmm. How about Aaron Jay Kernis, Sheila Silver, Hannibal Peterson, Philip Glass, David Lang, Bun-ching Lam, Anthony Advise, John Cage, John Adams, Morton Subotnick, Olly Wilson, Louis Ballard, Joan Tower, Julia Wolfe, Charles Wuorinen, Ellen Taaffe Zwilich and Joseph Schwantner, just to name a few?

No great American artists? Hmm. This site (http://www.tfaoi.com/distingu/alvarez.htm) lists over 2,600 deceased American painters, sculptors and photographers.

All the writers you listed were anti-establishment, eh? Some proof of this bald-faced allegation would be nice.

In short, you have NO idea what you're talking about ... as usual. :rolleyes:

How are liberals responsible for the rise of PC?
The touchy feely garbage that came in with the feminist and civil rights movement where it isnt a quota: its affirmative action
it isnt a garbageman.....its a sanitation worker
it isnt a mailman...its a mail carrier
it isnt an abortion...its choice
it isnt a liberal..its a progressive
it isnt an Indian...its a native american

that sort of crap is not invented by Conservatives I can assure you.

Check out the Paris Commune and Spain during its civil war in the 1930's.
LMAO! :D

Who in their right mind calls themselves "Kinda Sensible People" and then makes posts which contain nothing BUT nonsense? Sheesh! :rolleyes:
You seem to have been rather more uppity than usual lately. Something up in Eut's world?

People need to be commanded because every one needs a job, and not everyone can be at the top. Therefore, the ones at the bottom or in the middle need to be told by the guy at the top what to do because most likely he knows what he's doing. Just like in any corporation.
And, in reality, it's the low level workers with the knowledge, and management that leeches off their work. All management provides is capital: a place to work, and equipment.
If you don't the government so much, why don't you pack your bags and head out for the Amazon? Or sub-saharan africa? You're more than happy to bitch about the establishment, but when payday comes, you're the first one there aren't you?
First of all, I'm sixteen, I don't have a job. And in... one year, one month, and thirteen days, plus 13 weeks (I think, I don't know how long Basic is...), I'll be heading for Iraq. Not much government over there...
Black people can vote in every state now. Blacks are making more and more progress in government, economy, culture, and education than ever. Your statement of them "being allowed to piss where they want" is not only extremely patronizing, but also does a huge discredit towards the civil rights movement.
Civil rights movement did many great things, yes, and I'm not discrediting it at all. I'm just saying that, while the government is happy to bring Uncle Tom onto the senate so he can tell Mr. Charlie everything is A-OK, the Establishment is doing what it can to keep blacks in the dirt as long as possible.
How was what I said patronizing? (TBH, I don't even really know what it "patronizing" means...)

I am a fan of the Clash.
lol, you sure are.

The touchy feely garbage that came in with the feminist and civil rights movement where it isnt a quota: its affirmative action
it isnt a garbageman.....its a sanitation worker
it isnt a mailman...its a mail carrier
it isnt an abortion...its choice
it isnt a liberal..its a progressive
it isnt an Indian...its a native american

that sort of crap is not invented by Conservatives I can assure you.
No they seem content to limit dissenting speach alone

Hell look at that supid flag burning proposition

You mean with our musical influence on the world? While the rest of the world was creating masterful classical music, we had no famous (or credible) composers at all (and, TBH, we still don't).

How about our artists? American art... Well, it was beautiful for it's natural landscapes, but there are no "great American painters" either.

Now I'll grant you our writers. Twain, Thoreau, Emerson, Stowe, Steinbeck, and Fitzgerald. All of them were anti establishment.

So much for "American Culture" eh?
Never seen whistler's mother?
Wood's American gothic?
Hopper's nighthawks?
Never heard Aaron Copland or Sousa? Or seen a motion picture? Good grief.

The touchy feely garbage that came in with the feminist and civil rights movement where it isnt a quota: its affirmative action
it isnt a garbageman.....its a sanitation worker
it isnt a mailman...its a mail carrier
it isnt an abortion...its choice
it isnt a liberal..its a progressive
it isnt an Indian...its a native american

that sort of crap is not invented by Conservatives I can assure you.
What about the fact that people aren't allowed to say "Fuck that baby in the head" (figuratively of course) on prime time network television. That's conservative pc bullshit.

You seem to have been rather more uppity than usual lately. Something up in Eut's world?
"Uppity?" Hmmm. Interesting choice of words.

As may be. He talked about American culture on the World Stage. We didn't have any.

Hell, even the first "modern" Rock came from Britain after they picked up the first wave of American Rock 'n Roll.

England even had the first Punk Rock band. Sure, the Ramones got their act together first and started gigging earlier (formed 1973, started playing in 1974), but the Sex Pistols were an international hit (well, everywhere save for the States, oddly enough). They may have bummed around for a few years (started in 1972 as The Strand, became the Sex Pistols in 1975 with a total of two original songs at their disposal, written in '72 and '74), but they toured all over the place, sold millions of records (despite major pressure from governments and labels), and were beloved by millions of fans.

And only now is Punk Rock even partially popular in the States. It's been 31 years since the Ramones released their first recording (1975), and the genre still hasn't picked up steam over here like it has in the rest of the industrialised world.

I mean, shit. You even have to find special radio stations if you want to hear the stuff without paying for it. It's a culturally significant genre with a lot of heart and meaning, and it's still next to nothing in this country.

Check out the Paris Commune and Spain during its civil war in the 1930's.

Are you talking about the socialist ( not communist) government that ran France for two months (lol) in 1878? And Francisco Franco? You must be sarcastic or somthing...

Ever since the 60s or so, it seems "cool" to be rebellious, to have no respect for authority figures. Do people forget all the good things that the establishment is responsible for, like law and order, education, police, military, healthcare, or is it just an identity to be anti-establishment?

I think institutions of a free society should be respected. Doesn't mean they can't be modified to suit the changing needs of society, but the anarchists' talk of doing away with the government, and the communists' talk of a utopian paradise seems laughably ridiculous to me.
Right, 'cause during Prohibition, everybody had the utmost respect for Law, Order, and acting uptight.

Where do you get these notions? Fortune cookies?

Never seen whistler's mother?
Wood's American gothic?
Hopper's nighthawks?
Never heard Aaron Copland or Sousa? Or seen a motion picture? Good grief.
He lacked proper parental supervision. :D

I expect less. They've always hated free speech and always will. How can you lie to people when someone else speaks the truth?

And freedom of speech was put in the Constitution by a Conservative you dolt.

I am a fan of the Clash.


So You approve of the following messages:


Hate and war - the only things we got today

An' if I close my eyes
They will not go away
You have to deal with it
It is the currency

Hate...hate...hate...

The hate of a nation
A million miles from home
An' get war from the junkies
Who don't like my form

I'm gonna stay in the city
Even when the house fall down
I don't dream of a holiday
When hate an' war come around

Hate and war...


The offered me the office, offered me the shop
They said I'd better take anything they'd got
Do you wanna make tea at the BBC?
Do you wanna be, do you really wanna be a cop?

Career opportunities are the ones that never knock
Every job they offer you is to keep you out the dock
Career opportunity, the ones that never knock

I hate the army an' I hate the R.A.F.
I don't wanna go fighting in the tropical heat
I hate the civil service rules
And I won't open letter bombs for you


This is a public service announcement
With guitar
Know your rights all three of them

Number 1
You have the right not to be killed
Murder is a CRIME!
Unless it was done by a
Policeman or aristocrat
Know your rights

And Number 2
You have the right to food money
Providing of course you
Don't mind a little
Investigation, humiliation
And if you cross your fingers
Rehabilitation

Know your rights
These are your rights
Wang

Know these rights

Number 3
You have the right to free
Speech as long as you're not
Dumb enough to actually try it.

Funny we should talk about the Establishment


I'm all lost in the supermarket
I can no longer shop happily
I came in here for that special offer
A guaranteed personality

I wasn't born so much as I fell out
Nobody seemed to notice me
We had a hedge back home in the suburbs
Over which I never could see

I heard the people who lived on the ceiling
Scream and fight most scarily
Hearing that noise was my first ever feeling
That's how it's been all around me

And let's close with one about Vietnam.


There ain't no need for ya
Go straight to hell boys

Y'wanna join in a chorus
Of the Amerasian blues?
When it's Christmas out in Ho Chi Minh City
Kiddie say papa papa papa papa-san take me home
See me got photo photo
Photograph of you
Mamma Mamma Mamma-san
Of you and Mamma Mamma Mamma-san
Lemme tell ya 'bout your blood bamboo kid.
It ain't Coca-Cola it's rice.

Straight to hell
Oh Papa-san
Please take me home
Oh Papa-san
Everybody they wanna go home
So Mamma-san says

You wanna play mind-crazed banjo
On the druggy-drag ragtime U.S.A.?
In Parkland International
Hah! Junkiedom U.S.A.
Where procaine proves the purest rock man groove
and rat poison
The volatile Molatov says-

Good Conservative rock, eh?

Its all about view ... they view the troups as a traditional right wing voting block (which as of late is true)

Personaly I would like them to see the left as someone that does not hate them in general

But as things stand right now the right wing has seemed to have it in their mind to support that voting block at almost the exclusion of any one else other then the christian block.

They seem to want a corner on the "True patriotism" market as well

Either or they have shown over and over a will to try to enforce PC on anyone that likes to speek out about the troups or the government
Maybe its the cutting and running thing. :D

Never seen whistler's mother?
Wood's American gothic?
Hopper's nighthawks?
Never heard Aaron Copland or Sousa? Or seen a motion picture? Good grief.

Don't forget Stanley Kubric, Roman Polanski, Woody Allen...

John Philip Sousa, now that's some good stuff.


We do have plenty of world-class cultural icons in various areas. Too bad something as good as Punk Rock is still mostly in the dark over here.

England even had the first Punk Rock band. Sure, the Ramones got their act together first and started gigging earlier (formed 1973, started playing in 1974), but the Sex Pistols were an international hit (well, everywhere save for the States, oddly enough). They may have bummed around for a few years (started in 1972 as The Strand, became the Sex Pistols in 1975 with a total of two original songs at their disposal, written in '72 and '74), but they toured all over the place, sold millions of records (despite major pressure from governments and labels), and were beloved by millions of fans.

And only now is Punk Rock even partially popular in the States. It's been 31 years since the Ramones released their first recording (1975), and the genre still hasn't picked up steam over here like it has in the rest of the industrialised world.

I mean, shit. You even have to find special radio stations if you want to hear the stuff without paying for it. It's a culturally significant genre with a lot of heart and meaning, and it's still next to nothing in this country.
There's only room for so much music in one country. The Brits get more punk and alternative rock, and we get more country.
And as for it being "culturally significant." Bullshit. I like the way it sounds too, but come on.

The touchy feely garbage that came in with the feminist and civil rights movement where it isnt a quota: its affirmative action
it isnt a garbageman.....its a sanitation worker
it isnt a mailman...its a mail carrier
it isnt an abortion...its choice
it isnt a liberal..its a progressive
it isnt an Indian...its a native american

that sort of crap is not invented by Conservatives I can assure you.
Look, I don't know any liberals who say shit like that. I say garbageman, mailman (actually, if the courier IS a woman, I say Maillady), I say abortion, leftist, and I have never, ever said Native American. Indian just sounds better. Sometimes I do say American Indian, but only when it's not clear which people I'm talking about.

And all my libby friends talk the same way.

No, you don't get it. If there is a dictatorship, it isn't communism. That is why those systems weren't communist. (Never minding the fact that a dictatorship isn't necessary.)

Which is yet another reason why those systems weren't communist systems. You said it yourself - they wanted to be dictators, and used communism as a way to achieve that. It wasn't the other way around.

And, once again, I have to mention that anarcho-communism is growing.

Communism can never be tried because it is not controllable without a dictator.

Are you talking about the socialist ( not communist) government that ran France for two months (lol) in 1878? And Francisco Franco? You must be sarcastic or somthing...It was 1871. And he wasn't referring to Franco, he was referring to the people opposing Franco.

Communism can never be tried because it is not controllable without a dictator.Proof?

I am a fan of the Clash.
The shittiest fan of the Clash I've ever had the misfortune to meet. Guess you don't actually, like, listen to their songs much.

And just FYI, 'Rock the Casbah' is just about the shittiest song they ever wrote.

Never heard Aaron Copland or Sousa? Or seen a motion picture? Good grief.

Sousa never made it to the world stage, and Copland was one man.

Good job. We clearly measure up to the world of countries like Germany with Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Bach (the whole slew of them), Handel, Haydn, etc.

Or even France with Ravel, Debussy, Berliotz, Saint-Saens, Fuare, etc.

Cultural superpower... Definitely.

And movies... Are part of the modern world's mindless force of uncreative, easily digested crap.

And freedom of speech was put in the Constitution by a Conservative you dolt.
Careful! "Dolt" isn't politically correct. Try "intellectually challenged." :D

And just FYI, 'Rock the Casbah' is just about the shittiest song they ever wrote.

Whys that?

Sousa never made it to the world stage, and Copland was one man.

Good job. We clearly measure up to the world of countries like Germany with Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Bach (the whole slew of them), Handel, Haydn, etc.

Or even France with Ravel, Debussy, Berliotz, Saint-Saens, Fuare, etc.

Cultural superpower... Definitely.
I note that you totally ignored the list I posted, which means that either you can't respond with your usual vitriol ... OR ... you have me on ignore! Yayyy! :D

Proof?
Proof that it can? You guys could argue this all day, but it isn't going to get you anywhere. If an anarcho-communist society is ever going to come into existence, it will.

Don't forget Stanley Kubric, Roman Polanski, Woody Allen...

John Philip Sousa, now that's some good stuff.
We were actually talking painters... Aren't they all photographers and directors?


We do have plenty of world-class cultural icons in various areas. Too bad something as good as Punk Rock is still mostly in the dark over here.
Depends on the band and area. Where I live, Social D. is really popular, as is Bad Religion and Misfits.

And freedom of speech was put in the Constitution by a Conservative you dolt.

And was subsequently ignored for the next few hundred years by conservatives. YOU DOLT!!!!

I bet my use of the word 'dolt' cut you deep. fuckin dolt. you know if you say 'dolt' over and over again it just loses all meaning and sense as a word. It becomes a noise, something incomprehensible and meaningless. Just like listening to a conservative argue.

"Uppity?" Hmmm. Interesting choice of words.
Well, it means that the person in question displays a tendency to look down on others. As in "uppity", or "above such trivialities".

I just couldn't help noticing that you seem to be rather passively dismissive at the minute as opposed to the slightly more entertaining "here's why you're wrong" approach I was sorta used to.

*Shrug*

Probably none of my business.

I don't think i have ever met a conservative in my life who "hates free speech" as so many people like to say.

I don't think i have ever met a conservative in my life who "hates free speech" as so many people like to say.

Flag burning amendment?

Yin and yang. It's self explanatory why it is necessary to revolt against the establishment.

Proof that it can? You guys could argue this all day, but it isn't going to get you anywhere. If an anarcho-communist society is ever going to come into existence, it will.Not necessarily; the government of a particular country would have to let the anarchists secede first. Nonetheless, there are democratically run worker-owned co-ops, for instance, that aren't dictatorships.

Flag burning amendment?
Conservatives will say that burning objects isn't speechifying...

And was subsequently ignored for the next few hundred years by conservatives. YOU DOLT!!!!

I bet my use of the word 'dolt' cut you deep. fuckin dolt. you know if you say 'dolt' over and over again it just loses all meaning and sense as a word. It becomes a noise, something incomprehensible and meaningless. Just like listening to a conservative argue.
My, that's a lot of anger.

Flag burning amendment?

Funnily enough, i have never met a conservative who supports that either.

Flag burning amendment?He's from England, maybe the conservatives over there aren't trying that?

No great American composers? Hmm. How about Aaron Jay Kernis, Sheila Silver, Hannibal Peterson, Philip Glass, David Lang, Bun-ching Lam, Anthony Advise, John Cage, John Adams, Morton Subotnick, Olly Wilson, Louis Ballard, Joan Tower, Julia Wolfe, Charles Wuorinen, Ellen Taaffe Zwilich and Joseph Schwantner, just to name a few?

Great American composers. So great that I, who have been playing Classical music for a long time, have never seen so much as one peice in the standard repertoire by them. LOL. They may have been composers, and they may have existed on this side of the sea, but that doesn't make them relevant to Goldwater's fantastic claims of American Cultural Hegemony.

Edit: John Cage... EW...

All the writers you listed were anti-establishment, eh? Some proof of this bald-faced allegation would be nice.

Twain: Obviously anti-establishment. The fact that I need to explain is pathetic. His writings adressed the wrong of slavery, racism, and the absurdity of American values in an era where that was rare.

Thoreau: "Civil Disobediance"... Next question?

Emerson: Like most romantics advocated getting away from culture and into the woods to escape the pressures of society.

Fitzgerald: "Great Gatsby" is a story all about the foibles and failing of the culture of the rich.

Steinbeck: "Grapes of Wrath" is about as against the establishment of the Great Depression era as you can get.

Stowe: Uncle Tom's Cabin. Case closed.

In short, you have NO idea what you're talking about ... as usual.

Coming from you, that's almost a compliment.

My, that's a lot of anger.
Better out than in. 'tis the purpose of free speech; let them get it all out as they need to rather than build it all up and revolt when they can't take it any more.

Nonetheless, there are democratically run worker-owned co-ops, for instance, that aren't dictatorships.
Yes, and they are small and generally made up of the better examples of the human race. The average person is far too stupid to consider anything beyond what they immediately perceive. The problem with communism is that it expects far too much of the people that elect men like George Bush to high office and that consider a man like John Kerry to be any kind of alternative.

Funnily enough, i have never met a conservative who supports that either.

In Sub-Saharan Africa there are black people who have never seen a white person. It doesn't mean we don't exist though.

Yes, and they are small and generally made up of the better examples of the human race. The average person is far too stupid to consider anything beyond what they immediately perceive. The problem with communism is that expects far too much of the people that elect men like George Bush and Al Gore to high office.Which is further evidence in support of communism - if the people are too stupid to make good decisions, then their ability to make decisions should be as decentralized as possible as opposed to concentrated into a single individual for a fixed amount of time.

I note that you totally ignored the list I posted, which means that either you can't respond with your usual vitriol ... OR ... you have me on ignore! Yayyy! :D

Didn't see it actually.

As much as I'd like to take "vitriol" as being a compliment, I get the feeling you didn't mean it that way.

Great American composers. So great that I, who have been playing Classical music for a long time, have never seen so much as one peice in the standard repertoire by them. LOL. They may have been composers, and they may have existed on this side of the sea, but that doesn't make them relevant to Goldwater's fantastic claims of American Cultural Hegemony.
Not to butt in, but I'd be very surprised if you'd never heard of Philip Glass. Not exactly a classical composer given how most of his work is rather recent, but he's on the same sort of level of popularity as Ludovico Einaudi, and a lot of his piano material has featured in films, radio productions etc. across the world.

Which is further evidence in support of communism - if the people are too stupid to make good decisions, then their ability to make decisions should be as decentralized as possible as opposed to concentrated into a single individual for a fixed amount of time.
No. I said people are stupid. There are plenty of examples of individual men and women who are fit to lead, but the people never or rarely choose them.

In Sub-Saharan Africa there are black people who have never seen a white person. It doesn't mean we don't exist though.

"we", does that mean you support it? Anyway, they don't pass that law because they "hate free speech". What a ridiculously immature and childish thing to say. Reminds me of how a fundamentalist once told me that the people who make south park only do it to show their "HATE FOR GOD!"

Not to butt in, but I'd be very surprised if you'd never heard of Philip Glass. Not exactly a classical composer given how most of his work is rather recent, but he's on the same sort of level of popularity as Ludivico Einaudi, and a lot of his piano material has featured in films, radio productions etc. across the world.

If he's a modernist, I've probably had the good fortune to ignore him as best as is possible. :)

And if that's the case, he's probably also post 1960, which is the topic of debate.

I do orchestral stuff and viola stuff, so piano... Not something I know much about the standards for.

It's "cool" to be a "rebel" against the "establishment" ever since the 60's because IN the 60's, so many pivotal peace movement leaders were assassinated, and some of them were linked to the government (JFK, RFK), then we had Vietnam and that was a -really- bad idea, and the government didn't listen to the people at all, so they lost respect for that as well.

Oh, and then the secrecy of Roswell. And then Watergate. And the pointless war on drugs.


So for about thirty years (from 1960-ish to 1990-ish) it was very easy to be ashamed to be an intelligent American who knew what was going on, because you knew your government was a bunch of fuckups and liars.

That would be why it's "cool" to be a "rebel" - because at the time, it was also smart. I'm pretty sure it applies to today as well.

It's "cool" to be a "rebel" against the "establishment" ever since the 60's because IN the 60's, so many pivotal peace movement leaders were assassinated, and some of them were linked to the government (JFK, RFK), then we had Vietnam and that was a -really- bad idea, and the government didn't listen to the people at all, so they lost respect for that as well.

Oh, and then the secrecy of Roswell. And then Watergate. And the pointless war on drugs.


So for about thirty years (from 1960-ish to 1990-ish) it was very easy to be ashamed to be an intelligent American who knew what was going on, because you knew your government was a bunch of fuckups and liars.

That would be why it's "cool" to be a "rebel" - because at the time, it was also smart. I'm pretty sure it applies to today as well.

Right, and prior to 1960 it was the cool thing to be an unquestioning cipher. Gotcha.

No. I said people are stupid. There are plenty of examples of individual men and women who are fit to lead, but the people never or rarely choose them.And how would you suggest that these example of individual men and women who are fit to lead get into power?

"we", does that mean you support it?
No, it means I'm white. I must have inadequately expressed myself, excuse me.

Anyway, they don't pass that law because they "hate free speech". What a ridiculously immature and childish thing to say.

Okay, I'm sorry. Conservatives don't hate free speech. It was wrong of me to make that blanket statement. Conservatives are ambivalent towards freedom of speech. On the one hand, it lets all those horrible lefties get away with saying what they want, thus ruining all that hard work put in by their conservative forefathers. On the other hand, everytime somebody suggests society attempts to make itself more culturally progressive, they can slam the "politically correct" label on it and call it an attack against freedom of speech.

Right, and prior to 1960 it was the cool thing to be an unquestioning cipher. Gotcha.
*Points to the Superdickery website*

Propaganda ahoy!

Okay, so that's just one instance. You've got to admit, though, the 50s yielded McCarthyism which was about as totalitarian a pro-establishment cultural phenomenon as the US has seen since.

*Points to the Superdickery website*

Propaganda ahoy!

Okay, so that's just one instance. You've got to admit, though, the 50s yielded McCarthyism which was about as totalitarian a pro-establishment cultural phenomenon as the US has seen since.

Ah yes, I forgot McCarthyism as well. And jailing Japanese citizens during WW2. And more recently (from 70's, on) the outsourcing of jobs, making people lose their jobs, increasing poverty - not the government's fault, per se, but they encourage it because it's the capitalist way to make money no matter what the cost (or rather, at the smallest cost possible).

But it wasn't till 1960 we really started noticing and being indignant about it. Before then it was pretty conservative.

Okay, I'm sorry. Conservatives don't hate free speech. It was wrong of me to make that blanket statement. Conservatives are ambivalent towards freedom of speech. On the one hand, it lets all those horrible lefties get away with saying what they want, thus ruining all that hard work put in by their conservative forefathers. On the other hand, everytime somebody suggests society attempts to make itself more culturally progressive, they can slam the "politically correct" label on it and call it an attack against freedom of speech.

I guess you can say that about some conservatives. However a lot of the time they feel that their own culture is being ruined in the process.

For instance, fox hunting has been around for hundreds of years. It has been a very important family tradition for years uppon years. People have grown up all their lives looking forward to this ceremony which their fathers and fathers fathers all partake in. Then suddenly some people in central london who have never even seen the country side want to completely destroy their way of life because it is "harmful to animals, and you should respect animals rights" (which is a bit of a hipocracy if you look at how cows meat is manufactured).

Anyway i'm babbaling on a bit, but i think most conservatives get labbled with this "anti rights" idea about them. When really they just want to preserve their culture. (not that i am radicaly for fox hunting or anything, i was just using it as an example)

But it wasn't till 1960 we really started noticing and being indignant about it. Before then it was pretty conservative.
Then you fail at 20th-century history, Szanth.

Then you fail at 20th-century history, Szanth.

Oh really? What were we protesting what our government was doing in, oh, 1910 and 1920? 1930? As far as I know, during WW1 and WW2, we were right behind our government (ignoring the Japanese camps) and did everything we could for the war effort.

Oh really? What were we protesting what our government was doing in, oh, 1910 and 1920? 1930? As far as I know, during WW1 and WW2, we were right behind our government (ignoring the Japanese camps) and did everything we could for the war effort.
*sighs*

So you know nothing of the Prohibition era? The Labour movement? The Suffragettes?

Big surprise.

You don't know jack squat, but you can't keep your fingers from tapping the ol' keystrokes, can you?

For instance, fox hunting has been around for hundreds of years. It has been a very important family tradition for years uppon years. People have grown up all their lives looking forward to this ceremony which their fathers and fathers fathers all partake in. Then suddenly some people in central london who have never even seen the country side want to completely destroy their way of life because it is "harmful to animals, and you should respect animals rights" (which is a bit of a hipocracy if you look at how cows meat is manufactured).

This is one issue which falls into one of the conservatives' major fetish areas: upper class tradition. If it's an upper class tradition it cannot be changed- why? Because it's tradition. That's why. Changing it would be un-[insert nationality here].

The issue of hunting has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Frankly I'm a little confused as to why you brought it up. To illustrate that they have more than one motivation for holding their particular political beliefs? I never said they didn't.

Oh really? What were we protesting what our government was doing in, oh, 1910 and 1920? 1930? As far as I know, during WW1 and WW2, we were right behind our government (ignoring the Japanese camps) and did everything we could for the war effort.

Prohibition, women's suffrage, and jim crow laws kind of come to mind.

And let's not forget...oh...THE GREAT DEPRESSION. People were REAL happy with the government then.

Ever hear of the seneca falls convention? Those women weren't all gathering together to talk about what a great country it was....

The flappers were one of the first true counter culture movements in this country...that was the 20s.

Oh really? What were we protesting what our government was doing in, oh, 1910 and 1920? 1930? As far as I know, during WW1 and WW2, we were right behind our government (ignoring the Japanese camps) and did everything we could for the war effort.
http://history.grand-forks.k12.nd.us/ndhistory/LessonImages/modified%20pics/WWII%20protest.jpg

This is one issue which falls into one of the conservatives' major fetish areas: upper class tradition. If it's an upper class tradition it cannot be changed- why? Because it's tradition. That's why. Changing it would be un-[insert nationality here].

The issue of hunting has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Frankly I'm a little confused as to why you brought it up. To illustrate that they have more than one motivation for holding their particular political beliefs? I never said they didn't.

No. I use because most people will say that they do it because they hate animal rights (similar to how people say they hate free speech). And i was showing how it is really because they don't want their culture to be ruined and not out of how much they hate animal rights.

Prohibition, women's suffrage, and jim crow laws kind of come to mind.

And let's not forget...oh...THE GREAT DEPRESSION. People were REAL happy with the government then.

Ever hear of the seneca falls convention? Those women weren't all gathering together to talk about what a great country it was....

The flappers were one of the first true counter culture movements in this country...that was the 20s.

lets not forget that the "system" is what ended Prohibition, created woman's sufferage, and ended Jim Crow laws. The seneca falls convention was a bunch of women finding ways to use the system to better their own lot. Not take it down. ah...flappers...where did thoust go..? hehe.

lets not forget that the "system" is what ended Prohibition, created woman's sufferage, and ended Jim Crow laws. The seneca falls convention was a bunch of women finding ways to use the system to better their own lot. Not take it down. ah...flappers...where did thoust go..? hehe.
The system was forced to do these things.

*sighs*

So you know nothing of the Prohibition era? The Labour movement? The Suffragettes?

Big surprise.

You don't know jack squat, but you can't keep your fingers from tapping the ol' keystrokes, can you?

While there were women protesting their lack of a right to vote, not a whole lot were. Pretty sure it wasn't till the civil rights movement that that entire can of worms opened up. Also, there was a whole 'nother group of women protesting the protesting women, stating that they DON'T want the right to vote, and they SHOULD stay in the kitchen.

Prohibition wasn't so much a rebellion against the establishment as it was, the establishment pretending they didn't like alcohol while many cops allowed the speakeasies to remain open. The establishment was sort of split between "we hate alcohol!" and "eh, have a drink". In addition to that, nobody really stood up and took notice that the banning of alcohol created gangs and more violence and more crime, until they announced the war on drugs and people were like "Dude you DO remember what happened in prohibition, right? How is this any different?" and it's not, but they still won't listen.

But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and we'll say they "rebelled" against the "establishment" by drinking, even though the drive wasn't because they didn't like the establishment, but moreso because they just wanted a fuckin' drink.

lets not forget that the "system" is what ended Prohibition, created woman's sufferage, and ended Jim Crow laws. The seneca falls convention was a bunch of women finding ways to use the system to better their own lot. Not take it down. ah...flappers...where did thoust go..? hehe.

Well there's a difference between going "change the system!" and "bomb the system!" to be sure, but it is extremely historically inaccurate to suggest that prior to 1960 everyone was sitting around going "ya know, this is alright".

No. I use because most people will say that they do it because they hate animal rights (similar to how people say they hate free speech). And i was showing how it is really because they don't want their culture to be ruined and not out of how much they hate animal rights.

Yeah, but I wasn't talking about animal rights was I?
Did I bring up the issue? I don't recall. Wait.... wait....

No. I'm pretty sure I didn't bring this issue up. Which means you were essentially adressing a different argument while claiming it was the one I was making. Which would make this a ____man argument. Can you fill in the gap there?

Prohibition, women's suffrage, and jim crow laws kind of come to mind.

And let's not forget...oh...THE GREAT DEPRESSION. People were REAL happy with the government then.

Ever hear of the seneca falls convention? Those women weren't all gathering together to talk about what a great country it was....

The flappers were one of the first true counter culture movements in this country...that was the 20s.

This is true. The great depression had a pretty bad protest with people camping outside of the white house, most of them veterans.

Okay, you got me - the government was fucking up in the 20's as well.

Just adds to my argument in general, though, that there's REASON to be a rebel, and it's not just a cultural statement.

While there were women protesting their lack of a right to vote, not a whole lot were. Pretty sure it wasn't till the civil rights movement that that entire can of worms opened up. Also, there was a whole 'nother group of women protesting the protesting women, stating that they DON'T want the right to vote, and they SHOULD stay in the kitchen.Women in the U.S. received the right to vote in 1920.

The system was forced to do these things.
indeed. so it worked.

Pretty sure it wasn't till the civil rights movement that that entire can of worms opened up.
"Pretty sure" doesn't equal "I know".

Go read a goddamn history text, you myopic pillock.

Well there's a difference between going "change the system!" and "bomb the system!" to be sure, but it is extremely historically inaccurate to suggest that prior to 1960 everyone was sitting around going "ya know, this is alright".
well, if so many people were so upset the system would have been overthrown. The reason why we have been so successful is the greatness of our country's system from day one. It was both strong and had the capicity for refinement.

indeed. so it worked.
Not without the people revolting against the status quo. Protest is the duty of a patriot.

Women in the U.S. received the right to vote in 1920.

It was still frowned upon by the majority of men in the country.

"Pretty sure" doesn't equal "I know".

Go read a goddamn history text, you myopic pillock.

It's funny how you pick out one line of my posts and call me an idiot. What about the rest of it?

This is true. The great depression had a pretty bad protest with people camping outside of the white house, most of them veterans.

Okay, you got me - the government was fucking up in the 20's as well.

Just adds to my argument in general, though, that there's REASON to be a rebel, and it's not just a cultural statement.

Thats the big mistake that so many on the left make. The rebel instead of participate. I see protests with hundreds of thousands of young people protesting the war and Bush but see that those under 30 have the lowest voter turnout. Besides, rebelling is a waste of time. How about you go to work instead and send money to an organization that lobby's your point of view? that would by much more effective.

well, if so many people were so upset the system would have been overthrown. The reason why we have been so successful is the greatness of our country's system from day one. It was both strong and had the capicity for refinement.

It wouldn't be refined without people protesting it.

Women in the U.S. received the right to vote in 1920.
no, women were guarenteed the right to vote in 1920. before that it was up to the individual states. For or against.

Thats the big mistake that so many on the left make. The rebel instead of participate. I see protests with hundreds of thousands of young people protesting the war and Bush but see that those under 30 have the lowest voter turnout. Besides, rebelling is a waste of time. How about you go to work instead and send money to an organization that lobby's your point of view? that would by much more effective.

Because A: I'm poor and can't afford to, and B: I dislike and don't respect lobbyists on general principal, regardless of what side they're on.

Not without the people revolting against the status quo. Protest is the duty of a patriot.

Revolting had nothing to do with it. prohibition, women's right to vote, and the civil rights movement were achieved through legislative action. Without the action of the system people could have screamed all day long, wouldnt have done jack. I'm gonna go watch tv now.

Thats the big mistake that so many on the left make. The rebel instead of participate. I see protests with hundreds of thousands of young people protesting the war and Bush but see that those under 30 have the lowest voter turnout. Besides, rebelling is a waste of time. How about you go to work instead and send money to an organization that lobby's your point of view? that would by much more effective."If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." - Emma Goldman

Revolting had nothing to do with it. prohibition, women's right to vote, and the civil rights movement were achieved through legislative action. Without the action of the system people could have screamed all day long, wouldnt have done jack.Legislative action which was forced by people "screaming all day long" and not by people voting.

Yeah, but I wasn't talking about animal rights was I?
Did I bring up the issue? I don't recall. Wait.... wait....

No. I'm pretty sure I didn't bring this issue up. Which means you were essentially adressing a different argument while claiming it was the one I was making. Which would make this a ____man argument. Can you fill in the gap there?

Well the point i'm trying to make is how people label conservatives with false labels (like you did). Which is also a central part of the discussion because being anti astablishment is being very anti conservative.

Thats the big mistake that so many on the left make. The rebel instead of participate. I see protests with hundreds of thousands of young people protesting the war and Bush but see that those under 30 have the lowest voter turnout. Besides, rebelling is a waste of time. How about you go to work instead and send money to an organization that lobby's your point of view? that would by much more effective.
Must admit, I do have to agree, despite being an unashamed leftie. When Labour started to tend rightwards, a lot of its left wing left in disgust, thereby accelerating the problem, where if they'd just stayed tight it mightn't have been so pronounced a shift in power.

Revolting had nothing to do with it. prohibition, women's right to vote, and the civil rights movement were achieved through legislative action. Without the action of the system people could have screamed all day long, wouldnt have done jack. I'm gonna go watch tv now.
To believe this is to be immersed in ignorance.

Thats the big mistake that so many on the left make. The rebel instead of participate. I see protests with hundreds of thousands of young people protesting the war and Bush but see that those under 30 have the lowest voter turnout. Besides, rebelling is a waste of time. How about you go to work instead and send money to an organization that lobby's your point of view? that would by much more effective.

Non profits in this country have very limited lobbying power. Corporations don't have this...but when have corporations ever advocated changing things if that would affect their profit margin?

It's funny how you pick out one line of my posts and call me an idiot. What about the rest of it?
Fine.
While there were women protesting their lack of a right to vote, not a whole lot were. Pretty sure it wasn't till the civil rights movement that that entire can of worms opened up. Also, there was a whole 'nother group of women protesting the protesting women, stating that they DON'T want the right to vote, and they SHOULD stay in the kitchen.
The point being, people have been dissenting against one form of authority or another throughout history. This was not an advent of the 1960s, and for that matter, political dissent is not, and never has been, unique to the United states of America.
Prohibition wasn't so much a rebellion against the establishment as it was, the establishment pretending they didn't like alcohol while many cops allowed the speakeasies to remain open. The establishment was sort of split between "we hate alcohol!" and "eh, have a drink". In addition to that, nobody really stood up and took notice that the banning of alcohol created gangs and more violence and more crime, until they announced the war on drugs and people were like "Dude you DO remember what happened in prohibition, right? How is this any different?" and it's not, but they still won't listen.
You don't know what you're talking about. Period.
But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and we'll say they "rebelled" against the "establishment" by drinking, even though the drive wasn't because they didn't like the establishment, but moreso because they just wanted a fuckin' drink.
And nothing about the Labour movement, of course, 'cause presumably that's completely off the radar of your school's course on 20th Century history. Didn't happen.

Feel vindicated now?

Now go read a book, dum-dum.

Non profits in this country have very limited lobbying power. Corporations don't have this...but when have corporations ever advocated changing things if that would affect their profit margin?

Yeah, the biggest and most influencial lobbyists in the country are representative of companies.

Well the point i'm trying to make is how people label conservatives with false labels (like you did).
You were addressing a different argument to the one I made though. Everyone gets falsely labelled by some groups and accurately labelled by other groups. You were talking about a different label to the one I placed on conservatives and yet tried to maintain that the argument works for all labels placed on them. Which is ridiculous, because you're deliberately misrepresenting my argument and then not addressing it.

Which is also a central part of the discussion because being anti astablishment is being very anti conservative.

Not necessarily (sp?). I hate liberals just as much as conservatives and libertarians.

Fine.

The point being, people have been dissenting against one form of authority or another throughout history. This was not an advent of the 1960s, and for that matter, political dissent is not, and never has been, unique to the United states of America.

You don't know what you're talking about. Period.

And nothing about the Labour movement, of course, 'cause presumably that's completely off the radar of your school's course on 20th Century history. Didn't happen.

I haven't learned enough about the labor movement to debate about it, so I didn't say anything about it.

And I've conceded that people protested before the 1960's, but my point stands stronger still that there's good reason to protest and rebel because of the actions of the government.

Yeah, the biggest and most influencial lobbyists in the country are representative of companies.

Yes, and what interest do those companies have? I'm not saying it's WRONG for corporations to be interested in profit, that's what they do. But to suggest that lobbying may have powerful effects is perhaps short sighted as it ignores the fact that the most powerful lobbies are those who are often most resistant to change.

You were addressing a different argument to the one I made though. Everyone gets falsely labelled by some groups and accurately labelled by other groups. You were talking about a different label to the one I placed on conservatives and yet tried to maintain that the argument works for all labels placed on them. Which is ridiculous, because you're deliberately misrepresenting my argument and then not addressing it.


Whatever, it's pointless debating this further anyway it's not very important.


Not necessarily (sp?). I hate liberals just as much as conservatives and libertarians.

What are you then?

Whatever, it's pointless debating this further anyway it's not very important.

Fair enough.


What are you then?

Guess.

Guess.
*waves hand frantically*

Ooh! Ooh! I know! I know this one!

Guess.

Communist?

Communist?

What an ugly term. I prefer 'Bolshevik Leninist'

What an ugly term. I prefer 'Bolshevik Leninist'
I thought you wuz a Wobbly.

I thought you wuz a Wobbly.That's me. :)

I thought you wuz a Wobbly.

I used to be. Those days are sadly over.

I used to be. Those days are sadly over.Oh, really? How come?

Oh, really? How come?

Not a member, but a supporter. I used to be an anarcho-syndicalist. That period lasted about 6 months and marked my transformation from typical pseudo-socialist pacifist liberal into a stereotypical trotskyist.

"Counter culture" is by no means new, or derived from the 1960's. Certainly, genuine anti-establishment sentiments were first popularised and profligate in the 1960's, however revolutionary sentiments, admittedly confined to the academic classes, had existed for decades.

In regards to the "establishment", it is somewhat of a misnomer, and, at times, strawman, villified for characteristics it signally lacks.

Not a member, but a supporter. I used to be an anarcho-syndicalist. That period lasted about 6 months and marked my transformation from typical pseudo-socialist pacifist liberal into a stereotypical trotskyist.Ah, I see. Well, you can still be a member and be a stereotypical trotskyist. The organization is apolitical. :)

Ah, I see. Well, you can still be a member and be a stereotypical trotskyist. The organization is apolitical. :)

I may accidentally split it.

It's funny. I drifted into the anarcho-syndicalist camp about eight years ago. Prior to that, I was a social democrat for a good ten or twelve years. My Marxist-Leninist days are a long time ago, now.

I may accidentally split it.Lol. Well, we've done an all right job of hosting different camps so far.

It's funny. I drifted into the anarcho-syndicalist camp about eight years ago. Prior to that, I was a social democrat for a good ten or twelve years. My Marxist-Leninist days are a long time ago, now.Are you a Bakuninist now? :) Just kidding.

It's funny. I drifted into the anarcho-syndicalist camp about eight years ago. Prior to that, I was a social democrat for a good ten or twelve years. My Marxist-Leninist days are a long time ago, now.

I once drifted into a dictatorial communist camp... killed about eighty people, my car just kept going sideways straight through the damn thing.

If you read the lyrics, it's actually about the hypocrisy of mid east mullahs who like to ban things like rock music and other Western exports while being more than happy to enjoy them themselves.

How is that conservative?

and backwards closed societies dont feed and clothe their people?

No, they don't.

Yet, somehow, in 1776-1960 America led the free world and became a superpower of both foreign affairs AND CULTURE. You missed out on American history classes.
America wasn't a cultural leader until after the Depression, and not a superpower until after WWII.

Strange that you're rejecting the individual's freedom to do what he wants in the name of some national collective goal. It's almost communist.

You mean with our musical influence on the world? While the rest of the world was creating masterful classical music, we had no famous (or credible) composers at all (and, TBH, we still don't).
Not engaging in America-wank here, but I need to correct you.

John Cage, Aaron Copeland, George Gershwin, Miles Davis, Coltrane, etc...

How about our artists? American art... Well, it was beautiful for it's natural landscapes, but there are no "great American painters" either.
Grant Wood, Georgie O'Keeffe, James Abbott McNeill Whistler, Jackson Pollock, Andy Warhol, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Donald Judd, etc...

America played a pivotal role in the development of film.

And freedom of speech was put in the Constitution by a Conservative you dolt.
I'm sure this is where the thread goes downhill.

"The Founders were conservatives"
"No, the Holy Founding Fathers were liberals!!!"

:rolleyes:

And movies... Are part of the modern world's mindless force of uncreative, easily digested crap.
You're pretty ignorant to brand the entire film branch of art as crap.

We were actually talking painters... Aren't they all photographers and directors?
KSP probably doesn't realise that art comes in kinds other than painting.

Great American composers. So great that I, who have been playing Classical music for a long time, have never seen so much as one peice in the standard repertoire by them. LOL. They may have been composers, and they may have existed on this side of the sea, but that doesn't make them relevant to Goldwater's fantastic claims of American Cultural Hegemony.

Edit: John Cage... EW...

Maybe you should think outside the box. Sounds like you come up with a host of new criteria every time someone disproves your point. As an American, why do you so badly want to prove that your own country is crap at art and music?

I do orchestral stuff and viola stuff, so piano... Not something I know much about the standards for.
I don't care about your personal experiences, or opinions. We're talking artists who have received widespread acclaim, not artists who you like, or who you have played.

*sighs*

So you know nothing of the Prohibition era? The Labour movement? The Suffragettes?
And the Catholic Worker movement.

Are you a Bakuninist now? :) Just kidding.
Actually... well, I must give credit where it's due - Bakunin was one of the reasons I dropped the ML tendency.

Actually... well, I must give credit where it's due - Bakunin was one of the reasons I dropped the ML tendency.Excellent. :) Are you familiar with the IWW?

Excellent. :) Are you familiar with the IWW?
My first interaction with the IWW was at an anti-nuclear proliferation rally in NYC back in '81. In the interceding years, I've had friends active in the IWW, but none of them have been part of it consistently. No-one I know at the moment (save yourself) identifies themselves as a member of the Wobblies.

My first interaction with the IWW was at an anti-nuclear proliferation rally in NYC back in '81. In the interceding years, I've had friends active in the IWW, but none of them have been part of it consistently. No-one I know at the moment (save yourself) identifies themselves as a member of the Wobblies.Ah, I see. Yeah, people come and go, though in the past ten years or so we've been growing.

John Cage, Aaron Copeland, George Gershwin, Miles Davis, Coltrane, etc...

Modernists all of them and out of the sphere of the times we were debating.

Grant Wood, Georgie O'Keeffe, Jackson Pollock, Andy Warhol, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Donald Judd, etc...

Ditto.

Ah, I see. Yeah, people come and go, though in the past ten years or so we've been growing.

Doesn't suprise me. Since the mid-90's class consciousness has been on the upswing across the world.

What an ugly term. I prefer 'Bolshevik Leninist'
Not Trotskyist revolutionary?

Modernists all of them and out of the sphere of the times we were debating.

Ditto.
You didn't say before that they couldn't be 20th century.

You didn't say before that they couldn't be 20th century.

The purview of the debate was the state of American culture before the rise of anti-establishment thinking in art. Therefore modernism, the height of pretentious rejection of "establishment" in classical music falls outside of the terms of the debate.

And how would you suggest that these example of individual men and women who are fit to lead get into power?
It would take a brand of government specifically designed to find them and put them in power. Not a democracy. Democracy has utterly failed.

Ever since the 60s or so, it seems "cool" to be rebellious, to have no respect for authority figures. Do people forget all the good things that the establishment is responsible for, like law and order, education, police, military, healthcare, or is it just an identity to be anti-establishment?

There is nothing wrong with establishment on its own.

However, there are many of us who were not present or even considered when the "establishing" was actually taking place. This means that, with every ensuing generation, there are a growing number of people who must form the establishment to fit their own needs.

These reformations are the anti-establishment movement that you see. You mention the good things that establishment is responsible for, and those certainly are good things. What if, however, the establishment is designed to provides those services for others and not for you, designed even to deny those services from reaching you? Certainly one should find themselves fighting that establishment.

Fuck the establishment man! its keepin me down just cause I have longhair. Long beautiful hair!

And besides, Establishments suck. They're always tellin people what to do and pushin them around. The people found an establishment to be governed by themselves. But once it get out of hand the Government is now governing the people, Things have to change, peacefully, or violently, they must. Or you move closer and closer to what we have now. Then you keep moving closer to something Oppresive and rigid in which you can't take a leek without someone knowing about it.

But why are you assuming that it's a good thing to be anti-establishment? Don't you think that maybe making peace with the establishment is a sign of maturity?
Well, the point of my country's existence is that you can't trust the government. So we made a Constitution prohibiting the government from doing X, Y, and Z. If you are supposed to like the establishment, then there would be no point to voting. You might as well live in a monarchy at that point.

Not Trotskyist revolutionary?


Sounds so cliched. Like something a Swappie would call themselves.

Just because it's the Establishment doesn't mean it automatically deserves submission. I think that at the very least, authority figures shouldn't consider themselves automatically worthy of respect.

It would take a brand of government specifically designed to find them and put them in power. Not a democracy. Democracy has utterly failed.Could you describe this government in a little more detail?

The burden is on those who support hierarchical structures of domination and oppression, not on those who oppose them. All hierarchies are intrinsically evil, because they deny people freedom and equality; unless they can be shown to be less evil than some problem that they prevent, they should be abolished.

In the vast majority of cases, they fail this test; most of the tasks that hierarchical methods of organization currently undertake could be performed as well or better on egalitarian lines. People may be selfish and stupid, but leaders do not miraculously avoid these failings.

It's a good song. Actually, it was National Review's list of the top 50 conservative songs.

Yeah right up there with:

Outkast
"Bombs Over Baghdad"
A tribute to our soldiers fighting in Iraq.

Whoever came up with that list is an idiot.

I think what the OP had in mind was something akin to a Rebel without a cause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_without_a_cause) kind of mindset.

Which brings to mind the adage –
if you aren’t a rebel by the time you're 20, you have no heart.
If you aren’t establishment by the time you're 30, you have no brains.

Also – “I want to be a rebel… just like everybody else”.

The ‘establishment’ is used as a general boogeyman by people too ignorant to enunciate what it is they are opposed to – it is also used as a catch-all villain for those who (like a typical teenager) have some persecution complex so they think the world is against them because they are so special when in reality the world doesn’t even know they exist.

Which brings to mind the adage –
if you aren’t a rebel by the time you're 20, you have no heart.
If you aren’t establishment by the time you're 30, you have no brains.

Which really is a crock of shit, where adages are concerned.

Ever since the 60s or so, it seems "cool" to be rebellious, to have no respect for authority figures. Do people forget all the good things that the establishment is responsible for, like law and order, education, police, military, healthcare, or is it just an identity to be anti-establishment?

I think institutions of a free society should be respected. Doesn't mean they can't be modified to suit the changing needs of society, but the anarchists' talk of doing away with the government, and the communists' talk of a utopian paradise seems laughably ridiculous to me.

The reason why many people are anti-establishment is because the Establishment represents all of the authority to make decisions in our society. In many cases, that authority is abused. Many times, the police have been used to silence dissidents. Schools have never really taught the real history of America, everything is either glorious or glossed over. The military has been used to wage interventionist wars to protect the property of the wealthy ever since the beginning of this country. The Establishment only provides health care if you can pay enough to afford it. Bottom line: Authority breeds abuse.

The burden is on those who support hierarchical structures of domination and oppression, not on those who oppose them.
Screw this concept of "burden". You hold a stance, you support it, regardless of whose responsibility it is.

:D And, in reality, it's the low level workers with the knowledge, and management that leeches off their work. All management provides is capital: a place to work, and equipment.

First of all, I'm sixteen, I don't have a job. And in... one year, one month, and thirteen days, plus 13 weeks (I think, I don't know how long Basic is...), I'll be heading for Iraq. Not much government over there...

How was what I said patronizing? (TBH, I don't even really know what it "patronizing" means...)


lol, you sure are.
1. That's exactly the kind of attitude that's responsible for europe's economic woes.

2.WTF?!! You claim to be anti-establishment but you're joining the military??!!:D

3. When you patronize someone, you pretend to pay them a compliment, but you're really insulting them.

4. I sure am.

The shittiest fan of the Clash I've ever had the misfortune to meet. Guess you don't actually, like, listen to their songs much.

And just FYI, 'Rock the Casbah' is just about the shittiest song they ever wrote.
RTC is an awesome song. What? Just because I like their music means I have to be a leftie?

RTC is an awesome song. What? Just because I like their music means I have to be a leftie?

Usually, Clash fans tend to be on the left wing of politics. And please, don't call us "Lefties." I don't call you a "righty."

It's a good song. Actually, it was National Review's list of the top 50 conservative songs.
Strummer in rolling in his grave...

Why do people disrespect the establishment? Well, I have no respect for people who don't respect me. And last time I checked, my local authorities could care less about what I thought or how I felt, so fuck em.

Usually, Clash fans tend to be on the left wing of politics. And please, don't call us "Lefties." I don't call you a "righty."

Fuck it, Im happy with the title of leftie. Also feel free to call me a commie, a red fascist (if you're anarcho-inclined), pinko scum , dirty red scum, whatever.

Just don't call me a liberal.

Well, interesting that you should say that. Schools are just as segregated now as they ever have been, so your point is nonsensical.

WTF mate? Considering the ethnicly diverse schools I've WORKED IN I'm wondering where the hell you're getting this idea?

Communism can never be tried because it is not controllable without a dictator.

Someone smack Barry on the back, every time his string gets pulled he says the same damn thing. Something must be broken.

:p

Funnily enough, i have never met a conservative who supports that either.

So you're saying it's liberals that wrote and nearly passed the bill?

No. I said people are stupid. There are plenty of examples of individual men and women who are fit to lead, but the people never or rarely choose them.

Thats because those fit to read are to decent to run.

The reason why many people are anti-establishment is because the Establishment represents all of the authority to make decisions in our society. In many cases, that authority is abused. Many times, the police have been used to silence dissidents. Schools have never really taught the real history of America, everything is either glorious or glossed over. The military has been used to wage interventionist wars to protect the property of the wealthy ever since the beginning of this country. The Establishment only provides health care if you can pay enough to afford it. Bottom line: Authority breeds abuse.
I have many points to address here.

1. In America, you are free to "dissent." There are some stories of abuse, no doubt, but you can march on the Israeli embassy and inadvertandly support the terrorists if you wish. Or you can march on the syrian or iranian embassy, or you can march in an anti-war rally, no one is going to stop you. You can dissent all you like.

2. Schools do teach history. They teach all about the plight of the Indians, the slaves, the corruption of the guilded age, etc. What you're suggesting is that history classes focus only on the negative side of American history. You hate your country, and you want other Americans to hate it too.

That's not an attitude I want taught in schools.

3. America's armed forces have waged wars to protect the interests of the American people. Of course, if you're a communist, your idea of protecting the interest of the people is to take away money from people who have worked hard to earn it and give it away to people who don't deserve it.

4. You expect the government do to everything for you, don't you? How about getting an education, and a decent job, so you can have healthcare, instead of expecting bureaucrats to do everything for you?

Usually, Clash fans tend to be on the left wing of politics. And please, don't call us "Lefties." I don't call you a "righty."

Call me anything you like, my friend. Anyway, the right-left scale is meaningless. I'm on the right economically, but I'm also more libertarian than authoritarian.

Tell me, what is more important? To think for yourself, or to blindly follow what some guys because OMG!! They have guitars!! I like their music, but their politics is moot.

Strummer in rolling in his grave...

Why do people disrespect the establishment? Well, I have no respect for people who don't respect me. And last time I checked, my local authorities could care less about what I thought or how I felt, so fuck em.
Have you tried voting, or getting involved in your community?

Or are they supposed to come knocking at your door?

indeed. so it worked.

Yes, rebeling against the establishment worked to bring about womens right to vote, desegregation of schools, and equal rights for all races.

I have many points to address here.

1. In America, you are free to "dissent." There are some stories of abuse, no doubt, but you can march on the Israeli embassy and inadvertandly support the terrorists if you wish.

Yes, because I think Israel needs to learn how to AIM and stop slaughtering civilians I suport terrorists. Let me think, if any other country were firing on ambulances what would we call THEIR actions?

Hint, it starts with a T and ends with errorist.

Yes, because I think Israel needs to learn how to AIM and stop slaughtering civilians I suport terrorists. Let me think, if any other country were firing on ambulances what would we call THEIR actions?

Hint, it starts with a T and ends with errorist.
But Israel even sends leaflets into areas they're going to bomb, and they use "smart bombs". They are doing their best not to kill civvies.

Hezbollah, on the other hand, is glad when civilians die.

It's that simple, really.

Yes, because I think Israel needs to learn how to AIM and stop slaughtering civilians I suport terrorists. Let me think, if any other country were firing on ambulances what would we call THEIR actions?

Hint, it starts with a T and ends with errorist.

Hmmm.... "Tee-Hee, We Made An Error"ist?

I have many points to address here.

1. In America, you are free to "dissent." There are some stories of abuse, no doubt, but you can march on the Israeli embassy and inadvertandly support the terrorists if you wish. Or you can march on the syrian or iranian embassy, or you can march in an anti-war rally, no one is going to stop you. You can dissent all you like.
So? All that means is that police don't break protests against other countries. Ignoring the Zoot Suit Riots, South Central Riots, East LA Walkouts, the breakup of the Freedom Rides, the Children's Crusade...

2. Schools do teach history. They teach all about the plight of the Indians, the slaves, the corruption of the guilded age, etc. What you're suggesting is that history classes focus only on the negative side of American history. You hate your country, and you want other Americans to hate it too.

That's not an attitude I want taught in schools.
Bullshit. The only real atrocity against the Indians is the Battle of Wounded Knee (and in the classrooms, it's still called a battle, not a massacre, which is was) and the Trail of Tears. It tells nothing of the widespread poverty on the reservations, or the fact that suicide rates are higher among Indians than any other group.

3. America's armed forces have waged wars to protect the interests of the American people. Of course, if you're a communist, your idea of protecting the interest of the people is to take away money from people who have worked hard to earn it and give it away to people who don't deserve it.
Ignorance.

4. You expect the government do to everything for you, don't you? How about getting an education, and a decent job, so you can have healthcare, instead of expecting bureaucrats to do everything for you?
Further ignorance.


Call me anything you like, my friend. Anyway, the right-left scale is meaningless. I'm on the right economically, but I'm also more libertarian than authoritarian.
Makes me ashamed to be libertarian.

Tell me, what is more important? To think for yourself, or to blindly follow what some guys because OMG!! They have guitars!! I like their music, but their politics is moot.
Care to give an example of this? And the irony of this is fucking hilarious, since this is what you do with the Clash...

If you read the lyrics, it's actually about the hypocrisy of mid east mullahs who like to ban things like rock music and other Western exports while being more than happy to enjoy them themselves.
And now you're doing the same enjoying a song which was one of the several hundred songs banned from US airwaves after 9/11.
Irony. such a lovely word.

But then, your attitudes and opinions are closer to the 'IslamoFascists' you rail against than those of the American founding fathers.

Isn't that the same magazine that said the Reagan Youth were some of Reagan's best supporters with their lyrics?
The Sex Pistols 'Bodies' was also on that list.
As was "Sympathy for the Devil," by The Rolling Stones, “Don’t Tread on Me,” by Metallica, "Revolution," by The Beatles,“You Can’t Always Get What You Want,” by The Rolling Stones, “Why Don’t You Get a Job,” by The Offspring and “Neighborhood Bully,” by Bob Dylan.

So to say the writer, much like our own RocktheCasbah, is so full of it he hasn't a freakin' clue would be a pretty accurate statement.

The Sex Pistols 'Bodies' was also on that list.
As was "Sympathy for the Devil," by The Rolling Stones, “Don’t Tread on Me,” by Metallica, "Revolution," by The Beatles,“You Can’t Always Get What You Want,” by The Rolling Stones, “Why Don’t You Get a Job,” by The Offspring and “Neighborhood Bully,” by Bob Dylan.

So to say the writer, much like our own RocktheCasbah, is so full of it he hasn't a freakin' clue would be a pretty accurate statement.
Uh, isn't that list supposed to be a satire?

So? All that means is that police don't break protests against other countries. Ignoring the Zoot Suit Riots, South Central Riots, East LA Walkouts, the breakup of the Freedom Rides, the Children's Crusade...


Bullshit. The only real atrocity against the Indians is the Battle of Wounded Knee (and in the classrooms, it's still called a battle, not a massacre, which is was) and the Trail of Tears. It tells nothing of the widespread poverty on the reservations, or the fact that suicide rates are higher among Indians than any other group.


Ignorance.


Further ignorance.



Makes me ashamed to be libertarian.


Care to give an example of this? And the irony of this is fucking hilarious, since this is what you do with the Clash...

I'd hardly call the zoot suit riots an example of dissent against the government.

I'd hardly call the zoot suit riots an example of dissent against the government.
It was sparked by racism, which at that point was an open feature of "the establishment", so I count it.

I'd hardly call the zoot suit riots an example of dissent against the government.
Oh yeah, and you quoted my entire post just to say that? Ever heard of the snip?

It was sparked by racism, which at that point was an open feature of "the establishment", so I count it.

Yea, but it wasn't sparked by mexicans rioting against a racist government. It was really US navy and marines personel who started it because they sailor was beaten up by a mexican or whatever. So it was only sparked by racism in the same way a lynching was.

Anyway, the point is it was hardly a riot against the establishment. It was more like a riot for the establishment - especially as the police let all the white people off pretty much.

So? All that means is that police don't break protests against other countries. Ignoring the Zoot Suit Riots, South Central Riots, East LA Walkouts, the breakup of the Freedom Rides, the Children's Crusade...
Bullshit. The only real atrocity against the Indians is the Battle of Wounded Knee (and in the classrooms, it's still called a battle, not a massacre, which is was) and the Trail of Tears. It tells nothing of the widespread poverty on the reservations, or the fact that suicide rates are higher among Indians than any other group.
Ignorance.
Further ignorance.
Makes me ashamed to be libertarian.
Care to give an example of this? And the irony of this is fucking hilarious, since this is what you do with the Clash...
The Children's Crusade? Wasn't that like 800 years ago? What does America have to do with that?

Notice how all the other things mentioned were actually riots, not protests. Some of the Freedom Riders were killed, but they even had fedeal marshalls, so in this case the southern redneck cops are to blame. You can't really blame the establishment on that one.

Could the higher suicide rates have something to do with the higher alchoholic rates? I believe that people should take responsiblity for their actions, instead of blaming their woes on the white man, or the feds in washingotn.

I doubt you are a libertarian. Libertarians are for the free market, and little government regulation of the economy.

I just gave you an example. I like the Clash's music, and their lyrics say a lot of things about the "evil rich people" but that doesn't mean I believe it simply because some musician says it. Yeah, keep singing Joe, meanwhile, I'm gonna go invest in some good oil companies...

Oh yeah, and you quoted my entire post just to say that? Ever heard of the snip?

I'm lazy. What can I say.

The Children's Crusade? Wasn't that like 800 years ago? What does America have to do with that?
Children's Crusade? Y'know, when black kids marched against segregation, and they sicced dogs on 'em, and hit 'em with fire hoses?

Notice how all the other things mentioned were actually riots, not protests. Some of the Freedom Riders were killed, but they even had fedeal marshalls, so in this case the southern redneck cops are to blame. You can't really blame the establishment on that one.
"All the other things mentioned"? You don't read very well, do you? Out of five examples... two of 'em were riots. And they WERE fighting the establishment. And, yes, racist police forces count as the establishment.

Could the higher suicide rates have something to do with the higher alchoholic rates? I believe that people should take responsiblity for their actions, instead of blaming their woes on the white man, or the feds in washingotn.
Why shouldn't we blame our woes on the whites and the government, when it's the governments fault?

I doubt you are a libertarian. Libertarians are for the free market, and little government regulation of the economy.
All shapes and sizes. Don't tell me what I am and am not.

I just gave you an example. I like the Clash's music, and their lyrics say a lot of things about the "evil rich people" but that doesn't mean I believe it simply because some musician says it. Yeah, keep singing Joe, meanwhile, I'm gonna go invest in some good oil companies...
...Ok...

BTW, you never responded to one of my earlier posts... it's #46.

Uh, isn't that list supposed to be a satire?
Ah, no I don't think so.
It was in the National Review, a pretty conservative magazine by anyone's standards.

Here's the article:
Top 50 conservative songs (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzZkNDU5MmViNzVjNzkzMDE3NzNlN2MyZjRjYTk4YjE=)
If it is satire, it's extremely well-hidden satire.

Could the higher suicide rates have something to do with the higher alchoholic rates? I believe that people should take responsiblity for their actions, instead of blaming their woes on the white man, or the feds in washingotn.
And the cause of their higher alcoholism?
That fact they got shitty lives due to having had all their land, language and culture stolen from them and herded into tiny reservations.

Poor Joey Strummer. He must be spinning in his grave.

Ah, no I don't think so.
It was in the National Review, a pretty conservative magazine by anyone's standards.

Here's the article:
Top 50 conservative songs (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzZkNDU5MmViNzVjNzkzMDE3NzNlN2MyZjRjYTk4YjE=)
If it is satire, it's extremely well-hidden satire.

Hm, reader nominated. Wonder if operation mindfuck went into overdrive and a bunch of my fellow Erisians nominated those songs as "conservitive".

Children's Crusade? Y'know, when black kids marched against segregation, and they sicced dogs on 'em, and hit 'em with fire hoses?
"All the other things mentioned"? You don't read very well, do you? Out of five examples... two of 'em were riots. And they WERE fighting the establishment. And, yes, racist police forces count as the establishment.
Why shouldn't we blame our woes on the whites and the government, when it's the governments fault?
All shapes and sizes. Don't tell me what I am and am not.
...Ok...
BTW, you never responded to one of my earlier posts... it's #46.
Oh, that Children's Crusade. No doubt you expect me to make some apologetic remark about segregation. In this you will be disappointed. I have always thought that racism is a horrible thing, and that Jim Crow is an ugly stain on American history. You won't nail me on the civil rights movement. I am proud that these wrongs were reprimanded, and I have stated before that the establishment isn't always in the right.

I tend to think that the riots were just an excuse for criminals and thugs to rape, kill, and steal. The fact that the police were mostly white and the criminals mostly brown or black doesn't make the police racist by default.

The government is somewhat to blame, but at the end of the day, it's the individual who is to blame if he doesn't do everything he can to better his lot. You can't blame the government for everything.

I was simply telling you what the definition of libertarian is. I can call myself a space shuttle, but that doesn't mean NASA will send me to the moon. Based on what you've said so far, I don't think you're a libertarian.

I will address numba 46 shortly.

Hm, reader nominated. Wonder if operation mindfuck went into overdrive and a bunch of my fellow Erisians nominated those songs as "conservitive".
I'd like to think that, but judging from RockTheCasbah's posts, if he's anything to go by with regards to conservative 'thinking', they aparently don't have much ability to understand the concepts of 'satire' and 'irony'. (Nor 'Hypocrisy' for that matter, but that's an entirely different issue)
And hence they did indeed view those songs as 'conservative'.

Oh, that Children's Crusade. No doubt you expect me to make some apologetic remark about segregation. In this you will be disappointed. I have always thought that racism is a horrible thing, and that Jim Crow is an ugly stain on American history. You won't nail me on the civil rights movement. I am proud that these wrongs were reprimanded, and I have stated before that the establishment isn't always in the right.
Yay, you say you think racism is wrong! That makes everything all better.

I tend to think that the riots were just an excuse for criminals and thugs to rape, kill, and steal. The fact that the police were mostly white and the criminals mostly brown or black doesn't make the police racist by default.
But the everyday treatment of blacks and chicanos by the police does make them racist by default.

The government is somewhat to blame, but at the end of the day, it's the individual who is to blame if he doesn't do everything he can to better his lot. You can't blame the government for everything.
Yup, the Indians sure are lazy folks whose plight has nothing to do with their treatment by the government.

I was simply telling you what the definition of libertarian is. I can call myself a space shuttle, but that doesn't mean NASA will send me to the moon. Based on what you've said so far, I don't think you're a libertarian.
And what have I said that makes you think that? Direct quotes, please.

I will address numba 46 shortly.
BFT. :p

This is the first thing that came to mind when I saw someone going off on an anti-establishment rant:


REG:
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

XERXES:
Brought peace.

REG:
Oh. Peace? Shut up!

I'd like to think that, but judging from RockTheCasbah's posts, if he's anything to go by with regards to conservative 'thinking', they aparently don't have much ability to understand the concepts of 'satire' and 'irony'. (Nor 'Hypocrisy' for that matter, but that's an entirely different issue)
And hence they did indeed view those songs as 'conservative'.
The real satire is the way liberals hate themselves and whatever wrongs, real or imagined, may have been perpetrated by the white majority, but they think no minority can do wrong. So they are more than happy to rant about the christian kkk republicans who oppressed the blacks, but when it comes to sharia law, well "if the majority wants it, then they should be allowed to have it."
I actually saw someone say that on these forums.

See, the real irony and satire is in what liberals say and what they do afterwards. They say that they are citoyens du monde, and every once in a while they might swing around some banana republic, but they live in Western, rich countries. Hypocrisy anyone?

Yay, you say you think racism is wrong! That makes everything all better.
But the everyday treatment of blacks and chicanos by the police does make them racist by default.
Yup, the Indians sure are lazy folks whose plight has nothing to do with their treatment by the government.
And what have I said that makes you think that? Direct quotes, please.
BFT. :p
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know the police were supposed to be touchy-feely with criminals. If someone commits a crime, I want the police to be rough with him/her, no matter the skin color.

You seem to think the government is solely responsible for the Indian's plight. A libertarian would realize that it's not just the government, the Indians are to share some of the blame too.

The real satire is the way liberals hate themselves and whatever wrongs, real or imagined, may have been perpetrated by the white majority, but they think no minority can do wrong. So they are more than happy to rant about the christian kkk republicans who oppressed the blacks, but when it comes to sharia law, well "if the majority wants it, then they should be allowed to have it."
So, what does that have to do with a minority? It says "majority" in the quote.

So, what does that have to do with a minority? It says "majority" in the quote.
They think that if you're black or muslim, for example, you're automatically a victim.

As for #46, I actually answered that in a previous post- but you said that the government is responsible for most wrongs. I'm no fan of big government, but most of those wrongs would have existed anyway, like racism. The government provides law and order, and a combination of the government and the free market are the reason why you are able to sit in a nice comfortable room blaming the government for everything.

Screw this concept of "burden". You hold a stance, you support it, regardless of whose responsibility it is.

I did support it. Read the whole post, don't quote one bit and attack it.

The real satire is the way liberals hate themselves and whatever wrongs, real or imagined, may have been perpetrated by the white majority, but they think no minority can do wrong.

You know, there are non-white leftists.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know the police were supposed to be touchy-feely with criminals. If someone commits a crime, I want the police to be rough with him/her, no matter the skin color.

It may surprise you, but not all Blacks and Latinos are criminals.

You know, there are non-white leftists.
I was talking about the white ones. White liberals may agree with blacks on the economy, but they find their position on things like gay marriage and abortion scandalously conservative.

Most liberals are upper-class whites.

I was talking about the white ones.

More likely, you didn't even consider the non-white ones. It is thinly-veiled bigotry when people like you - and they do it all the time - make the assumption that their opponents are whites feeling "racial guilt," as if minorities are incapable of holding political opinions and discussing them intelligently.

White liberals may agree with blacks on the economy, but they find their position on things like gay marriage and abortion scandalously conservative.

Don't overgeneralize. There are lots of Blacks in favor of gay marriage and abortion rights.

Most liberals are upper-class whites.

Define "upper-class." While you're at it, define "liberal."

I was talking about the white ones. White liberals may agree with blacks on the economy, but they find their position on things like gay marriage and abortion scandalously conservative.

Most liberals are upper-class whites.
And you're a naive boy with little to no real experience of life. Other than whites, there are simply blacks? Do go on. Are you from that planet from the old Star Trek series?

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/epics/TOS70.jpg

I was talking about the white ones. White liberals may agree with blacks on the economy, but they find their position on things like gay marriage and abortion scandalously conservative.

Most liberals are upper-class whites.
I would love to see where you got THAT demographic information lol

Steriotyping without information again?

Either way does not appear to fit reality

http://people-press.org/commentary/images/95-4.gif

From what I can tell repubs tend to be leading in any income over 50K a year

Edit: source: http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95

I think we had better step back and "define" the "establishment".

If the definition of "Establishment" is as the social pressure to conform to a basic social, cultural, economic, and political role out of tradition, there is nothing positive about it.

After all, the establishment (if that's what you mean by establishment) means "Turn your brain off, turn your ambition off, turn your heart off, and do as you are told". It means blindly following where others have blindly stumbled in front of you rather than thinking things through and making descisions using your own brain (you can even come to the same damn conclusion, as long as you fecking THOUGHT about it).

And to the concept of "teenage culture" being "anti-establishment"...

I wanna know which fucking teenagers you're hanging out with, because teenage culture is one of the strongest, least flexible establishments out there. It talks about being "Against the establishment", because it has it's own to force teens into.

I think we had better step back and "define" the "establishment".

If the definition of "Establishment" is as the social pressure to conform to a basic social, cultural, economic, and political role out of tradition, there is nothing positive about it.

After all, the establishment (if that's what you mean by establishment) means "Turn your brain off, turn your ambition off, turn your heart off, and do as you are told". It means blindly following where others have blindly stumbled in front of you rather than thinking things through and making descisions using your own brain (you can even come to the same damn conclusion, as long as you fecking THOUGHT about it).

And to the concept of "teenage culture" being "anti-establishment"...

I wanna know which fucking teenagers you're hanging out with, because teenage culture is one of the strongest, least flexible establishments out there. It talks about being "Against the establishment", because it has it's own to force teens into.

Agreed ...s ome of us managed to overcome single roles and some did not

I was simply telling you what the definition of libertarian is. I can call myself a space shuttle, but that doesn't mean NASA will send me to the moon. Based on what you've said so far, I don't think you're a libertarian.Libertarian refers solely to stances on social issues, not economic issues. The Libertarian Party in the US has a stance on both social and economic issues, but they don't represent all libertarianism.

I have many points to address here.

1. In America, you are free to "dissent." There are some stories of abuse, no doubt, but you can march on the Israeli embassy and inadvertandly support the terrorists if you wish. Or you can march on the syrian or iranian embassy, or you can march in an anti-war rally, no one is going to stop you. You can dissent all you like.

Abuse happens far more often then you think. People who talk about views that don't align with the establishment are either ignored, or beaten up by riot police. Look at the WTO protests in seatlle. Peaceful protestors were tear-gased and beaten for protesting the WTO. Anti-war groups are routinely monitored by government spy programs. Unchecked authority cannot be trusted. Also, assuming that oppossing governmental action with "help the terrorists" is a false them vs. us mentality. You offer no reason why protesting the unjust use of power "helps the terrorists win."

2. Schools do teach history. They teach all about the plight of the Indians, the slaves, the corruption of the guilded age, etc. What you're suggesting is that history classes focus only on the negative side of American history. You hate your country, and you want other Americans to hate it too.

That's not an attitude I want taught in schools.

I object to you asserting that I hate my country. Schools never teacht the full truth of history. We hear praise of Chris Colubus on Columbus day, but we ignore the fact that he was a genocidal murderer. Our founding fathers never had any pretenses on setting up a true democracy, most of them distrusted common people. Inevitably, the history books mostly tell us the safe truth, not the real truth. What I hate is not my country, but the people in my country who hide behind banners of patriotism in their quest for greed.

3. America's armed forces have waged wars to protect the interests of the American people. Of course, if you're a communist, your idea of protecting the interest of the people is to take away money from people who have worked hard to earn it and give it away to people who don't deserve it.

Your ignoring the issue. Much of the history of the American armed forces is dominated by protecting the wealth of millionaire capitalists, not protecting the common citizen. Every intervention in South America and Central America during the 20th century was done to shore up corporate economic interests. And yes, my dear fascist friend, I am a communist. And I can most definitely tell you that the actions of the people who have wealth in power in society should revoke any right they claim to hold that power and priviledge.

4. You expect the government do to everything for you, don't you? How about getting an education, and a decent job, so you can have healthcare, instead of expecting bureaucrats to do everything for you?

The issue here isn't the welfare state. What I expect the government to do is to not shore up the interests of the already wealthy and powerful. I expect the goverment to truly live up to public opinion and to truly support democracy both in the US and in the rest of the world. I expect the government to be the government of all of the people, not a government of the powerful, wealthy minority.

I think we had better step back and "define" the "establishment".

If the definition of "Establishment" is as the social pressure to conform to a basic social, cultural, economic, and political role out of tradition, there is nothing positive about it.

After all, the establishment (if that's what you mean by establishment) means "Turn your brain off, turn your ambition off, turn your heart off, and do as you are told". It means blindly following where others have blindly stumbled in front of you rather than thinking things through and making descisions using your own brain (you can even come to the same damn conclusion, as long as you fecking THOUGHT about it).

And to the concept of "teenage culture" being "anti-establishment"...

I wanna know which fucking teenagers you're hanging out with, because teenage culture is one of the strongest, least flexible establishments out there. It talks about being "Against the establishment", because it has it's own to force teens into.

Damn right. I hate being forced to conform to a non-existant social standard by my social "superiors" in high school. Their oligarchy is inflexible, and hasn't changed its methods in over a hundred year history of jocks giving nerds swirlies.

Threwout all of human history it has been cool to rebel, not just recently. In anceint time people thought Hannibal was cool becuase he defied Rome, in the 16th centuries people made romantizied pirates because they defied the Empires, in the US in the 1800's people always outlaws into celebraties, Its common for people to support the underdog.

Damn right. I hate being forced to conform to a non-existant social standard by my social "superiors" in high school. Their oligarchy is inflexible, and hasn't changed its methods in over a hundred year history of jocks giving nerds swirlies.

Enjoy high school and go to college, because those don't compare to the establishment that you face once your life actually begins.