Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
Since I haven’t lived in New York for years my knowledge of the politics of the surrounding States, including New Jersey has decreased. I heard about Chris Christie becoming Governor of New Jersey, usually a liberal-minded State despite what you see on TV reality shows, but I didn’t know too much about him, though from the media’s favorable response, I thought him a moderate. The events leading up to the Republican Convention and indeed his keynote speech tended to disabuse me of that notion. So I started to pay attention to him and found that he was your typical Republican elitist, though with a “Joisey” accent and the mannerisms of a thug. As I was surfing around my bookmarks today I came across this article at The Nation of Change: http://www.nationofchange.org by Terrence Heath of the Campaign for Americas Future. www.ourfuture.org/. I think the article stands on its own as an indictment of how many Republicans wish to turn this country into a modern version of Feudalism, a concern of mine that I’ve written about many times. Let me then present the article for your inspection and elicit any comments you might wish to share:
http://www.nationofchange.org/house-gop-taxes-wealthy-are-charity-1349010885
ME:
“so somehow wanting people to take responsibility for their own lives instead of becoming dependent on “the crown” for their existence leads Mike to believe that those who preach responsibility are now subvertly trying to design a feudalisitic system which mirrors the modern day progressive movement of having “the crown” manage, protect and provide for all of its serfs citizens?”
Very good point.
“so somehow wanting people to take responsibility for their own lives instead of becoming dependent on “the crown” for their existence leads Mike to believe that those who preach responsibility are now subvertly trying to design a feudalisitic system which mirrors the modern day progressive movement of having “the crown” manage,”
Bron
You are silly in interpreting what I read in the fashion you did. The people promoting “personable responsibility” are the ones whose sense of entitlement has allowed them to use the government for their purposes. Your are really the socialist here, though what you support is a socialism for the wealthy and cutthroat capitalism for the masses. Meaning no health care, low wages, no benefits and a society where the odds of their improving their economic lot are slim. As I’ve said before you’re not a bad person, but you are a good ma who has let his view of life become distorted by a political philosophy whose ultimate goal is feudalism. I suggest you do some reading o feudalism ad to you surprise/dismay you will see that it was anything but a strong central government.
Dredd, Christies body shape could only be formed by eating massive amounts of GMOs, HFCS and CAFO meat.
A toxic combination that creates toxic personality traits. You are what you eat.
nick spinelli 1, October 1, 2012 at 9:59 am
I knew someone would play the “fat” card …
=====================================
If you are close to The Christie could you please tell him to stop eating his Wheaties, it is a source of Obesity (CBS News).
Isn’t it interesting that “fisc“, from which relates to “fiscal”, comes from an old word for “bag.”
Malisha’s video, about a brand new bag, is about a brand new fisc, the new fiscal, which Mike S ties to some feudalistic bags.
Malisha 1, October 1, 2012 at 11:45 am
Hey Dredd — brand new bag, papa–
===================================
It ain’t no drag …
Hey Dredd — brand new bag, papa–
How does the “New Economic Patriotism”, which President Obama mentions in a political ad recently, relate to “New Feudalism”?
ME 1, October 1, 2012 at 9:32 am
“A political and economic system of Europe from the 9th to about the 15th century, based on the holding of all land in fief or fee and the resulting relation of lord to vassal and characterized by homage, legal and military service of tenants, and forfeiture.” – feudalism
=================================================
The post is about “New Feudalism”, a.k.a. neo-feudalism.
You need a brand New Bag poppa, or your ideas will stay old and tired.
I knew someone would play the “fat” card, I’m saddened it was first the school teacher. However, he’s a w/m, and fat. It’s open season 24/7 on that unprotected class, isn’t it good people. It backfired on Corzine, but keep trying.
Bron,
“so you would limit people’s free speech and association?”
No. They can say whatever and associate with whomever they please but their ability to financially interact with politicians should be severely limited. The beginning of the monied erosion of democracy was the horrible ruling of Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), which resulted in the disassembly of the safeguards against undue influence of money on elections by limiting campaign contributions found in FECA (the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974). That decision is the taproot of all our present corruption problems in the electoral and lobbying processes. Money is not free speech. It’s money. It’s a tool that can influence the weak of will and the weak of principle. And like all tools it is dangerous when mishandled.
What I said allowed for both free speech and association as well as equalized the right to petition – which is vital in a democracy.
“A political and economic system of Europe from the 9th to about the 15th century, based on the holding of all land in fief or fee and the resulting relation of lord to vassal and characterized by homage, legal and military service of tenants, and forfeiture.” – feudalism
so somehow wanting people to take responsibility for their own lives instead of becoming dependent on “the crown” for their existence leads Mike to believe that those who preach responsibility are now subvertly trying to design a feudalisitic system which mirrors the modern day progressive movement of having “the crown” manage, protect and provide for all of its serfs citizens?
I hear the term right wing nut jobs a lot lately (or rwnj for short). We need to come up with lwnj to describe Mike and the other “if only we had more government to protect us” crowd.
Another fine blog entry into Pravda, Mike.
so you would limit people’s free speech and association?
People have a right to form a group to lobby congress. Any group of people can do that.
Get a million people each paying 5 dollars a month and you can do a lot of good or damage.
Here is a quote that ties the military into the dynamic of U.S.eh? feudalism:
(The Homeland: Big Brother Plutonomy). The term “legal order” speaks to a role of lawyers in neo-feudalism.
Here is a theme song of the ideological resistance in an art form:
Dance around it how you wish, Bron. You asked how to limit corporate speech and I told you. Corporate free speech is intimately tied to the issue of allegedly limited corporate personality. You cannot discuss one without the other. And you are oversimplifying the problem again. Properly constructed laws would not allow for a PAC to do an endrun around them. You are also failing to address the issue that PACs are simply part of the problem as primary purveyors of graft into the system. PAC’s should be allowed to draft issue papers – simple statements on what they feel policy should be and why – but beyond that, they should not be able to give a goddamn dime to a political campaign or give them any kind of material support. Lobbying should be a form you fill out and your elected representatives have X time to respond. That is the where the limit on petition should be set in a proper democracy – everyone’s voice, large and small, is equally heard by the government.
I didnt say corporations were people, I said shareholders were people who could create a PAC. They could also create a lobbying organization.
Bron,
You have to give up the idea that corporations are people. That’s a lie and contrary to the legal fact that they are a legal fiction; a construct of the state that allows (and this is the key word) LIMITED personality to a business as to allow to perform basic functions like enter contracts, buy property and avail themselves of the courts civil and criminal. As a construct, they also get benefits that real people do not like limited liability and perpetuity (they are effectively immortal). The idea of corporate free speech is an anathema to the concept of the right of free speech which is something inalienable in the human condition (although we do impose a few reasonable restrictions on it as discussed many times previously). Constructs don’t have free speech. A corporation has no more right to free speech than your toaster. Constructs don’t have innate rights. SCOTUS under Robert’s really screwed the pooch on basic definitions when they said corporations have free speech “rights”. Corporations only have the rights government allows them to have as a legal fiction. And again, we come back to the answer to your question of how to fix what is wrong with this country and the heart of the matter still revolves around campaign finance and lobbying. Corporate money needs to be removed from that process and based on the damage done by it at this point to the fundamental structure of democracy it needs to be removed from the process entirely and punished severely when and if seen post banishment.
“The colors of danger … what is the threat-level today?”
The same as it was yesterday . . . threat level “comfy chair”. You are still as likely to be killed by your furniture than by a terrorist attack. But nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Gene:
I think you know what I mean since you acknowledge what I said about enforcement at the end of your post.
How are you going to get corporations to stop? They can just have the shareholders create a PAC. Shareholders are people and you cannot limit free speech.
How are you going to limit corporate speech when shareholders are individual people who have a vested interest in the success of the corporation they own?
The military is a key ingredient in the notion of feudalism or neofeudalism:
(Wikipedia). There needs to be a constant state of danger harped by warmongering and war for feudalism to make a play.
The neo-feudalism in Russia is no different that the neo-feudalism in the U.S.eh? in that sense:
(Neo-feudalism Explained). The strong provide protection.
The colors of danger … what is the threat-level today?