Article

2008-10-15 Home Front: Culture Wars

The Coming Counterrevolution To Hush The Alternative Media

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2008-10-15 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11127 views ] Top

#1 That means here too.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-10-15 00:26|| 2008-10-15 00:26|| Front Page Top

#2 Yes it does. If Obama wins it's going to be a long four years.

Posted by Steve White 2008-10-15 00:33|| 2008-10-15 00:33|| Front Page Top

#3 Compare wid REDDIT > HAS ANYONE NOTICED THERE IS NO MORE LEFT-WING IN US MEDIA, POLITICS ANYMORE!?

We missed That Guy From Guam's FASCISM = now LIMITED COMMUNISM, CAPITALISM = LIMITED SOCIALISM,..................@ETC. arguments, premises, andor inferences all those years ago, didn't we???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-10-15 01:28|| 2008-10-15 01:28|| Front Page Top

#4 Four years if we're lucky.

Posted by Spereck Trotsky7401 2008-10-15 01:37|| 2008-10-15 01:37|| Front Page Top

#5 I'd suggest they think long and hard before they start attempting to muzzle alternative media. When people stop talking, they often start shooting.

Posted by Jolutch Mussolini7800 2008-10-15 05:25|| 2008-10-15 05:25|| Front Page Top

#6 JM is onto something, unsavory though it may be.

I would never advocate violence, but if people get frustrated enough, or their rights are trampled enough, bad things will happen.

Before it gets to that level, ther are other things you can do. It will be easier to push back at the grassroots level. Make note of who has the Obama signs in their yards or on their bumpers. Cease patronizing their businesses, if they have them. Even if it means spending a little more, somewhere else. Alter your associations with those who do not, and let them know why you choose not to engage with them, or let your kids play with theirs.

Vote (if you can) against any increases in pay for teacher's unions, or any government employee unions that were overt Obama supporters. When and if you are asked why your spending and voting patterns have changed, supply the honest answer, and tell the targeted groups that your rights of expression are under attack and they get no more money from you until whatever new version of the "fairness" doctrine their anointed one puts in place is removed. Targeted economic pressure can have a powerful effect, particularly on a group (public sector unions) that places such an insanely overwhelming emphasis on income stream security.

Talk to young people. Get involved. Challenge them to think about why a government would attempt to limit free speech, and its implications.

Enough of these might be enough to avoid the shooting scenario.

Posted by no mo uro 2008-10-15 06:01|| 2008-10-15 06:01|| Front Page Top

#7 Enough of these might be enough to avoid the shooting scenario.

Nope. There is going to be shooting, count on it.

Posted by Slaviter Sinatra1253 2008-10-15 06:54|| 2008-10-15 06:54|| Front Page Top

#8 Moby on Aisle #7?

Posted by no mo uro 2008-10-15 07:38|| 2008-10-15 07:38|| Front Page Top

#9 This is the scenario I see if Obama is president:

With a dhimocratic congress, expect huge tax increases and massive government spending. In this economy, I see another depression happening because of government policy. People will complain, gripe and criticize the government and Obama. The dhimocrats, in a attempt to stop the pointing out of their flaws (and we have already seen Obama do this) with start suppressing free speech. Expect to see the fairness doctrine come back and only be enforced on right wing venues. The MSM and the leftist sites will not be touched. As our nation falls deeper into poverty and trouble, also expect to see more "social" programs come into being and financed by the government. Only, they will be for the people that supported the left and no one else. Green projects, teachers, unions, etc. You will also see a national youth movement that will try to brainwash kids into turning in their parents for "Un-American" activities. At this point, people start shooting. Curfews and banning of public protest will come, followed by martial law. Then, full Civil War. Not like the last Civil War, but more of a Balkans type war. When enough people have died, the military will come in against Washington DC and the end for the left and Obama will come quickly.
As a couple writers have pointed out, we seem to be in a cold civil war now. It wouldn't take much to light the fuse for it to go hot, IMHO. I know I am already fed up with the expanding government and erosion of my rights by both sides. But I will not tolerate it if the left pushes it as far as I think they will. I pray the above does not come to pass. But without a McCain victory I don't see much of a way to prevent it. The left and the dhimocrats can't help themselves. They are scorpions.

Posted by DarthVader 2008-10-15 07:48|| 2008-10-15 07:48|| Front Page Top

#10 Oh, and the right/center will be furious if it starts to be shown that Obama won only because of massive vote fraud and nothing really happens until after January 4th. Then everything is hushed up and covered up.

Although, I can see a scenario of Obama winning and several states seem so tainted with fraud that judges rule the result void and order a new election.

Posted by DarthVader 2008-10-15 07:53|| 2008-10-15 07:53|| Front Page Top

#11 For real, DV?

Look, you can't rule out anything completely, but what you are decribing sounds like the fantasies the moonbats had in 2001, in some respects. Prepare for the worst, and all that, but realize that it is, in fact, a worst case scenario, not a most likely one.

Similar things happened when Clinton was elected in 1992. Who can forget the attempted nationalization of US history curricula, which was a veritable litany of cultural and economic Marxism, or the giant tax increases, or the attempt to nationalize 14% of the private sector (health care)? Yet within 2 years the left was turned out of Congress.

Many of the people who will "gripe and complain" will be former Obama supporters who voted for him because he was the flavor of the day, or they were fed up with Republicans. By 2010, they will vote for Republicans in the Congress and Senate overwhelmingly, upon seeing Obama's true colors.

Count on it.

Posted by no mo uro 2008-10-15 08:01|| 2008-10-15 08:01|| Front Page Top

#12 Prolly like a lot of you I listen to talk radio periodically through the day at work. Most of the conservatives I listen to (Wilkow & Church) don't seem to worried about the fairness doctrine - as it has to swing both ways. Also, it would be really hard to implement - it's original intent as per the 1930s law does not fit how the dumb libz want to do it now. OTOH, Boortz is worried about the fairness doctrine - so who knows.

Posted by Broadhead6 2008-10-15 08:16|| 2008-10-15 08:16|| Front Page Top

#13 I don't listen to talk radio -- they shout too much, which gives me a headache. But how would an Obama executive shut down half of the internet? After all, as evidenced on this site a good many web/IT/computer people lean conservative. The Obama team, should he win, may want to shut down dissenting voices, but I really don't think it's probable. Too, some 30% of Americans are happily in the center, and they aren't likely to be happy when half the spectrum disappears.

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2008-10-15 08:22|| 2008-10-15 08:22|| Front Page Top

#14 TW, I'd suggest Bill Bennett 6-9 am - good conservative commentator and never have I ever heard him get over the top. He treats all his guests w/respects and is pretty reserved. Seems to do a good program.

Posted by Broadhead6 2008-10-15 08:28|| 2008-10-15 08:28|| Front Page Top

#15 For real, DV?

For real.

Unlike Clinton and his congress, this time things are very, very polarized. The dhimocrats are fully bought and paid for by the Marxists and socialists and follow their ideology and methods. I wasn't too worried about Clinton in '92 since a good portion of those dhimocrats were blue dog or just wanted more welfare programs and a cut military. Unlike today where the dhimocrats are full fledged nuts, seeking to actively make the US lose in a war to strengthen their own power. Anyone who does that is capable of shredding the Constitution for their own gain. I trusted the '92 dhimocrats not to fuck up too much, this bunch I trust to fuck up completely. I wouldn't be worried about the fairness doctrine if the dhimocrats don't have a veto proof majority. But if they get a veto proof congress, with a Marxist in the Oval Office, expect things to go south really, really fast. Every liberal tax and spend fantasy that you have heard about over the past 5 years will come to pass. Every program rubber stamped. Expect to see war crime trials.
I'm not running out to buy guns unless it looks like everything will be the dhimocrats way on January 4th. Then I will buy several, just in case. I will hope and work for the common good and hope things to work as the founding fathers wanted it to. I just won't count on it. Paying taxes is not patriotic. Questioning patriotism is not wrong.

Posted by DarthVader 2008-10-15 08:36|| 2008-10-15 08:36|| Front Page Top

#16 TW,

One strategy is to make the ISP responsible for what is said on the site. Find some really wacko nut case on the fringe, an ACORN shill, and then set the ISP back a few million$ in legal fees and fines. Because it's a true wacko, most people won't care. And then threatening letters to the ISPs from the local US attorney will be all that is needed to shut down a site.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-10-15 08:40|| 2008-10-15 08:40|| Front Page Top

#17 No unlike the Canadian Human Rights commission strategy. One of the commissioners actually had an account on a right-wing site and was posting vile comments that he or one of his fellows then made a formal claim against.

Beware the Axelrod Astroturf - it can cut the other way.

Posted by Gerthudion Floger4563 2008-10-15 09:07|| 2008-10-15 09:07|| Front Page Top

#18 It's already happening -- Secret Service visits Lufkin woman after 'death threat' allegation from an Obama campaign volunteer.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2008-10-15 09:16|| 2008-10-15 09:16|| Front Page Top

#19 When Obama went to Iraq recently and saw Fox News on many of the television sets, he asked (paraphrasing here) "is this the station endorsed by the US Army?" Obama will be all over the "Fairness Doctrine" and will use Hate Speech as his target. None of this should come as a surprise, it's the tried and true Operation PUSH/Rainbow Coalition program of extortion.

Posted by Besoeker 2008-10-15 09:19|| 2008-10-15 09:19|| Front Page Top

#20 But how would an Obama executive shut down half of the internet?

Just follow the model of Cisco, Microsoft, and Google that has been field tested on behalf of the Chinese government. It's not 100%, but it doesn't need to be. Just enough to keep the word from the masses [methodology as demonstrated by the MSM this election cycle]. The MSM is in the bag already and will be happy to once again monopolize the information market that the government will give them. Soul sold.

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-10-15 09:41|| 2008-10-15 09:41|| Front Page Top

#21 I have decided that we need a Redline: an action that definitely and actually triggers physically violent counter-resistance. We need to let people know what the redline is, and we need to enforce it. Personally.

I am believing that it should center on abridgements of the first and second amendments. The First, because it is necessary to allow the truth to be told: we can get ourselves out of any situation, as long as we know the truth. It may be harder in some situations than others, but the truth will be necessary to recover from all situations. We don't have to know the whole truth, but we need communication of all the individual pieces that people have to get to the whole truth. We'd have had this election sewn up if the MSM was not actively and selectively suppressing the truth. We must not tolerate any version or shade of any 'fairness doctrine', because there is such a thing as selective enforcement, and they have the option of 'selectively enforcing' silence upon those revealing the truth of their selective enforcement. McCain-Feingold had media restrictions what were selective from the start, explicitly exemping the MSM BECAUSE if they didn't exempt it, the bill wouldn't be allowed to pass: it would be too obviously a violation of the First Amendment.

The importance of protecting the second amendment seems less obvious, which is why violations of it should be regarded as the yellow-line for the redline: The redline gets its bite from the real threat of armed resistance, so take away the adjective "armed", and the redline becomes vapor.

Finally, I do not advocate terrorism, which is armed struggle against a civilian population rather than a government. Indeed, where possible, I advocate bypassing the cannon fodder and going after the command structure, the self-comfortable little elites running things and issuing order because they believe they know better than us how to manage our lives than we do, and who feel safe from the consequences of their actions and their laws. They will need to stop feeling they are safe.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2008-10-15 09:42|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2008-10-15 09:42|| Front Page Top

#22 Similar things happened when Clinton was elected in 1992.

I think you (conservative Americans) are going to learn to love Clinton (and I wish it were sarcasm).

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2008-10-15 10:07|| 2008-10-15 10:07|| Front Page Top

#23 the beauty of the 2nd Amend is that it quite simply ensures the viability of the 1st Amend.

Posted by Broadhead6 2008-10-15 10:19|| 2008-10-15 10:19|| Front Page Top

#24 I think the final redline for our Founders was a 3% tax increase, IIRC.

Posted by Broadhead6 2008-10-15 10:22|| 2008-10-15 10:22|| Front Page Top

#25 the question is: does the military support the constitution or follow the orders of the commander in chief?

Posted by bman 2008-10-15 11:41|| 2008-10-15 11:41|| Front Page Top

#26 the question is: does the military support the constitution or follow the orders of the commander in chief?

Yes.

However, the constitution takes priority over the commander. It is the duty of all men in uniform to not obey a lawful order (i.e. shoot innocent civilians that aren't involved in combat) and it is their duty to report such orders. If it is the CIC issuing unlawful orders, it is the commander's duty to disobey at the least, remove him at the worst. Which, is why I think if a Civil War breaks out the military (not counting the national guard who report to the state governor) will sit on the sidelines until it becomes clear that the CIC is not fit to be the commander.

Posted by DarthVader 2008-10-15 11:50|| 2008-10-15 11:50|| Front Page Top

#27 Like any bureaucracy there are 'careerists' who game the hierarchy of any organization and have no loyalty to 'concepts' but to whom ever can advance their status. The military is no different. A lesser example can be found in Clarke. When confronted by the choice between the executive and the Constitution the third option is resignation of one's commission. That opens the way for careerists who do not have the integrity in the oath of office. The higher up you go the more careerists you'll find, particularly those who view their work in the technical sense rather than the 'service' sense. I wouldn't reside particular trust in the upper echelons after a couple years of Presidential selections [lots of senior billets are nominative]. It's the middle grades that are important in the preservation of the Old Republic. So the real question will be whether the middle and junior grades will follow the orders of their seniors or will they still have the integrity to be loyal to an oath committed to "We the People...." The sad part is that if you gave a pop quiz on the Constitution, most of the officer corps probably couldn't pass [along with the bulk of the American population].

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-10-15 12:19|| 2008-10-15 12:19|| Front Page Top

#28 Propicouis speaks of the oft-repeated "Young Officers" coup. But I don't see it happening. Obama is going to overreach. The media, which has been Obama's handmaiden, may actually turn on him/the dems in Congress. Remember, if the repubs are out of office, the journo-critters have to do something to get people to watch their drivel. They do that by beating the hell out of folks. Won't happen right away of course, but it could very well happen.

The more important factor here is the 60%+ of the population that considers themselves either republican or centrist democrat. It probably exceeds 70%. When Obama and the dems overreach, these people are going to walk right into the arms of the republican party, which, hopefully, will have once again crafted a new Contract for America.

Obama is going to fall on his face a lot. He is no Bill Clinton, by a long shot. He has not done anything of substance in any of the positions he has held. He is thin and he is not going to be able to hide that fact, especially when serious issues face him as they most certainly will.

I refuse to fall prey to the doomsday scenarios. I will remain alert, but I have faith in the enduring nature of this Republic and in the population that drives her.

Posted by remoteman 2008-10-15 13:37|| 2008-10-15 13:37|| Front Page Top

#29 Its not Obama I'm afraid of - its the people like Ayers and the socialist/marxist gang who are 'pulling the strings' behind the throne I'm afraid of. Obama is, and always has been, a puppet.

And the media will either still blame the 'republicans' (boy they really screwed this up - its going to take a lot to fix!) or invent another 'the enemy' (jooos!, rednecks!, warmongers!, etc...) to point the finger at.

Posted by CrazyFool 2008-10-15 14:09|| 2008-10-15 14:09|| Front Page Top

#30 CF, you hit the nail right on the head IMHO. I've been wondering who is the Darth Sirous (no offense DV) to this knucklehead for along time. We all know it's not say-it-ain't so Joe!

Posted by Everyday a Wildcat(KSU) 2008-10-15 15:38|| 2008-10-15 15:38|| Front Page Top

#31 The enemy they will turn to is "conservative Christians".

Oh wait, they already have...................

Posted by no mo uro 2008-10-15 17:50|| 2008-10-15 17:50|| Front Page Top

#32 I don't think the real leaders of the pop-left are serious about the fairness doctrine. They are merely pandering to their base when they talk about it, since it is an enormously popular cause with the conformist hordes who are outraged at hearing their favorite myths lampooned and ridiculed every day.

Why aren't they serious?

Simple: The LAST thing they want is a real court test of the fairness of their own media, and such a test will come as surely as day follows night if they attempt to shut down the actual free media.

Mainstream news was specifically exempted when the fairness doctrine was in force. This provision was a blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and would be again. At the time, however, nobody could effectively challenge MSM bias. The reason was the MSM's virtual monopoly on information and the consequent lack of public awareness. Things are very, very different today, with the internet and talk radio documenting every nuance of media-industrial complex propaganda and disseminating that information to millions.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2008-10-15 17:57|| 2008-10-15 17:57|| Front Page Top

#33 Maybe, AC. But imagine the doctrine written into law, monitored and enforced by Obama's goons. Do you seriously think it will be leveraged equally? Don't bet your AM radio on it.
As for a Redline for violent action, I would put it the day Rush, Hanity, Savage, etc. are pushed off the airwaves.

Posted by DarthVader 2008-10-15 18:40|| 2008-10-15 18:40|| Front Page Top

23:55 Claiter Speaking for Boskone9131
23:54 bigjim-ky
23:53 bigjim-ky
23:45 JosephMendiola
23:42 OldSpook
23:39 Barbara Skolaut
23:39 JosephMendiola
23:37 bigjim-ky
23:37 Barbara Skolaut
23:36 bigjim-ky
23:34 Barbara Skolaut
23:33 JosephMendiola
23:33 OldSpook
23:31 JosephMendiola
23:29 JosephMendiola
23:24 Unaimp Borgia7324
23:20 JosephMendiola
23:19 Woozle Spusomble6806
23:17 Hupith Wittlesbach6903
23:15 Woodrow Angart2122
23:13 bigjim-ky
23:13 Thrusong Sproing3473
22:53 bigjim-ky
22:42 Betty