Top 6 things that annoy me the most about people

6. Right wingers: You know? the usual, i.e. neocons, conservatives, racists, reactionaries. People with below average intelligence. This is something scientifically proven. For people like this, equality is something utopic. What if we ever listened to them and, for instance, had always stuck to the thought that equality of races and emancipation of women are “utopic”? Because of people like this, humans are still barbaric. If we had always listened to them we would still be living in caves.

5. Ignorance: When people assume things about you, without knowing you. In a discussion, for instance, they tend to recur to argumentum ad hominem without sticking to the subject in discussion. Or people who ignore all about politics, like for instance, where the price of bread comes from. I just find it plain evil. There’s no such evil vs. stupid dilemma here, they’re either just ignorant or very stupid and the worst thing is, that they call you intolerant if you don’t accept their alleged point of view, especially if they are racists. Since when must we tolerate intolerants?

4. Hypocrites: People who assume to take “objective” positions like neutrals, apolitical, the politically ignorant, because you can’t be neutral in a moving train. In this regard, I prefer openly declared rightwingers.  People who assume they are neutral, are not acknowledging that our system follows an ideology, it is a moving train going in a direction and we are all inside it, ignoring its vices is just cooperating with it. These people are just downright hypocritical or, again, very stupid and ignorant.

3. Younger people who think they know better than you: Yeah, pretentious little twirps who come just straight out of highschool or have barely started college who think they know so much better than everyone else by reading a couple of books. The fact is, they first think about something, but you have given the same topic thought 40 times before they even came up with it. There’s some sheer arrogance and absurdity in people like that.

2. Analness: That’s right, anal people such as cleanliness and spelling nazis, people who make you feel you don’t really even like your favorite band, because they know even the farts they made live.

1. Hipsters, Fanboys, and Sheeple: People who lack personal criteria and are not free-thinkers, they only go with the flow and in masses, they are dangerous. They usually just go with what the others regard as “hip” or “cool”, without even depositing one gram of thought into it. They tend to follow a leader and act like fanboys when you dare criticize their idol. They tend to follow trends without even considering what they consist in.

2nd List

23claw, winterduck 88-red-balloons european-traditionalist nordvolk xbmoorex friendlyfascism mr-morden-speaks rightwinged proudwhitebrit prolife21 wuphanpls mmmmbeefy96 stay-in-reality-liberals macht-konstellation david-vitale blue-eyed-devil-88 skeleton-on-the-internet toward-eternity nolongerwhole notjerrybeans rikening rightwinged wotanwolfram sunandreign brundletobrundle naughtyconservative engel-of-deth enervat white-truth-hurts der-prinz-aus-stahl derschneefiel personalseries1 rhine-daughter obscene-evergreen eternally-alabaster antiqueaspirations gener0sity survivethejive southernstylearistotelian some-antics-with-semantics gentleman—jack carpens-diem adastra81 neverendinginquiry meinkrieg tschaikovsky freeoldglory heritage-and-tradition fortis-cadere-cedere-non-potest legionnaire-chan tug-of-war-intestines herre-kristian thisisrealwhiteculture thefuturemayyetbewon the-eye-of-ra fannafegurd draw-me-an-elephant palmetto-64 eftrom tactikalsekt sandman-mz1 ch0ni

Romney is God in some book somewhere

So it turns out I should be a republican. I consider myself peerless when it comes to misanthropy. My realization that the conservatives and right-wingers that make up the republican party have institutionalized misanthropic policy has therefore caused me to reexamine my affiliations and voting history. What else have I been wrong about? My disgust with U.S. foreign policy and military campaigns seems like a no-brainer now. I totally had it wrong.

You see, I think the world will be much better sans-human. The air will clear, the seas will filter and the concrete and steel will be replaced by trees and dirt. How is that going to happen if we love and care for one another like some crunchy liberal would condone. If we follow liberal policies of using the law-making power of government to look after people’s well-being, our population could stabilize and go on forever! Who the hell wants that! Instead the republican party has wisely chosen to emphasize the power of private property acquisition and retention and the conquest of ceaseless war. By focusing on our stuff, we can ignore that ridiculous liberal notion that we are all somehow connected, in this together…..brothers even.

The alignment of the religious right with the republican party is a genius that defies my ability to comprehend the allegory of religious thought. Perhaps Jesus had his fingers crossed, on the cross, behind his back somehow in spite of the nails. When he said all that about loving one another being the only thing we really needed to know, and that part about giving ALL you have to the poor, I mean, how could that not have been code for a mandate to dominate and subjugate? Maybe we need to pay more attention to what he didn’t actually say, or what some one heard some one else say about what he said. That should do it.

From now on, I am voting republican because I may as well have nice stuff while I wait to go right on up to heaven.

Rightwingers are so cute when their heads explode...

I thought I’d wander over to Free Republic, a far right site that specializes in hyperbole, vitriol, macho posturing, and poor spelling. I was sure I would find some choice comments today, in honor of the Supreme Court’s ruling, and I was not disappointed.

I can’t decide what I like best—their sudden, collective expertise in Constitutional law? Their bellowing threats against the government, couched vaguely enough to keep the FBI at bay? Their high-falutin’ references to beloved historical figures such as John Paul Jones, James Madison, and Sarah Palin? Ooh, it’s just all so good!

I preserved a few of their best comments for the sake of posterity:

From flightdeck: “Anybody who does not vote against Obama is now officially an enemy of the United States.”

From vendome

"I loathe and literally hate my government.

There is no reason to hang the flag of the Red, White and Blue.

It’s Gadsen from now on.”

From 1L: “I can take care of myself and my loved ones, and frankly, that’s ALL I am going to do. The rest of America can go straight to hell.”

Read More

If blacks actually talked to NRA members instead of just ignorantly calling them racist--
  • NRA:All citizens have a sacred right to carry firearms!
  • Blacks:Us too?
  • NRA:Especially you!!!~
  • Blacks:Let's join the NRA!
  • NRA:Welcome Brothers!!!~
  • Disclaimer:Of course there are already many black members of the NRA. http://rightwinged.tumblr.com/post/94959315428/americas-liberty-equestrianrepublican

Since Michael Brown was shot and killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, local law enforcement and much of the mainstream media have been playing by an old script, in which the local police use the press to smear Brown’s character and distract from what really happened.

Meanwhile, a lot of people on social media aren’t buying it. They have noted these police propaganda tactics are tragically predictable, and that too many reporters aren’t asking questions, but playing along as police megaphones.

“We need journalism to kick in and start reporting the story,” actor Jesse Williams told CNN last Sunday. “This is about finding justice for a kid that was shot. An 18-year-old that was shot. Period. And this idea that because he stole a handful of cheap cigars, that were what, five bucks from a convenient store?”

Williams, who was assailed by rightwingers for wearing a hoodie on the air—then cut to the heart of the matter. He said there is a double standard where police and mainstream media all too often turn police brutality victims into people who somehow deserved what they got:

“This idea that every time a black person does something, they automatically become a ‘thug worthy of their own death?’ We don’t own drug crimes. We’re not the only ones that sell and do drugs all the time, we’re not the only ones who steal, we’re not the only ones who talk crazy to cops. There’s a complete double standard and a complete different experience that a certain element of this country has the privilege of being treated as human beings. And the rest of us are not being treated like human beings. Period. And that needs to be discussed, that is the story…we’re not making this up.”

According to the most recently available federal crime statistics reported by USA Today, a white police officer killed a black person at least twice a week in the U.S from 2005 through 2012. “The shooting of a black teenager in Ferguson, MO., last Saturday was not an isolated event in American policing. Eighteen percent of the blacks killed during those seven years were under age 21, compared to 8.7 percent of whites.”

Let’s look at what we know about seven key moments or factors that unfolded in the wake of Brown’s death that show how police demonization and media character assassination works. While the full details of what actually happened are not known—that is what the FBI will try to determine—what’s clear is how disinformation from police, spread by an uncritical media, recycles the worst stereotypes.

1. Ferguson Police Quickly Blame The Dead.What happened before Brown was shot six times by Officer Darren Wilson is not fully known. Eyewitness Dorian Johnson told MSNBC that Brown was walking down the street when police drove up and demanded that Brown get into the vehicle and he ignored the order. St. Louis County Police Chief Joe Belmar said Brown fought Wilson and reached for his gun, justifying the shooting. The police did not initially name the officer, although that detail came out a few days later.

Johnson told MSNBC a very different story. He said Wilson drove up in a police truck and aggressively went after the pair. He first demanded that they get on the sidewalk. When they kept on walking, Johnson said that Wilson nearly hit them with his truck, and then yelled and used the truck door to knock Brown down. Wilson then jumped out and grabbed Brown, who resisted being choked, Johnson said. When the pair started to flee, Wilson shot at Brown, who stopped and yelled he didn’t have a gun. Johnson said he saw Brown shot, while facing Wilson, and then collapsing onto the street.

2. Police Release Video Smearing Brown For Alleged Robbery.Before Ferguson police released Wilson’s identity, they released a video that allegedly showed Brown confronting a convenience store employee and taking a package of cigars. Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon told NBC’s Meet The Press that neither his office nor the state highway patrol team he deployed to take over local policing were informed beforehand. “Quite frankly, we disagree deeply,” Nixon said. “To attempt to, in essence, disparage the character of this victim in the middle of a process like this is not right. It’s just not right.”

3. Mainstream Media Makes The Video Bigger Than His Death. As the department surely knew, the release of the video would swamp most of the coverage, because any police investigation, whether by that department or outside agencies would take time. The police know the mainstream press will consider them to be an official source, because they are an arm of government, more so than a biased participant. However, as the DailyKos’ Barbara Morrill reported, the video’s release before police identified the shooter meant that much of the media coverage would focus on the robbery.

“Well, that didn’t take long,” she wrote. “Barely two hours after Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson named the police officer who gunned down 18-year-old Michael Brown last Saturday, and the demonization of—you guessed it—Michael Brown is well underway.” She cited half a dozen headlines mixing the officer’s identity with the alleged robbery, and this tweet from @fivefifths: “We officially have more facts about a likely unrelated robbery of a single [pack of] Swisher [cigars] than we do about the execution of Mike Brown.”

4. Police Release Autopsy Detail Saying Brown Had Smoked Pot. The DailyKos’ Morrill concluded, “The victim has become the suspect.” That was before another leak further victimizing Brown—a preliminary autopsy report showing traces of marijuana in his blood. It hardly matters that many scientific studies have found that marijuana doesn’t increase violent behavior. This was more innuendo from police telegraphing that Brown was no angel. Right-wing media took the ball and ran with it. Fox News interviewed the medical examiner who conducted the initial autopsy, who speculated on the air that because of pot, Brown “may have been acting in a crazy way and may have done things to the police officer that normally he would not have done.”

5. Mainstream Media Doesn’t Question Source’s Motives. From a media criticism perspective, what’s incredible is not just that these narratives—the alleged burglary or pot smoking—are far less important than the fact that an unarmed teenager was shot and killed by a police officer. The local police aren’t innocent bystanders. They are not a disinterested source. Neither is the local medical examiner who works with the police. But that conflict of interest does not stop certain outlets from quoting this law enforcement community to again smear Brown.

6. Next Smear: Ferguson Called Crime-Filled Community. As MediaMatters noted, “Right-wing media emphasized the supposed prevalence of ‘black-on-black’ violence in response to the shooting death of unarmed black teen Michael Brown… Such emphasis takes the crime statistics out of context in order to hype the racial aspect.” Actual crime statistics for Ferguson reveal it is both better and worse than national averages, depending on the crime. Nonetheless, commentators at the Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Fox News and elsewhere are calling it a bastion of bad behavior.

7. Public Defenders Say There’s Nothing New In Police Smears. Public defenders face off in court representing low-income clients against police and prosecutors. Miles Gerety, who recently retired after three decades as a Connecticut public defender specializing in death penalty cases, said he was “not surprised at all” about the Ferguson police. “It’s an unsophisticated albeit primative attempt to justify what seems unjustfiable: ‘The deceased was a bad person and thus deserved to die.’” Gerety also noted that these slurs and character assassinations would not be allowed in a courtrom trial, even though they are getting media play and shape public opinion.

“A crime is a crime. Just because your victim may have been a bad actor at some point, doesn’t make killing that person justifiable,” he said. “In a trial for murder, for instance, the fact that the victim may have committed a crime before being killed would be completely irrelevant unless the defendant knew of the conduct and it somehow related to a self-defense claim. It’s ironic that the Ferguson police resorted to this tactic of blaming the victim when you damn well know they’d blast any defense lawyer who resorted to the same tactic. I’ve found it doesn’t pay to malign the dead.”

The Big Picture: Unchecked Police Brutality

The unrest and protests following Brown’s killing have put the militarization of local police forces in the national spotlight, especially as police who look like soldiers are facing down protesters on Ferguson’s streets. But the most important issue that’s not getting widely discussed transcends the horrible specifics of Michael Brown’s death: the continuing trend of police officers shooting and killing black men, instead of using other tactics to deal with confrontations.

(On Tuesday, St. Louis police shot and killed another man, apparently wielding a knife, several miles from Ferguson.)

squirerennac reblogged your post and added:

…the profile is called “rightwinged”, the balance of probabilities is that she would be, in all likelihood, catholic.  I also wouldn’t be surprised if they were from below the Mason Dixon line, too.

A large number of right-winged people aren’t Catholic. I also live in the north, above the Mason Dixon line. Jumping to conclusions and stereotyping me based on political beliefs is douchey.

This whole “LOVE JIHAD” spectacle is not something innocuous that can be brushed aside as “lol rightwingers”. It is another line in a long tradition of forcing patriarchal, caste and religious hierarchy in India. Any deviations from extreme patriarchal and caste control of marriage are considered dishonorable, many times enough to get the couple (or almost always the man from the “Other”, and socially constructed “lower”, background) murdered. 

Since Michael Brown was shot and killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, local law enforcement and much of the mainstream media have been playing by an old script, in which the local police use the press to smear Brown’s character and distract from what really happened.

Meanwhile, a lot of people on social media aren’t buying it. They have noted these police propaganda tactics are tragically predictable, and that too many reporters aren’t asking questions, but playing along as police megaphones.

“We need journalism to kick in and start reporting the story,” actor Jesse Williams  told CNN last Sunday. “This is about finding justice for a kid that was shot. An 18-year-old that was shot. Period. And this idea that because he stole a handful of cheap cigars, that were what, five bucks from a convenient store?”

Williams, who was assailed by rightwingers for wearing a hoodie on the air—then cut to the heart of the matter. He  said there is a double standard where police and mainstream media all too often turn police brutality victims into people who somehow deserved what they got:

“This idea that every time a black person does something, they automatically become a ‘thug worthy of their own death?’ We don’t own drug crimes. We’re not the only ones that sell and do drugs all the time, we’re not the only ones who steal, we’re not the only ones who talk crazy to cops. There’s a complete double standard and a complete different experience that a certain element of this country has the privilege of being treated as human beings. And the rest of us are not being treated like human beings. Period. And that needs to be discussed, that is the story…we’re not making this up.”

According to the most recently available federal crime statistics reported by USA Today, a white police officer killed a black person at least twice a week in the U.S from 2005 through 2012. “The shooting of a black teenager in Ferguson, MO., last Saturday was not an isolated event in American policing. Eighteen percent of the blacks killed during those seven years were under age 21, compared to 8.7 percent of whites.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Let’s look at what we know about seven key moments or factors that unfolded in the wake of Brown’s death that show how police demonization and media character assassination works. While the full details of what actually happened are not known—that is what the FBI will try to determine—what’s clear is how disinformation from police, spread by an uncritical media, recycles the worst stereotypes.

1. Ferguson Police Quickly Blame The Dead. What happened before Brown was shot six times by Officer Darren Wilson is not fully known. Eyewitness Dorian Johnson told MSNBC that Brown was walking down the street when police drove up and demanded that Brown get into the vehicle and he ignored the order. St. Louis County Police Chief Joe Belmar said Brown fought Wilson and reached for his gun, justifying the shooting. The police did not initially name the officer, although that detail came out a few days later.

Johnson told MSNBC a very different story. He said Wilson drove up in a police truck and aggressively went after the pair. He first demanded that they get on the sidewalk. When they kept on walking, Johnson said that Wilson nearly hit them with his truck, and then yelled and used the truck door to knock Brown down. Wilson then jumped out and grabbed Brown, who resisted being choked, Johnson said. When the pair started to flee, Wilson shot at Brown, who stopped and yelled he didn’t have a gun. Johnson said he saw Brown shot, while facing Wilson, and then collapsing onto the street.

2. Police Release Video Smearing Brown For Alleged Robbery. Before Ferguson police released Wilson’s identity, they released a video that allegedly showed Brown confronting a convenience store employee and taking a package of cigars. Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon told NBC’s Meet The Press that neither his office nor the state highway patrol team he deployed to take over local policing were informed beforehand. “Quite frankly, we disagree deeply,” Nixon said. “To attempt to, in essence, disparage the character of this victim in the middle of a process like this is not right. It’s just not right.”

3. Mainstream Media Makes The Video Bigger Than His Death. As the department surely knew, the release of the video would swamp most of the coverage, because any police investigation, whether by that department or outside agencies would take time. The police know the mainstream press will consider them to be an official source, because they are an arm of government, more so than a biased participant. However, as the DailyKos’ Barbara Morrill reported, the video’s release before police identified the shooter meant that much of the media coverage would focus on the robbery.

“Well, that didn’t take long,” she wrote. “Barely two hours after Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson named the police officer who gunned down 18-year-old Michael Brown last Saturday, and the demonization of—you guessed it—Michael Brown is well underway.” She cited half a dozen headlines mixing the officer’s identity with the alleged robbery, and this tweet from @fivefifths: “We officially have more facts about a likely unrelated robbery of a single [pack of] Swisher [cigars] than we do about the execution of Mike Brown.”

4. Police Release Autopsy Detail Saying Brown Had Smoked Pot. The DailyKos’ Morrill concluded, “The victim has become the suspect.” That was before another leak further victimizing Brown—a preliminary autopsy report showing traces of marijuana in his blood. It hardly matters that many scientific studies have found that marijuana doesn’t increase violent behavior. This was more innuendo from police telegraphing that Brown was no angel. Right-wing media took the ball and ran with it. Fox News interviewed the medical examiner who conducted the initial autopsy, who speculated on the air that because of pot, Brown “may have been acting in a crazy way and may have done things to the police officer that normally he would not have done.”

5. Mainstream Media Doesn’t Question Source’s Motives. From a media criticism perspective, what’s incredible is not just that these narratives—the alleged burglary or pot smoking—are far less important than the fact that an unarmed teenager was shot and killed by a police officer. The local police aren’t innocent bystanders. They are not a disinterested source. Neither is the local medical examiner who works with the police. But that conflict of interest does not stop certain outlets from quoting this law enforcement community to again smear Brown.

6. Next Smear: Ferguson Called Crime-Filled Community. As MediaMatters noted, “Right-wing media emphasized the supposed prevalence of ‘black-on-black’ violence in response to the shooting death of unarmed black teen Michael Brown… Such emphasis takes the crime statistics out of context in order to hype the racial aspect.” Actual crime statistics for Ferguson reveal it is both better and worse than national averages, depending on the crime. Nonetheless, commentators at the  Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Fox News and elsewhere are calling it a bastion of bad behavior.

7. Public Defenders Say There’s Nothing New In Police Smears. Public defenders face off in court representing low-income clients against police and prosecutors. Miles Gerety, who recently retired after three decades as a Connecticut public defender specializing in death penalty cases, said he was “not surprised at all” about the Ferguson police. “It’s an unsophisticated albeit primative attempt to justify what seems unjustfiable: ‘The deceased was a bad person and thus deserved to die.’” Gerety also noted that these slurs and character assassinations would not be allowed in a courtrom trial, even though they are getting media play and shape public opinion.

“A crime is a crime. Just because your victim may have been a bad actor at some point, doesn’t make killing that person justifiable,” he said. “In a trial for murder, for instance, the fact that the victim may have committed a crime before being killed would be completely irrelevant unless the defendant knew of the conduct and it somehow related to a self-defense claim. It’s ironic that the Ferguson police resorted to this tactic of blaming the victim when you damn well know they’d blast any defense lawyer who resorted to the same tactic. I’ve found it doesn’t pay to malign the dead.”

The Big Picture: Unchecked Police Brutality

The unrest and protests following Brown’s killing have put the militarization of local police forces in the national spotlight, especially as police who look like soldiers are facing down protesters on Ferguson’s streets. But the most important issue that’s not getting widely discussed transcends the horrible specifics of Michael Brown’s death: the continuing trend of police officers shooting and killing black men, instead of using other tactics to deal with confrontations.

(On Tuesday, St. Louis police shot and killed another man, apparently wielding a knife, several miles from Ferguson.)

h/t: Steven Rosenfeld at Salon, via Alternet

Recently, I accidentally deleted an anon mail asking me what anti SJW blogs I follow. Sorry, I feel like an idiot. To whoever that asked, here’s what I wrote:

"Well, my following list is really shitty now because I started around 2 months ago and because I don’t spend my entire time on here. However there are. two anti sjw blogs that I like to follow:

•rightwinged
•logicd

Rightwinged is primarily a political blog for republicans (if you’re not American, they’re right-wingers). I really wouldn’t consider myself a right-winger, but I get tired of so much left-wing circlejerking on the internet, so that blog offers a differing perspective for me on political issues in the US (they may mention issues in other countries as well). There may be some opinions that you don’t agree with, but they still offer some perspectives on issues. They are very anti SJW, and the stuff they blog shows it. The stuff they reblog or post about SJWs can be funny and further reveal how dumb they are, so I recommend them as a place to start.

Logicd, the man from 4chan. This guy is so anti SJW, he makes us jealous. We want to be this guy (or at least I want to, lol). The way he utterly destroys SJWs in arguments is a beautiful sight to see. He will reblog some SJW and just post a mountain of evidence that proves them wrong. It’s pretty humiliating. He can be very funny if you’re into 4chan humor. However, he can be a tad bit offensive, so you can’t be weak to be able to stomach what he says. Currently, he is covering the protests going on in Ferguson in a different way from the media. You have to admit that the media can distort news in order to fulfill political agendas, so seeing someone from Ferguson describe what’s happening there is nice. Alot of what he says contradicts what the media covers, so I’d say it’s worth a look.

If you (or anyone that reads this) have a any anti SJW blogs I should follow, please let me know. I’m hoping to expand my following list. Hope this helped ya.”

the-uncensored-she said: Ugh! Too many of those Brown and even Black cops turn out to be rightwingers who hate their own people. Like that one Black yet anti-Black racist cop from “Boyz N The Hood”.

yup. the cop that hit me when i was 16 was black. 

when a cop decides to serve, in my eyes they have signed their names to protect and serve the empire of white supremacy

FIRSTLY- Friday July4 was a really important day and a strong convergence of indigenous, undocumented and anti – colonialist anti- fascist action on #farceofjuly against the reactionary racists holding down Murrieta. The Danzas called upon a strong spirit to hold that space and i think that is what moved a lot of the rightwingers down the road (though they were worried the bus would come in from the other direction). 

It’s important we got out there and got more information on what the conspiracy is between the police, border patrol and the anti immigrant protesters (as if they are any different). After going down the street to take pictures of the right wing reactionaries, a right winger punched someone who was with us. The police intervened and began to use excessive force on the people targeted by the right-wing. As we tried to leave the area, more police arrived and began brutalizing our group instead of holding accountable the right wingers (big surprise here..). We were assaulted by police, then charged with assault and Lynching. One comrade was arrested and charged with a felony, even though they were far from the conflict but were filming the brutality and excessive force of the police. His phone was confiscated. It appears we will be facing multiple felonies, if anyone in the So Cal areas knows of any legal support help or suggestions please email me at artofexisting@gmail.com.

The Police confiscated two of our phones and are holding them as evidence pending a search warrant. This is seriously troubling because there is a strong likelihood that the Murrieta Police are involved indirectly or directly in the anti immigration protests. They don’t consider themselves representatives of the federal government, but first of Murrieta as a private city. (is what they told us) At least two of the officers spoke of going to the protest after their shift. They were watching videos of the rally on their shift and chanting USA USA. One of the border patrol agents was there throughout the processing. The Border Patrol and Murrieta PD are not fit to provide protective custody to these displaced children! MAD SOLIDARITY TO ALL THOSE ORGANIZING AGAINST THESE RACISTS.  Let’s keep the focus on borders, displacement and refugees detained by the federal government and processed in extremely hostile areas like Murrieta!

Inland Empire organizers have called for a National Day of Action to call for peace, respect, and compassion for unaccompanied minors. There is a PEACE VIGIL in Murrieta, CA on Wednesday to refocus the events on creating safe(r) spaces for undocumented displaced peoples and migrant children refugees. Information can be found at the attached event: We Don’t Have a Border Issue, We Have a Humanitarian Issue: Vigil In Support of Refugee Children and their Families https://www.facebook.com/events/1513890132160647/?ref=22. 

Please share and help! If it’s an ‘immigration crisis’ it’s also an IMPERIALIST crisis and we have to do what we can to support people who are impacted and displaced by Amerikan aktions indirectly through policies and directly through US intervention, military occupation, or destabalization of other countries and economies. Fight Fascism! Support the Undocumented! Donate here: https://www.giveforward.com/fundraiser/m305/unaccompanied-children-and-migrant-families-refugees

If you cannot attend or donate, please follow the events and share on the ground reports and resistance news if you can, as well as help organize solidarity actions wherever you are.

Please NOTE that Murrieta is an extremely hostile and racist run city, there were minutemen armed with knives there in peoples faces threatening and organizing to bring reinforcements. There is a history of neo-nazi white supremacist organizing in the Inland Empire area. It is not recommended that you go there by yourselves, but that we move together in a more organized fashion.

The Guardian

homeUKworldsportfootballcommentcultureeconomylifefashionenvironmenttechmoneytravel

all

society

The establishment uncovered: how power works in Britain

975comments

In an exclusive extract from his new book, Owen Jones explains how the political, social and business elites have a stranglehold on the country

Through the revolving door: in the new establishment, powerful individuals glide between the political, corporate and media worlds. Photograph: Comstock/Getty Images

Owen Jones

Tuesday 26 August 2014 18.00 BST

Definitions of “the establishment” share one thing in common: they are always pejorative. Rightwingers tend to see it as the national purveyor of a rampant, morally corrupting social liberalism; for the left, it is more likely to mean a network of public-school and Oxbridge boys dominating the key institutions of British political life.

Here is what I understand the establishment to mean. Today’s establishment is made up – as it has always been – of powerful groups that need to protect their position in a democracy in which almost the entire adult population has the right to vote. The establishment represents an attempt on behalf of these groups to “manage” democracy, to make sure that it does not threaten their own interests. In this respect, it might be seen as a firewall that insulates them from the wider population. As the well-connected rightwing blogger and columnist Paul Staines puts it approvingly: “We’ve had nearly a century of universal suffrage now, and what happens is capital finds ways to protect itself from, you know, the voters.”

Advertisement

Back in the 19th century, as calls for universal suffrage gathered strength, there were fears in privileged circles that extending the vote to the poor would pose a mortal threat to their own position – that the lower rungs of society would use their newfound voice to take away power and wealth from those at the top and redistribute it throughout the electorate. “I have heard much on the subject of the working classes in this house which, I confess, has filled me with feelings of some apprehension,” Conservative statesman Lord Salisbury told parliament in 1866, in response to plans to extend the suffrage. Giving working-class people the vote would, he stated, tempt them to pass “laws with respect to taxation and property especially favourable to them, and therefore dangerous to all other classes”.

The worries of those 19th-century opponents of universal suffrage were not without foundation. In the decades that followed the second world war, constraints were imposed on Britain’s powerful interests, including higher taxes and the regulation of private business. This was, after all, the will of the recently enfranchised masses. But today, many of those constraints have been removed or are in the process of being dismantled – and now the establishment is characterised by institutions and ideas that legitimise and protect the concentration of wealth and power in very few hands.

Advertisement

The interests of those who dominate British society are disparate; indeed, they often conflict with one another. The establishment includes politicians who make laws; media barons who set the terms of debate; businesses and financiers who run the economy; police forces that enforce a law that is rigged in favour of the powerful. The establishment is where these interests and worlds intersect, either consciously or unconsciously. It is unified by a common mentality, which holds that those at the top deserve their power and their ever-growing fortunes, and which might be summed up by the advertising slogan “Because I’m worth it”. This is the mentality that has driven politicians to pilfer expenses, businesses to avoid tax, and City bankers to demand ever greater bonuses while plunging the world into economic disaster. All of these things are facilitated – even encouraged – by laws that are geared to cracking down on the smallest of misdemeanours committed by those at the bottom of the pecking order – for example, benefit fraud. “One rule for us, one rule for everybody else” might be another way to sum up establishment thinking.

These mentalities owe everything to the shared ideology of the modern establishment, a set of ideas that helps it to rationalise and justify its position and behaviour. Often described as “neoliberalism”, this ideology is based around a belief in so-called free markets: in transferring public assets to profit-driven businesses as far as possible; in a degree of opposition – if not hostility – to a formal role for the state in the economy; support for reducing the tax burden on private interests; and the driving back of any form of collective organisation that might challenge the status quo. This ideology is often rationalised as “freedom” – particularly “economic freedom” – and wraps itself in the language of individualism. These are beliefs that the establishment treats as common sense, as being a fact of life, just like the weather.

Not to subscribe to these beliefs is to be outside today’s establishment, to be dismissed by it as an eccentric at best, or even as an extremist fringe element. Members of the establishment genuinely believe in this ideology – but it is a set of beliefs and policies that, rather conveniently, guarantees them ever growing personal riches and power.

As well as a shared mentality, the establishment is cemented by financial links and a “revolving door”: that is, powerful individuals gliding between the political, corporate and media worlds – or who manage to inhabit these various worlds at the same time. The terms of political debate are, in large part, dictated by a media controlled by a small number of exceptionally rich owners, while thinktanks and political parties are funded by wealthy individuals and corporate interests. Many politicians are on the payroll of private businesses; along with civil servants, they end up working for companies interested in their policy areas, allowing them to profit from their public service – something that gives them a vested interest in an ideology that furthers corporate interests. The business world benefits from the politicians’ and civil servants’ contacts, as well as an understanding of government structures and experience, allowing private firms to navigate their way to the very heart of power.

Yet there is a logical flaw at the heart of establishment thinking. It may abhor the state – but it is completely dependent on the state to flourish. Bailed-out banks; state-funded infrastructure; the state’s protection of property; research and development; a workforce educated at great public expense; the topping up of wages too low to live on; numerous subsidies – all are examples of what could be described as a “socialism for the rich” that marks today’s establishment.

This establishment does not receive the scrutiny it deserves. After all, it is the job of the media to shed light on the behaviour of those with power. But the British media is an integral part of the British establishment; its owners share the same underlying assumptions and mantras. Instead, journalists and politicians alike obsessively critique and attack the behaviour of those at the bottom of society. Unemployed people and other benefit claimants; immigrants; public-sector workers – these are groups that have faced critical exposure or even outright vilification. This focus on the relatively powerless is all too convenient in deflecting anger away from those who actually wield power in British society.

To understand what today’s establishment is and how it has changed, we have to go back to 1955: a Britain shaking off postwar austerity in favour of a new era of consumerism, rock’n’roll and Teddy Boys. But there was a more sinister side to the country, and it disturbed an ambitious Tory journalist in his early 30s named Henry Fairlie.

 Henry Fairlie, the journalist who popularised the term ‘the establishment’ in the 1950s. Photograph: Associated Newspapers/Rex

Early in his career, Fairlie was mixing with the powerful and the influential. In his 20s, he was already writing leader columns for the Times. But, at the age of 30, he left for the world of freelance writing and began penning a column for the Spectator magazine. Fairlie had grown cynical about the higher echelons of British society and, one day in the autumn of 1955, he wrote a piece explaining why. What attracted his attention was a scandal involving two Foreign Office officials, Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean, who had defected to the Soviet Union. Fairlie suggested that friends of the two men had attempted to shield their families from media attention.

This, he asserted, revealed that “what I call the ‘establishment’ in this country is today more powerful than ever before”. His piece made “the establishment” a household phrase – and made Fairlie’s name in the process.

For Fairlie, the establishment included not only “the centres of official power – though they are certainly part of it” – but “the whole matrix of official and social relations within which power is exercised”.

This “exercise of power”, he claimed, could only be understood as being “exercised socially”. In other words, the establishment comprised a set of well-connected people who knew one another, mixed in the same circles and had one another’s backs. It was not based on official, legal or formal arrangements, but rather on “subtle social relationships”.

Fairlie’s establishment consisted of a diverse network of people. It was not just the likes of the prime minister and the archbishop of Canterbury, but also incorporated “lesser mortals” such as the chairman of the Arts Council, the director general of the BBC and the editor of the Times Literary Supplement, “not to mention divinities like Lady Violet Bonham Carter” – the daughter of former Liberal prime minister Herbert Asquith, confidante of Winston Churchill and grandmother of future Hollywood actor Helena Bonham Carter.

The Foreign Office was, Fairlie claimed, “near the heart of the pattern of social relationships which so powerfully controls the exercise of power in this country”, stacked as it was with those who “know all the right people”. In other words, the establishment was all about “who you know”.

But important facets of power in Britain were missing from Fairlie’s definition. First, there was no reference to shared economic interests, the profound links that bring together the big-business, financial and political elites. Second, his piece gave no sense of a common mentality binding the establishment together. There was one – although it was very different from the mentality that dominates today, despite the fact that, then as now, an Old Etonian Conservative (Anthony Eden) was in Downing Street. For this was the era of welfare capitalism, and an ethos of statism and paternalism – above all, a belief that active government was necessary for a healthy, stable society – was shared by those with power.

The differences between Fairlie’s era and our own show that Britain’s ruling establishment is not static: the upper crust of British society has always been in a state of perpetual flux. This relentless change is driven by survival. History is littered with demands from below for ruling elites to give up some of their power, forcing members of the upper crust of British society to compromise. After all, unchecked obstinacy in the face of demands for change risks bringing down not just individual pillars of the establishment, but the entire system of power with them.

The monarchy is a striking example of a traditional pillar of power that, faced with occasionally formidable threats, has had to adapt to survive. This was evident right from the origins of a power-sharing arrangement between crown and parliament struck in the aftermath of revolution and foreign invasion in the 17th century, and which continues to exist today. Many of the monarchy’s arbitrary powers, such as the ability to wage war, ended up in the hands of the prime minister. Even today, the monarchy’s role is not entirely symbolic.

"The Crown is a bit of a vague institution, but it is kind of the heart of the constitution, where all the power comes from," says Andrew Child, campaign manager of Republic, a group advocating an elected head of state. The prime minister appoints and sacks government ministers without needing to consult the legislature or electorate because he is using the Queen’s powers: these are the Crown’s ministers, not the people’s. In practice, too, members of the royal family have a powerful platform from which to intervene in democratic decisions.

 Prince Charles, as next in line to the throne, has a powerful platform from which to intervene in democratic decisions. Photograph: Picasa

Prince Charles, the designated successor to the throne, has met with ministers at least three dozen times since the 2010 general election and is known to have strong opinions on issues such as the environment, the hunting ban, “alternative” medicine and heritage.

In contrast to other European countries, Britain’s aristocracy also managed to avoid obliteration by adapting and assimilating. In the wake of the industrial revolution it absorbed – much to the disgust of traditionalists – some prospering businessmen into its ranks, such as the City of London financier Lord Addingtonand the silk broker Lord Cheylesmore. The aristocracy continued to wield considerable political power throughout the 19th century, supplying many prime ministers, such as the1st Duke of Wellington, the 2nd Earl Grey and the 2nd Viscount Melbourne. But following parliament acts passed by MPs in 1911 and 1949, this power was curtailed when the elected House of Commons enshrined in law its own dominance over the aristocrats’ House of Lords. The legacy of centuries of aristocratic power has not vanished, though: more than a third of English and Welsh land – and more than 50% of rural land – remains in the hands of just 36,000 aristocrats.

Although less influential today than it has ever been, the Church of England retains the trappings of its old power. Indeed, the word establishment is testament to its one-time importance: the term is likely to derive from the fact that the Church of England is the country’s “established church”, or state religion, with the monarch serving as its head. The church’s most senior official, the archbishop of Canterbury, is appointed by the prime minister on behalf of the monarch.

Even though Britain is one of the most irreligious countries on Earth, with just one in 10 attending church each week and a quarter of Britons having no religious beliefs, the Church of England still runs one in four primary and secondary schools in England, while its bishops sit in the House of Lords, making Britain the only country – other than Iran – to have automatically unelected clerics sitting in the legislature.

The establishment is a shape-shifter, evolving and adapting as needs must. But one thing that distinguishes today’s establishment from earlier incarnations is its sense of triumphalism. The powerful once faced significant threats that kept them in check. But the opponents of our current establishment have, apparently, ceased to exist in any meaningful, organised way. Politicians largely conform to a similar script; once-mighty trade unions are now treated as if they have no legitimate place in political or even public life; and economists and academics who reject establishment ideology have been largely driven out of the intellectual mainstream. The end of the cold war was spun by politicians, intellectuals and the media to signal the death of any alternative to the status quo: “the end of history”, as the US political scientist Francis Fukuyama put it. All this has left the establishment pushing at an open door. Whereas the position of the powerful was once undermined by the advent of democracy, an opposite process is now underway. The establishment is amassing wealth and aggressively annexing power in a way that has no precedent in modern times. After all, there is nothing to stop it.

Tags: 

Equality, Social mobility, Politics, Politics past, UK news

Share via EmailShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Google+

More on this story

If Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage are mavericks British politics is doomed

Owen Jones

23h874comments

If Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage are mavericks British politics is doomed

Mobile phone companies have failed – it’s time to nationalise them

Owen Jones

11 Aug 2014398comments

Mobile phone companies have failed – it’s time to nationalise them

The British tradition that Thatcher could not destroy

Owen Jones

18 Aug 20141720comments

The British tradition that Thatcher could not destroy

Suicide and silence: why depressed men are dying for somebody to talk to

15 Aug 2014525comments

Suicide and silence: why depressed men are dying for somebody to talk to

James Foley’s murder will see calls for military action – just what Isis wants

Owen Jones

20 Aug 20141168comments

James Foley’s murder will see calls for military action – just what Isis wants

in depth

The Look of Silence: Act of Killing follow-up just as horrifically gripping

5/5stars

The Look of Silence: Act of Killing follow-up just as horrifically gripping

Have we reached peak peak? The rise (and rise) of a ubiquitous phrase

Have we reached peak peak? The rise (and rise) of a ubiquitous phrase

‘The police were spying on me rather than looking for Ricky’s killers’ – Sukhdev Reel

‘The police were spying on me rather than looking for Ricky’s killers’ – Sukhdev Reel

Loading comments…Trouble loading?

All Comments (975)

View unthreaded

Open for comments. Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion.

View                  

oldest                 newest              first

Loading comments…

Cecelia O’brien

28 Aug 2014 02:06

 12

Guardian Pick

the problem with the elites (establishment) is that they think what is best for them is best for the society as a whole and this would not be the first time they were wrong.

We cannot create a perfect society but we can through organized resistance limit their ability to continue to enrich themselves while the rest of us have less and less. It was done in the past and can be done again. But it requires a willingness to act - to see the truth - and to be actual participants instead of whiney victims.

And yes monarchy does play a big role in perpetuating the system but eliminating the monarchy will not end the establishment. Only a working/middle class which accepts its responsibilities to curb the power of the elites will do that.

Report

Saltycroc

28 Aug 2014 01:01

 23

Guardian Pick

Nothing has changed since 1066.

Report

Close report comment form         Please select         Personal abuse         Off topic         Legal issue         Trolling         Hate speech         Offensive/Threatening language         Copyright         Spam         Other     

Reason (optional)

Email (optional)

ReportShow comments…

Loading comments…

Popular inSocietyPopular inThe Guardian

1

Closed shop at the top in deeply elitist Britain, says study

2

Top of British society is a racket for the privileged | Owen Jones

3

England ranked ninth out of 11 countries for children’s wellbeing

4

Ebola claims life of third doctor in Sierra Leone

5

Do more for depressed cancer patients – study

6

Councils tendering care contracts case by case in online ‘auctions’

7

The establishment uncovered: how power works in Britain

8

Mindfulness therapy comes at a high price for some, say experts

9

Failures in Rotherham led to sexual abuse of 1,400 children

10

'Sex drive-in' hailed as success after year-long experiment in Zürich

theguardian 
reader events

More from Guardian Reader Events

Naomi Klein

Monday 6 October, London 
In her provocative new book Klein argues that radical political change is needed in the fight against climate change.

David Mitchell

Wednesday 3 September 
Join the author for a discussion of his new novel The Bone Clocks with books editor Claire Armistead.

Society

 Equality

back to top

homeUKworldsportfootballcommentcultureeconomylifefashionenvironmenttechmoneytravel

all

jobssoulmatesmasterclassesall topicsabout this sitehelpcontact ussecuredropfeedbackterms & conditionsprivacy policycookie policydesktop site

© 2014 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Text
Photo
Quote
Link
Chat
Audio
Video