'#Daily Bell: You have made distinctions between capitalism and free markets in the past. What are they? #Wendy McElroy: Laissez-faire capitalism is a specific economic arrangement. I think it is the arrangement that best reflects individualism and promotes a general prosperity. But I am not overly evangelical about it because, first and foremost, I advocate freedom. I want peaceful people to be able to choose an economic system and economic arrangements for themselves. If my neighbors wish to set up a voluntary commune that operates along communist economic principles, it is their right and I do not intend to become an Austrian version of a Jehovah's Witness who knocks on their door to ask, "Have you let Mises into your heart?" The ability of everyone to peacefully choose their economic path for themselves is my overwhelming priority; this is the free market at work. My secondary priority is to explain to those who are interested why I consider my choice of a specific economic arrangement – that is, laissez-faire capitalism – to be superior.' -- "Have you let Mises into your heart?" :)

POINTING FINGER IS POINTING --> 'To the extent that capitalism has gone wrong, it is because it was allowed to become corrupted and hijacked by vested interests. Capitalism’s tendency towards excess and self-destruction is a matter of well-documented record and repeated regret. As long ago as the 18th century, Adam Smith noted that “as soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce”.' <-- POINTING FINGER IS POINTING

'Author David Barker, shares details from his new book, "Welcome to Free America," which talks about an America collapsed by a financial meltdown and gives instructions on how to survive in a society with no government and new rules.' -- But who would build the roads?!?!?!

'The political divide between the champions of the public sector and the private sector misses the point; the key divide is between those who support the monopolistic tendencies of both capitalism and government, and those who support the competitive effects of markets. As Adam Smith, who championed the market but not capitalism, put it: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” The market is where these conspiracies get exposed. To win in it, you don’t lobby, you innovate. Wherever free markets have been even tentatively tried, from Ancient Greece to modern Hong Kong, they have produced not just rising living standards, but net moves towards peace, tolerance, freedom and equality. Capitalism represents the interests of the rich, whereas the market represents the interests of the poor. Let’s hear it for the market as the antidote to capitalism.'

'...the idea that Occupy Wall Street protesters have a right to share directly in the private profits earned by others is immoral. The protesters were correct in being outraged by having to share in Wall Street's losses. But if they do not want to share the losses, they have no right to demand a share of the profits! One protester equated the low wages paid by Wal-Mart to slavery, yet thought the government should take 70% of my income. In the case of Wal-Mart, employees are free to choose other jobs. What choice would I have when faced with a 70% income tax? They call it "slavery" when Wal-Mart offers workers better opportunities than they could find elsewhere, and "justice" when government enslaves me by forcibly taking 70% of the fruits of my labor. Another protester challenged my claim that businesses create jobs by stating that consumers create the jobs by spending money. When I asked him where the consumers got their money, he replied "from their jobs," which actually proved my point. Without jobs, consumers have no purchasing power. And without production, there is nothing to purchase. I'm calling for these protesters to educate themselves on the causes of the current financial decline and not to waste their time attacking the wrong target.'

'An unapologetic member of "the 1 Percent," Schiff argued with all comers for the better part of an afternoon.' -- That which is not seen.

'The 1% do not generate any wealth of their own. Everything they have they get by taking from others under the cover of law. They live at our expense. Without us, the State as an institution would die. The State is the only institution in society that is permitted by law to use aggressive force against person and property. The State is the institution that essentially redefines criminal wrongdoing to make itself exempt from the law that governs everyone else. It is the same with every tax, every regulation, every mandate, and every single word of the federal code. It all represents coercion. The State is everybody's enemy. Why don't the protesters get this? Because they are victims of propaganda by the State, doled out in public school, that attempts to blame all human suffering on private parties and free enterprise. They do not comprehend that the real enemy is the institution that brainwashes them to think the way they do. They are right that society is rife with conflicts, and that the contest is wildly lopsided. It is indeed the 99% vs. the 1%. They're just wrong about the identity of the enemy.'

"You who ask for welfare and handouts, and free education, free healthcare – are just as wrong as the 1percenters you protest. You're just not as good at using the guns of government as they are. The great divide is not between the 1percent and 99percent ... the great divide is between those who are willing to use the force of government to meet their ends, and the rest of us who want to find peaceful, cooperative, free-market solutions to society's problems – or at least, just want to be left alone by the moochers – the grandiose and the petty – and the social engineers, the deluded, the scammers, and even the 'well-meaning'."

'All too often, humans have sought shortcuts in the path to a free world. They have done what emotionally and intuitively “felt” right without performing the necessary critical analysis required to truly “know” that it is right. It is only when we can configure our emotional wants and rewards to be in line with analytically sound mental constructs of causality that we will both be feeling like we are making a difference while at the same time actually be making one. These two outcomes, the perception of progress and actual progress, must never be confused; we can however work to make them congruent. A free world is being built today already by those who have understanding of its nature. It is not occurring through the passing of new laws, taxes, or treaties, the election of new local or global leaders, attacks upon perceived enemies and enslavers, or the occupations of public places and protests for a shift in power. It is being built through education of the intellectually curious, daily self-improvements, voluntary commerce, and the kindness we elect to bestow upon those who respond in kind.'

'Robert Foster in his unparalleled musical manner targets the ailing global economy. How can it be fixed? Does it need to be? Who has the guts to do what is necessary? Special guests of the episode are (sort of) grassroots movement leaders Congressman Ron Paul and the Zeitgeist Movement founder Peter Joseph. (And also surprisingly a homicidal supercomputer on a quest to eradicate humanity and save the Earth).'

'...the protest isn’t angry. Quite the opposite, it is loving and accepting. If you go up to protesters with the opposite political view and debate them, they will express their undying love for you and ask for you to join them to increase the diversity of viewpoints. I did this myself, and watched this happen to others, including cops. This attitude pervades everything they do, and is frequently reinforced by the hard-core occupiers. They still haven’t defined themselves, and risk letting the press define the movement for them. They started out with the idea that occupying Wall Street for weeks would be a good way to get their message out, but they are still trying to come to consensus on what, precisely, their message is. The press (and critics) claim they need a message and that they need a concrete list of demands, but I’m not sure that’s true. This is something else, something new, something that doesn’t need to be defined by the old. In that way, it’s like the Internet.'

'...the reason why some mainstream news journalists and many of the audiences they serve see the Occupy Wall Street protests as incoherent is because the press and the public are themselves. It is difficult to comprehend a 21st century movement from the perspective of the 20th century politics, media, and economics in which we are still steeped. Occupy Wall Street is meant more as a way of life that spreads through contagion, creates as many questions as it answers, aims to force a reconsideration of the way the nation does business and offers hope to those of us who previously felt alone in our belief that the current economic system is broken. But unlike a traditional protest, which identifies the enemy and fights for a particular solution, Occupy Wall Street just sits there talking with itself, debating its own worth, recognizing its internal inconsistencies and then continuing on as if this were some sort of new normal.'

'Dominant Social Theme: A sincere statement of hope and protest delivered by the 99 percent. -- Free-Market Analysis: With increasing fervor, the "first official document" of the Occupy Wall Street protests has been circulated and posted. It was actually adopted on Sept. 29th but is now being publicized with increasing energy and translated as well into such languages as French, Slovak, Spanish and German. It is a disaster. The document contains not a single mention about central banking, which is at the root of modern day sociopolitical and economic problems. hese protests are growing in size and energy. But it is equally clear now that they will likely be leftist in nature and not libertarian. This is how the Anglosphere power elite likes to work, by setting a Hegelian dialectic that creates both sides of a given argument. In this manner, the entire conversation can be co-opted and the results can be controlled as well. We look for a great deal of emphasis on making government work "better" (versus radically shrinking government). We also expect more emphasis on "government transparency" in order to give people the idea that there are ways to improve big government services.'

'Dominant Social Theme: It's all Wall Street's fault. Government needs to write the wrongs of capitalism. -- The human hive mind is at work. It is unstoppable. The elites, so powerful in the 20th century, are seemingly on the wrong side of history in the 21st. Yesterday, Anthony Wile's editorial "Blaming Wall Street Is Wrong" was used, in part, as a basis for a story written by Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars and Prison Planet and then featured as the lede on the Drudge Report, which sets the news agenda for the West's major, mainstream media. The proximate cause of the Infowars article, as well, was a video by journalist Adam Kokesh who interviewed protesters in Washington DC and showed clearly the fascist ideology that motivates the so-called "left." In focusing on the protests, it should be noted that they are not monolithic and include at least some who understand that the nexus of the problem is much larger than Wall Street, even though Wall Street is PART of the problem. But targeting Wall Street, essentially a transactional mechanism, is not only easy, it is convenient for the powers-that-be who operate Wall Street and do not want their OWN roles revealed. A spectre haunts the world and its elites ...'

'Pre-Internet, what's happening in the EU would have been buried under mainstream media misdirection. People might not have understood the larger forces at work. But the EU unraveling along with much else has played out under the merciless glare of the alternative press, and the European tribes are aware of the manipulations that are taking place. It is realization of these manipulations that informs ... a surprisingly good piece of reporting. It is written by Paul Mason, BBC Newsnight's Economics Editor, who is broadcasting regularly from Greece, and it seems to have concentrated his mind, at least for a while, on what's actually happening. The problems are happening to people, individual people, and it is these people, ultimately, who will formulate a response, not "Greece," not politicians, not "working groups" – not even the IMF or ECB. The EU was not an accident. The "crisis" that now affects the EU was long anticipated and was intended to build a closer political union.'

'I respond to an article by Dr Walter Block about my arguments against the value and potential of political action. Original article: http://lewrockwell.com/block/block180.html ' -- "I can't hear what you're saying above what you're doing."

'Check out this amazing brand new RT America promo exposing hypocrisy of the mainstream media.'

'Why does an article like this appear in the Telegraph? It is a "Tory" paper that supports the royal family and serves as a foil to papers like the leftist Guardian in the UK. The elites evidently and obviously control both papers, but the Hegelian Dialectic being employed allows an occasional yelp of truth to emerge. This is one of those cases. It is written by Janet Daley who is something of a neocon columnist; the paper's brief, which includes an ongoing campaign to extricate Britain from the EU, means that there is room for the kinds of sentiments voiced in this article. For a mainstream article, it's pretty strong, fairly surprising. Daley does not of course put what's going on in its proper context. She characterizes the EU as socialist, when the truth is more brutal... There is no "British moral view." There is only a tired, confused and harassed population, endlessly videotaped, incarcerated and taxed as they are gradually shoved toward the mind control of world government.'

'In order to build a new world order, people must be either frightened or enticed into cooperating. It is a great deal easier to scare people than to bribe them, less costly too. But when people begin to tune ... out as they have in the 21st century, then the message is muddled and gradually grows more insignificant. Murdoch's properties are supposed to provide the conservative half of a worldwide Hegelian dialectic. Thesis, antithesis ... synthesis. Murdoch provides the antithesis, with relish. As a major facilitator of the one-world conspiracy, Murdoch is tasked with taming the Internet Reformation. But in order to accommodate the changing conversation he begins to BECOME exactly what his elite backers hoped to eradicate. To retain credibility he must present free-market thinking; yet this is anathema to his sponsors. It is a conundrum. -- For those in tune with what is happening, it is a great time to be alive, as the great conversation has been illuminated once again.'

'Mainstream media continues to call out RT for our journalistic practices, yet the rest of the news world is neglecting to cover the real news in lieu of sensational scandals. Lauren Lyster shares viewer feedback and compares RT with the rest of the MSM.' -- You play in dirt, you get dirty.

'...this project is ideologically flawed... it is driven by precisely the kind of biased thinking and contempt for the public that the people behind the site believe motivates the major news outlets... they assume that all of the news is biased propaganda, but then all they do is replace the original content with skewed snarky propaganda of their own... At the root of this and many other art and technology projects is the idea of getting people to see things your way. It is deeply anti-social. It is at once an admission that convincing people through argument has failed, and also that the blame for the failure rests entirely on the public, not the speaker. -- ...these hackers aren’t interested in giving the reader a choice. That choice exists is the true radical idea. It takes what is implicit and unconscious and under the control of others and renders it conscious, explicit, and subject to our control. Taking the objects of media and government and making them subjects again.'

'The New York Times, NPR and broadcasters across the country are attacking RT for embracing a not-so-mainstream approach to broadcasting the news. Lauren Lyster fires back at allegations about the legitimacy of RT and their guests.' -- YOU HAVE MEDDLED WITH THE PRIMAL FORCES OF NATURE, MISS LYSTER! AND YOU WILL ATONE! http://youtu.be/Kb26LaVuOBk

"The only knowledge we avoid is self-knowledge. Everybody already knows. When you say the state is violence, everybody already knows it. The reason we know that everybody knows it is the speed at which they get upset. If they didn't already know the implications, they wouldn't get upset. Statism is violence; there is no 'God'. You have to work hard to avoid that knowledge because it's so obvious. So what are they avoiding? They are avoiding self-knowledge: knowledge they already possess about themselves, about society, about their friends and family, about truth, about virtue, about integrity, about courage. All of these things. So when you speak an idea and people get upset, the knowledge that they are avoiding is not what you're saying but what they already know. They are reacting not to you but to themselves. If you have to conform to other people's bigotries or face attack and rejection – that's not a relationship – it's a cult. And everybody knows that."

'...the single, significant problem that the mainstream Western media is facing ... is that mainstream publications are seen increasingly as providing unreliable information tailored to the promotion of one-world dominant social themes. The main difference between the blogosphere and the mainstream media is that the blogosphere directly confronts the phenomenon of the Anglo-American power elite and its attempts to create one-world government without ever admitting that it is doing so. The emphasis on Western and even world control by a small monetary elite differentiates the alternative media from the mainstream, which is under control of money power itself. In essence, money power and the media elites are one in the same. Mainstream reporting is thus not in a position to report honestly; that's not what they are about. They are similar in nature to the Federal Reserve, which states one of their pirmary objectives to be controlling inflation when in fact THEY CREATE IT.'

'The godfather of the 9/11 Truth Movement, Jones is the most popular chronicler of what he believes is a New World Order plot to enslave the global population. Until recently, he was a lonely and little-known voice in the short wave and Internet radio wilderness. But as his audience has grown, other talk show hosts have taken notice — and cues. Among his most ardent imitators is Glenn Beck, whom Jones has accused of stealing his ideas, guests, and research. “He rips me off and spins the information, often injecting lies into the truth,” says Jones. So, is Alex Jones really the invisible senior writer of Beck’s TV and radio shows? If the below is any indication, the answer is “Yes.”'

'Each of us, given the constraints on his time, must try to become as informed as possible about the case for freedom. Let us remember that over the last hundred years virtually every form of collectivism has been tried – socialism, communism, fascism, Nazism, interventionism, welfare statism – and each has failed. There are very few today who wax with sincere enthusiasm that government is some great secular god that can solve all of mankind's problems. Statist policies and attitudes continue to prevail because of institutional and special-interest inertia; they no longer possess the political, philosophical, and ideological fervor that brought them to power in earlier times. There is only one "ism" left to fill this vacuum in the face of collectivism's failures. It is classical liberalism, with its conception of the free man in the free society and the free market, grounded in the idea of peaceful association and individual rights.'

'#Erudite vs. lulz: Being erudite on the internet and actually arguing is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded. Wait, why's that? Well, the Interwebs basically allow us to constantly invoke the Pyrrhonian argument of dispute. This is because a shitload of knowledge is just a few mouseclicks away nowadays. Especially if we take the following rules: #11. All your carefully picked arguments can easily be ignored; #12. Anything you say can and will be used against you; #13. Anything you say can be turned into something else... Like Nietzsche, Anonymous realizes (or used to realize, when it still had a green face) that when you pinpoint the place in an argument that makes us laugh uncontrollably you've pinpointed a place in the argument that is very, very flawed. You've shown that the argument is ridiculous (“laughable”). The best part about all of this is that humour is a lot more universally accessible than ... a reasonable argument is.'

'The Internet, with its combination of narrow-band and broad-band presentation has allowed for the dissemination of blunt central banking critiques along with detailed examinations of the central banking problem. Central banking is price fixing of the quantity and price of money and price-fixing is an anti-market activity that must always fail, leaving lesser or greater ruin in its wake. The result has been that the hitherto leftist oriented intelligentsia is waking up to the enormous destruction of the global central banking economy. This sort of paradigm shift must eventually be reflected in the media as well; the mainstream media must track the evolution of a culture's intelligentsia or lose credibility. -- Until the advent of the Internet, [the 'faux-libertarian monetarism vs statist keynesianism' dialectic] was a most effective strategy. But now that central banking is virtually imploding, the elite-dominated mainstream media must begin to acknowledge it.'

'1. Strong criticism. 2. A critical or censorious remark.'

'An up-and-coming Austrian School economist begins training for his shot at the Keynesian champ.' -- "What's the matter, Paul. Stimulus wasn't big enough?"

'Hundreds of fans of the Austrian School were joining the campaign, because they realized the wonderful corner into which Krugman would be painted. He would either have to debate someone well-versed in Austrian business-cycle theory or explain why a New York City food bank would miss out on $100,000+ in "right-wing" money. I wonder if Krugman is surprised at the intensity of the animosity? I was, so I'm betting he is too. -- The most relevant lesson for Austrian economists is that we are seeing the transformation of funding mechanisms for those in the business of creating ideas. Before the rise of modern capitalism, artists and writers needed the support of wealthy patrons. But with capitalism and its "mass production for the needs of the masses," this dependence on the philanthropy of the rich receded. The innovators of today are taking advantage of the new frontier of the Internet.' -- http://youtu.be/6cFXRFlvE3s

'Glenn Beck, as a national media figure, has never been consistent. While he has been seen on TV supporting big government bailouts, new taxes and unlimited war under the dubious banner of "conservative," Beck has also made a name as a Libertarian of sorts, and now as a tax-revolting Patriot leader within the Tea Party. But what Glenn Beck has never done, until now, is come so close to telling the truth. The People would pay attention to Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, Lindsay Lohan and American Idol, not find out the aims of the Council on Foreign Relations, a publicly-obscure but deeply-influential elitist think tank. Though many of Beck's infamous Fox News programs have revolved around convoluted diagrams and misinformed flow-charts linking entities like the White House and the SDS with Van Jones, 9/11 and Nazism (and so on...), he has now reached the point of concise and important historical examples demonstrating the elite controlled agenda. So is Glenn Beck for real?'

'There's a lot written about the causes of the failings of the Froth Estate: beholden to ratings, a dumbed down America, having to compete with other media, but I submit a slightly different cause: there's too many of them. ...there are news outlets everywhere, all competing with each other-- hence the focus isn't truth but survival, and survival means more boob pictures and a willingness to play by the government's rules because if they cut you off, you're done. There's an even worse factor in play: the multitude of news outlets makes you think they're all checking on each other, that even if one gets it wrong the other 19 won't. But most are getting their story from the same single source, the AP. "So where do we go for objective news?" I don't think that's the question, because the market requests it, and the way to get the market to request it is for all of us to be aware of the tricks and manipulations of media.' -- Level up to meta.

'Human Action shows us that trends are unpredictable because people, when faced with difficulties, will change their behaviors to overcome the problems that beset them. This is very inconvenient for government economists who need to make problem-solving projections based on troublesome trends. It is the reason, in fact, that five-year plans never work. For Kiviat and apparently for Backhouse, econometric projections are wrong because "people aren't always rational." The funny thing about Kiviat's article is that there is a long string of feedback replies beneath it and many are far more literate about economics than she is, apparently. Some of the feedbacks mention the Austrian school in particular and provide her links so that she can read up on these issues for herself. (It is, in fact, a reason why so many mainstream media properties have de-emphasized feedbacks or don't even allow them after certain articles.)'

'Simon Johnson was feted for his article, 'The Quiet Coup' – mostly because it bashed Wall Street. For Johnson, as for many authoritarian apologists, central banking itself is never to blame. He wants to tear down Wall Street (fine with us) but he wants to salvage the EU. Simon Johnson was feted by the alternative press because he appealed to a certain alternative-media viewpoint – that Wall Street was the font of all evil. This is a sort of prejudice, in our estimation, rather than reality. Now, with Greece collapsing, and with the EU itself in danger of disintegrating, there are those in the alternative media that are perhaps once again succumbing to preconceived notions. In this case that there is some sort of master plan – that the EU is basically a 50-year-old power-elite sting, a trap that has now been sprung. We suggest a simpler conclusion: Sometimes a rose is just a rose. Sometimes the power elite slips up and (in its greed) over-reaches.'

Someone always has to take it a bit too far. (You're supposed to be lambasting the politicians, not each other. Remember who has/wants the guns.)

BBC: What do you think is wrong with Wikileaks? Cryptome: It needs to be supplemented with many more outlets for prohibited information to reduce the likelihood Wikileaks and other outlets will be targeted for takedown, co-opted by the authorities or become distrusted by orchestrated leaks to it by its opponents of contaminated information—a common means and methods of authorities. A single outlet cannot endure and provides an easy target for the opposition. BBC: What do you think about the future of whistleblowing like that of Wikileaks? Cryptome: It is a very valuable step in the right direction but more outlets are needed that do not require secrecy and confidentiality of their operation—these practices mirror those of authorities. Attention should be paid to the multitude of transparent sources of information to diminish the misleading allure of confidential leaks. Leaks need capacious context from open sources to understand and judge their significance. Alone they are treacherous.

'Given the Fed's problems, Stiglitz's comments might look to some as "piling on." Perhaps they are. They also fit a pattern whereby various power elite insiders reconfigure the public conversation based on public sentiment and the nature of the rhetoric. Rupert Murdoch's Fox TV network may be the most obvious example of (what we consider) this sort of manipulation. Through the auspices of various commentators, the network has dramatically shifted toward conservative and even libertarian rhetoric as the free-market sentiment in the United States has become more evident and popular. This is not necessarily extraordinarily clever or subtle, but in a pre-Internet era it was not especially obvious. In a post-Internet era it is far more obvious because there are more discussions about it and because the shifts have been so rapid and pronounced. This is in fact how savvy observers of the marketplace can determine the sentiment of the culture and the level of power-elite paranoia.'

'Here are issues that we would argue ARE politically correct: [*A long list*] -- We've listed the above areas of "political correctness" only to prove what regular readers of the Bell already have guessed: that our impression of political correctness (in the 21st century anyway) has to do with being careful not to contradict the dominant social themes of the power elite! Throughout the 20th century, and into the 21st, power elite promotions were so powerful, threatening and effective, that people - businesses, too, and, of course, government - carefully self censored, even when they could not explain how and why they came to their self-censoring determinations. This was the ultimate triumph of elite promotional memes - they exercised an iron-clad hold over people's imaginations and internal life. Yet of course it would be the Bell's argument that all of that may be changing now as the Internet-driven conversation continues to rapidly expand.'

'THE POWER OF CONVERSATION -- Arguing is a basic ingredient of thinking: our way of structuring our thought would have been very different without the powerful tool of verbal exchange. So, let's acknowledge that the Internet allows us to think and write in a much more natural way than the one imposed by the written culture tradition: the dialogical dimension of our thinking is now enhanced by continuous, liquid exchanges with others. The way out of the guilty feeling of wasting our time is to commit ourselves to interesting and well articulated conversations... If it happens that what we will leave to the next generation are threads of useful and learned conversations, then [so] be it: I see this as an improvement in our way of externalizing our thinking, a much more natural way of being intelligent in a social world.'

What flavour your propaganda? State flavour? Soros flavour? Iliberal Liberal with a dash of Hipster flavour? Environmentalism flavour *SPECIAL OFFER HALF PRICE*? Godless Heathens! flavour? Irrational Nationalism flavour? Anti-Russia flavour with bitter Anti-China aftertaste? How about Neo-Con flavour with *FREE Soldier Toy (Made In China)*? You can't go wrong with Classic Fear flavour. BBC (Big Brother Cock-snot) flavour, perhaps?

'#2. Stimulation. People consume content that stimulates their mind and senses. That which angers, excites, energizes, entertains, or otherwise creates an emotional response. This is not always the "best" or most informative content, but that which triggers a reaction. #3. Homophily. In a networked world, people connect to people like themselves. Prejudice, intolerance, bigotry, and power are all baked into our networks. In a world of networked media, it's easy to not get access to views from people who think from a different perspective. In an era of networked media, we need to recognize that networks are homophilous and operate accordingly. Technology does not inherently disintegrate social divisions. In fact, more often then not, in reinforces them. Only a small percentage of people are inclined to seek out opinions and ideas from cultures other than their own. These people are and should be highly valued in society...'

'“We detest Republicans and Democrats alike.” The site was cooked up by Libertarians, but Lodispoto says United States of Earth employees are both Republicans and Democrats. “We allow the right and left to come up with [game's] scenarios, the first being the 2011 Obama Coup one made by right-wingers but tempered by us Libertarians. This scenario came out first to capitalize on the various anti-constitutional acts of our current president. The Bush scenario comes out next and I’m sure we will be attacked for being anti-Republican then.”'

The perception IS the reality. That's the inherent danger of the immediate consenus-making ability of twitter and other realtime platforms. -- Brendan O'Neill: "Illiberal liberalism" "Emotional incontinence" Righteous indignation/enthusiasm. That's the inherent danger of immediate action/reaction/gratification as opposed to taking the time to think things through – "Boring, hard work," as Nick Cohen puts it. (As a #moralmaze tweeter said, links to in-depth resources provide the best alibi for "shallow" twitterhappy tweetstormers.) Nick Cohen: "There's a lot of utopianism. It's very shallow and very transient. A lot of it is apathetic. It's people affirming themselves." -- RE #moralmaze. It's not surprising to see tweeters so overly keen to defend any and every perceived threat to twitter, though it's not like its going away—calm down. Defending both their newly-felt right to be heard and the social/cultural capital they've built up over the years... TWITTER IS SERIOUS BUSINESS.

'Barack Obama was the first Black person to portray the Joker, and he has done so with gusto and disquieting brilliance. -- With the majority of the nation that isn’t categorized as a Black person believing that President Obama has already failed, one begins to understand the reality that criticism of Mein Obama is strictly not allowed in the vicinity of Black people. Black people consider Obama – like comic book illustrator Alex Ross’ infamous drawing – a real-life Superman, incapable of doing anything bad. -- With these Barack Obama-Joker images, Black people are worried that white people might finally realize the “that’s racist” smear is fully without merit. And the Damoclean Sword of racism that hangs over all white people's head potentially being removed for good, makes the Obama - Joker poster yet another inclusion in Stuff Black People Don't Like lore.'

'Most journalists have run out of knowing what's going on in the world. And they have embraced this idea of media democracy as a way to disguise that fact. I'm deeply suspicious of it. The whole reason why journalism was invented in the first place is that we have the time, the money, and the power of the organisation to go places, push through doors, find things out, bring it back, and tell you it and allow you to make up your mind about it. ...those who are the promoters of the internet, the boosters, the people who put forward the utopian dream of the internet, and those who basically run silicon valley, are arch individualists, they portray the internet as a playground where every individual can invent their own identity, and it's a new form of democracy without hierarchies of power.' -- On the paradox of the booster dependence on datamining: -- 'it's a completely contradictory view of what human beings are, how they behave, to what these boosters actually portray the internet as.'

'What's happened is you had an idea – which in a way was quite an heroic idea – that each individual could be themselves, could express themselves and become better people. In fact, what happened in that process is that you shifted the idea of risk away from institutions and onto the person themselves, and in that process is what people began to do – far from expressing themselves – began to monitor themselves to see whether they are the correct definition of the individual, whether it's in psychology, how they feel and how they behave; and they begin to search for – and are given – ways of monitoring that as individuals, and that paradoxically leads them to trying to become what they think is the right individual, which actually leads to homogeneity... that idea of total expressiveness... it may be breaking up now as we enter an economic crisis and politicians discover they have power, institutions have power, and that's the way to change the world. The idea of the self may change.'

"Unpopular ideas require euphemisms, and these euphemisms wear out over time. From the inside, ideology usually looks like common sense. Hence, politically dominant elites don’t see themselves as acting ideologically and react with hostility when ideological labels are pinned on them. Ideology is only useful for an insurgent group of outsiders, seeking a coherent basis for a claim to displace the existing elite. [Initial] users of [the euphemism] rapidly [drop] it, once they [get] into power.'