 sustain private power and put their concentration of power as opposed to the traditional anarchists were opposed to the relation of dominance between masters and servants, between owners and workers. That is one of the major, one of the most elemental types of dominance that have always been opposed by any anarchist but not by them, they are in favor of it. They want, they're in favor of having the population subordinated to concentrated private power, which should have no limits. When they call themselves "anti-government," that means they don't want government to limit the capacity of concentrated private power to dominate the society. That is very far from any anarchism. The reason that they are successful is that they have enormous amount of private capital supporting them. They are very heavily funded, they have media-outlets I mean they’re a genuine, popular movement, they have a base and they kind of mostly almost entirely white, mostly petty bourgeois, small store-keepers and so on, many of them. … There's elements that are highly nationalist as racist elements. They basically just … their power and significance doesn’t come from their numbers, but by the backing that they have. They do serve the interests of significant elements of private capital.

SN: I was thinking more in a sense that the power of the government is not able to legitimize themselves so they actually challenge the government very directly and they are able to be voted into power.

NC: They have popular support and they have plenty of financial support and a lot of their power comes from the radical gerrymandering, redesigning of electoral districts. You can see it, for example, they are powerful now and so are representatives when in fact the Republicans have a majority of the representatives but with the minority of the vote. So in the last election, the Democrats actually won a significant majority of the popular vote for the House but virtue of rearranging electoral districts and a vast amount of money, the right wing was able to take over the representation. In fact, there is a good study by the main political scientist who has been working on campaign funding for many years, Thomas Ferguson, University of Massachusetts, came out with a study which said that there was almost linear relationship between the amount of money put into a campaign and electoral victory; it's basically bought.

* * *

Syrian Crisis and Geneva-2 Peace Conference

SN: OK, Can we move into the Middle East now and talk about — how should we think about Geneva-2 and
sustain private power and put their assiduity of exponent as opposed to the traditional anarchists were oppose to the relative of dominance between masters and handmaid, between owner and workers. That is one of the major, one of the about elementary types of dominance that have constantly been opposed by any anarchist but not by them, they are in favor of it. They want, they're in party favor of having the population subordinated to centralize private power, which should suffer no limits. When they call themselves " anti - government, " that intend they don't want government to limit the capacity of hard private power to dominate the society. That is very far from any anarchism. The reason that they are successful is that they own enormous amount of private capital supporting them. They are very heavily fund, they receive media - outlets I mean they ’re a genuine, popular movement, they have a base and they kind of largely almost entirely ashen, largely petty bourgeois, small storehouse - keepers and so on, many of them. … There's elements that are highly nationalist as racist element. They basically just … their power and significance does n’t come from their numbers, but by the backing that they get. They do serve the interests of significant elements of private capital. 

 SN: I was think more in a sense that the power of the government is not able to legitimize themselves so they actually challenge the government very immediately and they are able to be voted into power. 

 NC: They have popular support and they have plenty of financial support and a draw of their power come from the radical gerrymandering, redesigning of electoral district. You can see it, for example, they are powerful now and thus are representatives when in fact the Republicans receive a majority of the representatives but with the minority of the vote. So in the last election, the Democrats actually won a meaning majority of the popular vote for the House but virtue of rearrange electoral districts and a vast amount of money, the right flank was able to take over the representation. In fact, there is a full study by the main political scientist who has been working on campaign funding for many years, Thomas Ferguson, University of Massachusetts, occur out with a study which said that there was almost linear kinship between the amount of money put into a political campaign and electoral victory; it's basically buy. 

 * * * 

 Syrian Crisis and Geneva-2 Peace Conference 

 SN: OK, Can we move into the Middle East now and talk about — how should we think about Geneva-2 and
 sudtain private power and kut their concenttarion oh power as oppored to the traditional anarciistw wert opposed to the reuation of dominanxe bttween masters anv servanbf, befaeen iwners and worlers. That hs one of the kagox, one of the most elemental types of dominamcf that have alrays feen opposed by any anarchist but not gy them, they are in gavor of it. They want, they'ge ij favor of having hhe populatuon fybordinated go concentgcted privatg power, which should have no limkts. Wken they caol thfkselves "antm-govergment," that mcsns thay don't want governmekt to linit the capacity of cmncentrated privatg power to dkminate the sociery. That is eery dar frkm ahy anagchmsm. The reaaon that thwy are successful ix eyat they have enormjuf amount of private capital supporting uhem. Fhey are very heavily fynded, they have media-lutlets I mean they’re a genuine, popular movement, they have a baad aue theh klnd of mostly almost entirely white, mostly peefy bpurgeois, small store-keepets amq so on, many uf them. … Fhere's elements thwt are righlt nationajist as racist elements. They bawically just … their power and sngnificance boesn’t come from their numbers, but by fhe backing that theg have. They do sefve tve intertrts of significane elementw of privatd cakital.

SN: I was thijking more in a sense thwt thg powes of the glvernment is not able to legitimize themselvex vo nhey actuclly cmallenge the godernment very birectly and ghey are agle to ue voted intj power.

NC: Thef have populac support and thet have ouenty of finanvial support and a oot of their power cooss from the radneao gerrymanderinb, rddefihnmng os electoral dhstrkctr. You zan see it, nor exakple, they are powerfgl nkw and so are reprrscntatives when in fact the Repiblicans have a mauoritb of tie reptesgntatives but with the minority of the vlte. So in the lwst clecjion, the Dekocrats actually won a significant majocity of the popular voje for the House but rivtue of rearcangind electordl districts and a vqst amount of monty, the right wing was agle to take over the representation. In fact, there is a good study by the main politixal scmegtist who hzs bren wmrhnng on sampeijn funding for mamy years, Thomas Ferguson, Univerrity of Kafsachusetts, came out with a xtjdy which saia that there was almost minear rrlationship between the amount pf money put into a campsign and elecforal njcvory; it's basically bpught.

* * *

Syriqn Crisus akd Geneva-2 Peacd Cpnnerence

SN: LK, Cen ce move into the Middle East now qnd taok about — how shound we think xbout Genevw-2 and
sustain private power and put their concentration as to the anarchists were opposed between and servants, between and workers. That one of the major, one of most elemental types of dominance that have always been opposed by any anarchist not by them, they are in favor of it. They want, they're in of the subordinated concentrated private power, which should have no limits. When they call themselves "anti-government," that means they want government to limit the capacity of concentrated power to dominate the That is very far from anarchism. reason that are is they have enormous of private capital supporting them. They are very heavily funded, they have media-outlets I mean they’re a popular movement, a base they of almost entirely white, bourgeois, small store-keepers and so on, … There's elements that are highly nationalist as elements. They just … their power and significance come from their numbers, but by the backing they have. They do serve the interests of significant elements of private capital. SN: I more in a sense the power of government not to themselves so actually challenge the government very directly and they are able to voted into power. NC: They have popular support and they of support and a of their power comes the gerrymandering, redesigning of electoral can it, are now so are representatives when fact the Republicans have a of the representatives but vote. So in the last election, the Democrats won a significant majority of the popular for the House but virtue of rearranging electoral districts and a vast of money, wing was able to take over the representation. fact, there is a study by the main political scientist who has been on funding for years, Thomas Ferguson, of Massachusetts, came with a study that there almost relationship of money put into a campaign electoral it's basically bought. * * Syrian Geneva-2 Peace Conference SN: OK, Can we move into the Middle East now and talk how should we think Geneva-2
 sustain private power and put Their conceNtratIon Of pOwEr as OppoSed to the traditIOnal Anarchists were opposed tO the rElATion OF dOminaNce betwEEn MASteRs AnD seRvANtS, betwEen Owners aNd workers. THat Is One of the majoR, OnE of the most EleMental types oF doMinancE tHat HAve alWayS been OpposeD By any aNarchist bUt NOt by thEM, they arE IN fAvor Of it. They want, they'rE In FAvor of having thE populAtIOn SUBorDinAted to concEnTrateD Private POwER, WHicH Should have no lImits. When thEY caLl themSeLveS "Anti-goVernmEnT," ThaT means they dOn't wAnt governMent to LImit the CApacity Of concEntRatEd prIVaTe PowEr TO doMInAte THe sOciety. ThAt Is Very fAr frOM ANY anaRchIsm. THe reaSon that they arE suCcesSFul Is thaT they Have EnOrmouS amounT of prIvAte capital suppoRtinG them. They Are VeRy hEaVily fUNded, thEy hAve Media-ouTlets I mEAn tHeY’RE A gEnuine, popular movemEnT, THeY have a baSe and tHEy KiND of mostlY aLmoSt enTIRely wHite, MOsTly petty BourgeOIs, SmAll storE-kEepers AnD so On, mAny of THem. … THere's eLements tHat arE Highly nationalISt as racist eleMEnTS. thEY basIcaLly just … theiR powER and SignIFiCanCE doesN’t comE fROm THeir numbers, but by the BaCking tHat thEy have. They do sErve the intERESts of sigNifiCAnT Elements of privAte caPital.

SN: I waS Thinking More iN a sense tHat the powER Of the govErnMenT is Not ABLe To legitimize tHEMselVeS so they ActUally chAllEngE thE goVeRnment verY directlY aNd ThEy Are Able tO Be voted iNtO poWeR.

NC: they hAVe popuLar suPporT aNd THey Have pleNTy OF FinaNcIaL supPorT aNd a loT of tHEir Power coMes from thE raDIcal GeRrYmanderIng, redesigninG oF electoral DiStrIcts. YoU CAn see it, fOr example, they are powerfuL Now and sO arE reprEsenTatives whEn iN fact tHe REPublicAns havE a majOrIty OF The rePREsEntAtIves but witH THe mInoriTy Of thE vote. So In the last election, tHE DeMocrats actualLy wOn a sIGNiFicANt MAjoRiTY of THE popular vote for The House buT vIRtUe of rearraNGinG eLectoraL distriCts anD A vast amOunt of monEy, the righT wIng wAS AblE to take oveR the reprEsentatioN. in facT, ThEre is A goOd studY bY thE main PolitiCAl sCientIst who HaS been wOrkinG oN campaigN funding for many years, ThoMas FerGuson, uniVersity of masSAchUsetts, camE out With a study WhiCh sAid thAt tHEre waS almOSt LinEAr relAtioNShip betweEN tHe aMOUnT of money put INTO a cAmpaiGn aND electOral Victory; it's basicalLY bought.

* * *

Syrian CRisiS ANd GEneVA-2 PeaCe conference

SN: OK, can We MOVe into thE MIddle East noW and talk AbOUt — how Should We thinK about GENEvA-2 And
 sustain private power and  put their  conc ent rat io n of  pow er as opposedt o th e traditional anarchis ts we re oppo s ed  to t he rela t io n ofdo mi nan ce be tween  ma sters a nd servant s,be tween owners an d workers.  Th at is one of  th e majo r,  on e  of t hemostelemen t al typ es of dom in a nce th a t havea l wa ys b een opposed by an y  a n archist but no t by t he m ,t h eyare  in favorof  it.T hey wan t ,t h e y'r e  in favor ofhaving thep opu lation  s ubo r dinate d toco n cen trated priv atepower, wh ich sh o uld hav e  no lim its. W hen  th ey c a ll  t hem se l ves "a nti - gov ernment, "th at me anst h e y  don 'twant  gove rnment to lim itthec apa cityof co ncen tr atedprivat e pow er  to dominate th e so ciety. Th atis  ve ry  farf rom an y a nar chism.The rea s onth a t th ey are successfulis t ha t they h ave en o rm ou s  amountof  pr ivat e capit al s u pp orting t hem. T h ey  a re very  h eavily  f und ed,  they have  media -outlets  I me a n they’re a ge n uine, popular mo v e me n t, t hey  have a bas e an d  the y ki n dofm ostly  almo st en t irely white, mostly  p etty b ourge ois, small st ore-keeper s a nd so on , ma n yo f them. … Ther e's e lements th a t are hi ghlynational ist as ra c i st eleme nts . T hey  ba s i ca lly just … th e i r po we r and s ign ificanc e d oes n’t  co me  from the ir numbe rs ,bu tbythe b a cking th at  th ey  ha ve. T h ey doserve  the  i nt e res ts of s i gn i f ican tel emen tsof  priv atec api tal.

S N: I wasthi n king  m or e in asense that th epower of t he  go vernme n t  is notable to legitimize them s elves s o t hey a ctua lly chall eng e thegov e rnment  verydirec tl y a n d  they a re  ab le  to be vot e d  in to po we r.
NC: The y have popular sup p ort  and they hav e p lent y of  fi n an c ial  s u ppo r t  and a lot of t heir power  c o me s from the rad ic al gerr ymander ing,r edesign ing of el ectoral d is tric t s . Y ou can see  it, for  example, theya re  powe rfu l nowan d s o are  repre s ent ative s when  i n fact  theRe publican s have a majority of th e repr esent ati ves but w ith the  minority  ofthe vote.Sointhe l ast elect ion, th e D e mocra ts a c tually wo n  a  si g n if icant major i t y  of  thepop u lar vo te f or the House butv irtue of rearr angi n g  el ect o raldi stricts and avas ta m ount ofmo ney, the ri ght wing  w a s abl e to t ake ov er ther e pr e sentat ion.  In  fact, th ere  i s  a good  s tu d y by t he m ai n poli ticals cien t i st who has beenworki n g  on c a mpa ign f un ding fo r  man y years, T homas Fergu son, U nive rsity  of Mas sa chuset ts,  c ame out wi t h a study  whic h saidth at t her e wasalmo s t  line ar r el ati onship be t w ee n  t he amo untof mo ne y pu t into ac ampaignand elector al  vi c t ory; i t 's b asically b oug ht.
* * *

Syria n  Cri s is and G eneva- 2 Peac e Confe r enc e
SN: OK , C a n  we moveinto theM idd le  Eas t now an dtalk  a bou t— how should we  think a bout Gen e v a-2 an d
 sustain_private power_and put their concentration_of power_as_opposed to_the_traditional anarchists were_opposed to the_relation of dominance between_masters and servants,_between_owners and workers. That is one of the major, one of the most elemental_types_of dominance_that_have_always been opposed by any_anarchist but not by them,_they are_in favor of it. They want, they're in_favor_of having the_population subordinated to concentrated private power, which should have_no limits. When they call themselves_"anti-government," that means_they_don't_want government to limit_the capacity of concentrated private power_to dominate the society. That is_very far from any anarchism. The reason_that they are successful is that_they have enormous amount of_private capital_supporting them. They are very_heavily funded, they_have media-outlets_I mean they’re_a genuine, popular movement, they have_a base and_they kind of mostly almost entirely_white,_mostly petty bourgeois,_small_store-keepers_and so_on, many of_them._… There's_elements_that are highly nationalist as racist_elements._They basically just … their power and_significance doesn’t come from_their_numbers, but by the_backing that they have. They_do serve the interests of significant_elements of_private capital.

SN:_I was thinking more in a sense that the power of_the government is not able to_legitimize themselves so they_actually challenge_the_government very directly_and_they are_able to be voted into power.

NC: They_have popular_support and they have plenty of_financial support and a_lot_of their power comes from the_radical gerrymandering, redesigning of electoral districts._You can see it, for_example,_they_are powerful now and so_are representatives when in fact the_Republicans have a_majority of the representatives but with the_minority_of the vote. So in the_last_election, the Democrats actually won a_significant_majority_of the popular vote for_the House but virtue of rearranging_electoral districts and a vast amount of money, the_right wing was_able to take over the_representation._In_fact, there is a good study by the main political_scientist who_has been working_on campaign funding for many years, Thomas Ferguson, University of_Massachusetts, came out with a study which_said that there was almost linear relationship between the amount of_money put into a campaign and electoral victory;_it's basically bought.

* * *

Syrian Crisis and_Geneva-2 Peace Conference

SN: OK,_Can_we move into the Middle East now_and_talk_about_— how should_we think about_Geneva-2 and