"I have a hard time seeing how the super-rich super-class would want to practically get rid of the political infrastructure that allows them to be the super-rich super-class. In fact, it makes no sense . . . We cannot forget that nationalism and the modern nation-state are Capitalist formations that exist only to benefit the Capitalist economic order. "

I didn't say they would get rid of the infrastructure, just the rights that are protected. So if a nation or state objects to the world bank or IMF or other trade/business organization, it gets penalized and overruled, despite the fact that it is a representative body of the people and the IMF is not. They will protect the capitalist formations and economic order, while ridding themselves of the people's rights granted by the nation-state. In short, they will recreate feudalism.

I think the difference is you think they're going forwards and I think they're going backwards.

"If anything we're are moving to a global political order that looks like, in some respects, old feudal orders (I don't know who's king). In spite of that, it was the rise of capitalism, commodities and industry that destroyed those old orders, which is to say, the current economic order and the old feudal order are incompatible."

I think you're right that we're moving to a global political order that looks like the feudal order, but I think after the political order of the nation-state falls, the capitalist commodities and industry will soon follow, hence the backwards motion. I think you've really internalized that marxist theory of history-tribalism to slavery to feudalism to capitalism to socialism to communism, but I think it can go in both directions (see USSR, China, Thatcherism for socialism to capitalism; Zimbabwe I think has gone all the way back to tribalism from capitalism). I don't think that's reactionary hogwash, and I don't subscribe to the marxist theory, I'm just trying to explain it.

I definitely agree there's no nation-state without government guaranteed rights, but which one falls first? I think if we lose our sovereignty to these transnational elites or their organizations, we lose the rights our state guarantees, then the nation is sure to fall.

I think it’s funny but not that surprising that a classical liberal (aka a conservative; “that government is best which governs least”) and a Marxist can agree on so much. I think you’ve got your eyes open. I agree the super-class elites are not very powerful or an improvement on the past (they are easily the most corrupt people in western society), but they do have influence, especially on the western media and politics. What I think IS inevitable is that many people look to these elites for leadership, for various reasons. When they reach a consensus, as they do now, to render national borders obsolete and have global governance by unelected elites, they can use that influence for their cause. Since they have arrived at this consensus, their power has been growing, and with enough people to follow them, they will try to create a feudal or caste society with themselves at the top.

What I think Americans and western Europeans need to do is defend their nations, their cultures, and their basic rights.

I’m not that interested in arguing the merits of Marxist history and predictions, I think it’s either a self-fulfilling prophecy or propaganda or both, and you agree with at least some of it (“but it’s never been done right” is something I DON’T agree with). I don’t know Zizek, I’ll look him up next time at the library. The Parallax view looks interesting.

If the death of glossy rags is necessary to end the age of celebrity gossip, I will accept that. If the blogosphere must go silent to end the pictures of Britney's snatch, I will face it with equanimity. If CNN and Fox News and the E! channel must be shut down to stop Paris Hilton, adieu. If the New York Times and Washington Post and Baltimore Sun must stop their presses to end Brangelina, I will bid them goodbye. If the Earth must fall into the sun and be separated into its consituent atoms to prevent another piece of celebrity news from entering my life, so be it.

I really, really hate you guys.

John Von Neumann advocated this in the 1950s. Actually, he wanted to warm the earth up to increase the amount of arable land in the north by covering the antarctic ice sheets with dark particles so more radiation would be absorbed. These methods are pretty easy to conceptualize and propose, but more difficult to carry out, and it does depend whose ox is being gored. Do China, Canada and Russia want warming, but India, Brazil, and Mexico want cooling?

To the people advocating population control, start with yourselves. I wouldn't miss you anyway :)

Robots against Humans, the way God intended. To be accurate, as another letter writer pointed out, the Bum Bot is a waldo, not a robot, but it wouldn't be too hard to make it a robot with some extra programming. I really don't think it will be long until there is a robot on human fatality; some descendent of the bum bot mixed with the Roomba is going to knock someone down some stairs, run over them, etc. Not just an accident, but an active, programming induced murder. Then we really get into legal/moral/existential trouble. Hell, add some Roomba programming and a gun to this one, and you get lots of dead bodies.

It's a lot like the T-1 from Terminator 3.

Taras Grescoe and Nicole Pasulka, thanks for defaming the entire domestic shrimp industry with your lede. Buried in the second page and on the linked websites is the fact that IMPORTED shrimp, especially from southeast asia, is bad, DOMESTIC shrimp is great. Sustainable, plentiful, and not filled with mercury. South Louisiana and the gulf are filled with great shrimp farms and a shrimping industry. Next time be more clear.