Growing up and maturing during the Cold War (Part I) and the Asian communism era the American public was bombarded with media depicting the Soviet Union and China public as cold, obedient brainwashed robots. That's the perception the western ruling class wanted to make to create the de-humanization mindset necessary for their own brainwashing of the American people. A good deal of it was true, communist propaganda and brainwashing did it's job well keeping the masses controlled.
I played professional basketball in West Germany in the 80's and in one tournament we played a team from Yugoslavia, a communist controlled country at the time. I had my perception and they sure did their part in reinforcing it with their unsmiling, nearly robotic approach to playing the game.
Tonight I watched the College men's championship basketball game, a major athletic event in this country. To prepare for the game they had the usual singing of the Star Spangled Banner. First they made a big deal about the U.S. military, introducing members from each of the Armed Forces. Then a Sailor from the U.S. Navy in dress blues sang the song.
Americans are no different than the Communists were, they're just as brainwashed and controlled. Of course as it turns out, we've always been the same.
I once didn't notice, but once you do it changes everything. Watching the spectacle of all the humans paying homage to a murderous, imperialist military that is trying to maintain Full Spectrum Dominance over the entire planet, it's atmosphere and space to enrich the ruling class reminded me of the brainwashed communists watching their parades with the tanks and jets parading by. Or all the people raising their hand outstretched toward the sky in the "Hitler Salute".
It makes me wonder how many people have actually reached the point I have, the point where you not just realize, but KNOW, that's it all been an illusion. That we've all been led along to live our lives in a constructed manner without thinking about the terrible basis behind all of it. Without thinking about the fact that humans have not changed their warring ways for 7000 years, still unable to progress past it.
I'm reminded of the Doors famous song, "Break on Through (to the other side)". Maybe humans are simply hard wired for war, maybe it can never end. Or maybe if enough people can see through the illusions we can reach a turning point in human civilization. Maybe if more people knew about the lies and the deceit.
I've been seeing this absurd notion from many Sanders supporters in their process of deciding what to do if Sanders is not the nominee that Clinton would have to earn their vote. The premise is if Clinton adopts some of Sanders' proposals and platforms, i.e., the proverbial moving to the left thing, then maybe they would vote for her after all, just like Bernie will tell them to do. They say as long as Bernie asks them to vote for Clinton for the right reasons and not just to beat the Republicans, then maybe, just maybe, they'll vote for a WAR CRIMINAL.
OK then, those saying this are showing their true colors. They're Sanders supporters who the Bernie was going to use to start a "Revolucion" and yet they're saying that they would vote for Hillary Clinton under the right circumstances.
Again I ask, what the fuck kind of revolution are they running? If they're actually willing to vote for a MURDERER, what does that say about what they'd accept as their so called revolution? Many if not most have been told, informed, and absorbed by osmosis the fact that Hillary Clinton, along with Barack Obama, was the guiding force behind the illegal and immoral war against Libya. They've been told that Clinton is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the displacement of millions.
And yet they're willing to vote for her if she pledges to seek single payer, free college, and more taxes on Wall Street.
What am I missing here?
This is something I've been struggling with for some time now. The fact that people will get "up in arms" about a child molester living down the street, or a serial killer, or a serial rapist, wanting them to be put away for life. Their disgust is palpable as it should be. Yet the knowledge that the Secretary of State and President of the United States of Empire ordered an illegal bombing of a sovereign country based on lies resulting in the MASS MURDER of hundreds of thousands doesn't register as comparable. They've accepted that as OK because it's the government. Because it's the President and the Secretary of State and that's what they've always done.
When you think about it and really get down to the substance of it all, the history of human behavior, it's pretty amazing we haven't evolved farther than this. It's like Truman bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima killing over two hundred thousand. A completely illegal and immoral act, saying it was unnecessary shouldn't even be in the conversation. And yet it's accepted that these are the decisions our government leaders have to make and the results are part of the deal. Kissinger and the million dead in Cambodia. Vietnam and LBJ. Bush and Iraq. Obama and Clinton in Syria and Libya. On and on it goes, where it stops nobody knows.
Hillary Clinton can't earn anyone's vote, she's a mass murdering psychopath. Suggesting that if she just says the right things while political campaigning is stuck in an era long past.
"HEDGES: But could it go down and down, and what we end up with is a form of neofeudalism, a rapaciously wealthy, oligarchic elite with a kind of horrifying police state to keep us all in order?
HUDSON: This is exactly what happened in the Roman Empire."
Assuming Bernie Sanders doesn't win the oligarchy's democratic party nomination for President of the Empire, I see two options for those that won't vote for Hillary "the War Criminal" Clinton or Donald "He's One of Them for Gawd's Sake" Trump, although it looks like it's going to be Cruz now. Trump has simply worn out his welcome, his big fat mouth has done him in. This is also assuming Bernie Sanders does not decide to run as an independent as he promised and endorses Hillary "the War Criminal" Clinton as he's inferred.
Get behind third party candidates or boycott the national election.
The reason why I say "assuming" Bernie Sanders does or doesn't do the above is because if Sanders does win the nomination or run as a third party candidate, then most of the left will devote their time, effort and money on his run against the republican nominee. Citizen activism would remain in election mode until November, significantly hampering any chances at a progressive third party effort or an election boycott. Just the way the ruling class wants it.
They're two very different things with two very different goals. Voting third party seeks to make a statement against the two party duopoly as a sort of protest vote. The goal is to join others to show our political leaders their dissatisfaction with the duopoly and perhaps push them in the direction they want on issues. Some actually believe they can use third parties to slowly penetrate the duopoly's hold and sway political arguments and decisions that way. The evidence indicates that's largely a pipe dream.
Even if it were possible, the bottom line is the political system we live under is an oligarchy controlled by a plutocracy. It's been scientifically proven. We have 535 people who supposedly "represent" 330 million people. That's not democracy, that's by definition an oligarchy, a small group of people who make the decisions, rules and laws for everyone else.
It's always going to be that way until we change the system. Voting for third parties is simply trying to participate in an oligarchic system, a corrupted and rigged one at that.
I find most people who have voted most of their lives disagree with an election boycott, some quite vehemently. But turnout for elections has been declining with 2012 tallying an historically low mark of 37%. That's 63% of eligible voters that did not vote. In a democracy that's called a "super majority". So clearly a boycott would not be anathema to a large percentage of Americans. They basically already do it. The same pattern is playing out in other western countries whose political systems have been captured and controlled by the plutocracies.
Those against a boycott argue that it will just be chalked up to apathy and accomplish nothing. Like voting for congress and President accomplishes anything. Or they argue that voting third party sends a better message. They say that last election proves it, even when 63 percent of eligible voters do not vote, no one notices.
Of course no one will notice if it's done it silently, if it's done without organization and effort. People are willing to knock on doors until their feet bleed to get other people to vote for their favorite politicians. Obviously a boycott won't work unless it's organized and publicized to a degree that it could create the conditions for changing the political system. The goal would have to be specific, a changing of the political system and the method of boycott would have to be common and transferable to all participating citizens, particularly those already de facto boycotting.
If more people decide to vote third party or compromise their morals by voting lesser evil, what does that accomplish? Many progressives and liberals will vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party. Many libertarians will vote for another third party and many conservatives will vote for whatever other parties are out there. Each third party will get anywhere from .01 to 1.5 percent of the vote, either Clinton or Trump (or Cruz) will become President and we'll be FUBAR again for four more years until the oligarchy lets us play again.
Voting third party certainly isn't an avenue to change the political system and again, the political system is so rigged that third parties have no chance or at best present a course of action that would take decades to have any significant impact in Congress. Check out the number of third party politicians at the national level since WWII - 4. That's four third party Congressional representatives in the last seventy years.
So it depends on what you want, starting with democracy itself. Do you want democracy? If so, then this current system will never provide that. Do you really want Power to the People? This is where it must be said, "be careful what you ask for", like your Grandma used to say. Democracy isn't easy, it requires effort and it's got it's own set of pros and cons and certainly isn't perfect. If that's what people want then we have to reject the current system and demand a new one.
Or are you satisfied with an oligarchy but want a new and improved oligarchy? Then voting for Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein might be the better option. Perhaps after another seventy years we could have four more third party national representatives.
Looking down the road a question to be asked is "how much longer can this national representative political system of 535 representatives last in this country"? Forever? Two hundred years? One hundred? Unless you answer forever, then you're in effect admitting that eventually it should be replaced. If that's the case, why wait one hundred years? How much worse can it get than to have an oligarchy controlled by a plutocracy waging war across the planet, funneling all the wealth to the top 1% and enacting a complete full spectrum dominance police state in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave?
Why wait for democracy, why wait for a system that represents all the people instead of one that represents the wealthy and powerful?
As soon as the possibility came on the horizon, I thought a Clinton vs. Bush election contest would be a perfect time to challenge the system. Now it turns out it will be Clinton vs. Trump/Cruz which is the same thing if not worse. The symbolism of electing one person to make decisions for 330 million people with the choice between a de factor war criminal and a narcissistic lying billionaire should turn the stomach of anyone with any sense of personal freedom on this planet. This is a situation any self respecting human should reject at hand. It is time for freedom.
