So the "left", at least that part of the left that is participating in or paying attention to the governance of this country, is having a squabble about lesser evil voting. Specifically about voting for Clinton over Trump.
Which brings up an observation/question. What about the nearly fifty percent of voting eligible Americans that do not vote? Wouldn't a significant percentage of them, probably more than half, actually be of the left?
Over at Counterpunch they're having a little thing about lesser evil voting and third parties. Noam Chomsky is part of it, John Halle, Jeffrey St Clair, and Andrew Smolski are involved, all of the left persuasion.
Halle and Chomsky, or is it Chomsky and Halle?, started it by coming out for Hillary Clinton arguing that she's a lesser evil than Trump and the Republicans and that at least we could hold the fort while Clinton is Prez while making progress on the tactical front, or some such bullshit. They provide an eight point rationale to support their case. To them, lesser evil voting is this:
"Simply put, LEV involves, where you can, i.e. in safe states, voting for the losing third party candidate you prefer, or not voting at all. In competitive "swing" states, where you must, one votes for the "lesser evil" Democrat."
But they give voting and participating in the electoral process the Howard Zinn approach.
"The left should devote the minimum of time necessary to exercise the LEV choice then immediately return to pursuing goals which are not timed to the national electoral cycle."
Oh ya Noam? Those time tested goals that never get us anywhere?
Basically their rationale is that a Trump presidency will result in "terrible suffering on the most vulnerable segments of society" while also making the "establishment center" (the right wing Democratic party" seem a reasonable alternative. And by inference, they're saying Clinton's presidency wouldn't result in such terrible suffering on the most vulnerable segments of society. Hey Noah, ask the people of Haiti and Libya.
I get it, the old one step forward, two steps back thing.
They (Hall and Chomsky, Chomsky and Hall) even have the audacity to say that although on the surface it might appear that Trump's "foreign policies", i.e., approach to U.S. imperialism, could be better than Clinton's approach to U.S. imperialism, his right wing nationalistic tendencies could be worse. The evil warmonger imperialist Queen of the Universe Hillary Clinton? Ya right Hall and Oates.
http://johnhalle.com/outragesandinterludes/?p=1065
Do people remember how popular Hall and Oates were? They're in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame for crying out loud.
So Andrew Smolski of Counterpunch writes an article and basically tells them they're full of shit, but in a nice way and with alot of big words like Chomsky and Hall/Hall and Chomsky used. The gist of his argument was that Clinton is Satan and we should vote third party. Not really, but pretty close.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/29/to-my-haters-a-rejoinder-to-halle-and-chomsky/
Then Chomsky and Hall/Hall and Chomsky call Smolski's argument "idiotic" and part of the "lunatic and sociopathic left". Smolski didn't like that so he wrote another article further criticizing Chomsky and Hall/Hall and Chomsky.
He asks why they don't call on the left's current Savior Bernie J.C. Sanders to break from the Democratic party and build a third party or join forces with the left's Savior politicians in waiting, Jill Stein and Kwame Sawant. He asks where is the "radical imagination in the US again?"
Radical? Trying to form a third political party in the United States of Empire is radical?
Shit.
So here we have one of the supposed icons of fighting the man, Chomsky, saying people should vote for Hillary "the war criminal" Clinton", a woman responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the poveritization of millions.
Then we have these other professional lefties with big words saying we need to get radical and start the decades long process of building a third party so the left can have a more significant impact in the oligarchy that is the U.S. Congress. Maybe, just maybe, in a couple more decades we can really have single payer and free college. The wars will go on and the wealth inequality will astronomify, but we could be talking $17.50 an hour by 2035!
Fuck.
St. Clair of Counterpunch, to his credit, rightly lambasts Chomsky and especially Hall while supporting his columnist Smolski. He didn't say so but I suppose he's a "radical" third party proponent too.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/29/noam-chomsky-john-halle-and-henry-the-first-a-note-on-lesser-evil-voting/
That's not radical, that's working within the system. It's trying to elect some of the 535 politicians that are somehow supposed to "represent" over 330 American in Congress. A Congress that has an 8% approval rating from the public. And most of the approvers must have misunderstood the question because they can't be that stupid, right?
I wrote an article recently called "The Trouble with Third parties". In it I explained that a "radical" revolution should be one that eliminates the power structure of the elite and creates a new political and economic system for the people. I argued that the ruling elite are pushing the planet and the people to destruction, causing great misery in their quest for global domination and that we don't have decades, morally or practically, to "fuck around" with third party politics.
We need a real Revolution and those advocating "fighting the man" and "taking on the establishment" like Chomsky and Hall and even Smolski and St. Clair, like it or not, are leading the so called radical left into another failed and forgetten quest.
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
Sunday, June 26, 2016
Why Can't U.S. Citizens Vote on a Referendum?
I need to flesh this and to the very few who might read this, sorry, it's really just some thoughts I just had.
I've written before about the possibility for a referendum process at the national level so citizens can vote directly on important issues. Why can't U.S. citizens vote whether to go to war, or to legalize marijuana, or to institute a single payer health care system?
We all saw what just happened in Britain where the citizens voted on an extremely important issue instead of having politicians decide for them. They voted to leave the evil European Union. That's direct democracy in action.
Some have tried to get a referendum process established in this country but of course the ruling elite would not want that. Anything they can do to prevent it they will. But the people do have power if they want to use it.
What is disgusting and disturbing is no one except a very few on the left proposes changes to our political system such as a referendum process. It's all about the "issues", fifteen bucks an hour, single payer, etc., with only one way to implement them, trying to get our politicians to do it. Congress.
Screw that, this vote in Britain, however it turns out, should say one important thing to Americans and people all over the world. We can decide.
Not to say that's all we need to do. As we're seeing and going to see with the vote of the Britain citizens, the powers that be still have powers that be.
Really, we should just break the country up like the EU looks like it may be headed for. If not we should replace the entire political system, the Supreme Court, Congress, Senate, President especially, all of it. But the people should decide that so perhaps a referendum process is the first step. Get the power to the people.
I've written before about the possibility for a referendum process at the national level so citizens can vote directly on important issues. Why can't U.S. citizens vote whether to go to war, or to legalize marijuana, or to institute a single payer health care system?
We all saw what just happened in Britain where the citizens voted on an extremely important issue instead of having politicians decide for them. They voted to leave the evil European Union. That's direct democracy in action.
Some have tried to get a referendum process established in this country but of course the ruling elite would not want that. Anything they can do to prevent it they will. But the people do have power if they want to use it.
What is disgusting and disturbing is no one except a very few on the left proposes changes to our political system such as a referendum process. It's all about the "issues", fifteen bucks an hour, single payer, etc., with only one way to implement them, trying to get our politicians to do it. Congress.
Screw that, this vote in Britain, however it turns out, should say one important thing to Americans and people all over the world. We can decide.
Not to say that's all we need to do. As we're seeing and going to see with the vote of the Britain citizens, the powers that be still have powers that be.
Really, we should just break the country up like the EU looks like it may be headed for. If not we should replace the entire political system, the Supreme Court, Congress, Senate, President especially, all of it. But the people should decide that so perhaps a referendum process is the first step. Get the power to the people.
Saturday, June 25, 2016
Propaganda Alert! "Russia, regime strikes 'kill 47 in east Syria"
That's the title of an article by the AFP going around the 90% corporate controlled mainstream media. The source, of course, is the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights or SOHR.
The SOHR, or the dude named Abdul, was outted a few years back as a MI6/CIA/Mossad generated propaganda source and has been used extensively by the U.S./NATO/Zionist controlled media to spread lies and fictitious narratives to the gullible public.
Amazingly, even after being outted, Abdul continues to gain front page status of the mainstream media's propaganda outlets, even appearing on most alternative news and opinion sites and most progressive and conservative blogs.
So we don't really know what's happened in Syria regarding possible air strikes. We do know without a doubt that the source is the number one propaganda source for the U.S/NATO/Zionist attack on Syria.
It makes me sad to see something like this in the mainstream media knowing that hardly anyone reading it will know the source is a fake. I've found even when you tell people directly, most will still absorb the propaganda into their conditioned heads and believe it.
Here's a link to an article I wrote last year detailing the situation.
http://globalrevolutioncenter.blogspot.com/2015/10/syrian-observatory-for-human-rights.html
The SOHR, or the dude named Abdul, was outted a few years back as a MI6/CIA/Mossad generated propaganda source and has been used extensively by the U.S./NATO/Zionist controlled media to spread lies and fictitious narratives to the gullible public.
Amazingly, even after being outted, Abdul continues to gain front page status of the mainstream media's propaganda outlets, even appearing on most alternative news and opinion sites and most progressive and conservative blogs.
So we don't really know what's happened in Syria regarding possible air strikes. We do know without a doubt that the source is the number one propaganda source for the U.S/NATO/Zionist attack on Syria.
It makes me sad to see something like this in the mainstream media knowing that hardly anyone reading it will know the source is a fake. I've found even when you tell people directly, most will still absorb the propaganda into their conditioned heads and believe it.
Here's a link to an article I wrote last year detailing the situation.
http://globalrevolutioncenter.blogspot.com/2015/10/syrian-observatory-for-human-rights.html
Friday, June 17, 2016
Sheepdog Bernie Sanders Pledges to work with War Criminal Obama for the Corrupt Democratic War Party
A lot of people got punk'd by Bernie Sanders. All the talk about a "political revolution" and a people's movement was nothing more than shilling for the Democratic Party. Sanders was accused early on of being a "Sheepdog" for the Democratic party.
Fast forward FOURTEEN MONTHS! and what do we have?
Sanders is saying his primary goal is to defeat Trump. That says it right there. The only way to do that is to make it so someone else defeats him. Since it won't be him, Clinton is the only other option. Sanders honestly doesn't like the Clinton's, either of them and who can blame him. But he's a D.C. politician and he's made it clear many times the primary goal is to defeat the Republicans and to revitalize the democratic party so our Congress will make the changes he proposes. That was Bernie's revolution. I suppose it continues but it ain't no revolution, not with the Democratic party and not with our Congress.
Sanders is working to get his proposals into the Democratic party platform and wants his "revolution" to help him make sure the party platform promises are adhered to. IT IS ALL DEMOCRATIC PARTY, and by extension a reliance on Congress to take actions accordingly. Our Congress, the U.S. Congress with the collective job performance approval rating of 8%.
Those comfortable with the Democratic party have no problem with that but those resisting the party do have a problem. Sanders' campaign for the Democratic party presidential nomination was viewed as something that could spur a people's movement whether he won or not and would be the start of really challenging the oligarchy and it's political party duopoly. Some even thought Bernie would mount a legitimate third party challenge, maybe partner up with Jill Stein.
So what did we get? A whole bunch of people newly registered to the Democratic party. Some bullshit about the Democratic party platform. A new Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairperson. And Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump. And Bernie Sanders telling his supporters his primary goal is to defeat Donald Trump.
Hell with that. The goal should be to defeat both of them. Neither of these psycho assholes should be allowed to be the President of the United States, no way no how. Sure, in the end it doesn't really matter who becomes President, Obama the Novel Peace prize winning murdering war criminal proved that once and for all. It's (almost) beyond belief it's gotten this far, like an episode from the Twilight Zone, but it's real and it should be stopped. There shouldn't be any picking one over the other, no self respecting person should stoop so low, so fully impugn their own integrity. The only ones playing this game are fucking groupies.
Now there are the obligatory people's conferences and summits to "continue Bernie's Revolution" only to further entrench the "revolution" into the democratic party apparatus. The People's Summit and the People's Revolution and the same old speakers and same old demands, most will documented affiliations with the establishment. Campaign Finance Reform!! Voting Rights!! They have their lists of alms for the poor, none of which challenge the oligarchy and make plans for more and better politicians who will magically make Congress come ALIVE! Everything geared toward using the Democratic party and relying on politicians to take action in Congress and Senate to make changes.
That is not a revolution, it is a path to more subservience to our masters.
Undoubtedly many Sanders supporters will fall in line and vote for Hillary Clinton. Many won't, some estimate 30% or more. Those who do vote for Clinton were never serious about revolution, they couldn't have been. They wouldn't know a revolution if it bit them in the ass.
Those refusing to vote for Clinton and ending their relationships, if they had one, with the democratic party will migrate toward third parties or hopefully a real independent people's movement, one completely removed from electoral politics and geared toward a radical challenge of the power instead of hoped for incremental change as the oligarchy allows.
Many will get sucked into faux revolutionary efforts, like the People's Summit and the People's Revolution that will not challenge the power. Those with true revolutionary aims will need to unite in order to establish a workable framework to challenge the oligarchy.
The conditions are still very ripe for an independent movement against this corrupt political system. We have the perfect foils to reject what the oligarchy is trying to shove down our throats. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The country has reached a zenith in absurdity. It's like the often used refrain, "if not now, when"?
Sanders goal of preventing Donald Trump from becoming president is just more duopoly tribal bullshit between the democratic party and the republican party. What this country needs is a full stop on this sham of an election to expose the illusions of democracy and We the People and force changes to end the oligarchy. That's the primary problem we can't keep putting off election after election.
"Bernie Sanders is this election's Democratic sheepdog. The sheepdog is a card the Democratic party plays every presidential primary season when there's no White House Democrat running for re-election. The sheepdog is a presidential candidate running ostensibly to the left of the establishment Democrat to whom the billionaires will award the nomination. Sheepdogs are herders, and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic party, either staying home or trying to build something outside the two party box."http://blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-Hillary
Fast forward FOURTEEN MONTHS! and what do we have?
Sanders is saying his primary goal is to defeat Trump. That says it right there. The only way to do that is to make it so someone else defeats him. Since it won't be him, Clinton is the only other option. Sanders honestly doesn't like the Clinton's, either of them and who can blame him. But he's a D.C. politician and he's made it clear many times the primary goal is to defeat the Republicans and to revitalize the democratic party so our Congress will make the changes he proposes. That was Bernie's revolution. I suppose it continues but it ain't no revolution, not with the Democratic party and not with our Congress.
Sanders is working to get his proposals into the Democratic party platform and wants his "revolution" to help him make sure the party platform promises are adhered to. IT IS ALL DEMOCRATIC PARTY, and by extension a reliance on Congress to take actions accordingly. Our Congress, the U.S. Congress with the collective job performance approval rating of 8%.
Those comfortable with the Democratic party have no problem with that but those resisting the party do have a problem. Sanders' campaign for the Democratic party presidential nomination was viewed as something that could spur a people's movement whether he won or not and would be the start of really challenging the oligarchy and it's political party duopoly. Some even thought Bernie would mount a legitimate third party challenge, maybe partner up with Jill Stein.
So what did we get? A whole bunch of people newly registered to the Democratic party. Some bullshit about the Democratic party platform. A new Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairperson. And Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump. And Bernie Sanders telling his supporters his primary goal is to defeat Donald Trump.
Hell with that. The goal should be to defeat both of them. Neither of these psycho assholes should be allowed to be the President of the United States, no way no how. Sure, in the end it doesn't really matter who becomes President, Obama the Novel Peace prize winning murdering war criminal proved that once and for all. It's (almost) beyond belief it's gotten this far, like an episode from the Twilight Zone, but it's real and it should be stopped. There shouldn't be any picking one over the other, no self respecting person should stoop so low, so fully impugn their own integrity. The only ones playing this game are fucking groupies.
Now there are the obligatory people's conferences and summits to "continue Bernie's Revolution" only to further entrench the "revolution" into the democratic party apparatus. The People's Summit and the People's Revolution and the same old speakers and same old demands, most will documented affiliations with the establishment. Campaign Finance Reform!! Voting Rights!! They have their lists of alms for the poor, none of which challenge the oligarchy and make plans for more and better politicians who will magically make Congress come ALIVE! Everything geared toward using the Democratic party and relying on politicians to take action in Congress and Senate to make changes.
That is not a revolution, it is a path to more subservience to our masters.
Undoubtedly many Sanders supporters will fall in line and vote for Hillary Clinton. Many won't, some estimate 30% or more. Those who do vote for Clinton were never serious about revolution, they couldn't have been. They wouldn't know a revolution if it bit them in the ass.
Those refusing to vote for Clinton and ending their relationships, if they had one, with the democratic party will migrate toward third parties or hopefully a real independent people's movement, one completely removed from electoral politics and geared toward a radical challenge of the power instead of hoped for incremental change as the oligarchy allows.
Many will get sucked into faux revolutionary efforts, like the People's Summit and the People's Revolution that will not challenge the power. Those with true revolutionary aims will need to unite in order to establish a workable framework to challenge the oligarchy.
The conditions are still very ripe for an independent movement against this corrupt political system. We have the perfect foils to reject what the oligarchy is trying to shove down our throats. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The country has reached a zenith in absurdity. It's like the often used refrain, "if not now, when"?
Sanders goal of preventing Donald Trump from becoming president is just more duopoly tribal bullshit between the democratic party and the republican party. What this country needs is a full stop on this sham of an election to expose the illusions of democracy and We the People and force changes to end the oligarchy. That's the primary problem we can't keep putting off election after election.
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Hopeless or Helpless?
Maybe it's hopeless. Maybe the trajectory the human race is on is an unstoppable evolution that no one can stop. Maybe it's just too late for that.
But, too late for what?
To me that's the question that isn't being answered. It seems everyone knows the world is going to shit, this country is going to shit (or has), and yet no one seems to have an answer on how to reverse course or even stop the bleeding.
Maybe we as humans just are not capable. It's not like we're all powerful creatures that are infallible. We make mistakes, we have our limitations. Maybe collectively we are just incapable of creating a just and equal system of living together on this planet. Maybe this is simply the "best we got".
Here's what I think. I think it's a failure of identifying the primary problem and the primary goal. We've got problems up the kazoo. Wealth inequality, climate change, war and imperialism, fascism, the list goes on and on. Hell, there aren't enough whales right? Save the Whales!
Joe wants this and Suzie wants this and Mark wants this and Alma wants this. Pedro thinks we should do that and Ahmed thinks we should do this and Bernhard thinks we should do that and Dikembe thinks we should do that. What is it that we can all agree on? Is there a common denominator with all these problems? Can we solve them all by solving one? Or are we forever shackled with too many problems and too little imagination?
Is is hopeless?
If you're a Christian or most other religions, you have to think it's hopeless. Christians believe in Armageddon and the Rapture so they can't believe we simple humans can create an everlasting system of peace, justice and equality. Most other religions have their own versions of depending on an all powerful God to save us from ourselves. That's hopeless, and hope I guess. The hope being placed on something that can't be seen, heard or verified. But clearly a hopeless attitude for humans to find a way out of this mess themselves.
Many have philosophized over the centuries about how to operate and organize human societies and different formats of government. Some have been and are disasters but some have been fairly successful. But greed and lust for power always overcome the efforts at truth, justice, and equality.
I'll settle for freedom and equality. Maybe we can't solve all our problems but if we can achieve freedom and equality, that might be enough to keep this thing going. We have to have planning, organization and systems for how to govern and live. What I don't want is a small minority dictating and/or forcing everyone else to live a certain way or to impact the lives of everyone else without their consent. That to me is the biggest problem. We humans always seem to allow others to achieve power over everyone else and dictate their lives without their true consent. From the Kings and Queens and Monarchs of centuries past, to dictators and Presidents of modern times, how humans are able to live on this planet, or whether they're allowed to live at all, has been largely in the hands of those few who gain that power.
That's where we're at now. A few have the power to impact the lives of everyone else and those few have no intention of allowing equality and justice. They will murder a million people at a time without second thoughts, they will destroy countries and many million more lives in their quest for power and to satisfy their greed.
That is not freedom. That is not equality. That is the problem.
But that's my opinion, what's yours?
Ya, maybe it's not hopeless. Maybe we're just helpless.
But, too late for what?
To me that's the question that isn't being answered. It seems everyone knows the world is going to shit, this country is going to shit (or has), and yet no one seems to have an answer on how to reverse course or even stop the bleeding.
Maybe we as humans just are not capable. It's not like we're all powerful creatures that are infallible. We make mistakes, we have our limitations. Maybe collectively we are just incapable of creating a just and equal system of living together on this planet. Maybe this is simply the "best we got".
Here's what I think. I think it's a failure of identifying the primary problem and the primary goal. We've got problems up the kazoo. Wealth inequality, climate change, war and imperialism, fascism, the list goes on and on. Hell, there aren't enough whales right? Save the Whales!
Joe wants this and Suzie wants this and Mark wants this and Alma wants this. Pedro thinks we should do that and Ahmed thinks we should do this and Bernhard thinks we should do that and Dikembe thinks we should do that. What is it that we can all agree on? Is there a common denominator with all these problems? Can we solve them all by solving one? Or are we forever shackled with too many problems and too little imagination?
Is is hopeless?
If you're a Christian or most other religions, you have to think it's hopeless. Christians believe in Armageddon and the Rapture so they can't believe we simple humans can create an everlasting system of peace, justice and equality. Most other religions have their own versions of depending on an all powerful God to save us from ourselves. That's hopeless, and hope I guess. The hope being placed on something that can't be seen, heard or verified. But clearly a hopeless attitude for humans to find a way out of this mess themselves.
Many have philosophized over the centuries about how to operate and organize human societies and different formats of government. Some have been and are disasters but some have been fairly successful. But greed and lust for power always overcome the efforts at truth, justice, and equality.
I'll settle for freedom and equality. Maybe we can't solve all our problems but if we can achieve freedom and equality, that might be enough to keep this thing going. We have to have planning, organization and systems for how to govern and live. What I don't want is a small minority dictating and/or forcing everyone else to live a certain way or to impact the lives of everyone else without their consent. That to me is the biggest problem. We humans always seem to allow others to achieve power over everyone else and dictate their lives without their true consent. From the Kings and Queens and Monarchs of centuries past, to dictators and Presidents of modern times, how humans are able to live on this planet, or whether they're allowed to live at all, has been largely in the hands of those few who gain that power.
That's where we're at now. A few have the power to impact the lives of everyone else and those few have no intention of allowing equality and justice. They will murder a million people at a time without second thoughts, they will destroy countries and many million more lives in their quest for power and to satisfy their greed.
That is not freedom. That is not equality. That is the problem.
But that's my opinion, what's yours?
Ya, maybe it's not hopeless. Maybe we're just helpless.
Friday, June 10, 2016
"The Bank Owns this Property"
I watched a new movie called "99 Homes". It's about a guy who lives with his mother and his son in their family home and they're evicted by the bank, represented by the Sheriff's department (of course) and a real estate broker representing the bank. They're thrown out onto the street with five minutes notice, all their furniture and personal belongings are taken out of the house and placed in the yard (for 24 hours before removal) and they're on their own. The guy and his mother truly believed they could work something out with the bank even though they received multiple notices of eviction and they were totally unprepared to move out on such a moment's notice.
They end up in a cheap hotel inhabited by others suffering from the same or similar misfortune with little opportunity to dig out of their hole. The guy ends up working for the real estate agent that helped evict him which requires him to do the same thing to others that was done to him.
He flourishes in the job although not without some anguishing over his role in doing dirty deeds for the banks. Some of the scenes are heartbreaking (assuming the presence of a heart). The guy gets his house back, with the help of the bankster's real estate agent, and takes a more direct role in the eviction operations.
It's not an easy movie to watch at times and purposefully causes introspection regarding the practice of humans preying on other humans for personal gain. The moral of the story goes straight to the moral dilemma caused by working and personally profiting from a system that causes misery and hardship for others.
How deep that introspection goes depends on the person. I've always like to "extend" things when analyzing an issue. A good example is "lesser evil" voting. Most democrats practice lesser evil voting when voting for someone like Hillary Clinton for President over the likes of a republican Donald Trump. Most republicans think they're doing the same damn thing when voting for Trump against Clinton. As one that doesn't believe in lesser evil voting, let alone voting in this absurd representative system as a whole, I've often extended that lesser evil voting practice out to the option of Satan vs. Satan's brother. In other words, how far will you go?
This movie resonates because it's at the ground level, the one we the Serfs have always been at, i.e., banks vs. the common people. So the moral dilemma focuses on those doing the dirty work for the banks. The banks represent the rich, the upper class, the aristocracy vs. the Serfs. It's an easy target for moral and ethical analysis. But extend that out and we get can easily get into cognitive dissonance territory.
The moral dilemma is the hurting and profiting off other people in the service of the rich, the bankers. Those doing the dirty deeds for the bankers are asked "how can you do this"? How can they dare do this kind of work when it results in such despair?
But extend that out. What about the U.S. military? What about those that work for the Government? What about those that vote for politicians that wage war and kill people? That's where the cognitive dissonance come into play. That's where consistency in moral and ethical practices are put to the test.
Our government has been waging war across the planet resulting in millions of deaths and the displacement (eviction) of many millions of innocent people, people who don't even owe money to a bank. The misery and despair being caused by U.S. imperialism is off the charts, there is no available comparison since Roman times. Think about all those working and facilitating U.S. imperialism. Think about all those who vote for politicians who wage U.S. imperialism.
How does that compare to a single real estate broker along with his desperate and confused former evictee that conjure up the moral and ethical feelings in this movie? The real estate broker and his evicted guy are called every name in the book by those affected by their "work" for the banks. They're called scumbags, sellouts, and dirty bastards. The people affected largely focus their angst on them and not the banks, for they are the ones doing the dirty work. They are the ones in front of them, not the suits in the banks and the shareholders profiting from it all.
Perhaps it's just an example about how we eat our own, how we focus our anger on those like ourselves, not on those who are really pulling the strings. It's the blacks, it's the illegal Mexicans, it's the Muslims, it's the Russians, it's the "terrorists" in Burns, OR, it's the republicans, it's the democrats, it's the dirty fucking hippies. It's all of you man, can't you see it's YOU?!
While those that create the conditions for illegal immigration, those that create the conditions for war, for racism, for militancy against the establishment are bypassed as too far up the food chain to bother. Untouchable. The serfs scream with rage at each other but accept that the ruling class has their own rules. They can steal and kill and lie and deceive but that's just the way it is. They're rich people. We're forced to hope that they hold each other accountable because they own the systems and we're supposed to accept that as American democracy.
Why do we do that? Why do we eat our own while allowing the real criminals, the primary ethical and moral violators to continue their assault on all of us? I suppose it's another "human nature" kind of thing. That's the way we are, the way we can be manipulated and controlled like the part of the animal kingdom we are.
Who do we blame? Those working for the "man", or the "man" himself? Is there a difference?
Are we all to blame?
Nah, it's the banksters, they own the place.
Revolution is Evolution
They end up in a cheap hotel inhabited by others suffering from the same or similar misfortune with little opportunity to dig out of their hole. The guy ends up working for the real estate agent that helped evict him which requires him to do the same thing to others that was done to him.
He flourishes in the job although not without some anguishing over his role in doing dirty deeds for the banks. Some of the scenes are heartbreaking (assuming the presence of a heart). The guy gets his house back, with the help of the bankster's real estate agent, and takes a more direct role in the eviction operations.
It's not an easy movie to watch at times and purposefully causes introspection regarding the practice of humans preying on other humans for personal gain. The moral of the story goes straight to the moral dilemma caused by working and personally profiting from a system that causes misery and hardship for others.
How deep that introspection goes depends on the person. I've always like to "extend" things when analyzing an issue. A good example is "lesser evil" voting. Most democrats practice lesser evil voting when voting for someone like Hillary Clinton for President over the likes of a republican Donald Trump. Most republicans think they're doing the same damn thing when voting for Trump against Clinton. As one that doesn't believe in lesser evil voting, let alone voting in this absurd representative system as a whole, I've often extended that lesser evil voting practice out to the option of Satan vs. Satan's brother. In other words, how far will you go?
This movie resonates because it's at the ground level, the one we the Serfs have always been at, i.e., banks vs. the common people. So the moral dilemma focuses on those doing the dirty work for the banks. The banks represent the rich, the upper class, the aristocracy vs. the Serfs. It's an easy target for moral and ethical analysis. But extend that out and we get can easily get into cognitive dissonance territory.
The moral dilemma is the hurting and profiting off other people in the service of the rich, the bankers. Those doing the dirty deeds for the bankers are asked "how can you do this"? How can they dare do this kind of work when it results in such despair?
But extend that out. What about the U.S. military? What about those that work for the Government? What about those that vote for politicians that wage war and kill people? That's where the cognitive dissonance come into play. That's where consistency in moral and ethical practices are put to the test.
Our government has been waging war across the planet resulting in millions of deaths and the displacement (eviction) of many millions of innocent people, people who don't even owe money to a bank. The misery and despair being caused by U.S. imperialism is off the charts, there is no available comparison since Roman times. Think about all those working and facilitating U.S. imperialism. Think about all those who vote for politicians who wage U.S. imperialism.
How does that compare to a single real estate broker along with his desperate and confused former evictee that conjure up the moral and ethical feelings in this movie? The real estate broker and his evicted guy are called every name in the book by those affected by their "work" for the banks. They're called scumbags, sellouts, and dirty bastards. The people affected largely focus their angst on them and not the banks, for they are the ones doing the dirty work. They are the ones in front of them, not the suits in the banks and the shareholders profiting from it all.
Perhaps it's just an example about how we eat our own, how we focus our anger on those like ourselves, not on those who are really pulling the strings. It's the blacks, it's the illegal Mexicans, it's the Muslims, it's the Russians, it's the "terrorists" in Burns, OR, it's the republicans, it's the democrats, it's the dirty fucking hippies. It's all of you man, can't you see it's YOU?!
While those that create the conditions for illegal immigration, those that create the conditions for war, for racism, for militancy against the establishment are bypassed as too far up the food chain to bother. Untouchable. The serfs scream with rage at each other but accept that the ruling class has their own rules. They can steal and kill and lie and deceive but that's just the way it is. They're rich people. We're forced to hope that they hold each other accountable because they own the systems and we're supposed to accept that as American democracy.
Why do we do that? Why do we eat our own while allowing the real criminals, the primary ethical and moral violators to continue their assault on all of us? I suppose it's another "human nature" kind of thing. That's the way we are, the way we can be manipulated and controlled like the part of the animal kingdom we are.
Who do we blame? Those working for the "man", or the "man" himself? Is there a difference?
Are we all to blame?
Nah, it's the banksters, they own the place.
Revolution is Evolution
"Sanders is an imperialist pig"
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
James Madison
Zing!! Glen Ford of the BlackAgendaReport says that in his latest article, "Sanders is an imperialist pig".
Well, that won't go over well in Peoria, or on C99, but I have to agree. Sanders might be progressive in certain areas but when it comes to U.S. imperialism, he is fully on board the U.S.S. Empire. Does that make him an "imperialist pig"? If the shoes fits as they say, all imperialists are pigs, just like all warmongers are war pigs. Imperialism is evil, that's a fact jack.
Sanders claims his foreign policy views are more like Obama's than Clinton's. That's his distinction. Um Bernie, Obama is a war criminal now. He also staked his claim to the Peace Train by emphasizing his No vote for the Iraq war. But he's fully proven his imperialist creds as POTUS in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Venezuela, Honduras, Ukraine, and wherever else the Full Spectrum Dominance military/intelligence war machine stretches it's tentacles. He's instituted the President Assassination program, expanded the hideous drone war, and has overseen the institutional solidification of the War OF Terror. If Bernie is more like Obama, that's not a good thing.
What the hell kind of world are we living in where Obama, who has continued the illegal and inhumane wars and global U.S. imperialism, has a Nobel Peace Prize? How can that be? And how can Bernie Sanders say his foreign policy approach, i.e., approach to U.S. imperialism, be more like Obama's? I must be living in an alternate universe, one where War is Peace and where Lies are Truth.
Here's Bernie talking about Obama putting boots on the ground, illegally, in Syria.
Here's Sanders on the President's "Kill List", the illegal assassination program used by democrat Obama and his democratic party administration.
Ford has been giving Sanders some credit for activating a large number of the younger generation into the political arena. He and BAR have been critical of his running with the Democratic party and first broke out the term "sheep dog" to describe his role in running for President with the Democratic party. Here's his take on what will happen next.
Would he be better than Clinton on "foreign policy"? Ya, he would. So would Satan at this point. But he'd be like Obama and that's something we can't have. It has to end, the killing has to end, the sacrifice of our young for the benefit of the ruling class has to end. But it will never end unless we confront the truth.
It is up to the left to carry on his so called revolution, outside the Democratic party as much as he might plead with his supporters otherwise. It cannot be done by electing more politicians, it just won't happen. Not a revolution. That might stop the gushing to a slow bleed but that's it. The ruling elite have too much power. The left needs to come to grips with the elephant in the room, U.S. imperialism. It can't be ignored any longer. It can't be obfuscated away with false hopes that what a politician says isn't really what he means or that said politician would not get elected if he told the truth. It can't be accepted because it's a democrat and not a republican. Lives depend on it. The very foundation of this country depends on it. The world depends on it.
There won't be a revolution without ending U.S. imperialism. All imperialism must be ended. The people of the world have to unite to end this insane quest by those in control for wealth and power. They kill people, they steal, they make us sacrifice our young in their wars. It's an old human tale that we've never been able to end.
The world made an attempt in the "roaring" twenties after the horrific ruling elite manufactured World War I. The atrocities of the war made all but the most sadistic call for an end to such madness forever. It culminated in the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928.
"The Kellogg–Briand Pact (or Pact of Paris, officially General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy) is a 1928 international agreement in which signatory states promised not to use war to resolve "disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them."
Those in control of never had any intention of honoring that Treaty. Just ask the American Indians about the white man's treaties. World War II soon followed and now the planet is engulfed in a permanent, forever war with the largest manufacturing industry all about more war, more weapons, more destruction and more deprivation of privacy and freedom.
The American people have to unite with the French people, the English people, the Iraq people, all people to end the madness of war and imperialism once and forever. We can never have Peace if we don't try to do that. Peace. Peace man, Peace out. Peace brother. The Hippies had it right. Everything is Peace. People like to say it, greet with it, give condolences with it. But look at the fucking planet. We're as far from Peace as we've ever been. We've let it go man and we have to get it back.
James Madison
Zing!! Glen Ford of the BlackAgendaReport says that in his latest article, "Sanders is an imperialist pig".
Well, that won't go over well in Peoria, or on C99, but I have to agree. Sanders might be progressive in certain areas but when it comes to U.S. imperialism, he is fully on board the U.S.S. Empire. Does that make him an "imperialist pig"? If the shoes fits as they say, all imperialists are pigs, just like all warmongers are war pigs. Imperialism is evil, that's a fact jack.
Sanders claims his foreign policy views are more like Obama's than Clinton's. That's his distinction. Um Bernie, Obama is a war criminal now. He also staked his claim to the Peace Train by emphasizing his No vote for the Iraq war. But he's fully proven his imperialist creds as POTUS in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Venezuela, Honduras, Ukraine, and wherever else the Full Spectrum Dominance military/intelligence war machine stretches it's tentacles. He's instituted the President Assassination program, expanded the hideous drone war, and has overseen the institutional solidification of the War OF Terror. If Bernie is more like Obama, that's not a good thing.
What the hell kind of world are we living in where Obama, who has continued the illegal and inhumane wars and global U.S. imperialism, has a Nobel Peace Prize? How can that be? And how can Bernie Sanders say his foreign policy approach, i.e., approach to U.S. imperialism, be more like Obama's? I must be living in an alternate universe, one where War is Peace and where Lies are Truth.
Here's Bernie talking about Obama putting boots on the ground, illegally, in Syria.
"I think what the president is talking about is having American troops training Muslim troops, helping to supply the military equipment they need, and I do support that effort. We need a broad coalition of Muslim troops on the ground. We have had some success in the last year or so putting ISIS on the defensive, we've got to continue that effort."The war on ISIS is a fraud just like the entire war OF terror is a fraud. It was all started by the neocons in the Bush administration after they got their "New Pearl Harbor" to begin the "New American Century". Falling in line behind the false narratives and lies in none other than Bernie Sanders.
What Sanders is saying is that he would continue Obama’s policy of regime change, despite the “unintended consequences” and its clear illegality. He is no more “progressive” than Obama on foreign policy, and just as dishonest – a true Democrat."
"A distinction without a difference, as they say. Sanders opposes “regime change” except when it is perpetrated by a Democratic administration. He really doesn’t mind U.S. “boots on the ground” in other people’s countries, as long as they are arming and training people of native religions and races to kill others of their kind, and U.S. casualties are kept to a minimum.http://blackagendareport.com/sanders_prepares_bow_to_hillary
Sanders is an imperialist pig. Although his self-image is that of a Scandinavian social democrat, Sanders is more like a French “socialist” who supports the maintenance of a safety net for his own people, but reserves the right to routinely commit mass murder in the former colonies in order to preserve the French “way of life” and “values.”
Here's Sanders on the President's "Kill List", the illegal assassination program used by democrat Obama and his democratic party administration.
"The New York Times revealed in 2012 that President Obama hosts a meeting every Tuesday at the White House where he decides which suspected terrorists will be added to a so-called “kill list.” Those on the list can then be targeted for killing, typically with an unmanned drone.
“Do you think what’s being done now is constitutional and legal?” Hayes asked Sanders, noting the existence of “a list of people that the U.S. government wants to kill.”http://www.mintpressnews.com/bernie-sanders-says-us-kill-list-legal-back...
“In general I do, yes,” Sanders replied."
Ford has been giving Sanders some credit for activating a large number of the younger generation into the political arena. He and BAR have been critical of his running with the Democratic party and first broke out the term "sheep dog" to describe his role in running for President with the Democratic party. Here's his take on what will happen next.
"Sanders consummates his “sheep dog” assignment, he will deflate to his original state: a small-town Democratic Party operative. Most of his supporters will acquiesce to Hillary’s nomination – just as most people everywhere acquiesce to everything most of the time. But, a significant proportion, numbering in the millions, and including the half of young African Americans that have rejected the Black Misleadership Class’s slavish allegiance to the Democratic Party hierarchy, will not. And, although Hillary Clinton will surely win victory in November with her “big tent” Democratic Party – flush with white suburbanites who, only yesterday, were Republicans – it will be a Party that is even more hostile to Blacks and progressives than before Donald Trump plunged the duopoly into crisis."Ya, no doubt many republicans turned off by the fascist pig named Donald Trump are jumping ship over to the big tent. That's bound to leave a mark. But keep hope alive, there may be something to work with here.
"Millions of people, especially young folks, will be looking for an alternative to the Democrats and the Republicans – or to electoral politics, entirely. It’s up to the Left to give it to them."I see many Bernie supporters still claim that Sanders is about peace, that Sanders will end the wars, that Sanders will go against the mighty Military Industrial Complex. The evidence is clear that would not be the case, by Sanders own words. Many hold dear to the claim that Sanders is the "last honest politician", that he tells the truth. Well, no he doesn't, not when it comes to U.S. imperialism. He's a politician that mixes the true with the false narratives and the lies. He comes out against regime changes on one hand and supports it with the other.
Would he be better than Clinton on "foreign policy"? Ya, he would. So would Satan at this point. But he'd be like Obama and that's something we can't have. It has to end, the killing has to end, the sacrifice of our young for the benefit of the ruling class has to end. But it will never end unless we confront the truth.
It is up to the left to carry on his so called revolution, outside the Democratic party as much as he might plead with his supporters otherwise. It cannot be done by electing more politicians, it just won't happen. Not a revolution. That might stop the gushing to a slow bleed but that's it. The ruling elite have too much power. The left needs to come to grips with the elephant in the room, U.S. imperialism. It can't be ignored any longer. It can't be obfuscated away with false hopes that what a politician says isn't really what he means or that said politician would not get elected if he told the truth. It can't be accepted because it's a democrat and not a republican. Lives depend on it. The very foundation of this country depends on it. The world depends on it.
There won't be a revolution without ending U.S. imperialism. All imperialism must be ended. The people of the world have to unite to end this insane quest by those in control for wealth and power. They kill people, they steal, they make us sacrifice our young in their wars. It's an old human tale that we've never been able to end.
The world made an attempt in the "roaring" twenties after the horrific ruling elite manufactured World War I. The atrocities of the war made all but the most sadistic call for an end to such madness forever. It culminated in the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928.
"The Kellogg–Briand Pact (or Pact of Paris, officially General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy) is a 1928 international agreement in which signatory states promised not to use war to resolve "disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them."
Those in control of never had any intention of honoring that Treaty. Just ask the American Indians about the white man's treaties. World War II soon followed and now the planet is engulfed in a permanent, forever war with the largest manufacturing industry all about more war, more weapons, more destruction and more deprivation of privacy and freedom.
The American people have to unite with the French people, the English people, the Iraq people, all people to end the madness of war and imperialism once and forever. We can never have Peace if we don't try to do that. Peace. Peace man, Peace out. Peace brother. The Hippies had it right. Everything is Peace. People like to say it, greet with it, give condolences with it. But look at the fucking planet. We're as far from Peace as we've ever been. We've let it go man and we have to get it back.
Is it World War III?
For all intents and purposes, we really are in the midst of World War III. I haven't referred to the situation that way until recently, typically railing against imperialism. In some ways they're one and the same, imperialism and World War III. Imperialism is defined as:
War is defined as
Just look at what's happening on this planet. Coups and regime changes in Latin America, again. AFRICOM, created in 2007 under the Bush adminstration has been wreaking havoc in Africa. Continued US aggression by the US against Russia via sanctions and demands to "give back" Crimea. Aggression against China in the South China Sea. The U.S. backed war in Yemen and the Gulf of Aden. The U.S. economic war against the European Union. The Global War of Terror in the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, and anywhere the U.S. damn well wants. The Afghanistan war, arming Vietnam, arming ISIS, arming Saudi Arabia, arming everybody. The U.S. government war against its own damn people.
Just read the headlines:
Is that World War III? Should World War III only be declared when the United States goes to the United Nations and requests approval for World War III because there are WMDs in Russia and China? Or maybe only when the first nuclear bomb goes off? Or maybe when we're all dead?
Does it matter how its described? Imperialism, New World Order, World War III.
Insanity.
Maybe it's like that old joke, you can call me anything you want, just don't call me late to dinner. I guess in this case, we can call it anything we want, just don't be late to stop it.
-a policy or practice by which a country increases its power by gaining control over other areas of the world;There's no doubt this fits what the U.S. government is and has been doing on this planet. But maybe it's more than that.
-the effect that a powerful country or group of countries has in changing or influencing the way people live in other, poorer countries.
War is defined as
-a state or period of fighting between countries or groupsRight now in the year 2016 the United States has been at war, officially but not legally or morally, for almost 15 years straight. That's longer than any other United States Empire wars except the Indian Wars where the white people sought to exterminate the Indians because it was their Manifest Destiny. Now there are more conflicts due to the quest for the New World Order than ever and the "process" is in the end game. The end game IS the New World Order, it is complete subjugation and hegemony of all countries on earth by an elite group of psychopaths who control the U.S. government and some of it's primary allies. They are literally waging economic and military war on the rest of the earth. And they really don't care who gets hurt.
-a situation in which people or groups compete with or fight against each other
-an organized effort by a government or other large organization to stop or defeat something that is viewed as dangerous or bad.
Just look at what's happening on this planet. Coups and regime changes in Latin America, again. AFRICOM, created in 2007 under the Bush adminstration has been wreaking havoc in Africa. Continued US aggression by the US against Russia via sanctions and demands to "give back" Crimea. Aggression against China in the South China Sea. The U.S. backed war in Yemen and the Gulf of Aden. The U.S. economic war against the European Union. The Global War of Terror in the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, and anywhere the U.S. damn well wants. The Afghanistan war, arming Vietnam, arming ISIS, arming Saudi Arabia, arming everybody. The U.S. government war against its own damn people.
Just read the headlines:
"America’s Wars of Aggression against Africa under the Disguise of the “War on Terrorism”Hundreds more could be listed from nearly every corner of the earth. It's the 21st century, everybody's connected. More countries are involved in connected global conflict than during World Wars I and II combined. The planet is being flooded with military grade weapons at an astounding rate. Drones are everywhere now and can kill anyone anywhere. The western financial oligarchy and its central banks are strangling any country that dares to challenge the Empire.
"Will Russia Succumb To Washington’s Economic Attack?"
"Thousands of Civilians in Danger as US-backed Forces Mount Offensives in Iraq and Syria"
“Color Revolution” in Macedonia? Towards a New Balkans War?"
"How the World Ends"
"Baiting Russia Is Not Good Policy"
"Evo Morales Urges 'Democratic Revolutions Against US Empire"
"Is Scarborough Shoal Worth a War?"
"Does Russia Have Reason to Fear?"
"The Greek Surrender, Finance As A New Means Of War"
"Geopolitics of the Balkans: China and Serbia Expanding Cooperation, Strategic and Economic Implications"
"Frack the European Union! Washington’s Frozen War Against Russia"
Is that World War III? Should World War III only be declared when the United States goes to the United Nations and requests approval for World War III because there are WMDs in Russia and China? Or maybe only when the first nuclear bomb goes off? Or maybe when we're all dead?
Does it matter how its described? Imperialism, New World Order, World War III.
Insanity.
Maybe it's like that old joke, you can call me anything you want, just don't call me late to dinner. I guess in this case, we can call it anything we want, just don't be late to stop it.
Power and Greed
I became fascinated as a young boy with the Beatnik culture partly by watching "The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis" in the early sixties. My favorite character was Maynard G. Krebs played by Bob Denver who later went on to Gilligan fame and fortune. I loved the Beatnik poetry readings with the bongo drums and the smoke filled rooms filled with long hairs in sunglasses. The predecessors to the hippies of which I became and am. In fact that's the only label I now ascribe to, old fucking hippie. I can be much more if I want but that is what I want to be. Anyway, I wrote this with a Beatnik poetry bar in mind, jack daniels and smoke filled with laid back people in sunglasses. People that understand.
World at war
What for
Not for a nuke
You’d have to be a kook
To believe that.
Or an American
Singing Yes We Can
Filled with hope, like a dope
From a politicians words
Again and again.
War is a Racket
The General Said
Full Metal Jacket
You’ll all end up dead
For power and greed
The only red line
Is for power and greed
They take what they want
And they get what they need
It's as simple as that.
Power and greed, power and greed
They take what they want
And get what they need
They lied to us then
They’re lying to us now
It’s always the same
The key to their game
Why would that change?
Don’t believe them
Just give it a try
The more who believe
The more who will die
That’s no lie
Why do you listen
Haven’t you learned
Do you still believe the lies
Do you like getting burned
What is it with you?
They want a new war
I said War is a Racket
They want a new war
I SAID WAR IS A RACKET
Why isn’t that clear?
What more do you need?
Power and Greed, Power and Greed
They take what they want
And get what they need.
It's all in our minds
What we're made to believe
The excuses for war
Must not be received
No more, no more.
It shouldn't matter
What they tell us is wrong
The reasons they use
For war are as long
As history itself.
Don't believe the lies
Enough is enough
Listen to the cries
Of those we are killing
For power and greed
Power and Greed, Power and Greed
They take what they want
And get what they need.
World at war
What for
Not for a nuke
You’d have to be a kook
To believe that.
Or an American
Singing Yes We Can
Filled with hope, like a dope
From a politicians words
Again and again.
War is a Racket
The General Said
Full Metal Jacket
You’ll all end up dead
For power and greed
The only red line
Is for power and greed
They take what they want
And they get what they need
It's as simple as that.
Power and greed, power and greed
They take what they want
And get what they need
They lied to us then
They’re lying to us now
It’s always the same
The key to their game
Why would that change?
Don’t believe them
Just give it a try
The more who believe
The more who will die
That’s no lie
Why do you listen
Haven’t you learned
Do you still believe the lies
Do you like getting burned
What is it with you?
They want a new war
I said War is a Racket
They want a new war
I SAID WAR IS A RACKET
Why isn’t that clear?
What more do you need?
Power and Greed, Power and Greed
They take what they want
And get what they need.
It's all in our minds
What we're made to believe
The excuses for war
Must not be received
No more, no more.
It shouldn't matter
What they tell us is wrong
The reasons they use
For war are as long
As history itself.
Don't believe the lies
Enough is enough
Listen to the cries
Of those we are killing
For power and greed
Power and Greed, Power and Greed
They take what they want
And get what they need.
The Problems with Third Parties
I've been advocating for a Presidential election boycott for over a year. The reason is the choice between Trump and Clinton (originally it was Bush vs. Clinton) is absurd and unacceptable and I believe the people should reject the system which has produced such a travesty. I also believe unless we force a change to the system we cannot remove the power from the ruling elite. It can't be done by participating in the system, imo, and an organized and vociferous boycott might be a way to actually force a change.
I've been criticized for even bringing up such an option, called names and many simply can't understand how such a stupid and unproductive option could even be considered.
So I've reevaluated my position on an election boycott. I've decided I think we should damn well have one and we should damn well start now.
I'm just kidding, but not really. I have thought more about it. One thing I've thought about is what is the purpose of supporting a third party? What do those who intend to do so want? What's the goal, agenda, payoff? What's in it for ME!
This goes to what I feel is a critical problem we face. How to define what we want? Do we want incremental change accomplished through the current political system? Do we want to reform the current political system first? Do we want democracy of which the current political system does not and cannot provide? Do we want to continue to allow the criminals on top to control us, even rule over us, or do we want to take the power?
We talk about "issues" and people list their priorities. "Address climate change, End the wars, End poverty, Enact Socialism, End wealth inequality". All well and good but how are we going to do it? How do we make these changes to human civilization and the planet we live on? It should be fully evident by now that the politicians we elect are not going to do these things. It is the ultimate fool's gold turned to rust.
Let's take third parties. What would supporting a third party accomplish and how long would it take? What's the purpose of supporting a third party?
In a nutshell, in theory supporting a third political party means trying to elect politicians of that party to Congress/Senate to supposedly represent the supporters in a Congress dominated by the oligarchy's Republican and Democratic political parties.
Some might be voting third party as a protest vote against the duopoly knowing full well that electing third party national representatives is almost impossible. Those doing that seem to be hoping the protest votes somehow pressure the members of the oligarchy duopoly to "do the right thing".
The problem is that since WWII, there have been only nine third party politicians elected to the national Congress/Senate . Currently there are two and one is running as a duopoly candidate for President. Some feel the conditions are ripe for third party advancement but that's probably wishful thinking. Even if a sustained third party effort, of which efforts are being made as offshoots from both major parties, was made it would take 20-50 years to make an impact in the Congress/Senate we have now. There are 535 representatives. Only 9 total national third party representatives since WWII. This looks like a situation that simply cannot be resolved without a significant change in the political system, if not an entirely new one.
But many are totally aware of the odds and the obstacles and still believe it's an option that should be pursued. They believe eventually progress can be made in the halls of Congress if they can just elect the right politicians.
Come on man.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. While the crimes go on. While the illegal wars and murders and destruction of lives continues. While the ruling elite lie and manipulate and sacrifice anyone in their way. While they create conditions for goddam nuclear war, while they ignore the dangers of climate change, while they institute a global police and military state beyond what even Orwell imagined. While the children k e e p g e t t I n g k I l l e d. The 500,000 here and 300,000 there and 60,000 right in front of our fucking noses.
I can't do it. Third party ain't my thing. I'm too impatient, I need a quicker fix. I don't see how we can ever change the system with this option. Ya I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I know, some are going to obliquely deride my rant against the third party route with the $64,000 question, "what the do you propose there Sherlock?"
I propose we have a Revolution. If we could only agree on the definition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)