The UnRepresented Party, or How to Start a Revolution

"Democracy cannot function without an informed public."
Thomas Jefferson

When people vote they affix a signature, either on paper or electronically, to verify and document their vote. That record is accepted by all (theoretically) as generally what each citizen wants from their government via their political representatives. This citizen input into who is allowed to make decisions for them is paraded as democracy. This process involves many millions of people during the national government elections, as many as 130 million during presidential election years or approximately 55-60% of the voting eligible public. During the mid-term elections the total participation level can dip below 100 million as seen in the 2014 election where only 36% of the voting eligible public voted.

Only 36% of American citizens elected most of our 537 national politicians in 2014. Politicians who were largely controlled by the oligarchy that controls this country of 330 million people. The number of national representatives hasn't changed since 1912, it was capped by Congress in 1929. They said "no more representatives for you!" That's our supposed "representative democracy", the system we accept to maintain the illusion that Amerika is the greatest country on earth and the greatest democracy ever achieved by the human animal. The country that has the God Given Right to be the global policemen and the purveyor of all that is good and right, the sole superpower and the "exceptional" nation.

Come on man, that's what we're supposed to believe and we all know it. That's what's been pounded into our heads since we were old enough to hear.

We're at the point in American history where we should admit this political system is broken. It can't be reformed, it must be replaced. The case can be and has been made this political system was never meant to provide democracy, but was meant to keep the ultimate power at the top with the rich and powerful, the "ruling class". It was designed to prevent democracy. The results are more clear than ever, we regular citizens have no say in the political process and our votes mean nothing.

How can a former president, Jimmy Carter, come out and say the U.S. is not a democracy, it is an oligarchy, and nothing is done about it? How can a president, Dwight Eisenhower, warn us about the dangers of the military industrial complex but we end up with an insatiable global killing machine and spying apparatus and a government trying to rule the world by force? How can we allow that? Why are these issues not addressed in this country by it's leaders and citizens? How much longer can it go on?

The issues are not addressed because we do not live in a democracy. We are being ruled.
 
It's obvious we need an independent political movement to challenge the duopoly and the oligarchy to bring some semblance of democracy to this country. Not just democracy but an end to the ultra criminal and unconstitutional activities those in control of our government are engaging in and aiding and abetting and accountability and justice for the past and current crimes committed along with reparations to the victims. The reparations must come from those who committed and benefited most from these crimes against humanity.

Wall Street, the Federal Reserve System, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Bank of International Settlements, the World Trade Council, NATO, the military/intelligence/security industrial complex, Bilderberg, the thinktanks, institutions, clubs and foundations and the revolving D.C. government/corporation/big bank door, the Big banks, the corporate media monopoly, etc. all need to be abolished, curtailed or reformed to limit their influence on government policy, their role in the incredible wealth inequality and class divide in this country, and end their insane and immoral quest to rule the earth and all the inhabitants on it. Fuck them.

The choice is between a "third" political party, i.e., participating in this failed political system, or an independent movement outside the electoral process. The duopoly consisting of the democratic and republican parties is completely controlled by the oligarchy, the ruling class, and the rich and powerful. The entire system and accompanying institutions that have been created over the last two centuries are designed to keep it that way. Money talks, bullshit walks and we regular citizens of this country are the bullshit.

So ya, to do this we're going to need money, lots of it. The problem with a third party, besides the system being severely stacked against them, is it still requires a "middleman" to participate in this system of representation, the election of political candidates to political offices. They then become politicians who represent their "constituents". Nationally they would take their place in a congress or senate with 535 seats dominated by the duopoly. Since WWII, only 5 non-duopoly politicians have been elected to the national Congress or Senate. Taking this course would require extreme patience because it would probably take decades to elect enough politicians from that third party to be able to impact policies in Congress, let alone implement radical measures like mentioned above, i.e., revolutionary actions. That's assuming those who chose this path could be more successful than those who have repeatedly tried over the last 70 plus years. During that time we could all die from nuclear war, climate change, and/or extreme poverty. Or all three. Either way alot of people will continue to get hurt, continue to have their one life to live taken from them in the name of greed and the quest for power. An age old equation the human race has never been able to cure.

The wild card in that however is if a third party president could be elected. That could be a game changer with the right person. But placing our bets on one person to save us is tired human practice that rarely works and often leads to even worse results. And it's not democracy to allow one person to make decisions for everyone else. I'm in favor of abolishing the presidency and creating a different management structure to prevent the world having to worry about what "Trump" will do, or whoever it is. And that's a reality, check out the rest of the world and what they think about Trump, it's ridiculous. It's embarrassing to be an American.

So why not cut out the middleman with an independent movement that does not include electing politicians? It's not like it would be easy and fast, it would require great planning and organization, and money as mentioned above. But it could still be a representative of a large number of people with a platform of citizen input, like a political platform only much better. It would be validated, just like on an election ballot, with signatures verifying the rightful democatic input from those participating. It doesn't require people protesting in the streets, although that should be part of it, but can include millions who feel the same but can't join the street protests. There has to be a way to include those people.

We want an end to oligarchy.

It would have to be combined with a boycott or protest of some kind of the duopoly, an organized, publicized boycott or statement against the duopoly and a demand that our voices and opinions are given equal measure, as is our lawful and "God given right". It would be basically like a petition, but what in politics isn't like a petition? When electing politicians all we do is sign our name. This is the same thing.

Actually we could have our own election. We could have a national referendum like is done in other countries. Except there wouldn't be any no votes, only votes from those that agreed with the platform, like with a political party. We could get 20 million, 50 million votes much faster than we could get a significant third party presence in Congress and Senate.

Somebody has got to organize all the different organizations, blogs, independent news sites, initiatives, groups, etc., that are currently working toward the same thing. There are alot of people who want this but mostly they're all doing their own thing.

How would an independent movement be able to influence what happens in Congress and Senate and with the President? Why would they listen to us? Because we'd make them listen to us. What other choice is there? Sooner or later we're going to have to do that. It's like put up or shut up, shit or get off the pot, quit your whining and do something. The only alternative to is keep voting in this system hoping that a couple centuries of peasant futility can somehow be overcome.

When I say "we" of course I mean those that want more than just a higher minimum wage or medicare for all. "We" who want an end to oligarchy. We want an end to the wars, the unbelievable wealthy inequality, the unfair practices and crimes committed by the financial class and an end to rule by the rich. We who want a revolution, a changing of the power to the people. It's got to happen or greed and the quest for power will kill us all.

It depends on what you want. If you want a revolution, it's going to require something like this, and more. It's got to be big, it's got to be organized and well funded, and it's got to be committed against the oligarchy and for democracy. Everyone is born equal, stays equal and has an equal voice. Solidarity. If you want to continue the same path with the oligarchy in charge where our rights are slowly being taken from us to the point of being slaves, then continue voting for politicians offered to you by the duopoly.

If that's not what you want, the answer is easy. Just keep trying to elect better politicians to represent you, either third party or with the duopoly. And quit stressing out about what can be done.
I know what I want. I want freedom from these fucking assholes and an end to, and justice for, their crimes, and I'll do whatever it takes to get it. I'm tired of being ruled by rich people and I don't want my children, my grandchildren and great grandchildren ruled by rich people either. I believe we're ALL equal and we ALL should have an equal voice. I believe that's the only way. They are not better than me. I believe we must end rule by the rich, which is basically rule by greed.

We need an antiwar movement ASAP but I don't think an antiwar movement will do it. It's never done it before. Nothing has really challenged the power and wealth of the oligarchy, face it. The rich have always been in charge in this country. I do think that ending imperialism, global imperialism not just U.S. imperialism, could be an instigator to real democratic social change. But probably not, we have to confront this issue head on, not from an angle. Again, we being those that want a new beginning.

It's like they say, we need to go big or go home. I'm ready to go big. In fact, that's all I'll accept. I read a quote earlier today from Hannah Arendt, the only morally reliable people are not those who say “this is wrong” or “this should not be done,” but those who say “I can’t.” I'm not trying to be morally righteous here, I'm just saying I'm not going to take anymore of their bullshit. To each her/his own, as it should be.

Syria, Tulsi Gabbard, Progressives, and U.S. Imperialism

Some thoughts on America's attack on Syria.

-Trump/America's attack killed six children. Have you read or listened to anyone who mentioned that? Lamented about that? Maybe it wasn't enough, maybe it has to be fifty kids. Or 500,000. How about a million? Do you know what it's like to have your child killed? Not by a bomb, but by lies?

-Most progressives, and most everyone else, have taken to the narrative that the President of Syria, Bashar Assad, is an evil dictator, cruel to his people and "something" must be done about him. They just don't necessarily agree with the way the United States is going about it. A typical comment contains the caveat, "I know something has to be done about Assad, but bombing is not the answer", or "I know Assad is a brutal dictator but it's not up to the U.S. to solve this problem". I see that all the time. Why is it that so many Americans believe an elected president of another country that has a near 70% approval rating among it's citizens "must be removed"? How is it that so many Americans know so much about the crimes of the Assad government but they don't know shit about the crimes of their own government? Could it be because that's what they've been told to believe? Could it be there's a little racism involved here? ("They've been fighting each other for centuries", Ya, like "we" haven't") Oh ya, there will be those who will come out with stories about how Assad tortured, killed his own people, gassed his own people, etc, some true, some not. Assad and his government have done dirty deeds and should be held to account like all governments around the world fucking with their people. What about our presidents and our government? Bush, Clinton, Obama, now Trump? Why aren't the same people who are so convinced that the presidents in Arab countries are so fucking depraved that something has to be done about them, also demanding that "something" be done about their own presidents? Our presidents torture, they gas, they bomb, kill and steal, they kill children, they kill "innocents".

Can any dictator really equal what our own dictators are doing, have done and are responsible for? Can any dictator equal what our dictator wants to do which is rule the world? Think about that, "rule the world". When has that not been associated with insanity?
   
It's all ass backwards, 1984ish. The War is Peace, Lies are Truth thing. Check out these fuckers we have as our government leaders, like Nikki Haley, McMaster, Tillerson. The lies coming out of their mouths are so off the charts it's hard to take. These people are really great actors. They look in the cameras or stare out at their audiences with such sincere and serious looks and say things like "we will hold those who commit crimes against innocents accountable". In other words, "we" will bomb the shit out of you and kill your children. "We'll kill your children because we had someone else kill your children to make it look like you killed your children so we can kill more of your children". It's like a serial killer who killed your kid looking you straight in the face and saying he will help you find the killer.
 
What the fuck man, this is a country that has been practicing ruthless full spectrum imperialism, manifest destiny on steroids, waging wars, dropping insane numbers of bombs, conducting regime changes, country destabilizations, enacting sanctions that kill many millions including millions of children, threatening and pillaging it's way across planet Earth and our government "leaders" are lying like psychopaths who believe they're the next coming of Jesus Christ. This is a country that has bombed, napalmed, gassed, tortured, and incinerated it's way to becoming the greatest demockery in human history. This is a country with the largest prison system by far on the planet, that treats most it's citizens like slaves requiring them to buy health care from corporations and pay their taxes to enable the rich to get more rich and have our kids fight and die in their wars so they can rule the world. "Feed the rich til there are no poor no more". The poor will be gone, wiped off the face of the earth because they were too stupid to stand up to their oppressors.

Ya, what about the innocents, Tillerson? You're just another in a long line of U.S. government criminals that "think it's worth it" to kill children while pretending to care about children.
That's the American way isn't it? Kill anyone that gets in our way, steal their shit and go buy a big screen TV made in Vietnam. Manifest destiny man, get the fuck back on your reservations you sub-humans we own this now, not you. It's hard not to spread the blame at this point.

So ya, if Assad, who has a 70% approval rating from his citizens should be removed for committing "crimes against innocents", what about Trump who has a 36% approval rating from "his" citizens and his crimes against innocents? He's already killed kids in three countries. He's a war criminal, a murderer. What about Obama, what about Bush, what about Clinton? What does that say about this country that has two blatant psychopaths by the names of John McCain and Lindsey Graham running around demanding that we bomb the shit out of everyone. Two terrorist sympathizers, supporters and enablers, two despicable humans that make Assad look like Mr. Rogers because they want to bomb and kill the world, keep getting elected by big screen TV Americans election after election.
But the liberals and progressives keep up with the caveats. "I'm against war but something has to be done about Assad." The new progressive hero, Tulsi Gabbard, member of good standing with the Council on Foreign Relations, arguably one of the most evil organizations on the planet and certainly the preeminent imperialist organization, typifies the lame approach to peace most liberals and progressives practice. "The premier progressive of our time", she issued a statement against the bombing attack on Syria Trump ordered on April 4th that killed six children. She comes out strong against Trump's attack, calling it illegal but then says that by launching those missiles before U.N. could collect evidence, he has "jeopardized the legitimacy of future attacks on chemical assets or the regime airbases used to deliver them." She indicates it was poor judgment and that if Assad is guilty she'd be the first to call for prosecution, but the attack may have destroyed evidence.

She's worried about "jeopardizing the legitimacy of future attacks". That doesn't sound like someone totally against war, and future attacks, in Syria.

To her credit, she calls it like it is when she says, "Trump’s reckless escalation of the regime change war to overthrow the Syrian government will make things worse for the Syrian people, not better."
But then she asks if we've learned nothing from "our" invasions of Iraq and Libya. "The overthrow of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, brutal dictators who attacked their own people, has resulted in hundreds of thousands more civilians killed, millions more refugees, trillions of dollars wasted, and the strengthening of al-Qaeda, ISIS and other terrorist organizations."

There's that "brutal dictator" narrative. The message conveyed is the regime changes are being conducted because the dictator's are being brutal, but it's poor judgment to do it by bombing the shit out of countries, as proven with Iraq and Libya, and Congress must be involved in the decision process to remove these brutal dictators. That is bullshit. Although she withholds judgment on who was responsible for the April 4th alleged chemical weapon attack, she clearly equates Assad and the Syria war with the Libya/Gaddafi and Iraq/Hussein wars conducted supposedly to remove "brutal dictators". No mention of the real reasons for those wars, U.S. and Israeli imperialism. And no mention of the brutal American dictators killing, displacing and torturing their way thru the middle east, central asia and north africa.

But the progressives eat it up. She's the new Sanders, the one who will lead them out of the wilderness and back to the democratic party. She was also a key co-sponsor of the the North Korea Sanctions Enforcement Act last year which passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a stunning 418 to 2. Here's Gabbard:

"North Korea continues to pose a serious and dangerous threat to my constituents in Hawaii, the Pacific, and the West Coast of the United States. Our communities and our families lie within range of North Korea’s intercontinental ballistic missiles. North Korea’s nuclear tests just a week ago, and their continued pursuit of developing more nuclear weapons and miniaturizing those weapons, serve as a reminder of the threat that North Korea poses to our country, which my constituents in Hawaii know all too well.”

This is similar to her stance on Iran where she was one of the few polticians to come out against the Iran "deal" because she felt it didn't go far enough and would be too hard to enforce. Here's Gabbard on Breitbart News:

"When asked if she had any advice for the president, she responded, “put yourself in Israel’s shoes. I think whether you’re — when you’re in any kind of situation like this where there’s a little bit of a standoff and personalities and egos are hurt, if you put yourself in their shoes and understand where he’s coming from, where the Israeli people are coming from and their deep concern about Iran’s continued development of a nuclear weapon and what they want to do with that.”

"Iran's continued development of A nuclear weapon". Bullshit.

So again, here's a representive of the U.S.A., the bully of the planet, the country with thousands of nuclear weapons; the only country that has used those weapons to kill up to one million Japanese (including all post attack casualties); the country that has been threatening nuclear war on the planet since it dropped those bombs in 1945; the country that has verifiable and open plans to use nuclear weapons during it's imperialist conquests; the country who's last president committed to a ten year, one trillion dollar nuclear weapon moderinization project; the country that just elected a psychopath billionaire as president who said he wanted the most nuclear weapons ever assembled; and the country that recently boycotted the UN nuclear weapons ban treaty effort because as Haley put it, "North Korea won't listen"; saying that Iran is a danger because it might develop one nuclear weapon, which it isn't and hasn't, and that "we" have the right to do something about it, to stop them by whatever means necessary. That is a tell ladies and gentlemen.
 
Sure, North Korea and Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, neither should Israel or any country on the planet, but how do you reconcile that with the United States of America? How do you rationalize that the U.S. should be able to have thousands while North Korea should not be permitted to have a single one? Because their leader is batshit crazy? What about our leaders? They're fucking batshit crazy too. The North Korea attacked by the U.S. who killed millions of their people. The North Korea the U.S. has been at war with since the end of WWII. Or how about Iran, same thing with Iran. How, when the U.S. is the only country to have used the evil weapons, resulting in the deaths of millions, is it incumbent on the politicians of this country to insist that other countries shouldn't have them? Shouldn't it be the other way around? The U.S. has used them and killed a million people, needlessly. It has proven itself as the most unworthy custodian of nuclear weapons on the planet. Shouldn't the U.S. be the one the rest of the planet is trying to get to "listen"?

What about Israel and it's crazy leader Netanyahoo and their brutal apartheid state? What's that Tulsi, put ourselves in their shoes? No thanks.

Fuck no, we're not going to go thru this charade forever or until we all get blown to kingdom come. "We all drop our weapons at once".

Here's Gabbard on Russia:

“Russia has violated the sovereignty and independence of the Ukrainian people, in direct contravention of its own treaty obligations and international law,” said Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, an Army combat veteran and member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “I support the sanctions announced today, and I strongly urge the President to go further and consider a broader range of consequences. If Russia is allowed to continue its aggressive push for control in Ukraine, there will be long-term, serious, and costly security risks for the United States and Europe. Russia must face serious consequences for their actions; the U.S. must consider options that truly isolate Russia economically and diplomatically—not just sanction a handful of oligarchs—and send a message of unity and strength from the international community.

“We cannot stand by while Russia unilaterally degrades Ukraine’s territorial integrity. We must offer direct military assistance—defensive weapons, military supplies and training—to ensure Ukraine has adequate resources to respond to Russia’s aggressions and defend themselves. We cannot view Ukraine as an isolated incident. If we do not take seriously the threat of thinly veiled Russian aggression, and commit to aiding the people of Ukraine immediately, we will find ourselves in a more dangerous, expensive and disastrous situation in the future.”

Peace candidate? Think again. She's an Islamophobe, Russophobe imperialist who believes the war OF terror is an ideological struggle against radical Islam, which it isn't. The war OF terror is a manufactured war based on lies, just like all wars are based on lies.
   
Gabbard is just another politician. Politicians won't save us. Imperialism must end and it must end soon. The end game is upon us. They're at level 8 of the video game "Conquer the World" and trying their damnest to get to the next level. They'll do whatever it takes.