Caucus99Percent, Tulsi Gabbard and Their Neverending War

Note:  This is an essay I intended to post on the Caucus99Percent blog, a supposedly non-partisan blog populated mostly by long time democratic party partisans who claim to be fed up with the party but keep hanging on.  Upon trying to post, the C99 owner jumped all over me and basically censored my posting of this essay there.  I'm not totally sure why he was so offended, but it sure got to him.  Maybe it was the "big Kahuna" reference although that was just a little joke, not a swipe at  him.  Maybe he just doesn't want critical discussion about a politician he and most of the blog's regulars support. I think he forgot where he came from (Daily Kos) and when that owner censored anyone critical of another democratic party politician, Hillary Clinton.  It's like George Thorogood, "ya, now you funny too".  So I'll post it here. Looks like I was right on the first line however.  It really is interesting how we've diverged. 

Well, this might be my last essay here. I was challenged the other day by the owner of the C99 blog, the Big Kahuna himself, to provide options, other than the democratic party and specifically Tulsi Gabbard, to "ending the endless wars". I made a comment about Gabbard and how she supports the Global War on Terror (GWOT) and in fact had called herself a "hawk" for the war on terror. Not my words, hers. Many have accused her of being an "islamophobe" which as usual has been explained away by her supporters. I suppose my past comments critical of her and her chosen political party contributed to the reaction to that single comment, like a compound fracture.

He asked:
"how do we the people stop the endless wars? If, in your opinion, electoral politics in general and all of the Democratic Party candidates specifically wont affect the change, and the "revolution" obviously isn't going to happen by 2020, how will the forever wars end?" He went on to simply ask, "what are our options?"

In his opinion, and many others at C99, Gabbard is the "one candidate speaking out about the endless wars but the MSM and associates are performing their marginalization magic. Dinging any candidate that speaks out against war is helping to further that marginalization". Their contention is that Gabbard is delivering an "antiwar" message and their hope is that it will have the same effect on the "narrative" that Bernie Sanders' outspokenness against wealth inequality has had (both debateable contentions imo). Evidently criticism by normal citizens is seen as detrimental (marginalizing) to the antiwar cause.

One person is so upset about the pushback against Gabbard that they're threatening to "stop posting". They simply cannot understand how anyone would object to the overall message Gabbard is spreading even though she has some blind spots. This coming from a long time antiwar citizen. The belief is this democratic party politician can help turn the tide against our "neverending wars" simply by bringing the discussion into the mainstream like Bernie Sanders, even though Gabbard herself is quite the salesperson for the neverending war OF terror, has backed NATO and the illegal sanctions against Iran, Russia and North Korea and is clearly a capitalist imperialist. In other words, imo we're looking at another Obama. Her supporters adamantly reject that, but hey, they've been warned. Many warned about Obama too, then he won the Nobel Peace Prize and waged wars in seven countries. Come on now. Don't get fooled again? It's a mindset all righty.

After thinking about it, I decided the options have already been well discussed and he knows it. That's why he referred to "revolution", more or less sarcastically, in his comment. We all know darn well what our options are other than this ridiculously corrupted political system. His question was like saying, "this is the only reasonable option we have at this time and anyone rejecting it is wrong. Anything else just cannot be done."

Maybe that's not any different from me saying relying on the democratic party as an option is wrong and cannot be done. But who has a track record on their side?

The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principles.
Eugene Debs, 1904
So there will be no debate within the left regarding ending US imperialism and the wars. It will all be left up to the politicians belonging to the duopoly, in this case, a single congressional representative from the Democratic party, to lead that charge. Until she's out of the race, then what? Like last election when it was up to a single politician from the Democratic party to lead the charge against wealth inequality. The wealth inequality that keeps getting worse. But hey, people know about it now because of Bernie. Like they didn't know already. Like they didn't know 100 years ago. Or 1000. Wait, did they know about war?

All I'll say is I've been an outspoken critic of the war OF terror since it started, almost 18 fucking years ago, that's on record. I was calling the war on terror, the war OF terror, well before anyone else and still do. Many antiwar and anti-imperialism activists started calling THAT war, the neverending war, a long time ago. So when I hear people proclaiming Gabbard as antiwar, our only hope for peace, shit like that, it doesn't equate to me. Here's someone who calls herself a "hawk" for the war on terror; who joined the Army reserves after the false flag which she will never admit to on 9/11 to help get Al Qaeda and destroy "radical Islam" with a purposeful eye on her political career. She still plays the militarist and "veteran" card quite well. She's a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), maybe the most evil imperialist organization on the planet, which has been known to "prepare" the next candidates that will be considered as president.

And to me, it's not just that. People latch on to things like with Gabbard and her "no regime change wars". Similar to Trump who said the same damn things, which is why many progressives are calling for Trump to dump Bolton and hire Gabbard. But if you look deeper and look at her voting record, it tells a different story. I wonder how many of the Gabbard supporters have dug deeper. How many of them know her voting record? I do, I looked it up and studied it. I was looking up shit on Tulsi Gabbard two years ago.

So if anyone here wants to tell me I'm hurting the antiwar/anti-imperialist cause by not supporting democratic party and CFR member politician Tulsi Gabbard than so be it. I disagree but I can understand the position. The hope is placed in our political system. I don't have that hope.

The funny thing is the same people are calling for solidarity with any who feel the same about wars and imperialism. If they're on the right, great. Tucker Carlson, great. He likes Tulsi. Let's join hands and end the fucking wars. Sounds great until you get to the nitty gritty. Like ok, we want the wars to end but what are we going to do about it? Vote for Tulsi? Is that it? Support Tulsi? Supporting her brings with it something everyone wants to ignore, the democratic party. Not only that, but the duopoly political system and WHO CONTROLS IT. It brings with it the task of electing more and better democrats, of reforming the democratic party and achieving great things in our fabled duopoly political system. I suppose there can be solidarity as long as everyone agrees on the actions. But count me out with the democratic party. So there will be no solidarity with me because it's not just that the democratic party won't do anything about it, it's because the democratic party is a key part of it. Tulsi Gabbard is not going to change that.

So back to the options. I've gone thru this before on this blog. I've written about those options and why we need to take them many times. No sense in beating a dead horse. Some people are going to continue to have faith in our political system, some won't.