The 99 Percent Fallacy
I was chided (mildly) the other day about a comment I made to a fairly fervent Trump supporter who felt Trump might turn into one of the best presidents ever (would that be a Trumpbot?). My pushback to the commenter was evidently seen as contrary to the site's non-partisan, all views are welcome policy. The theory is we're all part of the 99% who have a common opponent in the One Percent. It follows with the "divide and conquer" concerns voiced by many whereby the ruling elite endeavor to create conditions to divide the public, making it easier to "conquer" us. It's like, "don't let them divide us, man".
Reality is different.
It isn't as simple as the very rich versus the rest of us, it's also about goals, agendas and ideology. If person A wants the Republican party to win and person B wants the Democratic party to win then they have different goals. They can't work together toward that same goal. If person A, the republican, and person B, the democrat, both want to work toward a common goal, then they can work together, unless other goals get in the way.
It's all about the goals.
If my goal is to try to enact a single payer health care system but someone else supports the republican party which does not support a single payer health care system, we could still work toward that goal if the republican person also supported single payer.
But it doesn't usually work that way. The reason Person A, the republican, supports the republican party is because of the goals, agenda and ideology of that party. So you generally are not going to find many republicans who you can work with toward that goal of single payer because of their ideology. Not to mention they actively support a political party that opposes single payer.
It's all about ideology.
If my goal is to oppose the duopoly (democratic and republican parties), seek a more democratic political system, and end Rule by the Rich, while another person's goal is to support Donald Trump and the republican party, that makes it difficult to work together. We don't want the same thing and in fact, Person A the republican, by virture of supporting Trump and the republican party, is in effect opposing my goal. The same could be said with a supporter of the Democratic party. By virture of their support for the Democratic party they are opposing my goal. How do people with competing goals work together?
They are not only opposing my goal by supporting Trump and the republican party, they are supporting a political party that wants to take me even farther from my goal, wants to make things worse.
Take war and imperialism, it's the same thing. If I want to end the wars and U.S. imperialism and someone else supports the Democratic/Republican party that wants to continue the wars and U.S. imperialism, then we can't work toward that same goal. They can't honestly say they are against the wars and U.S. imperialism while supporting a political party that does.
Well, they could but how many republican/democratic party supporters are really against the wars and U.S. imperialism? And if they are, why are they supporting a political party that supports U.S. wars and imperialism?
If I want a revolution and someone else doesn't, can we work together toward a revolution? Aren't we then working AGAINST each other? If they are supporting one of the oligarchy's political parties who are gravely against a real people's revolution or movement and will work to stop or defeat it, then they are in effect opposing a real people's revolution or movement.
We've got many divisions in this country. Based on class, race, religion, gender, but also based on ideology. We're never going to get 99% of the people to join together toward a common goal, that's impossible. The only possible common goal at that level would be ending Rule by the Rich and implementing an actual democratic political system. That's what the 99% thing is all about, the 1% get all the spoils and owns the government. So theoretically the 99% could join together to end that. Everything else would have to be decided by democracy, how it should be.
That's not to say there can't be changing sides. Someone supporting the republican/democratic party could decide they will no longer support the party and instead will support the people's revolution. But there's that ideology thing.
For example:
" A new website is asking students and others to “expose and document” professors who “discriminate against conservative students, promote anti-American values and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.”
The site, called Professor Watchlist, is not without precedent — predecessors include the now-defunct NoIndoctrination.org, which logged accounts of alleged bias in the classroom. There’s also David Horowitz’s 2006 book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. But such efforts arguably have new meaning in an era of talk about registering certain social groups and concerns about free speech.
Professor Watchlist, launched Monday, is a project of Turning Point USA. The group’s mission is to “identify, educate, train and organize students to promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets and limited government.” Its national college and university field program works to “identify young conservative activists, build and maintain effective student groups, advertise and rebrand conservative values, engage in face-to-face and peer-to-peer conversations about the pressing issues facing our country,” according to its website. The group’s founder, Charlie Kirk – a millennial who has emerged in some conservative political circles as a major player — did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Professor Watchlist, but he promoted it on social media."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/anti-american-leftist-professors-being-watc...
Does that sound like someone who radical leftists could work with to change the capitalist system and overthrow the establishment? Would they work with me to arrest the .01% ‘leaders’ for Wars of Aggression, treason, Crimes Against Humanity, fraud and looting worth tens of trillions? I don't think so, I would bet they would actively work against such a Revolution. I would imagine most of them are not of the One Percent but of the 99 Percent. What if they visited C99?
Back to working with Trump and republican party supporters. I understand all viewpoints are supposedly accepted on this blog, the only rule being DBAD (don't be a dick). However I've seen more than a few run off because their views didn't fit in with the majority here, i.e., Clinton supporters. Trump supporters seem to have been treated a little differently based on the perception from some that Trump and his republican party administration might not be that bad, certainly not as bad as Hillary Clinton.
I can't stress enough, a REPUBLICAN PARTY administration that is for war and imperialism, unregulated capitalism, privatizing Medicare and Social Security, a fascist police state, and serving and enriching the top ..01% that rule over We the Serfs. A party that will work to KILL any working class or Serf's revolution or movement.
No, for me there's no working with that. Anyone who supports that is not on my team, they are my opponent. There is no room for discussion or debate, the only way to change that would be for them to come over to my team. If not, that's how it will stay.
This isn't a time for Pollyanna "Imagine all the People" chants, we're in a war of ideologies. Those of us wanting truth, justice, equality and real democracy are getting creamed. There's no room for niceties when considering the stakes. The future of this country is at stake. The existence of the planet and the human race is at stake. I've got kids and grandkids, screw these people who want to take away their futures and screw those that want to support those that want to take away their futures. You can't expect me to want to work with them if they want to work against me and mine.
We need solidarity for a people's movement against the oligarchy, their systems and institutions. We need a common goal. It won't be the 99% that does it. It might be 80%, 50%, 20%, who knows. Those that want it will have to join in with others around the planet to form a global people's revolution against the global oligarchy and the hateful, greedy, violent and criminal ideologies around the planet. We'll have many opponents but our cause is just and that's what will win in the end. It has to.
Comments
Al, I just want you to know,
I have argued with you on the feasibility of some of your goals...but I agree with the goals. Most of my argument probably comes from my own frustration with the results, so far. Anyway, I am going off to try some non-violent, direct action...partly to see how it works, partly because I really support the goals.
And it's all your fault. Okay, some of it, anyway
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Good to know B. I think it's the key.
There's a lot of people out there that want it, we have to find a way to do this. Good luck on your actions. I had a conversation with my 68 yr old sister over the holiday and she said she's so frustrated she'll willing to do anything, walk the streets in protest, put her body on the line. She's a 5'2" little old lady and she's never done that, but she's ready.
I was willing
I gave Trump the benefit because I think he's serious about rooting out institutionalized corruption. You'd think that's something both sides could agree on. Problem is when it comes down to brass tacks it's gonna turn partisan and one side is going to cry foul.
But when he nominated Betsy Devoss for Education Secretary I started to bristle.
“He may not have gotten the words out but the thoughts were great.”
His other appointments are also telling the story, just
as it did with Obama in 2009. In the end we have to remember he's a republican party president with a republican party majority in the House and Senate. That's nothing to be hopeful about imo no matter what Trump said on the campaign trail.
His appts in the foreign policy arena are very troubling and not at all what he indicated in his speeches.
But we know all about speeches.
I think we need to move on and find a way to change things outside this political system.
Agree about Devoss, she goes along with the rest of the republican ideology.
Disagree on Trump rooting out
institutionalized corruption. His vocal "pardon" of Hillary and the Clinton Foundation signal his intentions, loud and clear. Perhaps the Clintons have "the goods" on him as well, so he wouldn't dare. However, Congress is still working on Hillary's case, so let's see what happens when The Don becomes prez.
Trump is the poster boy for
... institutionalized corruption. His gilded life style is only possible because I/we bailed him out. No quarter for Trump.
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself. - Friedrich Nietzsche -
Nope, none, no way, no how.
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
No kidding
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself. - Friedrich Nietzsche -
Great graphic
This highlights the power of those that want to privatize everything. Betsy wants to privatize education and Erik the military.
Trump/Bannon are in a different league. They may want the same but they will say whatever they think will give them more power.
40 days before the election, Breibart.com featured this item;
Trump for Single Payer? Wow! Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
The political revolution continues
Bondibox, agree that the appointment of Devoss
is a travesty; although, under 'O,' Democrats legislated a dedicated stream and increase of 33 percent funding for Charter Schools.
Education reform appears to be mostly a matter of degree (incrementalism), not a major difference in policy, IMO. And, whether or not they're covert, or overt, about their policy agenda/legislation.
On another topic, my concern regarding the so-called 'recounts' (or whatever they're called), is that they are a distraction from ongoing budget negotiations to pass another CR (replacing the CR that expires on December 9).
Considering that this is 'O's' last shot at destroying the Social Safety Net, I regret that many progressives will likely not have their eye on the ball.
Thanks for this essay, Al. You're right--there is no 'pure' 99 Percent.
[Edit: HTML Code]
Mollie
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Yes a great time for it.
Everypne will blame Trump when they finally find out.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
We gotta
find allies where we can. If we agree on thirty percent of our respective goals, I have to find a way to work with you on that thirty percent. The other seventy percent won't get done, but I'll take that thirty for now.
This seems to be the issue, whether you call it purity, or true belief or all or nothing, this seems to be the sticking point across disparate goals. If it's not 100% agreement, then You Suck, no, YOU SUCK, and we lose that thirty percent possibility.
Polarization, yes, but not that alone. An unwillingness(inability) to have real give and take in hashing out solutions, let alone defining the problems.
I got no answer, just more questions.
And yes, I DO suck.
peace
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
Nah, you don't suck. I agree we have to find allies
where we can, I'm just saying it's not going to be the entire 99% and much less than that depending on what your goal or goals are. If you feel you can be allies with the republican party to accomplish some of your goals, then that's what you should do. As I said above, my goals are adamantly opposed by both major political parties so there's no allying possible.
A cogent reason for a new Progressive third party.
Unless there is change in the power structure of the Democratic party, there will cease to be a Democratic party through atrition within 4 years. What fills the vacuum.
Hi Al,
Maybe I am misunderstanding you here. It seems as though you are saying that the duopoly will always stop our goals. I prefer to think outside the duopoly and organized politics when looking at goals. I have long posted here and over at the other place that all major change comes as a result of social movements. It does not take 99% to be working in a social movement for it to be successful. I have read somewhere that 10 to 15% firmly committed people is all that is needed to effect major social changes.
As for the politicians, they are the guardians against change. However, once a major change sweeps the country, the politicians often capitulate. This is exactly why the Occupy Movement had to be shut down when it was and why Democratic mayors and governors were the ones ordering the shut downs. It was getting far too close to actually becoming a power in change. This last election may be shown to be the last time the American people will accept the corrupt system we are living under. It may end up with pitchforks in the streets or it may go the way of a quiet transformation to avoid pitchforks in the streets.
As for forming alliances, I firmly believe it is possible to do so as a result of my years with the Peace vigil. I talked to many people of all political stripes and found that on that one issue, we could find common ground with most of them, even avowed conservatives. Each alliance stands on its own. In other words, the same people who may agree that all these wars are bad and we should get out of them, may not agree on other issues, but the fact we could find agreement on the issue of war opens up the dialogue. And that dialogue is between people, not political parties.
If I have misread what you are saying here, I apologize for being dense. I am rushed this am so I did not have time to reread it. I do believe that you have posted something that spurs some great commentary and I will check back later when I have more time.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Hi gulfgal,
I'm saying for my goals, the duopoly is my opponent because it works directly against them. For others, it may not be depending on what their goals are. If someone's goal is repealing Citizens United, and the Democratic party or even Trump takes that on, then there could be an alliance with them. Or increasing the minimum wage, etc.
But my goals like I said are in effect related to abolishing the duopoly therefore the duopoly and those that support it won't be an ally.
It's a conundrum relative to political parties. Can people support a political party that supports war and imperialism while also being against war and imperialism? Are they really against war and imperialism if they support the duopoly? I understand people do just that, or try to, but what does that bring them and those who are against that political party directly because of its support for war and imperialism?
It goes to what we've seen with the republican supporters (generally) against Obama's wars but for Bush's wars while democratic supporters (generally) were against Bush's wars but for Obama's wars (and imperialism).
I certainly support spreading the truth and engaging in dialogue about the key issues, we have to do that. But there are certain segments of the 99% because of their ideologies who will not be swayed. I'm sure you've seen that too in your Peace vigils.
Ideologies
What I have found in my personal experience with the Peace vigil in a small southern town was there was very little ideology when the barriers of communication were opened up. I believe many people cling to ideology just like they cling to religion. It is a comfort and something familiar but when you talk with them, you find that often the ideology they profess is not necessarily what they truly believe in. Too many people have been propagandized by the media. They have no idea of the fiscal costs of these wars, nor the number of civilians we have killed as a result. Most times when we would tell them, they were horrified at both.
The most ideological person I met in the four and a half years of doing the Peace vigil was a very young fundamentalist preacher. I found it hypocritical that he could enthusiastically support the killing of innocent people, including children, because they were not Christian. With most other people we met, including self professed conservatives, we were able to find some degree of common ground.
IMHO, the real duopoly is the neoliberal/neoconservative ideological duopoly. Very few of the 99% understand these ideologies. The duopoly manifests itself in the two major parties as well as some of the minor parties. But the duopoly is the neoliberal economic ideology that funnels money and power upward to the meritocracy and the neoconservative ideology that believes in the spread of American hegemony via military force. Most politicians in our current system have characteristics of both, some more than others.
This is an excellent essay with great comments.
edited for a typo
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Exactly.
My goal was to stop the Clintons and maybe there would be a
possibility to get the third way democrats out of office if they were gone.
But the DLC way is now so entrenched in the DP, I don't see that happening.
Obama ran the biggest bait and switch campaign and is as bad or worse than a DLC democrat.
Since he took office, congress lost both houses, but what's more important is how many states went Red.
He took office with the biggest mandate but pissed it away spending 6 months on the ACA while ignoring the housing crisis, the 'shovel' ready infrastructure bill, and his stimulus was full of tax breaks for the damned people who didn't need it and so it failed to stimulate the economy.
And numerous people told him that it wasn't big enough.
I see now why it wasn't. He was listening to the same people who had been responsible for the economic crisis in the first place.
The HAMP program to help people stay in their homes was full of fraud and again he did nothing to stop it. Over 4 million people ended up losing their homes because his head of the DOJ came from a law firm that defended the banks.
The rest of his cabinet posts were all industry insiders and how can anyone except the fox to guard the chicken coop?
So the Clintons were stopped from getting back in the WH, but Trump is now putting people in charge of various industries who have a history of trying to destroy them as bondibox pointed out who he put in charge of the education department.
And Carden in charge of HUD? WTF. He has no experience in that area, so again I'm thinking that tptb decided to put Trump in the WH because he's going to destroy so many programs that people depend on, but most people aren't going to notice it because they either agree with what they will do or we will be too busy fighting each other.
Hopefully this is a round about way of getting back to Al's point of A and B.
I knew what Trump had said he'd do, but I knew what Hillary had done the last 30 years, especially on economic and foreign policy.
Now I know what Trump is going to try to do in this country, but hopefully he will keep us out of a war with Russia.
However, he's appointing horrible people to be in charge of the military and I know that there have been a lot of people itching to ramp up the Syrian war and destroy the Iran agreement.
The TPP seems to have died too, which I know that Hillary would have gotten passed.
We don't live in a democracy and we're being ruled.
And those ruling over us are committing crimes against humanity on a daily basis. Trump and his republican administration are just a continuation. He will not and cannot change the overlying condition.
That's what I focus on, I'm not going to place any hope at all in our government, let alone one led by Donald Trump.
I don't think anything is going to change relative to Russia. Here's a good article explaining that.
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2016/11/for-washington-destroying-syri...
Good essay, Al.
I have been waiting for you to put a little more flesh on the bones of your position. You haven't been clear to me before, but now I think I get what you are after. Strangely enough, what you are describing was politics as usual in the pre-Reagan days as you probably remember. Democratic and Republican politicians had positions that differed, stated them, and did what they could to get what they wanted but settled for the achievable. For the most part, no one got all they wanted but they got some of it. They were reasonable people who actually tried to govern according to principle with a large dose of pragmatism involved on both sides. All or nothing was rare. Now it is the norm. That has to change.
If we model ourselves on the labor movement in the 20s, 30s, and 40s, we have a good chance of repeating history. I don't expect to see it in my lifetime. We should probably be asking the younger people to read about Emma Goldman, the IWW, and A. Philip Randolph, and read Howard Zinn's histories. Since everyone nowadays listens to music, maybe we can suggest they try Woody Guthrie, U. Utah Phillips, and some of the old songs. The model is in our own history. Of course, current publications such as Common Dreams and Counterpunch are helpful. We just have to watch out for the shiny objects like identity politics and the traps of political correctness.
It's a tall order, but it's been done before so it can be done again. I won't live to see it, but I'll help as much as I can. Like the raftsman in Huckleberry Finn says, "Give me room according to my strength." I think folks will be surprised at how strong they can be.
-Greed is not a virtue.
-Socialism: the radical idea of sharing.
-Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962
"The model is in our own history"
You're right polkageist, we're not really in new territory, just greatly expanded. But this is the same thing only different.
Maybe this is the time, the conditions coming together.
Arlo Guthrie did it for me,
That led to Pete Seeger, who opened up Woodie Guthrie, who led to early Bob Dylan, Steve Goodman, Joan, Baez, Dave Van Ronk, Phil Ochs, Victor Jara, U.Utah Phillips, the New Lost City Ramblers, and on and on.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Guthrie
Bisbonian,
Utah Phillips was a real find for me a few years ago.
I think I get it, too
There will never be Solidarity, total agreement on any goal. That is kumbaya territory, a song not a creed that works in reality. If 10% is all that want a revolution, 10% it is. Somewhat like what is happening in North Dakota. We need more of that kind of outpost, multiple places at the same time. The only rally point right now is dismantling of Social Security, which is already happening by its paltry yearly adjustment. Perhaps in the new year the $5 increase will make more be aware of the theft going on. Now. And that is a large base and we are not all feeble.
All it takes is one point. And that point could be anything, SS is the closest in mind. Although DAPL is nearing that, and if Dec 5 the Feds do move, many (enough?) may see that as ignition. They truly are playing with fire there, more all the time.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Same here
Al, you and I have butted heads, regularly, but I get this and I understand it and I am inclined to agree. We're not going to have a full consensus on anything, there's way too many of us. While I'm inclined to agree that we need allies where we can get them, at the same time, we DO have to understand someone else's motivations, and determine whether in the end, what they have to offer toward our goal is in conflict with our bigger, long-term outlook.
As for this:
Agreed a thousand percent. I've been thinking this is the powder keg ignition, right here, for awhile now. I also think TPTB don't want it to be, because they know damned well there's going to be a great deal of consensus on it, and they know that hurts them.
I think that was just in the initial
"get to know each other" phase Luna.
Since then I think we've come to understand where each other is coming from.
Yes, "determine whether in the end, what they have to offer toward our goal is in conflict with our bigger, long-term outlook", that's it.
Movements
The civil rights and anti-war movement were not party related. We had to fight both parties. We still do.
However, as you have pointed out before, we have a corporate media feeding the sheeple corporate opium. At least in the 60's they showed the kids in Birmingham being hosed down and dogs set on them. It created a global reaction.
Today the corporate media barely mentions movements like Occupy or Standing rock. For democracy to have any chance, people have to know what's happening. But all we have is a brainwashed public. From my view this is the key stumbling block to moving forward.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
THIS!!!!!
If we agree on nothing else, can we all agree that this is, truly, the first step in gaining ANY kind of consensus, whether it's 99% or 30%
Two enemies
The wealthy, and, through their control of the media, most of the population. The latter is just as formidable an enemy as the former. The majority of Americans are willing foot soldiers in the fight against the things that would universally benefit them, using the issues that divide us as ammunition. An endless time waster, like being stuck in quicksand, preventing any meaningful progress for all.
I agree Al
For me, #1 is Citizens United. Without repeal, it will be nearly impossible to root out the corruption.
Aside from that I have lost nearly all empathy for conservatives. It sucks to be them and I am glad when things suck for them.
I am struggling with civility. A guy, about my age, started a gym conversation, that followed a similar theme to your (Al) Thanksgiving conversation and topped it with some Jesus. I firmly, but politely, asked the guy to, "Get the fuck away from me". I do menacing well and find myself going there more often.
Any argument that uses capitalism or religion as its basis is an automatic discount of the presenter.
I have a good friend who is a R. He is confused. A few days ago, he complained vociferously about the new overtime rules, recently struck down. His employer was working him sixty, but paying forty. New orders were nothing over 40. To him, it was stifling his dedication. I explained wage theft. I might as well have been explaining the theory of relativity.
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself. - Friedrich Nietzsche -
Heh, lots of confused people out there Tim.
Morning to ya. With some people you're better off sticking to talking about sports and the weather.
I am starting to understand some peoples aversion to sports
NCAA coaches versus players compensation for revenue sports is a good example.
Or the Devos, Orlando Magic, or Haslam, Cleveland Browns. Go Browns! Conservative values rule!
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself. - Friedrich Nietzsche -
In many states, the highest paid state employee is the football
coach at the state university.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
It's practice for tribalism
Rather than focusing on what we have in common as citizens of this Earth, tribalism focuses on what separates us. Remember, it's all about keeping people divided. Sports is a way to train people to see the world that way naturally.
My take....
The site is non-partisan, not the members. All the members have to do is respect each others' right to their own opinions. This is the anti-kos. No fealty oaths to a party and no banning because of party affiliation or political beliefs.
The 99% indicates support for the people against the oligarchy. My guess is that can and will take many weird constructs. I think many here are confused about the stated platform for the site. Perhaps some of Joe's earlier Dreaded Metas might help to clarify.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Thank you
The kneejerk pro-Trump comments around here were getting to be a bit much. Just because Trump is the enemy of our enemy (Clinton) does not mean he's our friend. Give him a chance? To do what? If personnel is policy, then Trump is currently assembling the most far-right administration EVER. And since I don't think he even understands how a bill becomes a law, I can totally see Mike Pence running the show behind the scenes, Dick Cheney-style.
And to those who think this may be the crisis we need to finally "wake up" the lumpenproletariat: the problem with heightening the contradictions is that it's just a strategy. It may not work. Instead, people may like what they hear.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." --Noam Chomsky
Writers Block
Its been two weeks I can't seem to write much of anything sensible about anything except snarcotic one liners, even on facebook. The USA government, the two (or more) parties are fecalicious and the USA, already insane for a couple of centuries, has reached a new record low. The USA Jones Index is now deep into negative numbers. The policies are inhuman, based on deeply entrenched hee-haw jeezoid foxfarts and overwhelming waves of propaganda, fallacies, lies. If this was Dogland and if dogs could read, write and vote, they would be convinced to support Weiner Pounds and Death by Pinga Punch Kiosks on every corner. Cats would agree to be methalated during nap time.
I prefer to have opponents readily available and try and engage in some sort of discussion on single issues we may be close to agreeing on.
Example: Corruption. Everyone, even the rottenest maggot excrement agrees that corruption is a plague, a blight and needs to be strictly controlled. So, I ask how do you, my free market friend, propose we deal with it? Now, tell me why Cuba was wrong confiscating land obtained fraudulently by United Fruit et al in the early 1900's after the revolution and why you think putting corrupt maggots in jail or exile is a violation of human rights. Do you think treasonous corrupt officials whose corruption caused death and starvation of many should face the death penalty you support? I don't, I prefer exile to Miami.
If I don't have opposing views I get bored and restless. I don't want to live in an ideological sepulcher. And I know from experience that revolutionary consensus can be reached on a community or even a "multi-county" level. I also THINK that if 10% of communities reach a revolutionary consensus that the fat bastards of mutually assured destruction can be brought to heel. I see this with the recent wave of cities declaring their sanctuary cities to be inviolable no matter WTF Donald Pump & Dump's Lou Pearlman cabinet does.
Does anyone know if this is good for methane leaks, strange explosions in West Texas chemical plants and elitist poots?
From the Light House.
the mask...
might be useful in Standing Rock.
I'm afraid blindness prevails... driven by a criminal media intent on promoting corporate profit.
Glad to see you back. Write on!
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Indeed, write on.
I just bought an Israeli gas mask for my trip. Oh, the irony.
Not guaranteed against elitist gas.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
LOL, that mask is hypnotically beautiful
Oh--and free shipping, too! Actually I do not have any gas mask here. New is better than army surplus, unless it's recent ME play surplus. But not high on my want list. I prefer being able to run, PT may help.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
...Does anyone know if this
I dunno, but it looks like the Dark Side version of C-3PO, so it's probably proof against just about anything inside or out, as well as capable of doubling as a Halloween costume. Plus, in any civilian uprising involving the use of anti-riot troops by TPTB, the bad guys would think you were one of them and fail to shoot/drone you.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Al, no problem, i would be on your team, if there were a team
.. the duopoly is a curse for the 99 percent. I would hope there would be more solidarity to fight the electoral college and introduce a proportional parliamentary system that represents all views and voters.
Global solidarity ... I don't believe it's achievable. People think local and personally first. They are thinking globally as far as the corporations are global and economic and environmental issues are all global. Unless you fight global corporations there is no hope to overcome the global oligarchies, who will impose global problems, which the local people, the 99 percent of all the sovereign countries (as much as they still try to exist) can't solve .
It's technology that could lead to global solidarity in the future. But it's hard to imagine it will end up to be the case, rather that it will end up in global tensions and civil wars among the local tribes of the world.
Unless the US rewrites its laws to become a parliamentary system with proportional represenation of one man one vote, no western Democracy, who has such a system, will be a true ally of the US. It's all kabuki theater, allies are armtwisted to be an ally of the US.
Just my 0.02 percent of feelings.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Ideological?
I don't know about that Big Al. I do agree with the rest of your your essay. I think ideology has been so tweaked by the duopoly, pols, party's and their mouthpieces that up is now down and left is right. The Third Way is a good example, they bill themselves as radical centrist's. That's an oxymoron. How can the center of anything be radical?
People have been inundated with false ideology. In what way does unfettered disaster capitalism and bloody endless war on terra for power and profit = freedom? Free Market? lol. Nothing free at all about the globalized 1% Axelrod described as 'the world as we find it'. Maybe I have a knee jerk reaction at this point when ever someone starts talking about ideology. There is no such thing as one of the best president's ever. They all sucked and still do. They need to be checked and that is to me the heart of the problem. There is no way to stop the abuse of power by using parliamentary means. 'The pump don't work as the vandals took the handle'.
Social liberalism? There's a doozie. What's liberal about bombing villages of brown people to protect our national 'interest's' or killing and massively incarcerating black people? How about turning the goon squads lose on Native Americans who are protecting the water? What's socially liberal about saying that equality for women =breaking glass ceilings so you too if your a woman can send children back to Guatemala or Honduras to teach their parents a lesson. Who created the conditions that make parents so desperate that they have to send their children to the heart of the beast?
While Trump is a disaster that doesn't make the Demorat's and the Clinton machine any more acceptable. They are imo in cahoots. What we are seeing is a internecine power struggle within the factions of the owned and broken system. Both sides mean us and world harm. Unlimited greed, power, dominion and death are the only ideologies that the ruling class embodies. Trump is the nasty joker in their deck. I understand why he got enough support to be elected. The millions people who have washed their hands of both sides give me hope. When things fall apart it's not always a the end but often a good start. It's folly to believe that any pol or party can fix this or mitigate the damage done.
The Hairball getting selected is not in anyway a good thing. I don't think people are saying the enemy of my enemy.... I think that most people just are sick and tired of living under the global ruling elite's mad cruel world that tptb have carefully constructed. In some ways the pols who are so called progressives scare me more then the lunatic 'right wingers'. What is distressing to me is that people follow and identify with either side of the red and blue great divide.
I have noticed that 'progressive' people who are doing okay under this cruel system are not willing to open their eyes to the reality they are contributing to and empowering. They have a vested interest in clinging to the status quo. Especially those who profit from maintaining the 'screw you I've got mine' economy. I have a friend who back in the day was Mr. Counterculture. He lived in a commune and spewed hippie ideology with the best of them. When Brexit passed he said 'There goes my 401k'. He works for a 'progressive' non-profit mainly black NGO who are neoliberal/neocon's and are against teachers unions, the welfare state and into black meritocracy. He is a Democrat. He self identifies as liberal.
I'm saying that political ideology has been cooked. Solidarity requires people to let go of the manipulation of the divide and conquer ideological culture war. I know there are real ideological divides among ordinary people, conservative and liberals have always clashed but these days there is no direction home for either side. The duopoly and the global oligarchical collectivists thrive on fear and loathing and false ideological clashes. No side can win the culture war it's continuance is a sure way for the 1% to keep the power right where it is. "I got nothing against the Veit Cong' (or the Russians)
No justice, No Peace
'Political language is designed to to0 make lies sound truthful and murder respectable and to give an appearance of solidarity to pure wind." George Orwell
"Those that want it will have to join in with others around the planet to form a global people's revolution against the global oligarchy and the hateful, greedy, violent and criminal ideologies around the planet. We'll have many opponents but our cause is just and that's what will win in the end. It has to." Big Al
Excellent points shah.
I struggled with using the term ideology but couldn't think of anything better. Absolutely we're all conditioned in one way or another and some of us break through it more than others.
But people choose during life and if they want to choose to do or support things that hurt others, then it's on them. I understand people can be turned, don't want to discourage that at all. We need all the hands we can get to take on the power.
It's about identity politics = sports fans
We can render the duopoly powerless if we refuse to identify with either side. Instead we give our money, our time, and our passion to organizations that fight for us. For instance, my parents (dad was Republican, mom was Democrat) gave to the League of Women Voters. And the ACLU. These days it's harder to find the above board organizations that don't get into partisan politics and who have a lobbying arm. But that's what we need to do.
I don't believe that either
the R Party or the D Party have any clear ideology. Rather, they both represent amalgamations of opportunistic, and more or less interdependent special interests. Individual Rs are likely to share at least some goals and ideals with individual Ds. To categorize people solely according to which Party they support is to ignore the vast differences of opinion and social orientation that exist within each Party.
Much depends on which particular issue we are talking about. Not all Rs are warmongers for instance, while many Ds are. Globalism is another issue where there is a lot of crossover. I think we need to get over the idea that "our" Party represents "us", and that "their" Party represents "them". In fact the duopoly isn't representing or serving anyone very well. Regarding this situation, a substantial percentage of Americans, regardless of their "ideology", are in full agreement.
The older I get, the more skeptical I become about the value of ideology. At the very least, I think it would benefit people generally to be able to set aside their various ideologies, albeit temporarily and provisionally, in the interests of simply getting along with one another.
native