This is your politics on Media Drugs (new title)
Its my opinion that national politics has become hallucinogenic. The corporate media and the political elites do not discuss reality, but rather discuss manufactured nonsense. TPTB have realized that their fake liberal shtick just isn't playing in Peoria anymore. After Obama, people are "not going to get fooled again" by the likes of Harris or Booker or Biden. So, it seems that they decided to make democracy completely irrelevant by making the national political discourse insane. Anyone discussing the crapola the media is pushing is tripping on acid.
In what sane world would Democrats have passed up two opportunities (missile strikes in Syria, coup in Venezuela) to try to impeach him for violating international law? In what sane world would the "bad trip" of Russiagate neo-McCarthyism be allowed to fester for two years? In what sane world would there be bipartisan support for obscene and ever-increasing military budgets and bipartisan support for coups? In what sane world would the Identity Politics witch hunts not be called out as divisive and discrediting to the genuine left?
However, those of us who haven't (in a similar metaphor) "drunk the koolaid" can't just walk away. We owe a duty to those people on bad trips to keep them from jumping off a tall building because they are convinced they can fly. That is, it is not safe for us to ignore the insanity being shoved at us 24/7, because there is purpose to the insanity. So, much as I'd like to go the local politics route, there is a new insanity is a danger that threatens all localities: the version of the Green New Deal (GND) being foisted on America by the corporate-media propelled AOC. This is nothing less than a false flag provocation against the environmental movement.
----
I don't care about AOC. I've already written her off. But the corporate media haven't, nor have sellout dolts like my senator, Ed Markey. The corporate media have opened a new hallucination by hijacking what was a scientifically based discussion of climate change, environmental damage, and sensible infrastructure spending and replacing it with a totally politicized, over the top, poorly thought out screed mouthed by a neophyte nobody with zero environmental credentials. She has entangled environmentalism with socialism, with Identity Politics, with that rightwing bete noire "Big Government". She has muddied the waters.
The right wing loons are on this like white on rice. At ZH, there is an extensive quote from a paywalled WSJ article. Of course its over the top, its the WSJ. But, the AOC GND is red meat for even moderately conservative folks. Here's a snip of the quote:
If a bunch of GOPers plotted to forge a fake Democratic bill showing how bonkers the party is, they could not have done a better job. It is beautiful. The Republican Party has a secret weapon for 2020. It’s especially effective because it’s stealthy: The Democrats seem oblivious to its power. And the GOP needn’t lift a finger for it to work. All Republicans have to do is sit back and watch 29-year-old Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez . . . exist."
AOC, as she’s better known, today exists largely in front of the cameras. In a few months she’s gone from an unknown New York bartender to the democratic socialist darling of the left and its media hordes. Her megaphone is so loud that she rivals Speaker Nancy Pelosi as the face of the Democratic Party. Republicans don’t know whether to applaud or laugh. Most do both...every Democrat in Washington will get to go on the record in favor of abolishing air travel, outlawing steaks, forcing all American homeowners to retrofit their houses, putting every miner, oil rigger, livestock rancher and gas-station attendant out of a job, and spending trillions and trillions more tax money. Oh, also for government-run health care, which is somehow a prerequisite for a clean economy.
It’s a GOP dream, especially because the media presented her plan with a straight face - as a legitimate proposal from a legitimate leader in the Democratic Party. Republicans are thrilled to treat it that way in the march to 2020, as their set-piece example of what Democrats would do to the economy and average Americans if given control. The Green New Deal encapsulates everything Americans fear from government, all in one bonkers resolution.
Meet Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Republicans Secret Weapon for 2020.
Make no mistake, the environmental movement is going to take a big hit from AOC's irresponsible grandstanding. Even local organizers are going to be called on the carpet and asked to defend or reject AOC's half-baked proposals. De facto, she has already managed to split the environmental movement. Congratulations, TPTB, your new jiu jitsu strategy to provoke what little is left of the left into destroying itself is working just fine. You put the environmental movement on the defensive via one uninformed crank with a media platform.
For the right, the AOC GND is shooting fish in a barrel. Her GND proposal is stupid political posturing; and when she tries to defend it, she comes off as a confused lightweight. Here is a second article justifiably ripping the proposal to shreds by exactly the method I just mentioned: Dems are being asked to declare for/against this half-baked mess.
in what's looking like a staggeringly haphazard rollout, the controversy over the plan continued on Friday when co-sponsor Ed Markey, the Massachusetts Senator who was the plan's lead backer in the Senate, slammed Ocasio-Cortez and the plan's "fact sheet" for calling for a ban on nuclear power, which supplies roughly 50% of America's carbon-free energy.
Here's more from Bloomberg:
Giselle Barry, a spokeswoman for Senator Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who is the Green New Deal’s lead Senate backer, disowned the fact sheet and said Markey’s office wasn’t consulted before it was sent out. "We did not draft that fact sheet," she said.
"These are ideological documents - not legislative blueprints,” said Paul Bledsoe, strategic adviser at the Progressive Policy Institute. It will get even tougher “when you actually have to create legislative language.”Considering the walk-backs and infighting that have arisen already, the unveiling of AOC's signature multi-trillion "green plan" has made the first Trump travel ban rollout almost look orderly in comparison.
Here are the most shocking proposals from Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal
Now, one can argue nine ways from Sunday about who is behind this particular hallucination, and that's one of the purposes of hallucinatory politics. Its an unending, distracting soap opera that lets all the business as usual continue unharmed. I waded through the sewer of ZH comments to pick out some of the soap opera theories:
1. The establishment hacks know how to deal with this situation; the only question - was it the left or the right; Im thinking it was the DNC boys; they can't have anyone upstage Pelosi.
2. I give pelosi credit - she gave AOC plenty of rope, and AOC obliged by publicly hanging herself in a media spectacle.
3. Obviously she is getting advice and encouragement designed to implode her agenda. The best way to marginalize the girl is to have her propose an outrageous bill destroying her credibility - which she has done!
4. The GND is a god-send to the Trump2020 campaign. Already has split the Dums... the loser at the Dum Convention will sit out the Election...
Quite frankly I'm not looking to figure out who did this. I'm not buying into the inside the beltway soap opera. I'm looking for ways to shut down this insanity before it wrecks the environmental movement. As for the party formerly known as Democratic, to quote AOC, "I give zero f***s." Unfortunately, shutting it down comes right back to the title of this essay - the hallucinatory corporate media. Some germane comments:
1. why is this 29 year old getting so much attention as if her proposals have a snow ball's chance in He11 of getting passed?
2. Can somebody tell me why some freshman congresswomen in the house, is getting this much media attention? This media in this country really is amazing, but the people are on another level.
3. The handlers always put out a useful idiot as their face. By making her proposals insane, it makes the less radical agenda seem palatable. This is how the country is being changed.
4 Silly lass out of her depth
-----
Here's my final statement on this debacle:
AOC did not invent the GND. She hijacked it and compromised it for her own political ends. The AOC GND is DOA. She has done the environmental movement and the left a great disservice. If someone asks me, I will denounce her version as false flag agitprop.
With that, I end my attempts to get the trippers to wake up.
Comments
Are we talking
baby aspirins(mushrooms), Real LSD(the Good Stuff), or something like peyote?
I feel it's a party bowl you reach into and grab whatevs, 'cause it seems they are All on Different rides Together trying to straighten out a mashup of bullshit to feed us.
If this doesn't make sense, I could be trippin' myself.
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
In this case, its more like toad licking. n/t
Good point!
I've not done that one yet, so it wasn't in my wheelhouse!
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
The contradictions of American society have intensified
into open antagonism by the capitalist class. And it isn't just happening here. The pigs have not only admitted to supporting a coup in Venezuela, but also that they only care about the oil on which they sit while the people there aren't even on their radar.
At home, the far-right and centrist reactionary groups act as goon squads for competing capitalist interests, though they present a united front when it comes to punching left, as seen at Trump's latest SOTU. They may employ slightly different tactics, but the end goal is the same: Continued domination by capital.
Recommended reading: Mao's essay On Contradiction
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
The irony is
all those things ZH is railing against; air travel, steaks, home retrofits, putting miners, drillers, ranchers, gas stations attendants out of work will all come to pass anyway.
Once we have consummed all the fossil fuels on the planet, and poisoned the air, water, croplands, and our bodies there will no demand for any of that.
12 years, 20, or 100. It cannot go on much longer.
Options? Yellow vests with torches and pitchforks or extinction would be my guess.
You would think those brilliant dyed in the wool Capitalists over at ZH could figuer this out. But they are so easily distracted by the word "socialist", that their brains instantly turn to mush and they are unable to fathom that everything that "Makes America Great" is the result of socialism.
Our much vaunted military- funded by citizen dollars, socialism.
Our bridges, interstate hiways, dams, socialism.
All our scientific advances through taxpayer funded research, socialism.
Our public schools, even our government bureaucracy, funded by socialist dollars.
Their brand of Capitalism is nothing more than Darwinism with out evolution or future life on this rock we call Earth.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
Well stated, earthling.
I couldn't agree more! Mr. RA says - take ALL the oil out of the ground then they won't have it to fight about anymore. Makes sense, but they'll only think of something else to fight about.
I look forward to no more air flights. Oh, they're convenient for me to visit family, don't get me wrong, but the pollution they distribute is criminal.
The meat we eat is killing the earth, too. Mr. RA worked for a dairy and the amount of manure they produce and what's done with that manure - well, city folks don't have to think about that. Why do you think we have to drill a new well? No clue, right? BECAUSE THE DAIRY INDUSTRY IS GROWING THE MOST WATER THIRSTY PLANTS TO FEED THEIR COWS. Any idea how much water in a gallon of milk? Stop drinking the stuff - stop eating cheese!
I'm all about living the socialist life - I've been doing it for 66 years.
edited of course
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
I agree with you about oil and socialism
And I still find AOC's take on both to be counterproductive.
Yes, it will collapse of its own folly. But AOC demands hard left political action to end it when she is functioning in a hard right country. The end result is not change, but the discrediting of change.
If she wanted change, she could advocate to end the $75 B/yr subsidy to fossil fuels. She could advocate that pension funds divest from the permanently-in-the-red fracking business that is making conmen rich and sticking the banks and pension funds with the losses.
If consumers had to pay the unsubsidized cost of jet travel, the airlines would take a major hit. If consumers had to pay $4/gal for gas again, they would stop buying the gas guzzling SUVs and pickups that they now buy. If the cost of fuel was passed through to agricultural fertilizer, the price of food would go up. If the subsidies to dairy cattle farmers were cut, the price of beef would rise to its natural level.
As for socialism, once again, she is swinging that club in the worst possible way: state imposed change. Socialism barely got rehabilitated, and she is already starting to parrot hard line communists.
Is there any way this woman is not an agent provocateur?
You think this is a hard right country?
The evidence does not point to that, unless you and I mean different things when we say "country" (which we might).
I see a country in which what I would call center-left policies suitable for a social democrat are widely popular, and have been every time the public has been surveyed for about the past 40 years. At least, practically every survey of issue positions I've ever seen indicates that America is not a "hard-right" country. The crazy popularity of the Sanders campaign, as well as the fact that Obama became successful by campaigning well to the left of his actual stances, suggests that the majority of the country would just as soon exit the Reagan (counter)Revolution, even while they are still unwilling to lay the blame for any of this at the Reagan Administration's feet (preferring to wallow in false nostalgia). They would prefer a return to the policies of the New Deal. Even some of the policies of the Great Society are popular.
How does George W. Bush win twice? Election fraud and voter suppression.
How does Hillary beat Bernie? Election fraud and voter suppression.
How do the third parties stay disenfranchised? Anti-democratic, and, indeed, anti-republican laws which artificially prevent non-duopoly players from competing, to the point that sometimes presidential candidates are led off in handcuffs for trying to enter the presidential debate.
In other words, America is not a "hard right country;" it is a country run by kleptocrats who find hard right politics and policies useful to their agendas. Rightists win, not because the majority of Americans agree with them, but because the ruling class finds them useful.
I think the high-water mark of what I might call a hard-right America happened between fall of 2001 and spring of 2004. Katrina sliced the right wing counter-revolution's Achilles tendon, and the 2008 crash (and the political fallout thereof) stuck a knife in its gut. Since then, the right wing has had to reinvent itself as libertarianism, because the corporatist form of the right lost so much credibility with the vast majority of the population. That's still true. It's why we didn't have Hillary Clinton vs Jeb Bush.
Even when the right does reinvent itself as libertarianism, or as whatever Trump is (some weird sort of populist?), it is vulnerable, profoundly so, to a genuine left-wing challenge. That is why Bernie was the only other politician very good at peeling votes away from Trump. It's why Bernie did well in West Virginia. And it's why a genuine left-wing challenge cannot be allowed to stand: because once Americans see a populist left-wing agenda, the majority of them will side with it over the (possibly)populist right-wing agenda.
America is not a hard-right nation. America is barely a nation at all, actually, but if we want to describe it as such, it's a nation in which the majority of the people like the policies of Social Democrats, but that doesn't matter because it's also a nation run by kleptocratic manipulators who deploy right-wing politics to serve their sleazy and genocidal aims.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
A country run by kleptocrats
Add in the psyops elements they employ to distract, obscure, and rile us up against each other, and it's no wonder they feel confidently sure they can do whatever the fuck they want.
Their contempt for us isn't rooted in our electoral attempts to confront the corruption they in fact created, their contempt for us is rooted in our powerlessness to beat them in the malicious war they are waging against us.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
I think their contempt is also rooted in
the fact that we still keep acting like DC politics is going to somehow be a competition of ideas that is in some way "fair."
That's what led Rahm Emanuel to call us all "retards," I believe.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Rahm's retard remark
Yes, well, I was tempted to add a similar sentiment in my original reply, but something a lot less insulting. Let's just say, an optimistic indulgence on the electorates part to believe that the knife fight that's going on in DC for power and money is in any way interested in sharing the spoiles for the good of the people, or could be compelled to do so using a process they have complete control over.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
You're right. I meant to say a hard right political system.
the political system is controlled by the 1%. Short of a Yellow Vest street action, nothing like a genuine Green New Deal is going to happen with the current Congress, SCOTUS, and insane president.
I completely agree. But, if Social Democratic policies are offered in ways that lay them open to charges of government dictation, as AOC's do, then the result is people choosing the only option that sounds populist: neofascism.
@arendt
Short of a Yellow Vest street action, nothing like a genuine Green New Deal is going to happen with the current Congress, SCOTUS, and insane president.
Agreed, with a few tweaks:
Short of a Yellow Vest street action, nothing like a genuine Green New Deal is going to happen with any duopoly Congress, SCOTUS, and any duopoly president.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Thank you.
Trump is not insane, or not any more insane than any other president we've had.
dfarrah
Where I break with almost every liberal and many leftists:
I will not, I will never, pretend that the years 2000-2016 were somehow "all right" and that authoritarianism, contempt for the rule of law, racism, sexism and all the other evils ascribed (often correctly) to Trump arose from Trump and essentially sprang from his head full-grown in January 2017. This formulation, and everything that supports it, including the obsessive focus on attacking Trump and discussions of how he is a radical departure from all that came before, is the political equivalent of a wet-wipe for the bloody hands of the criminals that preceded Trump.
I will be damned if I participate in the moral rehabilitation of George W. Bush and his contemptible circle.
EDITED for grammar
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I'm glad you cleared that up
because otherwise, what you were saying was perilously close to DLC talking points from the 90s!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
A 70% tax on income over $10 millions
sounds progressive to me.
Depends on how you look at it.
A 70% tax rate is last century stuff. Maybe we need to move into the future.
Maybe a 70% tax rate is appropriate if you want to keep this capitalist system which will eventually produce trillionaires, even though we pretend they're taxed at 70%, which they truly never are or will be.
Or if you want to find a way first to prevent people from dominating the economic system to such a degree that eight people have as much wealth as half the planet via rigged wagering on Wall street and predatory monopolistic business practices. Perhaps we should do that first before we talk about higher tax rates.
We can do both.
Use the 70% tax to recalibrate, possibly temporarily, and implement preventative measures.
dfarrah
I agree with possible AOC - Dem conspiracy
Why is AOC getting such prominence in the MSM. Look at how many times cameras were on her during the State of the Union (SOTU) address. She also seemed to be exerting a bit of leadership amongst some newbie female reps.
But appearances are often deceiving, whereas politicians are always deceiving.
Insert one AOC into the mix and ostensibly have her drive a stake into the establishment Dims, and voila, we have a splintered party. Suggestions like her altered Green New Deal include total non-starters to any sane person. One absolute vote killer is abolition of ICE.
With any good performer, such as AOC, there has to be somethings real about which she talks. AOC does put out creditable performance sometimes. The video here shows AOC questioning a House panel about money in politics and does a masterful job of making her points. Worth the watch.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFhgXP2lze4]
Multiple personality disorder or Barnum and Bailey.
Thanks for another well-thought out essay.
Slight change: her role is to splinter the LEFT of the party
If the genuine left doesn't call her out on her "designed to fail" strategies, the entire left goes down. If they do call her out, they splinter the left. Either outcome leaves the corporatists to sweep aside any opposition and drive the party even further to the right.
And, yet, there is this drumbeat to line up behind her, to take her cockamamie positions as gospel.
Given all the free media coverage and this half-baked proposal, why don't people get it?
Your aim is better than mine
Correctly you stated that her role is to splinter the more left-sided part of the Dims rather than merely centrists/corporatists.
Interestingly, because some of the less well-reasoned of her public statements, the conservative media folks are calling her "Occasional Cortex".
I think they are often justified. AOC must have gone to the same speech pathologist Nancy Pelosi has been using. Get another therapist, ladies.
And to me, this is
just downright scary:
"[ICE] do not deserve a dime until they can prove that they are honoring human rights, until they can make a good faith effort to expand and embrace immigrants … Until they can prove good faith to an American ideal, they do not deserve any resources for their radical agenda,” Ocasio-Cortez said.
“We have to have respect for children, respect for families, respect for human rights, and respect for the right of human mobility,” she added.
Ocasio-Cortez then said the U.S. must adhere to “the right of human mobility” and went on to suggest that Latino people cannot be criminalized because they are Native people.
"Because we are standing on Native land, and Latino people are descendants of Native people. And we cannot be told and criminalized simply for our identity and our status,” she said.
Her comments are so unbelievably ignorant. Latino people from Mexico and South America are also descendant from the other continent.
And does she really believe that countries have no borders? That ICE is the only border enforcer in the world?
IMO, sooner or later, AOC and her movement will be calling for the expulsion of the white people with Germanic, French, Norwegian heretage, etc., from the US and Canada. No big deal; I'll likely be dead by then.
dfarrah
Ethnocentrism
Shutting out / expelling brown people -=- the wall
Like Israeli tactics against the Palestinians
And the wealthy against the poor all over
Sorry, I don't
believe in open borders.
And I don't see why 'brown' people should have migration preferences over anyone else.
In Palestine, families who had lived there for centuries were kicked off of their land, not even a century ago.
The entire population south of the US border was not kicked out of the US; most have lived in their countries for centuries, and most are descended from Europe, Africa, and other oriental countries.
dfarrah
Yes, I understand where from you come
Texas was taken from Mexico in the 'expansion'. A long time ago. Think the hispanic race was there first, but it doesn't change the argument. Borders do make a difference, as you say. Not sure it is always fair. Might makes right?
Borders help create nations
Of course there is a lot more to it than that. Dem idiocy, if continued on this tack will guarantee them electoral losses in 2020 both national and local. And good on those troglodytes for it too. Sepuku knowingly self-administered.
Well, I agree with this for sure--
not necessarily about zerohedge, because I can't speak to their character, but about the fact that these changes will come, either voluntarily adopted, in which case we could manage them to their best effect, and minimize the sacrifices or mitigate them--
or, well, we could mulishly fail to change anything, scream about insignificant shit, call each other names, and then the climate will force the changes upon us.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Or, there is what I'm talking about
Or, we could call out a rank amateur who is swinging for the fences, and more likely to strike out and lose the game. That is, we could stop this media-promoted ingenue from suckering us into a fight on the basis of a losing strategy. With the climate clock ticking, blowing what little political capital the left has on this barely thought out "plan" is something we can't afford.
Its a no-lose for AOC. In the unlikely case of a victory, she is golden. If she loses, well she still had a fabulous ride and can start all over at age 31. The rest of us aren't so well positioned in life.
I seem to be (unusually for me) on a different wavelength
from you.
I don't know whether Cortez is working for the other side, is a careerist, or is a genuine political leader of the social democrat variety. I don't much care, because I don't see how any one individual is going to influence the political system. I also don't believe that the left has any "political capital" in D.C., or with the media. It's not possible for the left to have political capital in D.C., in the same way that it's impossible for me to have a say in what the interest rate on my credit card is. The bank controls my interest rate; the kleptocrats control D.C. This is not a competition of ideas up there, where the most successful in presenting their views wins. As for "political capital" with the American people, well I think it would be hard to ascertain where people actually stand, because there's so much manipulation of the press and, I suspect, even of polls. Further, if that political capital existed, it would be under immediate assault by the media machine, who would portray what Cortez said as crazy, impossible, and hard left, regardless of whether she'd recited passages from Atlas Shrugged or started belting out the Internationale:
I guess what I mean is that you seem to think that if only Ocasio-Cortez hadn't gone "hard left" that there would be a chance for a Green New Deal, a genuine one, to proceed through Congress, become law, and influence the land in the right direction, much like Medicare, Social Security, the Clean Air Act, the Voting Rights Act, and many others did. We no longer live under that system. We live under a system where no real change in our ecological or economic practices will be endorsed by the government, which only exists to serve a portion of the ruling class.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
This thread has been frustrating for me.
No one seems to focus on the main point: that her political presence is completely down to mountains of free media; and that her actions, therefore, are highly suspect. I can't believe people are examining the substance of her version of the GND instead of wondering who is behind this fraud.
I'm really having trouble communicating lately. I suppose its because I'm trying to sugar coat an extemely pessimistic take on things.
What I really think is that leftism is dead in America. I think that fakes like AOC have been created to discredit, and eventually disappear, any idea that leftism even existed. Sort of the way the Catholic Church defaced every non-Christian statue in the empire, and destroyed books of Roman literature and poetry as "pagan". TPTB are momentarily powerful enough to try this. They control all the positions of power in a high-tech police state. In the longer run (20-50 years), I think their attempts to hold on will ruin the environment, and doom the planet.
When I see people still not getting, despite nine months of corporate media swooning for her, that AOC is a corporate creature, I begin to understand that the Big Lie truly does work. The media have repeated she is the point person on the left; and enough dupes have fallen for it to make it so.
One person can't influence gangster capitalism positively; but one person can sure help keep the gangsters' opponents charging the cape instead of the matador.
You opened my eyes with your first essay on her
When you questioned why she was getting so much media attention even though she had just gotten elected. Don't give up on us not responding to you the way you want us to. I didn't realize how badly f'cked up this green new deal was until I read this essay.
I see AOC as the same doorstop to anyone in the DP passing legislation that will help main stream Americans. The ACA wasn't the first step towards single payer. It set it back decades, just like Hillary's health plan did. Obama also stopped the anti war movement in its tracks and AOC isn't even talking about foreign policy.
People are excited about Bernie finally declaring that he's running again even though every road block to keep him out of the WH is still in place. As are the super delegates. How the hell anyone expects him to win this time with them still guarding the door is beyond me. Then there's his foreign policy that wasn't even addressed last time or during his ex SOTU thing. Nor was climate change.
Keep writing. We're listening. Well I am for sure.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Thanks for getting the point
They've already bought everything on the right in American politics. Then they tried to pass off corporatists as lefties. But, after Obama and Hillary, that dog won't hunt anymore.
So all they had left was to have a fake leftie constructed to specificiatons. Woman, check. Ethic, check. David v Goliath story, check. Working class bartender, check. (Don't forget to airbrush the BU degree and the Teddy Kennedy internship.) Then they spent a small fortune on free airtime, and presto - instant completely phony socialist leftie. (Ignore vote for Pelosi, support for warmongering.) Just like Obama, but in six months instead of six years.
I completely agree--AOC is a neoliberal in sheep's clothing
Why else would she receive hundreds of thousands of dollars of free medical coverage, just like Donald Trump during the primaries. Simple chain ope cause and effect:
1. Give prominence to a colorful personality with ideas both incorrect and stupid
2. Suck in "progressives", whatever the F they are called now.
3. Split the schizophrenic left of the Dems while the Establishment sits back and laughs.
AOC is a poison pill. Open wide dismalcrats. Here comes your hemlock medicine.
I'm sorry, Poe's Law
Is this for real? Why would a 29-year old require hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical?
I've probably misinterpreted what you said.
My mistake.
Too much on my mind (one thought at a time is my quota). I meant to say "media", instead of "medical". So sorry. I must go in for a manicure so that my nails don't interfere with typing.
I totally agree with this:
No one seems to focus on the main point: that her political presence is completely down to mountains of free media; and that her actions, therefore, are highly suspect.
Mountains of earned media do indicate either that someone is working with the people who run the place, or that the people who run the place have decided that person is useful, and have directed the media to exploit them in just the right way to promote an elite agenda. (See also Trump).
Sorry that I didn't point that out. I should have, but I have the feeling that debates about the integrity of any given politician might be a political/discursive trap of sorts. I'll write more about that soon (my frozen shoulder seems to be letting up and I can now sit at the keyboard for more than 30 minutes at a time!)
I keep pushing to have people look at these things systemically, where the important thing is, not whether Cortez is good or bad, honest or a mole, but what effects she is having, what function she is serving. I have my own suspicions about her, but they have little to do with her intent, and a lot to do with a combination of the things she encourages people to believe and her political actions to date. She encourages people to believe that the Democrats can be changed from within by an influx of social democrats into the party, but also votes for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Therefore, she strikes me, whatever her intent, as a storm drain: an outlet for the energy and emotion of the population which directs that energy in a harmless (from the elite's point of view) direction. It doesn't matter if her electoral victory is multiplied twenty-fold, or forty-fold; if the social democrats thus elected continue to elect the same leadership, their presence in D.C. will amount to very little. And electing that leadership will do nothing to enable more victories like Cortez'--quite the opposite, since the main function of Democratic leadership is to prevent political victories by anyone to the left of Joe Biden.
As I said elsewhere, one virtuous politician with good ideas can't defeat this system anyway, especially not from within. Neither can a few virtuous politicians. It's the height of foolishness to think they can: everything indicates that the system has been well defended against exactly such electoral attacks. The only way to even begin to use such tactics would be to adopt the methods of the Tea Party: to run multiple candidates in many districts, all of whom know each other and agree to support the same policies and to move as a unified bloc. An individualistic approach to reform from within via elections is no approach at all, and that should have been clear by 2010, if not earlier. The refusal of everyone from Howard Dean's people to the Justice Democrats to use electoral tactics in this logical fashion makes it pretty clear to me that the entire enterprise is essentially a series of storm drains, designed to allow the populace to blow off steam without harm done to the status quo.
So we agree on that (I think?)
I can't believe people are examining the substance of her version of the GND instead of wondering who is behind this fraud.
People may be, but I'm certainly not. I was tempted to go look at the substance of the new GND after reading your essay, but I resisted the impulse, because policy genuinely doesn't matter at this point, not in the context of politics anyway. Anyone opposing the status quo literally can't come up with good policy that will pass; neither, in my estimation, can they come up with messaging that will make good policy acceptable to the bastards who run things. How that messaging affects the population's beliefs is a concern, I suppose, but I have a hard time getting really riled up about it, because its bad effect is going to be...what? that those people no longer rally behind social democrats running for Congress?
Assuming Cortez is doing all this deliberately, and not simply being used, I do admit to a mild curiosity about which of the political middle managers placed her where she is, but I don't think that's a very important question--unless you're looking to reveal her as a Manchurian candidate of sorts and thus destroy people's faith in someone who's deceiving them. If that's what you're doing, I sympathize, but even if Cortez is a bad faith actor (instead of just someone being used), people will not thank you for destroying their faith in her. You have to take into consideration that anyone who still believes that ventures like the Justice Democrats can succeed is someone who is willing to abandon logic and evidence to keep out of the Pit of Despair
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
The more I know about AOC, the more suspect about her I become
Is AOC a conspirator?
Although the title was criticized on the basis of political correctness, or just gender equality, here is a prior essay:
https://caucus99percent.com/content/democratic-pin-girl-alexsandria-ocasio-cortez-who-she-really
Great metaphor -
cape and matador.
dfarrah
Are you afraid
AOC is going to splinter the environmental movement and weaken their tremendous achievements over the last 40 years? Yawn.
The rich will
get to keep doing everything.
It is just everyone else who won't be able to travel, use cars, eat beef, etc, or any of the other items in the plan.
And that includes use of water.
dfarrah
Lets keep our perspective
You may have “written off” AOC (I’m simply non-committed about her), but I hope you don’t give in to right-wing concern-trolling. Even as a woefully inadequate half-measure, the GND - like the woefully inadequate half-measure ACA - will be generally well-received by the public as at least an effort in the right direction. The Repugs spent years crowing about how the ACA was going to bury the Dems and kill the pipe-dream of universal healthcare. It hasn’t worked out that way, has it? Trying too hard is just about the opposite of what’s keeping the Dems down.
Its not a half-measure, its a poison pill
As I said, GND just got on the public's radar; and now AOC has made it radioactive. She's given the right half a dozen quotable statements that completely align with the right's longstanding propaganda lines. She couldn't have done it better if she were paid to do it. Oh, wait...
You and I have had this discussion about AOC before, but you seem to have forgotten those discussions, which included all the times she's tipped her hand: walking back a lot of stuff she said in the primary, voting for Nancy P., hemming and hawing about Venezuela.
The huge tell on her is that her every move is publicized by the corporate media. And what is the CM spin? That she is disrupting the Democratic Party. But, the only reason she is disrupting it is because she is getting as much free media as Trump got in the primaries. It is only because of that (which I quoted in the OP) that she has any leverage to do anything.
And, what a grandiose plan she has used that leverage to push. Let's see, a 29 year old nobody who was recently a bartender has become the leftwing messiah on the environment because of a half-baked plan that pushes every hot button on the right. Its like Hillary isn't there for the right to hate anymore, so cue up an ethnic woman and give her provocative statements (statements but no actions) plenty of exposure.
Gee, whatever happened to Bill McKibben, Michael Mann (hockey stick), or Greenpeace, or any of dozens of environmental pressure groups that have been ignored by TPTB? Well, they don't do the corporations work. Whereas, AOC is perfectly OK with pushing this "disruptive" DOA "plan", and she doesn't seem to be all that passionate about the US running coups in South America. Yeah, that's the kind of leftie I want representing the movement. Not.
You and I have never had a discussion before
about AOC or anything. And actually, I was trying to give you a reason to be hopeful.
I also didn’t mean to suggest that I thought the ACA was swell or even popular; merely that it is perceived as a frustratingly small acknowledgement of an issue that continues to resonate with the public.
The AOC phenom
simply doesn't add up.
dfarrah
Actually, I have no idea whether the ACA has made
the Democrats more or less popular.
I'm on the ACA, and I'm paying over $700 a month for catastrophic insurance. I have a deductible of over $6,000. And I didn't get the cheapest available package.
Being "mandated" to enter into this shitty deal with a bunch of robber barons doesn't make me like the Dems any more than I did before, but if you say everybody else is peachy keen with this situation, I can't disprove it.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Thanks for covering that base
and covering it from personal experience.
I didn't want to go there because the topic isn't touched on by the AOC proposals. Its meta inside the thread.
You're welcome.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
You don't have to purchase the ACA anymore
The GOP got rid of the mandate to buy it. In case you weren't aware of this.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Thanks, but if I want insurance, that's the only kind
I can get. The insurance companies literally won't make another deal with me, because I have a neurological condition. It's a condition that doesn't affect me 90% of the time, and which can be treated by a cheap, old diuretic, but never mind. No deal. They won't sell to me.
The ACA is the only reason I can get insurance at all. However, I'm still not inclined to feel grateful that I've been enabled to give the insurance companies protection money so that I won't be wrecked by medical bankruptcy in the event of catastrophe.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Your situation is awful.
The extortion by insurance companies is ridiculous.
I have insurance via employment right now, but I'm not sure that I would pay for coverage if I lost that coverage until I was qualified for medicare.
You can keep a house and car and retirement funds if you declare bankruptcy. It may be better to forgo insurance and declare bankruptcy if you have a catastrophic event(s).
Nobody wants to declare bankruptcy, but what can you do if payments for insurance keep you from paying for everything else?
dfarrah
Well, if it were just me, maybe I wouldn't worry
but I have a couple of people depending on me economically. And I'm also lucky, very very lucky; my family has some money. It's not Rachel Maddow-level money (I sometimes wonder how long she would have to work to make the equivalent of my family's entire estate), and it's obviously not Warren Buffett-level money, but it's there. So I *can* pay my premiums; I just hate the expense which could be going to other things. And more than anything else, I hate being pressured into a crap deal.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I don't follow the details of left-wing or liberal reform
proposals that emerge from D.C. I stopped doing that some years ago. I was willing to give Bernie the benefit of the doubt while he was on campaign, and I did check out his Medicare for All bill (which looked to me like a public option bill, but never mind). His Medicare for All bill didn't really change my mind about the fact that the political consensus in D.C. will never allow for real policy change particularly on the issues of war, human rights, the rule of law, global warming, and the economy. As its authors admitted, that bill never had a chance of passing, and if it had, it would not have been what I think of when I say "Medicare for All." It certainly would have been an improvement on the robber baron protection racket we currently enjoy, but it had no chance of success.
Having watched as a Green New Deal was shot down repeatedly by the Obama administration and the Democrats who ran the Senate--which they did, collectively, about three times--I concluded years ago that the chances of the Democrats in D.C. actually mounting a campaign that would remove bad policy and replace it with good policy were basically nil. Bernie, despite his virtues, has done nothing to change my mind about that. (And yes, I know what his faults are and have discussed them on here repeatedly, and I'm not saying he's a wonderful guy whom we should all follow.)
Therefore, I don't know the details of Ocasio-Cortez' Green New Deal proposal, and I can only respond to your words.
Identity politics and Big Government probably have little place in a discussion of global warming and infrastructure spending, except in the 9th Ward way. In other words, Black people are actually more likely to get smacked in the face by climate change because they don't have the resources to play dodge ball with Mother Nature (ultimately, none of us will be able to dodge the effects, but that's for later.) And yes, I know that there are white people with no money, but last I checked, black people were three times more likely to be below the poverty line than white people. So yeah, identity politics plays into climate change in that way: it will, globally, probably hit people of color worst and first. Beyond that, I see no application of identity politics to the issue.
However, I am surprised to see you include "socialism" in your list of ways Cortez has "muddied the waters."
This may not be a popular viewpoint in the United States or among its allies, but capitalism is more to blame for global warming than anything else--even overpopulation, which is, as far as I can see, the only other cause of climate catastrophe that even approaches the significance of capitalism. Now, Ocasio-Cortez doesn't look like a socialist to me anyway, but leaving that aside, socialism certainly is a pertinent part of this discussion. It has become increasingly pertinent as the years wear on and capitalism's managers have refused, over and over again, to alter or limit capitalism in the ways that would be necessary for the survival of human civilization. It's pointless to wonder whether there was ever a form of capitalism that might have allowed us to survive, because the primary characteristic of the capitalism we live under is its refusal to accept limits, just as the primary characteristic of its managers is a refusal to live in a world in which they can be told "no."
So, yeah, I think socialism is pretty damned pertinent to this discussion--or, more accurately, alternative forms of economic organization are absolutely pertinent to this discussion. Fascism belongs in a historical trash can, and capitalism has become genocidal, which leaves us with socialism and a big empty space for brainstorming hitherto undiscovered alternatives.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
The muddying goes both ways...
between socialism and environmentalism.
When you throw this giant bolus of change into a Congress that is bought and paid for, all you are really looking for is controversy. There isn't going to be any measured discussion of this. There is simply going to be name calling and talking points.
Unrealistic environmental policies to be enforced by a government is simply going to make socialism look bad.
I'm all for socialism. What AOC is selling isn't socialism; its provocation.
Well, you can't advocate socialism
and vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Is there a methadone to this madness?
The effects of political heroin
Thanks for the video. Spot on. n/t
You pretty much gave the situation we’re in
the best description that I’ve read so far.
Their intent at the start was obviously to hijack the election and burying the bodies. When that plan sunk like the Titanic, then...
It’s all they have left.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
I've been reading up on this thing,
(or "I've been studying this issue", if you want proper), and there's a lot to talk about, real deep. Maybe I'll put my thots down on it, but relative to the timeline and renewable energy, which will require a lot of wind mills and solar farms, i.e., major individual projects requiring land use.
I live in Vancouver, WA, right across the Columbia River from Portland, OR. There's basically two bridges over the river between the two urban and suburban areas, the I5 bridge and the I-205 bridge. There's some serious traffic problems now in this area with just 2 options. The I-5 bridge is very old, opened in 1917. When I first moved here, shortly after in 1994 I believe, a bi-state commission was formed to study replacement options. Long story short, it's 2019, 25 years later and it appears we're no closer to a solution that we were in 1994.
I could tell the same story about trying to build wind farms in this country.
Moral of the story, the ten year plan they're talking is absolutely pure fantasy. It's been nearly ten years since the ACA. So if they're starting off with pure fantasy, what does that say about the entire thing?
Thanks for the reality check
And that's my point. They give AOC all this airtime, and her plan is fantasy. But the suckers buy it, because airtime.
Don't know if you've seen the Green party's Green New Deal
but here it is. A lot more meat to it and it includes abolishing the federal reserve, abolishing the electoral college, breaking up the big banks, restoring Glass-Steagall and other things certainly not mentioned in the good cop part of the dem party's plan, which is very general with some nearly nonsensical pronouncements.
I'd go even further than the Green's with our political system, i.e., the changes we need to make, but even so the contrast is stark and you can bet after a fucking year of bureaucracy and special interest pressure put on this so called committee they want to form approved by Nancy Pelosi, they will not go even far enough to justify their salaries.
I don't know about Ocasio Cortez's true intentions, but if she's earnest, she's playing on a losing team. Nothing of this scope will happen with this political system.
https://www.gp.org/green_new_deal
Now I guess I won't write my essay.
Thanks again, for the link
What essay are you not going to write?
Just a rant
about this Green new deal and the entire situation. I mean, if you look at it broadly, this is big, this is existential. You see what they're saying? Ocasio-Cortez came out with that bullshit 12 years to solve global warming thing, and now they're proposing this one year committee to prepare a plan for a ten year project to completely wean ourselves off of fossil fuel, i.e., just in time.
Think of the geopolitical implications combined with human greed combined with our political systems (because this isn't just the U.S. when it comes to climate change) combined with how fast ten years go by, etc., etc, there's a lot to this. Not to mention the impact of imperialism and militarism. Ten years, right.
A lot to rant about.
i have notes and links
for one myownelf. not a rant, but some critiques of both the 'leftist-veneered charlatan ocasio-cortez, and her corporate gift of a GreenNewConActwithAmerika. sorry, arendt, dinnae read your OP, just the comments so far.
I would like to read that essay.
Also, I’d rather see the the Greens promoting their Green Deal with the genuine support of the public behind it. It would be more natural. Maybe all that is possible is that those who have more of a public voice get heard, but somehow it's hard to imagine the day enough Americans listen with an open mind to the Green Party. It’s even hard to imagine that any of the more prominent politicians will be heard by the majority. Americans seem to possess the most highly selective hearing.
Hi janis.
From New Zealand. I want to go there sometime. Have since I was young.
Ya, it's tough. Maybe we're inching closer but who knows, it also seems like we're taking one step forward and two steps back.
You know, if any of the democrats including Ocasio-Cortez, were really concerned with democracy, maybe they'd be calling for equal footing for third parties, proportional representational and things like that, so the Greens would have a say, particularly when it comes to the Green New Deal which they had well before the democrats. But they don't which is telling.
There's plenty of space here
both literally and figuratively. Sadly, NZ politics is too much oriented to America's way of doing politics. If you want to read blog posts from NZ that compliment, to some degree your perspective, read Martyn Bradbury.
The Green Party is currently fighting for its survival.
NZ's 'multi-representationa'l system helps, but is still largely geared to a 'first-past-the-post' political system.
Pie in the Sky.
Abolishing the EC is a non-starter. So is going back to metallic money. Reforming the Federal Reserve, making it a real governmental organization is possible. Restoring Glass-Steagal is possible. You have to keep your eye on the possible, not utopia.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Fuck no I don't.
I'm keeping my eye on what's right. You keep your eye on what's possible.
We need "Keepers of the Vision" Al.
We have no meaningful future without "Keepers."
It's a tremendously difficult job. You must be strong and steady and unshakable. You face dismissal, rejection, and marginalization. The job requires fine calibration and courage.
If you ever wondered why you are not allowed to leave here — even when you get heavy push back for your stubborn perseverance — it's because you have those qualities and strengths.
You are one of our "Keepers."
It's not just about this issue. I've been meaning to tell you that for a long time. To reinforce the good I see, where I see it.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
Wish I could give a thousand thumbs-ups to this.
Particularly because I can't help but notice that the same rich bastards that I completely distrust, in DC and in the press, are the ones who get to tell me what's "possible."
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
"Identity Politics witch hunts"
Wow. Someone here actually said it.
What are opinions of #MeToo around here? I felt bothered by it, and I'm not entirely sure why. Part of it is inherent hatred of Twitter (I am NOT EXAGGERATING when I say that I wholeheartedly think that sites like FaceBook and Twitter should be shut down and banned for much the same reasons one shuts down restaurants for health-code violations), part of it is finding something amiss about the (surely deserved) fall of Harvey Weinstein marking the BEGINNING of the warpath, not the triumphant end (like how society opened up and became BETTER after the end of the Cold War). The only sexual harassment that has ever occurred in my presence was one or two episodes directed at ME - so why should I feel alienated and threatened rather than the opposite?
Maybe it has something to do with any of this:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/02/metoo_movement_backfires.html
https://www.chicksonright.com/blog/2017/11/20/entire-metoo-campaign-will...
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/01/12/tyso-j12.html
https://www.spiked-online.com/2017/10/18/metoo-a-moral-panic-about-men/#...
https://www.sott.net/article/370791-Burn-the-warlock-MeToo-has-morphed-i...
What do others think?
In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.
Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!
Well, the whole IdPol thing was always tribalism
Its the opposite of bringing us together. All their fancy pseudo-intellectual jargon (intersectionalism) is there to give the whole exercise in reverse bigotry an intellectual gloss.
If whites did to IdPol people what IdPol people do to others, there would be hell to pay.
I thank you for the links.
Was just talking to my mom about this last night.
She's a second-wave feminist. I said to her: "You know that I am vehemently opposed to rapists and sexual abuse, you know how I feel about that, but there's something about all this that makes me queasy." She said, "You mean the complete lack of due process?"
Currently all you need is to have one or two people accuse someone of something and get the media to pick it up and repeat it frenetically, and you can destroy a career. You can get someone to resign, which essentially will confirm for most people that they must be guilty (because most people think very superficially). After that, they'll probably never get work in their field again.
I am repelled by accusation being the same thing as conviction of guilt, particularly when the accusations are twenty years old or more--quite difficult to establish evidence or truly investigate the matter. I don't much like George Takei's politics, for instance, but when he ran for Congress, almost immediately a guy popped up saying that Takei had forced his sexual attentions on him in 1980. This is systematic, methodical blackmail, which is now the engine of our politics. The "left" apparently is too stupid to understand that using these tactics amounts to giving the victory to the right wing they think they've been fighting for forty years.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I read that there are countries (France and Japan, IIRC)...
...where ALL media portrayals of people accused of crimes (at least major ones) are legally required to be anonymized and pixelated UNTIL AFTER a legal verdict has been reached. This is the polar opposite of that.
There were times and places in history when gossip was itself a crime. Sounds good to me....
In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.
Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!
That sounds great to me.
Probably here it would be called an offense against free speech, which concept has been stretched to breaking point by the fuckwads who run politics and the press. And the Supreme Court.
It would also be called suppression of the press.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Kevin Spacey
This culture has a grave and probably terminal (I hope) sickness in their Christian approach to punishment and forgiveness. The "Seven Levels of Hell" that is America's justice system and its prison "torture houses of the soul." The extreme inhumanity that riddles most American hearts like a hungry flesh-eating bacteria — while not one cognizant thought is uttered about America's savage depopulation of foreign innocents throughout the world, in order to fight monsters that the American globalists are deliberately creating for that very purpose. Not one word of protest dribbles out of American mouths anymore. Their minds are completely gone. They are now conditioned for the extermination of humanity we are about to commit to in mineral and jewel-rich Africa.
On the cosmic level,mwhat does the American cockroach colony deserve?
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
Well, Pluto, you know that you and I disagree on this
Here's why I disagree:
American political and economic culture depends on, runs on, silencing dissent at all costs. Your statements don't take account of the silenced, or perhaps you blame them for not speaking. I know that there are lots of people who despise what's going on. Unfortunately, they have (most of them) opted out of politics, for reasons I understand: all the available options, or at least all of them that receive any notice, are morally disgusting and manipulative as hell. People who can see the manipulations and don't want to get played opt out. People who reach a certain level of moral disgust also opt out. Unfortunately, unlike me (heh), many of those who opt out don't come on a blog and discuss how they feel about politics. What opting out of politics means to them is that they rarely talk about politics, and certainly don't go out in the street and protest. My partner is like that. I keep finding people who are like that. The guy who came to give us a quote on tiling my partner's room is like that. The only reason I know about these people is that I talk a lot about politics, even to strangers, and apparently in a way that rarely makes people defensive. What I've found, unfortunately, is that most people who agree with me about the political situation here have reacted, not by radicalizing, but by removing themselves from the equation.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Oops, I need to clarify:
I *totally* agree with your points about guilt and punishment. Those fucking Puritans. Will no one rid me of these meddlesome (and mostly already dead) preachers?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I'm not entirely clear about where we disagree
The largest protest ever held in the US was about attacking Iraq. They didn't all die since then. But they rapidly withered. When the Democrats came in, they instantly ceased to exist.
They did 'opt out' they were very smart because war protesters in all walks of life, inside of the United States, will be the first to be silenced or eliminated, whichever is cheaper.
If they are still voting, then they are supporting the Congressional zombie army who are enabling war. Everything they think they vote for comes with a side of war. I am a single issue voter, which does set me apart.
I don't sense a difference between us. Fact are facts. Deeds are deeds. Geopolitically speaking, the tall poppies will be lopped off. There is always collateral damage, which includes those who have 'opted out.'
I've been studying the ongoing war between man and cockroaches. I now know the final solution. Chemical warfare has never been entirely successful in the cockroach wars. But now something new and revolutionary is emerging. So simple, so clean. Why have we not thought of it until now?
But we must have thought of it. It has to be extremely classified, that's all. Things discussed at a level that is never recorded in any way. Word of mouth. No wonder all these rich fucks suddenly think they are going to live forever.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
Are you referring to CRISPR?
Re: Cockroaches
"something new and revolutionary" is gene drive - an incredibly dangerous technique that the genetics people have come up with. Stop me if you know this:
Using the new gene editing technique, CRISPR, dominant genes for sterility or death are inserted into male insect eggs. Large numbers of these insects are released into the wild, where they mate. The introduced genes spread in the population. In a short time, the entire targeted species is wiped out.
Many geneticists are appalled and think the blowback from doing this could be deadly. These genes might jump to other species. Wiping out a species might allow its prey to grow. Etc.
Re: Humans
On the human side, there was a story that the US was seeking gene samples from ethnic Russians. There was another story that the Israelis were looking for a "semite" gene to target Arab populations. (Which is actually nonsense, since a large percentage of Jews are ethnically semitic.) That's the "kill them" side of the tech.
On the "live forever" side, the Chinese actually have produced CRISPR babies. Supposedly with a mutation that makes it impossible to get AIDS. I'm sure there is infinite funding from the rich to develop other life extension technologies. We are indeed at the point in history where money can buy you more lifetime.
It is going to be genetic hell soon, but it will be a race with environmental catastrophe hell to see what kills our hubristic species.
In the war on cockroaches
CRISPR is not a part of the new methodology. It is too slow in the short term and too uncontrollable in the long term — for the very reasons you mention. The final solution in the cockroach wars is not about killing. (Killing is an optional adjunct.) The genius is in the measured delivery system of local, natural extinction.
CRISPR is a tool in life extension, however. As it is perfected with the help of socialist funding, once it is privatized it will be one of a family of tools to extend youth for the very wealthy and their offspring. 'Extending youth" is the objective. Curing illness is redundant for the most part.
The breakthroughs in the cockroach wars concern me more than the potentials of CRISPR when it comes to US 'Defense.' The cockroach solution will be used on humans. A drop in specific populations solves too many problems.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
I still don't understand what this solution is
How does one naturally make cockroaches extinct. Fifty years ago we were told they would survive a nuclear war. They will eat anything. They are radiation hardened. They proliferate like mad.
What is this "measured delivery system of...extinction"?
Sterility, of course.
Devices vary, but don't need to be in place in the colony any longer than the length of gestation of the species.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
OK, but what is it?
Could you please provide a little more detail?
The only "sterility" systems I'm aware of are CRISPR-based; but you said its not that.
Is it some old poison with a new delivery system? Is it some flavor of the ecology-killing neonicotinoid insectisides? How does one find the nest to place the "system"? Or do the insects bring the poison back to the nest thinking its food? If so, how do you avoid killing species other than the intended target?
I can't decide if you are making an elliptical
request for help with cockroaches, or whether you wanted the academic papers. The name of the sterility agent I'm working with is "hydroplane," although it is known commercially as Gentrol. This is one of many papers published on the compound. It's pretty specific to cockroaches, but not for lack of trying it out on bedbugs and the like.
If you have a practical application in mind, you can order Gentrol online, here. I haven't seen it in any hardware stores. It's kind of counter-intuitive for the run of the mill homeowner, since it is not a pesticide and it does not kill cockroaches. Nor is it a deterrent. It's undetectable to both humans and roaches as we both go about our business.
That's why it is often used with other compounds, usually gel bait. There's a slow-acting bait that is commonly recommended for seat the same time. It kills the adults, but not before they have time to bring the bait back to the nest. The will all be gone in a matter of days. A week or so later, there may be a few generations of deformed roaches that come for more bait, until the job is complete. The preferred gel bait, Advion, contains a key delaying ingredient, Indoxacarb. It can be found online, here.
Both are safe enough around pets. They publish a somewhat elaborate protocol to follow, here. It's a bit expensive, but, this is a forever thing, according to the thousands of online reviews.
I'm going to experiment with using the Gentrol only, without the pesticide. I'm fighting German roaches — the Aryan-looking ones — and with what's going on in the world today, I was inspired to set up a concentration camp. I'm building a lego wall around the suspected nesting area and topping it with tiny concertina wire. Then, being a purist, I'll stick with a eugenics protocol to see how that plays out. I'm going to deduct all my war costs from my income taxes.
Hope you find the answers you are looking for.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
Its really kind of you to follow up so late with such detail
I was thinking of a generally-applicable technology, when you really were talking specifically about cockroaches. You might see my POV from an earlier comment I made:
So, mistakenly thinking you were talking about a technology that could wipe out human populations, I kept pressing for details - which you have graciously provided. Thanks for the references. Confusion ended.
I was aware of JHAs; but, since I never did anywork about insects, it was not something that easily jumped out of the random heap that is my memory.
Most of the people I'm talking about aren't voting.
A few of them voted for Trump, a few more vote for third parties, most don't participate.
And as for the reasons they opt out, I basically share their reasoning: why should I take additional risks when the risky activity is ineffectual? Protests, especially the "I-show-up-for-a-day" kinds of protests, are no more effective than voting. Actually, protests are deeply connected to the electoral system. Politicians used to be afraid that if they pissed off the public too much, they'd lose their jobs. Once the politicians no longer feared the electorate (or feared somebody else more) they had no reason to care when the electorate marched. There has to be an implicit threat to make a protest work, no?
Theoretically, a strike might be a good enough threat, but I'm not sure we've got the juice or the infrastructure to pull something like that off--not something as large as a general strike anyway. If we wanted to build toward that, then maybe we could create conditions where protesting was no longer ineffectual.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Just as I thought
We are generally of like mind on this issue for the same reasons.
In the US, signs of the failed state are ignored by the media. With the crackdown on whistleblowers, I think everyone can see the wisdom of not sticking their neck out to make a better society.
The ball is with the rest of the world. They will decide America's fate.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
Pages