Skip to content

Latest political goings on

February 24, 2013

Study Confirms Tea Party Was Created by Big Tobacco and Billionaire Koch Brothers:

Figures! Now, are the dittoheads of the country going to keep ignoring this and blaming everything on the poor?

Carter grandson, who blew open the whole “47%” speech: research firm site:

Not sure if I’ve posted this link or one like it before. But this shows the real division of those “47%” who “pay no taxes”:
Who Doesn’t Pay Federal Taxes?

Interesting article on the banks’ control over the money of the economy:

Fox News, Rush Limbaugh Have Not Been Good For GOP:

Now, get a load of this one:

My response:
“Why is it OK when a conservative says something like this, but when Michelle said she was for the first time proud of her country, it proved she was an “enemy” or something? Conditional patriotism, while we don’t allow others any reason to ever find fault?”
[Also now, putting down the entire country as “stupid” or whatever, for electing Obama!]

Added later:
And for her, at least it went from “not proud” to proud. For him, it’s the other way around. Her attitude got better, his got worse. She was probably describing the past, where being a minority meant harsh treatment. He now thinks he’s the persecuted minority (he just last year alone said stuff to this effect a few times), because the nation doesn’t make him and his rooters superior anymore.

Now, he rationalizes his statement (“the liberals have won; we’ve been outnumbered”, again):

It seemed that even though last fall, all of the “reverse race-card playing” was proving detrimental to the conservative movement, but yet it still persists

Chances are that the white person standing next to you doesn’t own slaves and hasn’t committed any civil rights violations.
STOP BLAMING WHITE PEOPLE (Facebook/TheComicalConservative)

My first thought at a comeback was “Chances are, that the black person standing next to you isn’t blaming white people for anything and doesn’t want anything from you. STOP DISTRACTING US FROM THE REAL PROBLEMS”.
But then, I did not feel like getting into any argument with someone claiming “Oh, I see several black people in the neighborhood, and they’re blaming whites for everything”, which at least one peron posted anyway (and something that cannot be proven or disproven), or them appealing to Jackson and Sharpton or some organization. (Can’t prove or disprove that they don’t represent all of black people).

So instead, I said:
This is a whole lot of generalization. Just like you fault supposed blacks for blaming all whites, people seem to be directing this rhetoric at all blacks.
There are SOME whites who are still racist, and there are SOME blacks who think they’re owed reparations, or are abusing public assistance. What’s the point of continuing to harping on this blaming? (and why do people seem to think “the truth hurts” only others, and yet always benefits themselves?)
It’s just a lot of distraction from the powers that be (both govt. AND corporate) screwing everyone. (And this rhetorical tactic finally began proving harmful to Republican campaign last year). February 20 at 10:49pm

In the course of responding to this (on my new tab), I accidentally wandered over into this adjacent topic:

What is your “Fair share of what someone else has worked for? -Thomas Sowell. (

Responding to earlier comments:
Re: “Wal Mart worker, is still getting a raise for no increase in productivity” [i.e. if they were to be paid more as the nonconservatives argued], “a signal to the population that you deserve more money regardless of your input“. “If you want a more equitable society, which I want, then the low end members of society must contribute more, they don’t need more currency”, etc.
But aren’t the CEO’s getting raises without increased productivity? People pin it on “the market”, but then that is not really productivity; it’s an abstract “force” that can be manipuated by “might makes right”. I have power; everyone needs me, so I can demand more, while doing the same or possibly less work. i.e. I hire more high paid managers to share my work, and pass the costs down to everyone else —including cutting those 40 hour jobs, so that those who remain ARE in fact doing more; meeting higher demands. MUCH more, often, but with no increase. Again, the jump is from something like 20-30× more decades ago, to hundreds of times more, now [as another commenter had mentioned]. They’re not working THAT much harder than before. Instead, we have one segment of the political debate blaming the poor and working class for just “wanting free stuff”.

Re: Clinton “inspired” by Reagan:
in an era of conservative backlash; he was trying to pander to them in several ways. Obama is actually accused of the same thing in places!

There was also a lot of the “blacks sold each other into slavery” response. Again, who are they really pleading with? Their own shadow!

Since we’re also hearing a lot of gun law rants, especially regarding Chicago, “having the touchest gun laws, yet having the worst gun violence”:
Chicago Gun Violence Problem Is Not Chicago Problem


From → Politics

  1. 2013/03/03 at 12:45 pm

    More stories;

    Perception of Conservatives:

    Poll: Republicans ‘Out Of Touch’ And ‘Extreme’

    Erick Erickson, RedState Editor: Conservative Media ‘Failing To Advance Ideas And Stories’

    Video commentary on this article.

    I like the point he makes at :30 “the guy with more money wins 90% of the time, in Congress”.

    Romney Says He Lost Because He Failed to Reach Minorities

    More on where all the money is really going:

    Lords of Disorder: Billions for Wall Street, Sacrifice for Everyone Else

    Goldman Sachs Can Party Again

    Wall Street firms doled out $20 billion in 2012 bounuses

    Talk of breaking up the banks:

    With all of this, conservatives continue going after the poor, and their supposed “socialist” defenders who don’t want to work, themselves. (Remember, {above} who’s really behind the Tea Party!)

    In a Facebook discussion on the image “Teach your kids to learn from the rich – not resent them.”, we see the same old:

    “just get up off your ___ and achieve”

    “poor people can’t give you a job”

    All of the sanctimonious talk fingerwagging against “envying” and “coveting”

    One person, responding to someone else:
    “grow you pansy a– hippie ,your the problem rtard you probably voted for that turd too huh… DUMBASS !!!

    So Obama’s a turd now. I wonder if any of these people have ever called any other president, no matter how liberal, that. (And has any liberal called Bush that?) We’ve now come this close to “s___ stain”, which is probably how most of these people really feel! Of course, that’s a known racial term, and we must keep that out of the discussion. But we can sure come as close as possible.
    Again, these “patriots” always believed in a respect for the Commander in Chief; no matter whether they agreed with him or not. For the country they loved voted for him. But we see many of these people (including Rush himself, as we just saw) are now virtually disowning the country for voting for this person.
    Again, real “shadow” stuff these people refuse to ever look into.

    There were a lot of good responses though:
    •”No, I don’t resent the rich. I do, however, resent it when the rich have a different set of rules to play by than the rest of us. I also resent it when bank execs and mortgage company execs can torpedo the whole economy and not only face zero consequences, but are rewarded for their s—-y judgment. Guess y’all forgot about that.”

    •”So those of us that work hard just to see our boss say sorry the economy is bad so you can’t have a raise this year meanwhile our company’s revenues are up 20-30 percent and he is pulling into the parking lot with another new Ferrarri are just delusional? Oh and also we can’t get a promotion because there is no room in management because all of our upper management is related to the owner somehow. I guess I just need to work harder huh.”

    •”Let’s take the propaganda out of this post. There is no hatred I’m [sic] rich or resentment of the rich. The problem most of us have is the inability of companies making record profits offering a decent raise or salary increase over the years since 1990. The right wing agenda will have you believe that the rest of us want a socialist society. When in reality they’re worried about losing their mind meld over the masses. Citigroup put out an article that got leak to the news which discuss this actual issue. The heading of this article was called plutonomy. It said that Citibank noticed that most of the wealth was held by 1% and that the other 99% as long as we are complacent would not revolt. The article ended with the statement the downside is that the 99% has the voting power.ummmmmmmm think about that.”

    •”People don’t resent the rich because they’re rich, but because of the unfair influence they have on our Government, Laws, and Regulations

    •”This is just strange to me. Who hates the rich? What people have a problem with is doing things like buying elections, profit over people, having companies considered “people”. This post just seems willfully ignorant. I think many people who value the American dream detest unfairness. They do not detest “the rich”. Why would they? I know what it is…this post tries to turn real issues into “sour grapes”. I am offended by this.”

    •”You do realize of course that there aren’t many honest rich people don’t you? That leaves mostly greedy criminals for your children to admire. There never were in America. Poor people aren’t making life difficult for you. People who start wars for profit and oil are the problem. A decade of unfunded, unnecessary war in Iraq destroyed the U.S. economy- it wasn’t “welfare moms”.”

    •”I don’t hate the rich! Do you ‘secretly’ hate the poor? Be honest!”

    One person finally rebuffs all the attacks against his earlier posts; showing the general tone of these debates:

    “I posted my opinion about this post. I got called a lazy wet back on welfare and was told I was acting like a ten yr old. I work I was born here and the rest of my family back my great great grandparents. I served in the navy with an honorable discharge. And I don’t have kids wth do [sic] I need welfare for.”
    “And where in the pic was obama mentioned. They blame him y [sic]. I guess the first couple of trillion in debt was ok. A couple of unpaid wars were ok. And now that s— is hitting the fan and we have to pay our d[ue]s. Now we are complaining. How long did we think we could live out of our means. Anyways MIT Romney was right 47 percent of us are going to have to be cut off. Just hope ur not in that percent. It was inevitable…”

    Later adds:

    “What’s this statement about never had a poor man give me a job. I bet U all those billionaires in Wall Street never thought they would ever use this statement. We need a bail out. Taxes payers flip the bill yet they still millions in bonuses. Then they try to sue the government for charging them interest. And they don t want to pay taxes. Hahahahaha never thought we would get bailed out by the poor ppl.”

    A much more balanced response:

    “Actually, let’s keep overtaxing the poor while not requiring the rich to pay more. Or, better yet, how about rich people pay better wages so poor people don’t exist. Nah…let’s feel sorry for rich people for all the resentment they get because the world is unfair. There are rich people who worked for it, and rich people who freeload off trust funds. There are poor people who work their fingers to the bone, and those who freeload off the government. What should be valued is work ethic…not money. I learn from those who work hard, not those sitting at the top who complain about being persecuted for being rich. Give me a break.”

    With all the flaming people do in these heated discussions, nobody answers these kinds of posts. Later posters just go right back to the same old mantras about the worthiness of the rich, and the lazy coveting of the poor, and the evil of Obama and the liberal socialists. They only answer those liberals whose remarks feed this assumption.

    I myself added:

    “People keep saying ‘all you have to do is get off your butt and achieve’, but who said the people questioning the economic balance are all poor? They’re most likely middle/working class like yourselves. Just like you are complaining just as much as them, but shifting the blame for financial hardship all on taxes (and the poor) instead of the rich. So this could be turned back on you, and if you ‘worked harder’ and ‘achieved’ more like your heroes, then you wouldn’t be hurt by taxes, just like they aren’t.
    [The person who made the post, above] made the most balanced point. There are people on both sides abusing the system. But to constantly put all the focus on one side like this is to deflect attention from where the abuse of power is really occurring.”

    On the previous topic (“Fair share of what someone else has worked for”), someone added:
    why are we talking about the poor? they didn’t cause the financial disaster that led to the deep recession our economy is in, it was the short sighted greed of those on Wall street that brought the global economy to its knees. That is why so many more people need government assistance in the form of unemployment insurance and welfare etc. there will always be people who take advantage of welfare etc., but there are a lot of people who need assistance right now because we are in a RECESSION! And we are upset with them instead of the people who actually caused it.

  2. Mar 4, 2013 8:31 PM

    Someone just posted this link on FB

    I say, wow; very good! And again, amazing how the Conservatives are still parroting the learned responses, “stop envying the rich”, “they earned it, why don’t you just stop being lazy and achieve like they did, etc., and essentially blaming the poor for draining the economy!

    But again, a conservative in the YouTube comments responds:
    “Because 20 years ago, the economy wasn’t as advantageous as it is now [what?!]. Because 20 years ago, the CEO’s didn’t know what they know now. Who are you to decide how much money anyone ‘needs’ ? Why did the ‘average guy’ decide to have a family when he needs to work his ass off? Maybe he should have waited a couple years longer and been more financially secure before being responsible for other peoples life’s. But we blame the CEO because the “average guy” made a dumb decision.”

    Then, in response to a response:

    “You know how I know they know more ? Because they are CEO’s and you’re not. If you were half as smart as you think you were, you’d be a CEO somewhere. Since you’re not, it should tell you that you are not as smart as you think. To be a CEO, you need more than a degree with a good resume. You need proof of your decisions being profitable. If you don’t have any examples of that, then you’ll never be a CEO. So yes, MOST (there are exceptions, of course) CEO’s are smarter than the average worker.”

    Again, it’s the same thing as in the FB groups, the conservatives come with these flaming responses based on generalizations, and ultimately, that the rich are just smarter.

    How is the economy “more advantageous” now, and how are their decisions that much smarter when their own institutions are failing and having to be bailed out? And also, everyone not rich and struggling in this economy simply made bad decisions? (And if it’s really all about “earning” vs dumb decisions, then that WOULD be “fair”!) They really seem to believe that none of this involves manipulation of power. It’s all the rich are all good, and everyone else is just dumb.

    It again ignores “timing, talent temperament”. That we do not have anything we did not somehow “receive“.

    He later pitched “investing”, which “can be done from your computer in four clicks now”. (I guess that’s supposed to be how the economy is more “advantageous” now?) If it were that simple, and all one had to do was invest, and then they too would become rich; then more people would discover it, and it would catch on. But again, everyone is probably too stupid and lazy just to make those four clicks!
    That is a gamble (somwhat like lottery), but I guess, such a person would say “well, you either win, or you lose, and that’s life”. But we’re right back to the question of the incredible income gap the video discusses, in addition to the manipulation of power, which was totally sidestepped.

    This highlights the slavemaster mentality of a lot of people in the political debate. Those who win were just smarter, and even more “ethical” as far as “work” and “diligence”. So there’s no limit on what they “deserve”. Everyone else is dumb and lazy. So there’s no limit on the hardship they deserve; perhaps even to be slaves. You add in race, then just look at the figures of who tends to have most of the power, and who’s notably at the bottom most often, and plagued with crime. (We still get arguments like this). You can bring in the ol’ “bell curve” as well!

    People may not be thinking consciously in terms of race, but rather whatever means they have to power. Now, it’s finance. Before, race was a bit easier to work with, because it was a more clear mark of who was superior, regardless of an individual person’s success. You already had a head start because of your physical inheritance, and materal inheritance was an additional jumpstart, based on your family’s “blessed” state, So it was a double justification.
    The benefit now, is that race can on the surface be excised from the discussion, as “Everyone has a chance”. But time will tell who takes all these “opportunities”; and “the cream will rise to the top”, and that will prove who belongs where in society. “The facts don’t lie” would be the mantra (as it is for those currenly using this tactic).

    Add God into it, and the gambles and efforts of the economic world are not really chance, but “His sovereign will”, playing out through “means” of “providence” (leading to the paradox of “sovereignty” vs “human responsibility”; that God decreed everything, yet man is still credited for his “efforts”, or judged for his lack thereof).
    “Timing, talent, temperament” involved in success, would be seen as God’s declarative will.
    So of course, these liberals who try to make things more fair are really doing a great evil, and among theistic conservatives, opposing God. (To nontheistic conservatives, it’s likely opposing nature).

    The point is, I see a pattern behind this belief system (especially since the more religious in this debate always argue about “returning to the values of our forefathers”, and even though many non-religious are on the top, benefitting from this, God ultimately doesn’t matter to the system; only its common objective). It always leads back to some form of mass control over people, justified by blaming the controlled. They may argue over whether it is through “government” or “private” enterprise, or whether it is through racial, or ethical superiority, but it’s all about control, and justifying it.

  3. Mar 10, 2013

    Now, get a load of this one:

    The debate is to whether this is really racist, with excuses such as “it was drawn by a South American”. (That means little; as there’s a lot of racism in South America).
    People try to argue that one or two of the people look Hispanic. But Hispanic is a minority usually grouped together with blacks. In the inner city; at least here in the northeast, the cultures have long pretty much merged.

    People are really grasping for straws in justifying this stuff, now that it’s finally being called out!

    Regardless of even the race, the other issue, which has superseded race in many ways (and actually, was really the underlying cause of the race issue in the beginning, as pointed out in my New Jim Crow review), is class. And this is a case of the banks yet again, blaming the non-rich, whom they trapped with their loan schemes, for being “greedy”. The racial portayal is simply a second bird killed with the one stone! It’s all the same attitude, and deflection from their own greed and corruption.

    There has really been a stepping up of this rhetoric, in the aftermath of the elections!

  4. Jun 17, 2013

    Here’s a video challenging the notion that higher pay as motivation for jobs that call for cognitive (rather than mechanical) skills produces better performance (2:00ff)

    This study also shows why some people may be prone not to “delay gratification” (the character trait that supposedly justifies in part the immense wealth of the rich):
    The marshmallow test, revisited

    “Delayed gratification” is often something credited to the powerful, as if it justifies the immensity of their wealth and power. It then even becomes a sort of “character” judgment for the powerful and against the struggling. They apparently went for “instant gratification”, which in preaching is often listed as the cause of many vices. So now, they must suffer, as it wears off. But those who “delayed” gratification reap it later.

    What they aren’t telling you is that many of these “movers and shakers” who become the powerful ARE gratifying themselves (their ego) as they pull themselves up. This is the “temperament” part of “Timing, Talent, Temperament”, and “Talent” goes along with it too. When they or their conservative defenders talks about this “delayed gratification” of them taking all these “risks” and “pulling themselves up”, we are made to think of ourselves breaking our inertia to do all of those things, and being tired, scared and miserable. Poor dudes; it must be rough for them! But on the contrary, people like that enjoy the process of climbing and stepping on others along the way. They love the challenge. It’s fun. Like my time on the computer writing this stuff and others, which is often called “leisure time” when compared to work and household, but it is a lot of work, which could conceivably pay off somehow. So is it really delaying or instigating gratification? Gratification isn’t really delayed; it just increases as they reach the top.

    This is what undergirds the rhetoric we see above, particularly the moralistic slant it takes. “Makers” = “delayed gratification” = “earning” ; “takers” = “instant gratification” = “making dumb decisions and then asking for a free ride once resources/opportunities are squandered”.
    Basically, everyone with power, from the colonizers and slave owners, to the modern global corporatists can be justified, because of the “work” they did in amassing all that power in the first place, where those they conquered and/or ruled over were “just getting by” (whether tribal life in the sun, with all the plentifulness of food around them, or, “just doing your 40 hours a week and going home” as some say today).
    It’s obviously an extremely legalistic mindset, and one with zero grace. (Except for those already “up there”, whose “imperfections” we all have to “deal with”. Again, “those who got shall get…”).

    But we see here some empirical evidence that it is not always as much of a “character” judgment as people believe. “What do you have, that you did not receive”? (1 Cor. 4:7)

  5. June 23, 2013

    Here’s one I saw awhile ago, but I seemed to have missed posting:

  6. Submitted on: Jul 6, 2013

    CEOs Make 273 Times the Average Worker

  7. Submitted on: Jul 9, 2013 @ 14:38

    Cleaning out my old web space, I had a statement cheering the election of our first black president, with a longer version added to the older Right Wing page, and an edited version on my main portal, which is what I’ve been cleaning out by creating blog entries. I had written a different ending for the latter version, and didn’t want to get rid of it, so I might as well add it here:

    If the average person and the entire economy is losing money, and the executives, pop culture, etc are gaining money; then put two and two together! Aliens have not come and taken money and resources off of the earth. It’s all still here; only being concentrated in certain places! See here.

    A lot of people must have imagined or assumed that these people are so honest and worthy, and care about the interests and good of America. But they are essentially following “the law of the jungle”, and are only concerned with their own interests.

    So people need to stop and THINK about what exactly we’re really dealing with here! We all talk about “peace and love”, and all the other virtues, so then do we really want to follow a “jungle’ mentality? And these observers; usually coming from the conservatives and libertarians, generally claim to represent what’s best for the middle class, and are not saying that we should all be happy with nothing. So we should now move to a greater awareness of the economic oppression. Why do things cost so much? Where is all the money going?
    If those at the top “worked hard to get it”, then have the struggling middle class then not worked hard? People; WAKE UP!!!

    (In the four years since, they’ve basically answered that question and essentially have said in fact, no, the middle class have not worked hard enough! I’ve seen blog comments saying they made dumb decisions in order to get in such situation. How those from these groups who themselves are middle class and not happy with money being tight answer for themselves, I’m not sure, but but will likely involve blaming taxes. Again; WAKE UP! They also try the “no ‘zero sum’ game” argument).

    Here also is an article on something called capitalism’s “Sacrifice Zones”:

  8. From the “Don’t Tread On Me” Facebook group:

    My response to the FB “friend” posting it:

    “Hate” always seem to stem from people thinking they have a total lockdown on “truth”. They forget their own sinfulness, and then go on a mission to try to hit everyone else with “truth”, —which manages to always favor/justify/exonerate themselves. (The word “hate” in the Bible means “to love less“)
    Eventually persecution or oppression might even seem justified —to eradicate their “evil”! They often start out with a premise of being persecuted [or “treaded on”] themselves (“persecuted become the persecutors”).
    There are plenty examples in history.

  9. Submitted on: Oct 2, 2013 @ 22:10
    May do a separate article on the government shutdown, but for now, here is a striking parallel with the first one, back in the aftermath of the Civil War:

    GOP’s shutdown debacle resembles our first … in 1879!

  10. Submitted on: Nov 4, 2013 @ 12:53
    Someone challenged my statement “when 8 years of Bush didn’t fix things, the Right said it was because the Democrats had messed things up so bad, it would take time”, asking which Republican ever said that (when I challenged a post about Obama’s performance that threw race into it. The old anyone who criticizes him for not fixing everything the first four years is being deemed “racist” just for “disagreeing”).
    I actually got that from someone in a debate, as part of a rant of how bad America has been messed up by the left or Democrats. Of course, now, people aren’t saying that anymore, but instead saying Reagan DID fix the “mess” of Carter, but “without whining like Obama”. But they didn’t seem to see it that way before.

    He also countered they wanted him out before he got in (as I also pointed out), because of his rabid “socialism”.
    People have been accusing all Democrats of socialism. Anything that doesn’t line up with their vision for the country is socialism (including even the Republicans themselves now; more below). But I never heard of anyone say of Carter or Clinton “He’s not MY president”, or “GONE ’80” in 1976, or “GONE ’96” in 1992, and then question their citizenship.

    Meanwhile, people will disclaim racism while saying the very stuff we see quoted here:
    This is pure Shadow! (The guy I was talking to knows about Jungian concepts). A lot of Tea Party people are totally unconscious of the stuff they or their comrades have said and done when they go into this fierce denial! No, the liberals are just making it up!

    It’s not so much about skin color directly anymore, it’s a whole IMAGE, of a “culture”, that happened to be drawn on skin color, and the BLAME or at least fingerpointing done in politics and socioeconomic issues. A big part of it (And where I bring the concept of the Shadow into it), is that race relations have put a big spot on the romanticized image of the nation many people have. So they can’t admit any fault in the system (past or present); they just want to point at these groups of people who have all these “problems”, and blame them for everything; their own problems, as well as the rest of the nation (like economics).

    And different people draw different conclusions about just “what’s wrong” with “these people”, and what should be done about it. Some seem to think they just need a good public scolding or something. Then, there’s the “good ones”, and there’s the entire community. The acknowledgment of “good ones” is taken as proof it’s not about race, but the problem is an overgeneralization about “the community”, and the resultant scapegoating.
    So then some believe the problem is genetic as well. They point to statistics on that, and likewise say “it’s fact, not racism”.

    (In passing, regarding another post, why does a story about prison rape stats by GENDER even prompt some comparison to crime by RACE? Why even bring race into that, especially when that’s what the liberals are so accused of doing all the time?)

    What’s racist is not a statistic, but the PURPOSE people might use it for. In other words; what’s the POINT of this? One race commits more crime than another? That’s the perception. What’s the judgment that’s supposed to go with it? It looks like people want to just point “look at THEM, look at THEM, look at THEM…THEM over THERE…” as sort of a deflection, to ISOLATE all problems and blame everything (including economics) on this one group (basically, having them carry the nations’s entire collective shadow). Meanwhile, the real people holding the power skate off free, seen as representing “true American values” (“freedom”, “work ethic”, etc), but in reality, all they care about is whoever they can milk dry, and make the people believe that is an American value, and just blame someone next to them or lower (divide and conquer).

    One thing I always liked about libertarians were that they could point all this out, and objectively look at how BOTH right and left are caught up in this ultimately global power game, and that whichever party gets in, the leaders are just figureheads for the globalists (and still stand for the values of the Constitution, small government, etc). That’s how I see it.
    But with Obama in, the Republicans become the good guys after all. I guess the old “lesser of two evils” thing.

    All the same complaints have been made for at just about 40 years, including when Reagan was in, and the Bushes. All through those periods, the “socialism”/”big government” and “redistribution” ranting (with a special emphasis on “welfare”) was at full blast, and under Reagan (the last president they really liked) the tactic then was to blame the liberal “congress”.
    Then, they weren’t as happy with the Bushes, so then they, or at least the second one and some of the other GOP candidates along the way, began to be trashed as “RINOS” (“Republican In Name Only”), and “no different than Democrats”. Support for them was so weak, the Democrats, Clinton and Obama, radical and trashed as so “socialist”, got in, not once, but twice. That’s when the whole third party push gained steam (with the radical sounding Constitution Party as the lead runner). But then, it all of a sudden just died off. (Wonder why!)

    You even had that period, still under Bush, when the GOP had BOTH the White House and the Congress! That should have been the golden era when they were in full control, and could do it all their way, and not have to blame either the president or the Congress. I thought finally, the blaming of “liberalism” would stop. But it didn’t! Conservative disowning of Bush and much of the GOP was at an all time high. That was when I asked someone why it wasn’t working; why they’re still blaming liberals for everything, and they told me it would take time to fix up the “mess” they created. (Which included the modern Republican party becoming so “liberal” and just like the Democrats as well).
    What other reason could they possibly produce?

    I’ve also started seeing the name “Soetoro” in posts, and I thought it was another appointee (like that other name I keep seeing, connected with the ACA website. Sabelius, I think, or I was just confusing it with “Sotomayor”). I had no idea it was Obama. The next level of “birtherism”, basically!
    If it’s just his policies, then why all this stuff trying to invalidate his citizenship? If one were true, it would not need the other argument thrown in, but when it just so happens that one of these issues turns up after the other, and they’re all debunked, then it looks like people are scraping up whatever they can for some other reason.

    But anyway, on this:

    In the meanwhile, here’s an article showing this much decried deficit is actually falling!
    So perhaps it will have taken five years instead of four…

  11. Submitted on: Oct 21, 2014 @ 10:39
    Interesting article showing conservatives are very narrow in scope, and yet have solidarity in it, while liberals will take a more emotive route like unfriending someone over political differences:

    There’s Still A Huge Difference In The Media Habits Of Conservatives And Liberals

    This is funny:
    Fox owned by Aussie and Arab telling Americans to hate their own country

  12. Submitted on: Nov 14, 2014 @ 11:06
    New Cold War: Gorbachev Warns World of Potential Russia-US Conflict

    Sure seems like it, especially after the Malaysian flight shootdown over the summer, and the likely culprits being pro-Russia rebels, but the Russian state media tried to blame the CIA as helping the Ukrainian government.

    I like how this article points out:

    The 83-year-old accused the West, particularly the United States, of giving in to “triumphalism” after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the communist bloc a quarter century ago. The result, he said, could partly be seen in the inability of global powers to prevent or resolve conflicts in Yugoslavia, the Middle East and most recently Ukraine.

    “The world is on the brink of a new Cold War. Some are even saying that it’s already begun,” Gorbachev said at an event marking the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, close to the city’s iconic Brandenburg Gate.

    “Triumphalism” perfectly describes the attitude we had back then, and I even remember a top preacher (Possibly D. James Kennedy, or at least someone like that) bellowing “and now we finally see that Marx knew nothing about economics”. And of course, it so made President Reagan (basically the last one conservatives like) look all the more good and strong.
    Meanwhile, the same conservtive leadership was also complainig about how everything was getting bad over here, with a focus on “morality”, and as far as politics and economics, how the communists had pretty much already taken over and ruined everything.
    There was never any sense that were were imperfect like the Russians. (“imperfection” was only cited when forced to address problems like racism or poverty, and then it was always a quick appeal to how all our “good” outweighs all of that. Meanwhile, others were never acknowledged as having any good points we may have neglected).

    Obama is then cited as sharing some of Gorbachev’s concerns for Europe, though blaming Moscow for the current tensions. “As Russia’s actions against Ukraine remind us, we have more work to do to fully realize our shared vision of a Europe that is whole, free and at peace.”

  13. [Moved: prayer breakfast controversy:

    Submitted on: Feb 5, 2015 @ 22:52
    In other race news:

    Here; he’s doing the very thing they criticize him and the entire black community itself for not doing; and that’s criticizing the community itself, rather than always blaming others.
    But it looks like it’s only OK for them to call blacks “pimps and ho’s”, as well as “hustler”.

    Also, just look at the depths of utter ignorance the anti-immigration sentiment has fallen to:

  14. Submitted on: Feb 13, 2015 @ 11:30

    Something else I’ve been seeing a lot of Facebook is this thing about cutting an old man’s “male pattern baldness” into the hair of pre-teen boys as punishment. (Just the idea brings terror. I remember getting laughed at once for getting a haircut a bit too short, before the clean cut look came back, and that still wasn’t the same as bald on the top only. I would say this should only be done with popular kids, and especially those who are bullies themselves, where other kids would be afraid to laugh a them. They would still be humiliated, but their position over others would balance it out).
    So then this article is put out:

    Dear Black People, Please Stop Shaming Your Kids On Social Media

    It says the barber offering this “…is participating in a longstanding American tradition of public ridicule and demonization of Black boys and girls.”

    On the surface, it might seem relatively harmless: A parent photographs his or her child holding up a sign confessing sins like missing a curfew, skipping school, failing a test, dressing provocatively, acting “too grown,” lying, and stealing. Private punishment becomes public humiliation as these images go viral. Folks who see and share it applaud the parent for being strict and doing what they can to keep these wayward Black kids out of gangs, prisons, and morgues.

    As Frederick told the Washington Post, “Parents are at a loss. When you go to discipline kids these days, they can’t necessarily use physical punishment the way parents did in the past, but they have to do something. If you don’t, and your kid ends up doing something crazy, everyone is going to say the problems started at home.”

    Physical abuse has been eliminated from a parent’s arsenal because of (White) liberal policies. People are defending this so-called “novel” approach by arguing that the haircut is a creative and non-violent way to convey to their kid that misbehavior has negative consequences.

    And that’s an even bigger problem: People’s need to broadcast their tough-love parenting all over social media. I imagine it bolsters their sense of insecurity and inadequacy in rearing their children, as they seek applause for projecting their strong values and no-nonsense approach.

    It also points out that they’re making boys look older, but young boys are already getting killed, for among other things, being mistaken as older, through “dangerous and potentially deadly stereotypes and myths…in a society where there is little distinction between Black children and adults, and where Black kids are already adultified in the cultural mind-set”.

    The point I think is most noteworthy:
    “But it also reflects a response to the way Black parents have long been blamed as absent and inadequate, and for social breakdown of our communities. It’s an overcorrection, these public displays of extreme disciplining, a declaration to the world, ‘Look what we are doing; we are parenting, we are demanding disciplined children, so shut the hell up, America.’”

    I’ve always said we’ve ignored people’s perception of us, or didn’t care (e.g. George Jefferson’s “I’m sick of what the white man thinks; what about what I think?”), but it seems we are affected by it, and reacting toward it in a rash way.

  15. Submitted on: Jul 7, 2015 @ 21:59
    A lot of secession rhetoric really firing up again; this time Texas, and it looks like a lot of people raring to go!

    ALERT: Texas Makes Major Move Towards Seceding From Union

    One task is getting the states gold out of a bank in NYC.
    In the comments we see: “Rally around your flags boys, the South may rise again!!!”

    “How would this affect Social Security?”
    “You get none! Ask TX to start their own plan”

    “Oh I would love to secede but everyone has to realize that those that receive Military retirement and Social a Security will no longer receive it. It comes from the Federal Government. Even your pension from a corporation could be withdrawn. Not to mention Medicare, Tricare or private Insurance for retirement. We receive all of these and not willing to give them up.”

    “All the container ships will be rerouted to New Oleans/GA/FL and containers railed North. All the Northern Oil will be rerouted to non TX refrinerys. All the TX oil will not come into the US. All SSI, medicade/medicare ends. All military bases closed and relocated … and the next time you get a few drops of rain, don’t come begging for Washington DC to bail your a__ out Please hurry and get er done”
    “We Texans don’t beg for anything from Washington DC or anyone else. We know how to take care of our own.”
    “You sure begged when you had your floods … ‘please give us $’s to recover and rebuild’.”

    Other comments mentioned stuff like other states (Montana, etc.) joining the “united states of Texas”

    “No liberal trouble makers, no Muslims, no gays, we want just good honest people with morals. And no people that can’t pull their pants up were tired of seeing dirty underwear.”

    “Im Texan thru and thru succeed texas leave this idiot Muslim President and all his crap and then kick all the foreigners out that are of terror back ground close our borders and tell people if your not a republican and share Texas ideas get the hell out”

    “Texas doesn’t really need the rest of the nation. It has gold, oil, farm land, orchards and water. Now, if that happened, I might consider moving back from MX to the Republic of Texas. We couldn’t live in the US anymore, to dangerous for the elderly, but the Republic of TX that’s could be doable.”

    America more dangerous than Mexico? Didn’t your current hero just speak about how horrible Mexico was, with all the “dangerous” people they’re sending? Have all the dangerous people left the country, and are here now?

    I too sometimes wish they would do this, so they can stop complaining about the US, and blacks and everyone else they see as spoling life for them. They would learn the hard way the Gospel teaching (which many of them supposedly claim; “I feel that Texas would be better off without the other states.’American by birth, Texan by the grace of God'”; “Real authentic Texans from way back taught us to work hard for our living, thank God for what we have, share with others who truly NEED it; not the crowd who live off of everyone and are healthy to work. We love God and country. We are not ashamed to speak God’s name. We are not afraid to SEE the evil who bully’s us who wants us to abandon the Laws of God. In God We Trust; God Bless America.”) that they are not “good honest people with norals” any more than anyone else. And they would have no one else to blame anymore!

    In other news, a conservative “darling” decides to resort to outright open face lies to smear the other side, stirring up the conservative social media sphere:

    Dinesh D’Souza Posts Fake Photo Of Hillary Clinton With Confederate Flag

  16. Submitted on: Jul 10, 2015 @ 09:53

    As this mirror puts it:
    AWFUL! Barack Obama Announces Plan to CENSOR Fox News (MUST READ)

    Here’s the whole statement:

    The pertinent part they are quoting (which they call “the entire transcript”):

    I think that the effort to suggest that the poor are sponges, leeches, don’t want to work, are lazy, are undeserving, got traction. And look, it’s still being propagated. I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant venue. They will find folks who make me mad. I don’t know where they find them. They’re all like, “I don’t want to work. I just want a free Obama Phone, or whatever.” And that becomes an entire narrative that gets worked up. And very rarely do you hear an interview of a waitress, which is much more typical — who is raising a couple of kids and doing everything right but still can’t pay the bills.

    And so, if we’re going to change how Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) and Sen. Mitch McConnell think, we’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues, and how people’s impressions of what it’s like to struggle in this economy looks like. And how budgets connect to that. And that’s a hard process because that requires a much broader conversation than typically we have on the nightly news.

    This was prefixed by:

    But part of it has also been — there’s always been a strain in American politics where you’ve got the middle class, and the question has been, who are you mad at, if you’re struggling; if you’re working, but you don’t seem to be getting ahead. And over the last 40 years, sadly, I think there’s been an effort to either make folks mad at folks at the top, or to be mad at folks at the bottom. And I think the effort to suggest that the poor are sponges, leaches, don’t want to work, are lazy, are undeserving, got traction.

    Notice, he didn’t say “censoring“; he said “change how they report”, which sounds like it could possibly mean censoring, but it was suffixed by “And that’s a hard process because that requires a much broader ̲co̲n̲v̲e̲r̲s̲a̲t̲i̲o̲n̲ than typically we have on the nightly news.” In other words, it’s exactly what conservatives condemn the other news outlets for, and that’s one sided “conversation” on the issues; skewed to advance a particular agenda. (The solution would therefore be to b̲r̲o̲a̲d̲e̲n̲ the conversation, which is also what conservatives claim they want, like in the “race” issue).
    FOX (and these conservative news sites) is no better than the others (as we see right here in this reading into Obama’s statements what they WANT it to mean; it’s just that they’re taking an opposite view, and thus skewing it in an opposite direction that appeals to some people, so they see this is censored “truth”).

    But it’s not. He was dead on about this ridiculous generalization of the poor, and specifically digging up the worst examples of people gaming the system to prove it (and I believe some of that could be staged). And none of the commenters on that site or Breitbart addressed that; it becomes “true” by default simply because Obama’s statement proves he is a “dictator” trying to censor FOX in favor of the other networks.

  17. Submitted on: Aug 10, 2015 @ 11:29

    Bernie Sanders, Black Lives Matter and the racial divide in Seattle

    I too would agree that going after Sanders sends the wrong message (And I can just hear the white nationalism-infused Right saying “see, they just want even more free stuff than the socialists like Sanders are willing to give them”), but the article does make good points.
    In fact, quite contrary to those conservatives who claim we only follow the Democrats blindly and uncritically (from getting “SO MUCH” from them), it points out:

    The real enemy is the system of racial inequality and white supremacy. There is no political party and no politician exempt from that. Liberal politicians have been banking on our vote for decades but black people in America have fared no better with Democrats than Republicans. Conservatives don’t even pretend to care. We’ll go where we feel we can make the most impact, and if that means that some Democrats are uncomfortable while Republicans sit wallowing in racial hatred – well, that’s just how it is for now. This system isn’t held up by conservatives alone.

    What It’s Like to Be Black in the Criminal Justice System

    All of this stuff, and the near and far right still uses the results of it to say how “problem prone”, “pathological”, etc. the “black community” (if not the whole race) is!

    What kind of men were the founders of America? Were they weak and silent, or were they brash, in-your-face, outspoken patriots standing up to the totalitarian might of the King? Obviously, history proves they were the latter.

    Donald Trump embodies the gutsy characteristics personified by our founders, and this is what frightens those who are playing King today. Donald Trump’s brash, flamboyant and in-your-face approach is nothing less than refreshing and extremely encouraging to the American people.

    This is why he’s doing so well, and being “brash”, even when it totally lacks class, is what they see as a good trait, for they are the ones being “oppressed” by the “totalitarian king”. Again, these tough frontiersmen, who scoff at others’ “whining”, yet they are the one’s really being “tread on” (and so anything they say or do to others is justified, no matter how offensive; they are in the right, no matter what), and all those conservatives already in politics just aren’t ever good enough for them. (Even FOX being trashed by these people who so supported the network before, because of the questions that female anchor asked him).
    Fox News debate was set up to attack and diminish Trump's popularity
    One of the whole premises of conservativism was how “civil” and ”respectful”, etc. the “traditional American values” were, (especially as embodied in Southern etiquette), which they harshly judge modern and foreign cultures by. Yet here, they show the “shadow” of their moral veneer and traditional “politeness”; their true uncivility, which comes out under the premise of others’ wrong!

    I kind of want to see him win, and what he would actually do for this country. That’s the only way for their neuroses to truly be exposed once and for all, but it figures they would only blame Obama, and the “mess” he left (which would once again be OK to blame, even though it was wrong to blame Bush for anything).

    Like was McCain one of those “kings” and were we made more free by having his War hardships mocked?

  18. Submitted on: Sep 6, 2015 @ 10:21

    This article shows that the only thing that matters to Trump supporters is simply that “he fights”.

    No Movement That Embraces Trump Can Call Itself Conservative

    Being brash and “politically incorrect” is more important than even the policies, as much they’ve complained about them. Coupled with how bad his behavior looks to everyone else not worshipping “political incorrectness” for its own sake, even I have to wonder, like this article, if he’s a “Double Agent for the Left”:

    If he gets in, and then nothing has changed (at least not fiscally), then what? (Again, it will likely be blaming Obama, and then blaming the previous administration and not “taking responsibility” will be OK again).

  19. Submitted on: Sep 29, 2015 @ 21:50

    The Culture Wars Are Over—And They Aren’t Coming Back
    The movements of the 1960s challenged the Leave It to Beaver values of American life, producing the culture wars. But those wars are now finished.

  20. Submitted on: Oct 3, 2015 @ 18:11

    I never followed this whole Common Core debate, but this meme gave me some info as to what it’s about:
    Today's Third grade Common Core Math Problem; Apple Hill, Banana Hill

    From what I see here, it looks like it’s just breaking down the “old way” more. You were doing the same steps, only crossing out one number and writing the little “reminder” number above it. It wasn’t so much about “more thinking”, and I used to hate those kinds of problems, because it could get confusing, especially with several instances of that, and a “domino effect” when subtracting then caused the next number to be too small for its subtraction, or you had “0”, which then pushed down to the next lower “9”.
    But then that’s probably just my own aversion to the written aspect of math (I’m more into theory, like how numbers work. This is the difference between the extraverted and introverted attitudes of Thinking).

    Yet in the comments of the post I saw this in, someone says

    This is meant to discourage thinking. Its implementation today is for the purpose of bringing down the top, as Common Core architects have attested. It’s supposed to make everyone C students and therefore make the “rich kids” less competitive.

    However, it didn’t start off that way. This same curriculum was used in my elementary school, LONG before Common Core was ever invented. This curriculum in my school was called Chicago Math, and it caused my A average to drop to a D overnight. I didn’t recover my math grades until it was ousted from our school before my 5th grade year. Then, I was suddenly an A student again. The failure of Chicago Math at my elementary school and probably dozens of others was picked up by some socialist somewhere, who decided that it was time for some retribution for “past oppression”, and the only way to bring down the top was to confuse the heck out of the next generation of “privileged” kids and make them all useless, intellectually unable to earn what their parents earned.

    (And then later mention of the “anti-colonialist, pro-redistribution/retribution President”).

    This apparently is what the whole debate is really about. The conspiracy of the liberal educators to bring down to good ol’ American rich (who the whole world revolves around, and thus here defended ardently by most likely the average middle class. Just like in the days of slavery!)

  21. Submitted on: Dec 22, 2015 @ 10:39

    A bunch of interesting articles I ran across; following the link from one to the other:

    Study on the efectiveness of “dog whistling”:

    Finally, a three year old article on Atwater’s interview, with an audio transcript of the entire context of the statements:

    In the lead-up to the infamous remarks, it is fascinating to witness the confidence with which Atwater believes himself to be establishing the racial innocence of latter-day Republican campaigning: “My generation,” he insists, “will be the first generation of Southerners that won’t be prejudiced.” He proceeds to develop the argument that by dropping talk about civil rights gains like the Voting Rights Act and sticking to the now-mainstream tropes of fiscal conservatism and national defense, consultants like him were proving “people in the South are just like any people in the history of the world.”

    It is only upon Professor Lamis’s gently Socratic follow-ups…that Atwater begins to loosen up—prefacing his reflections, with a plainly guilty conscience, “Now, y’all aren’t quoting me on this?” (Apparently, this is the reason why Atwater’s name wasn’t published in 1984 but was in 1999, after his death).

    He then utters his infamous words. The interlocutors go on to kibitz about Huey Long and barbecue. Then Atwater, apparently satisfied that he’d absolved the Southern Republican Party of racism once and for all, follows up with a prediction based on a study he claims demonstrates that Strom Thurmond won 38 percent of South Carolina’s middle-class black vote in his 1978 Senate campaign (run by Atwater).

    “That voter, in my judgment,” he claims, “will be more likely to vote his economic interests than he will anything else. And that is the voter that I think through a fairly slow but very steady process, will go Republican.” Because race no longer matters: “In my judgment Karl Marx [is right]… the real issues ultimately will be the economic issues.” He continues, in words that uncannily echo the “47 percent tape” (nothing new under the wingnut sun), that “statistically, as the number of non-producers in the system moves toward fifty percent,” the conservative coalition cannot but expand. Voila: a new Republican majority. Racism won’t have anything to do with it.

  22. Submitted on: Jan 30, 2016 @ 11:02

    Trump Debate Flap Throws Republican Party Into Deeper Chaos

    In the Facebook post comments:

    “Again I will say, the Republican Party may not make it out of this election cycle in one piece. You will have libertarians who do not align with evangelicals, war Hawks that disagree with budgeting. We’re in an interesting time in history.”

    “I agree. We are watching them fracture. It truly is fascinating watching how this plays out.”

    On the article page comments:

    «The GOP has spent the last several years fostering a politics of anger and hate, fomenting it in their constituencies. That’s what Trump is riding on. His policy positions toward anything — if he even has any that can be at all articulated in a coherent fashion — are inconsequential. As O’Connell above is quoted as saying, “it’s more of a feeling.” Der Trump taps into feelings of rage, whips them up into even more of a frenzy, and makes people feel like it’s acceptable to rage and hate. He’s ‘allowed’ the unleashing of the pure id of a subset of Americans, but it has to be said that the GOP has been tickling the pure id tendencies of that subset for a while, readying them for a Trump to come along and completely unleash the monster. Playing with fire, they were. And when you play with fire, chances are good you might start — and get caught up in — a terrible conflagration.»
    “Wait until one of his decisions goes against what his hate-filled base disagrees with. hahahahahahahaha”

    «In reality Trump has been using the Republican base, masterfully saying what they want to hear to get him through the primaries. They were a solid block of voters, looking for a saviour with a fairly simple agenda. Trump figured out quickly that if he could lock down this group he had a good chance of winning because the large Republican field would split the vote. He’s neither a Republican or Democrat and is simply using the Republicans because he saw them as being able to provide the easiest road to the White House. If he gets the nomination you will see him quickly tack to the middle to appeal to the independents, his pitch will be that he can get things done and it will be attractive to many of those dissaffected with politics as usual. Democrats, we should not take this guy lightly, he will be a formidable competitor for either Hillary or Bernie.»

    «Trump isn’t a conservative, as the Republicans have co-opted the word to mean. He may be fiscally conservative, business minded, and anti-immigrant, but there is something very critical that he is not. He is by no means a religious, bible thumping, holier than thou type of Republican. He says all of the hateful, xenophobic, mysognistic things that the bible thumpers say, but he doesn’t make any attempt to call himself a Godly man. For years the Republicans have had this religious aspect to them that has been entirely unappealing to the rest of the country and maybe having a candidate that taps in to the anger, racism, and fear of the Republican party without the pretense of religion is why Trump scares the party establishment so badly. He doesn’t need God. He’s got twitter.»

  23. Submitted on: Mar 27, 2016 @ 14:15

    Noteworthy to me is this statement:

    “Mr. Trump’s new threat to cut off oil purchases from the Saudis was part of a broader complaint about the United States’ Arab allies, which many in the Obama administration share: that they often look to the United States to police the Middle East, without putting their own troops at risk. ‘We defend everybody,’ he said. ‘When in doubt, come to the United States. We’ll defend you. In some cases free of charge.’ But his rationale for abandoning the region was that ‘the reason we’re in the Middle East is for oil, and all of a sudden we’re finding out that there’s less reason to be there now.’

    This is something I’ve always gotten the sense of, and what Zionist conservatives, including many Christians condemning this nation for “abandoning Israel” should realize.

    Interesting take on the anti-Trump rallies:

  24. Submitted on: Jun 10, 2018 @ 12:56

    Some dire predictions (and assurance it’s not good news from God):

    Why America’s Latest Crisis is Suicide

    Americans Do Not Know How Much Trouble They’re In

    The Coming Collapse

    Henry A. Giroux: The Nightmare of Neoliberal Fascism

    The United States has a long history in which the culture of cruelty has both undermined and challenged its professed claims to the democratic principles of equality, freedom, compassion and justice. The hardening of the culture and the emergence of a social order driven by a collapse of ethics, an unchecked celebration of self-interest, and a Hobbesian war-of-all-against-all have been increasingly nurtured in the last 40 years under the rise of a neoliberal form of gangster capitalism, more aptly called neoliberal fascism. Yet, this history of cruelty is not unique to the Trump administration. The attack on the welfare state, a numbing social atomization, the rise of a survivalist ethic and a growing indifference to human suffering have long been supported by both major political parties. Before Trump’s election, [the US’s] culture of cruelty resided rhetorically on the margins of power, hidden under the false rhetoric of liberal and conservative politicians who benefited from exploiting the vulnerable in order to further advance the interests of the rich and their own power.

    But such attacks have taken on a more aggressive and organizing role under the Trump presidency. This is evident as Trump devotes an inordinate amount of tyrannical energy to the notion that the market and state violence are the primary solution to all social problems and constitute the only legitimate pillars of governance. This descent into the practice of cruel power, cruelty and barbarism no longer hides in the shadows and is employed without apology in most of Trump’s activities since he was elected. Trump revels in the discourse of bullies. He calls his critics “losers,” insults world leaders with belittling language and tacitly supports the violent actions of white supremacists. He endorses state torture, has remilitarized the police, relishes representations of violence and in one instance, tweeted an edited video showing him body-slamming and punching a man with the CNN logo superimposed on his head during a wrestling match. He has executed policies that bear the weight of domestic terrorism, which partly include breaking up immigrant families and separating young children from their parents while expanding the racially charged reach of the carceral state under his call for “law and order.” He has called Latinos “animals,” Mexicans “rapists” and “drug dealers,” and a number of African nations “shithole countries,” all of which echoes the dangerous, racially charged rhetoric of the Nazis in the 1930s.

    This culture of cruelty has a long history in the United States and has to be connected with the intensifying and accelerating practices of a neoliberal fascism, which is more than willing to exercise cruel power in the interest of accumulating capital and profits without any consideration of social costs to humanity or the planet itself. The culture of cruelty is not simply about character…. On the contrary, it has to be connected to structural and ideological forces in the service of a financial elite. Rather than simply produce moral outrage, the culture of cruelty should point to a convergence of power, politics and newly emerging structures of domination that are as unjust as they are cruel. Gangster capitalism is the root cause of such cruelty because of its concentration of power, ongoing destruction of democratic values and ongoing production of a machinery of terminal exclusion, disposability, social abandonment and social death.

    The current culture of cruelty is both a symptom of the war on democracy and a mirror that reveals the collapse of the United States into the abyss of fascism.
    Neoliberalism fascism, as a form of extreme capitalism, views democracy as the enemy, the market as the exclusive arbiter of freedom, and the ethical imagination as an object of disdain. It is a form of zombie politics that produces a ruling elite that represents a 21st century version of the walking dead. To paraphrase New York Times film critic A.O. Scott, these zombie politicians and power-brokers serve as a dystopian “reminder of not only our fears but [also] what we have become.” The coarsening of American culture and society has solidified into a state-sanctioned language in which the tyranny of authoritarian zombies has become domesticated, if not normalized. What we are now witnessing is the death of compassion, a repudiation of our obligations to the most vulnerable, the death of the social and a dishonorable discharge from the obligations of a democracy. Under neoliberalism’s form of gangster capitalism, the United States has lost its sense of decency and collapsed into a society of lawlessness and moral indifference. Trump is the endpoint of a country that has become a criminogenic society, one which, as Pankaj Mishra has written, promotes “a widely sanctioned ruthlessness … that does not make for an understanding of the tangled roots of human suffering.” The current culture of cruelty is both a symptom of the war on democracy and a mirror that reveals the collapse of the United States into the abyss of fascism.

    This is a form of fascism in which state rule is replaced by corporate sovereignty and a culture of fear, insecurity and precarity reinvigorates executive power and the rise of the punishing state. Consequently, neoliberalism as a form of gangster capitalism provides a fertile ground for the unleashing of the ideological architecture, poisonous values, and racist social relations sanctioned and produced under fascism. Neoliberalism and fascism conjoin and advance in a comfortable and mutually compatible project and movement that connects the worst excesses of capitalism with fascist ideals: the veneration of war and a hatred of reason and truth; a populist celebration of ultra-nationalism and racial purity; the suppression of freedom and dissent; a culture which promotes lies, spectacles of disparagement and a demonization of the other; a discourse of decline, brutal exploitation and ultimately, state violence in heterogeneous forms. All vestiges of the social are replaced by an idealization of individualism and all forms of responsibility are reduced to individual agents. Neoliberalism creates a failed democracy, and in doing so, opens up the fascists’ use of fear and terror to transform a state of exception into a state of emergency. As a project, it destroys all the commanding institutions of democracy and consolidates power in the hands of a financial elite. As a movement, it produces and legitimates massive economic inequality and suffering, privatizes public goods, dismantles essential government agencies and individualizes all social problems. In addition, it transforms the political state into the corporate state, and uses the tools of surveillance, militarization and “law and order” to discredit the critical press and media, and undermine civil liberties, while ridiculing and censoring critics. Moreover, what is quite distinctive about neoliberal fascism is its aggressive war on youth, especially Black youth, its war on women, and its despoiling of the planet.

    After decades of the neoliberal nightmare, the mobilizing passions of fascism have been unleashed unlike anything we have seen since the 1930s and 1940s.
    In addition, corporate control of the cultural apparatuses provides the public with endless spectacles of violence, toxic and banal illusions, the celebration of market-driven values, and an empty obsession and worship of celebrity culture. With the collapse of the social state, the punishing neoliberal fascist state emerges in full force, criminalizing a range of behaviors that are in fact expressions of social problems such as homelessness and poverty. The model of the prison and the state-sanctioned embrace of violence and lawlessness are now unleashed with impunity on youth, people of color, undocumented immigrants and all those others considered disposable. Massive inequality horribly accentuated by neoliberal policies that destroy basic social services, needed infrastructures and essential public goods provide a fertile ground for advancing a sinister turn toward a collective anger and resentment open to a newly charged populism willing to embrace white supremacist ideology, state violence and authoritarian beliefs. Neoliberalism is the face of a new fascism. After decades of the neoliberal nightmare both in the United States and abroad, the mobilizing passions of fascism have been unleashed unlike anything we have seen since the 1930s and 1940s. Extreme capitalism has destroyed any vestige of a substantive democracy, produced massive economic suffering, tapped into a combination of fear and a cathartic cruelty, and emboldened a brutal lawlessness aimed at those considered “disposable.” It is time to repudiate the notion that capitalism and democracy are the same thing, renew faith in the promises of a democratic socialism, create new political formations around an alliance of diverse social movements and take seriously the need to make education central to politics itself.

    God Has Nothing To Do With Trump Being President

  25. Submitted on: Jun 26, 2018 @ 14:22

    Here Come the Pitchforks! The Left Fights Back, Everybody Loses It!

    Nails this whole issue; even speaks of the “a=symmetry” of the different standards the opposing sides are held up to (especially how conservatives are actually using the language of victimhood while criticizing others for it):

    The Power of Anger And Why Conservatives Are the Only Ones Allowed to Be Angry

    And here answered is the frequent “whataboutism” deflection I’m seeing, that the current border separation of families existed under Clinton and Obama.

    Also, been running across this meme showing an example of liberal complicity in racism, through “identification”, as writers like Ian Lopez points out.

    While conservatives are the ones who identify with the US via vigorous “patriotic” rhetoric, liberals still identify as well, as seen in this attempt to “split” the actions of Trump off from the nation they to identify with. Have they forgotten what they’ve been protesting all along?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: