I'm basically quoting myself with this from the discussion about discussion forum "I just started reading Waging Peace by Scott Ritter. I kinda like the philosophy so far, we'll see how it holds up. Anyway he calls out the "peace movement" as being weakened by the numbers of connected issues ie: environment, labor, sustainability, et al, and implies the anti-war movement needs to streamline to that issue alone to involve (sic) far greater numbers of supporters ... This brings up another dichotomy the holistic vs. the specific when considering movements;"

Which way to go? In this BAR article borrowed from In These Times MLK is quoted in the last paragraph of this article as having pretty much supported the holistic:

“But King was also clear about the importance of linking issues, of working in coalitions and of broadening our gaze from the local to the international. Black communities are hungry for this type of leadership.”

As the article discusses the black role, or somewhat missing role, in the anti-war movement, I thought it set up an interesting contrast to Ritter’s reasoning that the “feel good” peace movement needs to drop most of its progressive agenda:

Again which way to go? My personal jury is sequestered.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index. ... 5&Itemid=1 (http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=525&Itemid=1)

Where is the Dream? Black Progressives Face Challenges in Organizing Print
African America - Black Misleadership Class
Wednesday, 13 February 2008

by James Thindwa Organizing No WalMart Chicago Sign

Despite the fact that a remarkable 90 percent of African Americans oppose the Iraq War, Black "leadership" is in full flight from the progressive agenda. "This retreat," says the author, "is implicated in black demobilization not only around the Iraq War, but in other aspects of black social, economic and political life." The corporate offensive that has cowed Black electoral and civic luminaries into shameful submission has wreaked havoc in Chicago, where progressive organizers confront corporate-erected obstacles at every turn. Wal-Mart has succeeded in suborning a host of Chicago Black elected officials and ministers on the strength of the mega-company's bottomless corporate pockets - a scenario that is replicated across the length and breadth of Black America.

Where is the Dream? Black Progressives Face Challenges in Organizing

by James Thindwa

This article originally appeared in In These Times.

"The flight of many black leaders from the progressive agenda of the Civil Rights era is implicated in black demobilization."

OrganizingWomenAntiBox Since the war in Iraq began almost five years ago, Chicago has been the site of some of the most robust and raucous antiwar agitation in the country. But a persistent racial chasm undermines these efforts. Black participation in marches is depressingly low and the antiwar movement's leadership is predominantly white.

A handful of progressive black politicians, clergy or community leaders show up at antiwar rallies to speak, but the black masses are conspicuously absent. The lack of black voices in the peace movement is particularly dissonant because the community overwhelmingly opposes the Iraq War. According to the Boston Globe, at the start of the war in 2003, only 19 percent of blacks supported it. Now an astounding 90 percent oppose this misadventure, according to a BET poll.

White organizers often self-flagellate for not doing enough to "reach out" to the black community, and many antiwar activists focus on the role of white racism in discouraging black participation. However, this focus prevents an overdue discussion of a significant development in post-Civil Rights black leadership - namely, the flight of many black leaders from the progressive agenda of the Civil Rights era. This retreat, facilitated by politically and morally suspect relationships with corporate benefactors, is implicated in black demobilization not only around the Iraq War, but in other aspects of black social, economic and political life.

"The lack of black voices in the peace movement is particularly dissonant."

An example of this retreat can be seen in the role of black leadership in Chicago's recent fight for a living-wage law. In this low-wage economy, many African Americans must hold multiple jobs to make ends meet. One remedy for this is to establish a living wage, a move that has taken root in major cities across the country, including San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston and Santa Fe, N.M. But taking on predatory low-wage employers requires bold, progressive leadership.

In November 2003, when Wal-Mart launched its "urban initiative" to set up stores in major cities, it increased financial contributions to key black institutions and leaders.

In 2006, Wal-Mart's contributions to the black community included a $1 million grant to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation; a $5 million grant to the National Urban League; and $1.5 million to the United Negro College Fund. Wal-Mart's goal was to presumably enter the market unencumbered by standards of accountability, particularly living-wage laws that community organizations and unions pushed for. As Wal-Mart money poured in, many black leaders either took up the big-box corporation's cause or were conspicuously absent from the living-wage struggle.

Until August 2006, Andrew Young, a former civil rights leader and U.N ambassador, served as a million-dollar spokesperson for Wal-Mart. His mission was to rally black leaders to block living-wage bills. In Chicago, he did this by hosting a lavish "clergy luncheon" to help enlist black ministers to Wal-Mart's side. On July 20, 2006, one South Side black pastor turned out 1,000 community members to rally against a City Council living-wage bill.

"As Wal-Mart money poured in, many black leaders took up the big-box corporation's cause."

Dorothy Tillman, a City Council member and reparations leader, also opposed the ordinance and attacked the "racist unions" that supported it. Never mind that 10,000 Chicago workers - mostly black and Latino - would have benefited from the pay hike. And never mind that thousands of black workers are union members. In Illinois, the SEIU has more black members than any of the state's civil rights organizations, including Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and NAACP.

Wal-Mart's transgressions are serious: hundreds of pending lawsuits by black workers; a pending class-action gender-bias suit by 1.6 million female workers; exploitation of undocumented immigrants; and reports of overseas sweatshops. And black leaders chose to race-bate unions supporting those workers?

What's more, for reparations activists, supporting such corporations seemed a strange position. How could they reconcile the pursuit of racial justice with the defense of a wealthy, Southern corporation that has profited from low-wage labor?

Complicit Leaders

The Chicago Tribune ran 12 editorials between 2005 and 2006 opposing Chicago's living-wage bill, and the Chicago Sun-Times ran eight, one of which declared, "The activists are the enemy."

Despite a divided black leadership, the City Council passed the ordinance overwhelmingly in favor of a living wage, but Mayor Richard Daley vetoed it. When he announced the veto, Daley flanked himself with several black ministers, a move that reflected the anti-living-wage campaign's effort to align its cause with black interests. In fact, Daley portrayed his veto as a move to strengthen black communities.

But, there would be more bad news for Chicago's low-wage workers. As the living wage struggle wound down, Commonwealth Edison, the local utility company, was lobbying the state legislature to end a rate freeze that had protected Illinois consumers for 10 years. The Citizens Utility Board, Illinois' consumer watchdog, and the office of Illinois Lieutenant Governor produced studies showing that such action would result in a 25 to 55 percent rate increase. They also cited data showing that ComEd parent company Exelon is now the most profitable electric utility in the nation, and called for extending the freeze for another three years.

"CORE was composed of many of the same black leaders who had opposed the living wage."

OrganizingDemo

Not long after Mayor Daley's veto of the living wage bill, a group calling itself Consumers Organized for Reliable Energy (CORE) began running television ads supporting Commonwealth Edison's rate hike and warning of electricity shortages and rolling blackouts if the rate hike was not approved. An investigation by a local television station revealed that CORE was a front group funded by ComEd. It turns out that CORE was composed of many of the same black leaders who had opposed the living wage. For the workers, it was double jeopardy. Having been denied a living wage, they now faced a steep utility rate hike, sadly at the hands of people who claim to be their leaders.

The final blow for workers came in October 2007 when Mayor Daley won a $300 million tax hike. After depriving workers of a living wage, he imposed on them a heavy property tax and a series of fee and fine hikes. With a few exceptions, black leadership was relatively silent. If Daley had not vetoed the living wage bill, 10,000 workers would now be earning $10 per hour and contributing substantially to city coffers. How could the mayor of a big city burdened with inequality and social instability - a Democrat at that - choose to protect wealthy corporations rather than take action that would help struggling workers and actually improve the city's tax base at the same time? Equally troubling is that leaders of the city's most marginalized communities were complicit in setting up this atmosphere of impunity for the mayor and his big business allies.

Unfortunately, this story reflects a broader shift in Chicago's black leadership. Apart from a committed core of progressive African-American leaders who have maintained visible opposition to the war, mainstream black leaders have been quiet. Among the leaders who so vigorously opposed the living wage ordinance, only one, the Rev. Leon Finney, has shown up at an antiwar protest.

"Apart from a committed core of progressive African-American leaders who have maintained visible opposition to the war, mainstream black leaders have been quiet."

One problem is that many black community leaders are embroiled in social and economic battles, ones exacerbated by the war itself. As a labor and community activist, I have encouraged many African-American community leaders to attend war protests. In one exchange, a leader of a South Side community organization assured me that "all black folk I know oppose this ridiculous war." But she complained that she could not bring people to antiwar marches because "our HUD (Housing and Urban Development) money was cut." The loss of federal funds necessitated staff cuts that affected her group's ability to mobilize its members. When I suggested that HUD, like other non-war-related agencies, had been targeted for cuts because of the war, she was taken aback. This exchange reminded me that the black community needs more leaders to articulate the relationship between military spending and domestic programs.

Wars at Home and Abroad

The alignment of many in Chicago's black leadership with corporations has had serious implications for political mobilization. It is a universal - and understandable - truth that political participation rises with income. As a result, the defeat of the living wage has diminished the political voice of many black workers and all low-wage workers.

The black leadership's complicity in this defeat contributes to cynicism among black voters, many of whom have opted out of the political process because they cannot count on their leaders to represent their interests. On WVON, a black radio station, many callers expressed frustration over leaders who had "sold-out" community interests. They demanded that their aldermen vote for the living wage and challenged community leaders to support them. As frontline victims of the war, both economically and militarily, African Americans have a right to question the priorities of their leaders. Why is it that black leaders can mobilize on behalf of the world's wealthiest corporation and not against the Iraq War? If the white antiwar movement is so inhospitable, what is preventing black leaders from holding rallies of their own in black communities?

"African Americans have a right to question the priorities of their leaders."

A look at protest directed against members of Congress illustrates this point. For five days in March 2006, activists camped out at Democratic Rep. Rahm Emmanuel's Chicago office to press him to cut war funding. Earlier in the month several activists had set up an encampment at former Republican Rep. Dennis Hastert's office in Batavia, a few miles outside Chicago, to pressure him. This stands in sharp contrast to the relative absence of pressure on Reps. Jesse Jackson Jr., Danny Davis and Bobby Rush and reflects, in part, the lack of visible, organized activism around the war in black communities.

Many black leaders are involved in the peace movement. In Chicago Rev. Calvin Morris of the Community Renewal Society, Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ, and Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. have been visibly present in antiwar organizing. The weakness of antiwar organizing in black communities then, is not only a leadership question, but indicates a broader problem of community disorganization and disengagement. High rates of incarceration, joblessness, school dropouts, student indebtedness and family disorganization, present a formidable challenge to political organizers.

"The weakness of antiwar organizing in black communities is not only a leadership question, but indicates a broader problem of community disorganization and disengagement."

With the Iraq War siphoning $10 billion per month from critical domestic programs, the black community needs a much stronger presence in the campaign to bring it to an end. Furthermore, this financial hemorrhaging is contributing to economic anxiety among workers, an anxiety that is fueling much of the backlash against immigrant workers. Although, thankfully, the African-American community has so far resisted appeals by anti-immigrant forces to join their movement, the continued downturn in the economy presents the risk of potentially destructive tensions between blacks and immigrants. It is therefore imperative for black leadership to appreciate the fierce urgency of ending this war. Doing so removes a serious impediment to addressing the problems that plague black communities, and sets the stage for building politically important coalitions with immigrant communities.

The fact that supermajorities of African Americans oppose the war presents a unique opportunity for a new black leadership to emerge, one that could also challenge American foreign policy or America's role in the world. In a sense, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) symbolizes this possibility.

But, for the most part, antiwar African Americans, including those who are now declining to enlist in the military, lack leaders willing to champion their cause. Indeed, black antiwar sentiment has reached new levels, as indicated in a 58 percent drop in enlistment since 2000, as reported in the Boston Globe.

"Because of the leadership vacuum, what should be a fertile moment for organizing is slipping away."

Sadly, because of the leadership vacuum, what should be a fertile moment for organizing is slipping away. Many black activists may want to engage in antiwar protest, but object to working with white antiwar forces. For their part, whites in the peace movement need to do a better job of creating a more welcoming, multiracial environment. However, this situation cannot be the excuse to not oppose a war that has killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. If mainline peace groups are not receptive, black leaders can borrow a page from the Tuskegee Airmen and do their own thing.

It is time to recall, and to revive, the pioneering leadership of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who eloquently warned against the perils of war: "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." But King was also clear about the importance of linking issues, of working in coalitions and of broadening our gaze from the local to the international. Black communities are hungry for this type of leadership.

James Thindwa is a political activist based in Chicago. He can be contacted at james@jwj.org

http://s31.photobucket.com/albums/c395/chlamor/mlk.gif

“For years I labored with the idea of reforming the existing institutions of society, a little change here, a little change there. Now I feel quite differently. I think you’ve got to have a reconstruction of the entire society...a radical redistribution of political and economic power.”
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., May 1967

What weakens the anti-war movement is that it is not looking at the real causes of war and all the other things that go along with that.

First, what is 'the anti-war movement'? Is it anti-Iraq War? Afghanistan? Funding Israel's occupation of Paliestine? Where do we draw the line? How are these connected?

Most importantly, can they possibly be treated as separate, distinct situations? Hell no.

They are part of the same imperialism.

So we can beg the politicians in the US to end the occupation of Iraq. Maybe it gets to the point where it becomes politically expedient for these politicians to do so. The anti-war movement gets credit for helping end this godforsaken war.

But what then? The 'war machine' (eg the corporations in cahoots with the governments to create conditions globally that allow for control of populations and resources - oil companies, military contractors, media conglomerates which are often also military manufacturers, etc) isn't weakened at all. It will persist, and it will abide.

If you don't strike at the source, it will keep coming back. I've used this phrase before - it's like playing whack-a-mole. The little fuckers will keep popping up. Sometimes overtly like in the case of Iraq, sometimes less obvious like in clandestine ops to overthrow governments, stifle people's movements, create instability in regions of the world, pillage resources...Doesn't it make more sense to try to unplug the machine rather than dealing with each mole as it pops up?


Is it less offensive to the 'anti-war movement' when we fund such activities, as long as the bombs don't say USA on them and the soldiers are getting funded a little less directly?

What does this say about the anti-war movement? Where were most of them in the 1990's when we were protesting against the sanctions that Clinton supported against the Iraqi people? Is killing people slowly by starvation more palatable than using bombs? Do they sleep better at night when they don't see the bloody pictures? Is that what matters?

I could babble on and on here, but the point is that all these things - worker's rights, health care, environment, whatever - these problems have the same source. Call it corporate colonialism, call it fascism, call it capitalism, it ain't gonna go away when we pull troops out of Iraq.

It's not just Halliburton and Blackwater and the US military - it's Nestle, Dannon, Kraft, Monsanto. It's GE and GM and Disney.

Anyway, if all the 'anti-war movement' wants is an end to the occupation of Iraq then they can go ahead and fight for that and maybe the legislature will give in. Good luck with that. If what they want is an end to corporate-sponsored war and corporate control of governments, then they sure as hell better look at the big picture.

The talk of the office here is the big meat recall going on right now, as we are in the food sector. I've heard a couple people say things like "wow, I'm glad they shut that place down" and "we need tougher laws about meat processing/animal cruelty/etc"...

But the only reason this recall happened wasn't because some properly-functioning gov't agency did its job, it was because a private group got in and got footage of this and exposed it. So this one facility got exposed and shut down, great, but what about the other huge facilities just like this which are still breaking the laws? What will stronger laws accomplish if the existing ones can't be enforced?

This is being covered in the media as some shocking anomaly, but it's just business as usual. The only anomaly is that it was caught on film.

So why hasn't everyone been outraged about these facilities before? Because we didn't see the pictures, the video, on our local news?

And who is trying to fool who here? Our food systems are fucked. All of them. From produce to meat to grain to whatever, we have a pretty damn unsafe and incredibly inefficient and insecure network of food production and distribution. So we get one meat factory shut down. Well, then another company gets the business and they have to 'beef' up production (har-de-har) so do we assume they're gonna be paying extra attention to downed cows or other problems? Doubt it. And unless the Humane Society sneaks in there with a camera, few will know the difference and even fewer will care.

Out of sight, out of mind. Just like war. Band-aids for the american consumer so we don't have to see the gaping wounds.

Maybe this has nothing to do with what you are saying but in my (admittedly twisted) mind it all fits together pretty good. I could do this with poverty/hunger too, easily - because I'm in the belly of the beast, I work in hunger relief - another band-aid that doesn't strike at the source. Others could do it with the environment. It all comes down to the corporations and their ever-expanding greed and power, their control over gov'ts - the inevitable results of capitalism.

The talk of the office here is the big meat recall going on right now, as we are in the food sector. I've heard a couple people say things like "wow, I'm glad they shut that place down" and "we need tougher laws about meat processing/animal cruelty/etc"...

But the only reason this recall happened wasn't because some properly-functioning gov't agency did its job, it was because a private group got in and got footage of this and exposed it. So this one facility got exposed and shut down, great, but what about the other huge facilities just like this which are still breaking the laws? What will stronger laws accomplish if the existing ones can't be enforced?

This is being covered in the media as some shocking anomaly, but it's just business as usual. The only anomaly is that it was caught on film.

So why hasn't everyone been outraged about these facilities before? Because we didn't see the pictures, the video, on our local news?

And who is trying to fool who here? Our food systems are fucked. All of them. From produce to meat to grain to whatever, we have a pretty damn unsafe and incredibly inefficient and insecure network of food production and distribution. So we get one meat factory shut down. Well, then another company gets the business and they have to 'beef' up production (har-de-har) so do we assume they're gonna be paying extra attention to downed cows or other problems? Doubt it. And unless the Humane Society sneaks in there with a camera, few will know the difference and even fewer will care.

Out of sight, out of mind. Just like war. Band-aids for the american consumer so we don't have to see the gaping wounds.

Maybe this has nothing to do with what you are saying but in my (admittedly twisted) mind it all fits together pretty good. I could do this with poverty/hunger too, easily - because I'm in the belly of the beast, I work in hunger relief - another band-aid that doesn't strike at the source. Others could do it with the environment. It all comes down to the corporations and their ever-expanding greed and power, their control over gov'ts - the inevitable results of capitalism.


So why hasn't everyone been outraged about these facilities before? Because we didn't see the pictures, the video, on our local news?

That's exactly it, Megan, if it ain't on television then it's not important, it's not really "real".

Years ago I used to suggest that we try to purchase organic, local grown food for around the house but I was blown off by my sweetie who couldn't see the additional expense or trouble. Of recent she's started buying that corporate crap, even as I'm running it down. Why? 'Cause the TV told her to! Makes me crazy....

Ever read 'Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television'? A little goofy at times, but very insightful.

The Bard had it wrong. First, we blow up the TVs. (in my dreams)

The talk of the office here is the big meat recall going on right now, as we are in the food sector. I've heard a couple people say things like "wow, I'm glad they shut that place down" and "we need tougher laws about meat processing/animal cruelty/etc"...

But the only reason this recall happened wasn't because some properly-functioning gov't agency did its job, it was because a private group got in and got footage of this and exposed it. So this one facility got exposed and shut down, great, but what about the other huge facilities just like this which are still breaking the laws? What will stronger laws accomplish if the existing ones can't be enforced?

This is being covered in the media as some shocking anomaly, but it's just business as usual. The only anomaly is that it was caught on film.

So why hasn't everyone been outraged about these facilities before? Because we didn't see the pictures, the video, on our local news?

And who is trying to fool who here? Our food systems are fucked. All of them. From produce to meat to grain to whatever, we have a pretty damn unsafe and incredibly inefficient and insecure network of food production and distribution. So we get one meat factory shut down. Well, then another company gets the business and they have to 'beef' up production (har-de-har) so do we assume they're gonna be paying extra attention to downed cows or other problems? Doubt it. And unless the Humane Society sneaks in there with a camera, few will know the difference and even fewer will care.

Out of sight, out of mind. Just like war. Band-aids for the american consumer so we don't have to see the gaping wounds.

Maybe this has nothing to do with what you are saying but in my (admittedly twisted) mind it all fits together pretty good. I could do this with poverty/hunger too, easily - because I'm in the belly of the beast, I work in hunger relief - another band-aid that doesn't strike at the source. Others could do it with the environment. It all comes down to the corporations and their ever-expanding greed and power, their control over gov'ts - the inevitable results of capitalism.


So why hasn't everyone been outraged about these facilities before? Because we didn't see the pictures, the video, on our local news?

That's exactly it, Megan, if it ain't on television then it's not important, it's not really "real".

Years ago I used to suggest that we try to purchase organic, local grown food for around the house but I was blown off by my sweetie who couldn't see the additional expense or trouble. Of recent she's started buying that corporate crap, even as I'm running it down. Why? 'Cause the TV told her to! Makes me crazy....

Ever read 'Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television'? A little goofy at times, but very insightful.

The Bard had it wrong. First, we blow up the TVs. (in my dreams)

Yep, I haven't had tv to speak of (bad rabbit ears, poor nbc and pbs is it, watch something about once a month if that, been two) for almost three years now and my mind has changed drastically, not enough yet, still some huge blocks, but I really see a huge change in my mindset. About ten years ago I got the kill your television bumper sticker, took me seven more to really do it (allright, put it on life support, I guess, I have netflix).

So anyway, maybe the anti-war movement shouldn't be a specific cause, great thoughts Megan, thanks! I do still see a splintering effect that can keep the people from joining together when so many causes are under one umbrella. Seems this can be manipulated by the powers that be in a divide and conquer way, any more thoughts here would be great, I actually have a tiny bit of time this week!

Meaganmonkey wrote:


...all these things - worker's rights, health care, environment, whatever - these problems have the same source. Call it corporate colonialism, call it fascism, call it capitalism, it ain't gonna go away when we pull troops out of Iraq.

Absolutely. Many many years ago, I believed the people who can't see the truth of this statement could be educated -- that once they recognized the reality of class struggle and understood how it applied to their own lives, they would at least begin to see how the Viet Cong, the farm workers on strike in California, the American Indian Movement activists at Pine Ridge and the taxicab drivers fighting to build a union in New York City were all part of the same struggle against the same capitalist tyranny.

But then Nixon abolished the draft and "the Movement" (which some of us had believed truly was the first wave of a "revolution in consciousness") collapsed like a ruptured balloon. While the external causes of the Movement's death are many -- the terror inflicted at Kent State and Jackson State; the disruptions imposed by CHAOS and COINTELPRO; Nixon's astute realization the Draft was training the ranks of America's own Red Army (an insight that probably came from our very own Prince Metternich aka Henry Kissinger) -- the internal cause was an eerily spontaneous welling up of selfishness, greed and social-Darwinist malevolence -- clinical sociopathy of an intensity and viciousness I had never before witnessed.

Thus last week's war-resistor/liberal arts major became this week's fascist/MBA candidate: as if a whole generation had been implanted at birth with moral imbecility chips that were now suddenly activated at some secret, central control panel. The transformation truly was that instantaneous, and in its abruptness I saw not only that I had been deceived by my own foolish hope but saw too the absolute inevitability of the unfolding fascist triumph represented by Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and whatever successor the public chooses next November to take away the last vestiges of our liberty forever.

For us -- that is, for those of us alive today whether we are age nine or age 90 -- the cause is clearly lost. Our pathetic Moron Nation has already been far too dumbed down to grasp even the rudiments of what is being done to us, much less how it might be stopped.

And even if it were otherwise, socialism could not succeed here without a moral re-education campaign that has no precedent in human history.

This is because the U.S. peoples who would be empowered by a socialist state are motivated by exactly the same vicious avarice as motivates the greediest, most tyrannosauric oil barons and prescription drug lords. Put more bluntly, ours is a nation in which the plutocracy and the poor share one overriding goal: getting rich with minimum effort, preferably with maximum suffering inflicted on everyone else. Federal, state or local, the U.S. bureaucrat is therefore just as relentlessly selfish -- and just as mercilessly vindictive -- as the big business bossman.

A harsh judgment? Admittedly. But its ugly truth has been confirmed by a 50-year intimacy with our national pathology -- the surgeon's-eye-view of cause-and-affliction formerly granted by newspaper journalism and thus confirmed virtually every day I was on the job -- with the result I have finally come to understand that our one-party nation is ultimately just an accurate reflection of the fact that, from the boardroom to the ghetto, we are also a nation of one ethos: what's in it for me (and can I rip you off in the process)?

Someday -- long after we all are dead -- that will probably change. Not to be mystical, but Nature will not tolerate such hubris indefinitely. The most grim projections of hard science -- projections I tend to believe -- suggest the salvation of the planet will come only at the price of our own extinction.

But maybe some humans will survive. That possibility -- and the possibility the survivors might find some of our words useful -- is what keeps me going even though I know that as far as my own lifetime is concerned, the cause is hopeless.

There is also something my father said to me a few years before he died:

"The time will come -- not in my lifetime, probably not in yours or in the time of your children, but surely in the time of your grandchildren or great grandchildren -- when the people of the United States will welcome the Red Army as an army of liberation."

...Far and away the road goes winding
Look and see how merrily the road goes...

Meaganmonkey wrote:


...all these things - worker's rights, health care, environment, whatever - these problems have the same source. Call it corporate colonialism, call it fascism, call it capitalism, it ain't gonna go away when we pull troops out of Iraq.

Absolutely. Many many years ago, I believed the people who can't see the truth of this statement could be educated -- that once they recognized the reality of class struggle and understood how it applied to their own lives, they would at least begin to see how the Viet Cong, the farm workers on strike in California, the American Indian Movement activists at Pine Ridge and the taxicab drivers fighting to build a union in New York City were all part of the same struggle against the same capitalist tyranny.

But then Nixon abolished the draft and "the Movement" (which some of us had believed truly was the first wave of a "revolution in consciousness") collapsed like a ruptured balloon. While the external causes of the Movement's death are many -- the terror inflicted at Kent State and Jackson State; the disruptions imposed by CHAOS and COINTELPRO; Nixon's astute realization the Draft was training the ranks of America's own Red Army (an insight that probably came from our very own Prince Metternich aka Henry Kissinger) -- the internal cause was an eerily spontaneous welling up of selfishness, greed and social-Darwinist malevolence -- clinical sociopathy of an intensity and viciousness I had never before witnessed.

Thus last week's war-resistor/liberal arts major became this week's fascist/MBA candidate: as if a whole generation had been implanted at birth with moral imbecility chips that were now suddenly activated at some secret, central control panel. The transformation truly was that instantaneous, and in its abruptness I saw not only that I had been deceived by my own foolish hope but saw too the absolute inevitability of the unfolding fascist triumph represented by Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and whatever successor the public chooses next November to take away the last vestiges of our liberty forever.

For us -- that is, for those of us alive today whether we are age nine or age 90 -- the cause is clearly lost. Our pathetic Moron Nation has already been far too dumbed down to grasp even the rudiments of what is being done to us, much less how it might be stopped.

And even if it were otherwise, socialism could not succeed here without a moral re-education campaign that has no precedent in human history.

This is because the U.S. peoples who would be empowered by a socialist state are motivated by exactly the same vicious avarice as motivates the greediest, most tyrannosauric oil barons and prescription drug lords. Put more bluntly, ours is a nation in which the plutocracy and the poor share one overriding goal: getting rich with minimum effort, preferably with maximum suffering inflicted on everyone else. Federal, state or local, the U.S. bureaucrat is therefore just as relentlessly selfish -- and just as mercilessly vindictive -- as the big business bossman.

A harsh judgment? Admittedly. But its ugly truth has been confirmed by a 50-year intimacy with our national pathology -- the surgeon's-eye-view of cause-and-affliction formerly granted by newspaper journalism and thus confirmed virtually every day I was on the job -- with the result I have finally come to understand that our one-party nation is ultimately just an accurate reflection of the fact that, from the boardroom to the ghetto, we are also a nation of one ethos: what's in it for me (and can I rip you off in the process)?

Someday -- long after we all are dead -- that will probably change. Not to be mystical, but Nature will not tolerate such hubris indefinitely. The most grim projections of hard science -- projections I tend to believe -- suggest the salvation of the planet will come only at the price of our own extinction.

But maybe some humans will survive. That possibility -- and the possibility the survivors might find some of our words useful -- is what keeps me going even though I know that as far as my own lifetime is concerned, the cause is hopeless.

There is also something my father said to me a few years before he died:

"The time will come -- not in my lifetime, probably not in yours or in the time of your children, but surely in the time of your grandchildren or great grandchildren -- when the people of the United States will welcome the Red Army as an army of liberation."

...Far and away the road goes winding
Look and see how merrily the road goes...

Yes, we have to subvert the corporate hold on absolutely everything, but couldn't those "awakened" ones who do recognize this, use a movement like getting out of Iraq to pull in more people to start the creation of "the Red Army" sooner than we think? Do you honestly think there is absolutely no hope whatsoever of educating the people about the realty of humanity's plight, that we are all slaves to this egregious system? doesn't minimizing, honing, finding a "common ground" (sorry it fits here), make sense as the brain washing of so many against so many attached issues keeps the divisiveness alive?? We have to find a way to unite and get the populous to join together and fight for a cause, then once together could the education begin? I honestly, naively? think that there is a large group of people who would be willing to sacrifice so that others can be raised up to a human level of existence. This occupation is due to all the greed and power lust of the corporatists; isn't it a good class lesson? Even those who are in the anti-war movement only for the selfish fact that its costing them their lifestyles may have some among their numbers who can be moved? Is all humanity gone from that many people's hearts?

I am struck by your statement "the internal cause was an eerily spontaneous welling up of selfishness, greed and social-Darwinist malevolence -- clinical sociopathy of an intensity and viciousness I had never before witnessed." and have to admit that the dumbing down of this country, the brainwashing is pretty darn complete, battle with it as I do in my job everyday, (have you seen Idiocracy? very strong statement made in that movie). The cruelty is another symptom that is becoming more common and supports your argument. Would you say I should just make my work to be one of preparing people for the upcoming disasters? Or should I let them live their dreams as long as possible as there is no escape?
Wouldn't any movement that unites be better than 50 that divides and thus makes us still more conquerable? (if thats possible?)

Wouldn't any movement that unites be better than 50 that divides and thus makes us still more conquerable? (if thats possible?)

I have more thoughts than this on your post but not enough focus/time at this moment to respond...

But my most immediate reaction is to this last line...

Having been to dozens of anti-war marches, rallies, and other events from Detroit to DC over the last 5 years, as well as a near daily rush-hour protest in downtown Ann Arbor for more than a year, I have come to the conclusion that it is the anti-war movement itself that is divisive, and that many of the people involved are those who would be least willing to be educated.

They're gatekeepers. Whether or not it's a deliberate conspiracy of gatekeepers doesn't matter imo, it's the practical result that matters. The anti-war movement is having a detrimental effect on peoples movements in this country. Ultimately they play into the divide-and-conquer political game and perpetuate divisions.

This seems clear to me. As clear as the fact that the anti-war movement hasn't gotten anywhere as far as ending the occupation of Iraq.

Sorry this is rushed, hope it makes sense

Wouldn't any movement that unites be better than 50 that divides and thus makes us still more conquerable? (if thats possible?)

I have more thoughts than this on your post but not enough focus/time at this moment to respond...

But my most immediate reaction is to this last line...

Having been to dozens of anti-war marches, rallies, and other events from Detroit to DC over the last 5 years, as well as a near daily rush-hour protest in downtown Ann Arbor for more than a year, I have come to the conclusion that it is the anti-war movement itself that is divisive, and that many of the people involved are those who would be least willing to be educated.

They're gatekeepers. Whether or not it's a deliberate conspiracy of gatekeepers doesn't matter imo, it's the practical result that matters. The anti-war movement is having a detrimental effect on peoples movements in this country. Ultimately they play into the divide-and-conquer political game and perpetuate divisions.

This seems clear to me. As clear as the fact that the anti-war movement hasn't gotten anywhere as far as ending the occupation of Iraq.

Sorry this is rushed, hope it makes sense

Yes it does make sense, thanks, and its frustrating as it is the military occupations, imo, that are bleeding the people the most and providing the most to the corporate interests. The gatekeepers are the ones we have to take a battering ram to, in order to get the message(s?) out.

They're gatekeepers. Whether or not it's a deliberate conspiracy of gatekeepers doesn't matter imo, it's the practical result that matters. The anti-war movement is having a detrimental effect on peoples movements in this country. Ultimately they play into the divide-and-conquer political game and perpetuate divisions.


Yes. I think it is much worse than even we are able to see.

I have been a bad boy again, mucking around over in liberal land. I think kid watched some of those threads over there talking about poverty - more to the point, I was talking about the pervasive hypocrisy, arrogance, cruelty, and intolerance of progressives and liberals. I am about ready to post one of my epic "tonight I weep for my community" posts - I am such a bullshit artist at heart, though in my own defense I am sincere and not selling anything - that causes a big uproar, pisses everyone off, gets me banned and ostracized and has everyone keening about the outrage of it all - how DARE you criticize such good people here, who are doing so much to make things better and who are donating money and who really are caring people blah blah???

Kid pm-ed me, and maybe posted over there - I am not sure who is who other than bp - saying that the people were being passive-aggressive and intentionally mucking up all of the discussions - pretending to be "offended" that liberals or progressives were being criticized, hurt and "abused" and being personally attacked, and pretending to not understand what was being said and endlessly demanding clarifications and explanations. Remember that one gal over at PI who was always shocked and hurt and offended - can't remember, TLC something? Well I had about 20 similar people at the same time over at DU - how DARE you accuse me of not caring about poor people?? The weeping, the gnashing of teeth, the wringing of hands. "After all of the caring I have done - why I was sitting around last night just caring, and caring, and caring about those poor people for hours - and now you have the audacity, the effrontery, to so deeply wound me and insult and offend me by suggesting that I am not a caring person??"

Then a pack forms with everyone commiserating with each other and giving each other hugs - oh, the terrible suffering they are going through, the ugliness and brutality they are enduring when they read my posts. Of course nothing has been attacked except their cherished ideas. They don't feel good when they read my posts, and since being a liberal or a progressive is a matter of feeling good, mostly about yourself, anything that makes the liberal feel bad must be suppressed.

I don't know what this means, but it is mostly women - caring, feeling, emoting, weeping women - with a few wimpy guys thrown in. They portray themselves as so sensitive, so delicate, but there are knives hidden in that emotional mush that soon come out and are plunged into the person who is spoiling the little tea party and upsetting the guests.

You know what the whole damned thing is about - tightly regulating and restricting free expression and enforcing total conformity in thought and words. And it is very tight - no heresy is permitted or tolerated. That is not merely a feature of liberalism , it is the entire purpose of liberalism - the main program. Everything that is going on whether it is DU, KOS, or PI is the ruthless enforcement of a rigid code for what may and what may not be said and thought. The arguments are all about who should, and who should not be censored, which thoughts and ideas will be tolerated and which will be rooted out.

I don't know how people simultaneously keep such mutually contradictory thoughts in their heads. They talk about tolerance - oh they are soo committed to that - while they practice the most intolerant behavior imaginable. They talk about freedom, while everthing they do is to control and restrict people. They talk about inclusiveness, while they work tirelesly to build little exclusive societies of "like minded" people. Every single tenet in their creed is self-contradictory. It is not a minor flaw, or rough edge in an otherwise beautiful gem. It is a steaming pile of shit with some cheap gold paint sprayed on it.

I am going to disagree with kid - if I am understanding him. This is not merely a sideshow, a carnival freak show for our amusement. It is murderous. It is not without effect. First, it is destructive to our spirit, it is an interference with communications, it destroys our creativity, it diminishes our humanity and brutalizes us, frustrates us and wastes our time and energy. It ruins our very lives, completely and undeniably. What I hear you saying, kid, is "oh well I didn't care much about my life anyway, and this is just the way it is and you can't do anything about it. Isn't it all amusing?" Yet people are suffering and dying as a direct result of the liberals and progressives. We can't breathe, we can't live, we are under constant and relentless oppression. It is not insignificant, it is not without consequence.

I am going to agree with chlamor that modern American society is rotten to its core - top to bottom from one end to the other. There is no life worth living that is not dedicated to resistance, everywhere and at all times. It is an illusion that there is anywhere to hide, any possibility of withdrawing and disconnecting, and it is an illusion that there is anything to be gained by accomodating or compromising.

Resist or you are not fully alive. Every single thing you do or say everyday will be either dedicated to resistance or to compliance. There is no escape from that. As we resist, we are more powerful, more effective, and more alive. As we comply, we are diminished and have less impact. And we are here to have an impact - that is what it means to be a human being, that is our purpose. Evil must be resisted, or evil conquers us. Resist or die. Play it safe, and you preserve your body, but your spirit dies. Slow death is nothing to shoot for, it is worse than a quick death, and spiritual death is worse than physical death.

There is no neutral place to stand, kid. Neutral is to clip off your own balls for the sake of avoiding having someone else clip them off.

The place to resist to have the greatest impact is against liberalism. The main enemy to fight is the liberals, progressives and Democrats. The right wingers are a known enemy, a clear and obvious enemy. The liberals, progressives and Democrats are much more dangerous and potent, much more insidious. They are devious and clever, much more dishonest than the right wingers, and are just as predatory and just as violently opposed to the well being of the people. They are the log to pull out of the pile if we want to break the logjam so that humanity can flow again and reach the sea.

Hmmm..maybe I have to rethink because it sounds like my posts are coming across as ennui or something. Shit I dunno, Mike. I don't know very (m)any "DU liberals" in real life. I mean, it'd be hard to take someone like that seriously face to face. Its true, however, that I don't share your clarion vision of liberals as the source or most important part of our present day impasse. I'm not even sure I trust my own eyes anyway. Is it a logjam all over the world or just here? I'm honestly not the guy to ask.

At the same time none of this is wrong:


I am going to agree with chlamor that modern American society is rotten to its core - top to bottom from one end to the other. There is no life worth living that is not dedicated to resistance, everywhere and at all times. It is an illusion that there is anywhere to hide, any possibility of withdrawing and disconnecting, and it is an illusion that there is anything to be gained by accomodating or compromising.

Resist or you are not fully alive. Every single thing you do or say everyday will be either dedicated to resistance or to compliance. There is no escape from that. As we resist, we are more powerful, more effective, and more alive. As we comply, we are diminished and have less impact. And we are here to have an impact - that is what it means to be a human being, that is our purpose. Evil must be resisted, or evil conquers us. Resist or die. Play it safe, and you preserve your body, but your spirit dies. Slow death is nothing to shoot for, it is worse than a quick death, and spiritual death is worse than physical death.

No answers Mike, just questions

They're gatekeepers. Whether or not it's a deliberate conspiracy of gatekeepers doesn't matter imo, it's the practical result that matters. The anti-war movement is having a detrimental effect on peoples movements in this country. Ultimately they play into the divide-and-conquer political game and perpetuate divisions.


Yes. I think it is much worse than even we are able to see.

I have been a bad boy again, mucking around over in liberal land. I think kid watched some of those threads over there talking about poverty - more to the point, I was talking about the pervasive hypocrisy, arrogance, cruelty, and intolerance of progressives and liberals. I am about ready to post one of my epic "tonight I weep for my community" posts - I am such a bullshit artist at heart, though in my own defense I am sincere and not selling anything - that causes a big uproar, pisses everyone off, gets me banned and ostracized and has everyone keening about the outrage of it all - how DARE you criticize such good people here, who are doing so much to make things better and who are donating money and who really are caring people blah blah???

Kid pm-ed me, and maybe posted over there - I am not sure who is who other than bp - saying that the people were being passive-aggressive and intentionally mucking up all of the discussions - pretending to be "offended" that liberals or progressives were being criticized, hurt and "abused" and being personally attacked, and pretending to not understand what was being said and endlessly demanding clarifications and explanations. Remember that one gal over at PI who was always shocked and hurt and offended - can't remember, TLC something? Well I had about 20 similar people at the same time over at DU - how DARE you accuse me of not caring about poor people?? The weeping, the gnashing of teeth, the wringing of hands. "After all of the caring I have done - why I was sitting around last night just caring, and caring, and caring about those poor people for hours - and now you have the audacity, the effrontery, to so deeply wound me and insult and offend me by suggesting that I am not a caring person??"

Then a pack forms with everyone commiserating with each other and giving each other hugs - oh, the terrible suffering they are going through, the ugliness and brutality they are enduring when they read my posts. Of course nothing has been attacked except their cherished ideas. They don't feel good when they read my posts, and since being a liberal or a progressive is a matter of feeling good, mostly about yourself, anything that makes the liberal feel bad must be suppressed.

I don't know what this means, but it is mostly women - caring, feeling, emoting, weeping women - with a few wimpy guys thrown in. They portray themselves as so sensitive, so delicate, but there are knives hidden in that emotional mush that soon come out and are plunged into the person who is spoiling the little tea party and upsetting the guests.

You know what the whole damned thing is about - tightly regulating and restricting free expression and enforcing total conformity in thought and words. And it is very tight - no heresy is permitted or tolerated. That is not merely a feature of liberalism , it is the entire purpose of liberalism - the main program. Everything that is going on whether it is DU, KOS, or PI is the ruthless enforcement of a rigid code for what may and what may not be said and thought. The arguments are all about who should, and who should not be censored, which thoughts and ideas will be tolerated and which will be rooted out.

I don't know how people simultaneously keep such mutually contradictory thoughts in their heads. They talk about tolerance - oh they are soo committed to that - while they practice the most intolerant behavior imaginable. They talk about freedom, while everthing they do is to control and restrict people. They talk about inclusiveness, while they work tirelesly to build little exclusive societies of "like minded" people. Every single tenet in their creed is self-contradictory. It is not a minor flaw, or rough edge in an otherwise beautiful gem. It is a steaming pile of shit with some cheap gold paint sprayed on it.

I am going to disagree with kid - if I am understanding him. This is not merely a sideshow, a carnival freak show for our amusement. It is murderous. It is not without effect. First, it is destructive to our spirit, it is an interference with communications, it destroys our creativity, it diminishes our humanity and brutalizes us, frustrates us and wastes our time and energy. It ruins our very lives, completely and undeniably. What I hear you saying, kid, is "oh well I didn't care much about my life anyway, and this is just the way it is and you can't do anything about it. Isn't it all amusing?" Yet people are suffering and dying as a direct result of the liberals and progressives. We can't breathe, we can't live, we are under constant and relentless oppression. It is not insignificant, it is not without consequence.

I am going to agree with chlamor that modern American society is rotten to its core - top to bottom from one end to the other. There is no life worth living that is not dedicated to resistance, everywhere and at all times. It is an illusion that there is anywhere to hide, any possibility of withdrawing and disconnecting, and it is an illusion that there is anything to be gained by accomodating or compromising.

Resist or you are not fully alive. Every single thing you do or say everyday will be either dedicated to resistance or to compliance. There is no escape from that. As we resist, we are more powerful, more effective, and more alive. As we comply, we are diminished and have less impact. And we are here to have an impact - that is what it means to be a human being, that is our purpose. Evil must be resisted, or evil conquers us. Resist or die. Play it safe, and you preserve your body, but your spirit dies. Slow death is nothing to shoot for, it is worse than a quick death, and spiritual death is worse than physical death.

There is no neutral place to stand, kid. Neutral is to clip off your own balls for the sake of avoiding having someone else clip them off.

The place to resist to have the greatest impact is against liberalism. The main enemy to fight is the liberals, progressives and Democrats. The right wingers are a known enemy, a clear and obvious enemy. The liberals, progressives and Democrats are much more dangerous and potent, much more insidious. They are devious and clever, much more dishonest than the right wingers, and are just as predatory and just as violently opposed to the well being of the people. They are the log to pull out of the pile if we want to break the logjam so that humanity can flow again and reach the sea.

Ya know Mike, I just compared you to Job in a post where I linked that big ass thread in which you and Bobolink were trying to bust some of those fun house mirrors, you did all humanly possible, you're tired, man. You've been working hard to communicate with those folks and it seemed that you were getting through to some, though that gang of offended liberals was tedious in their obstinancy. I think there's two things going on, one is the whole self rightous, self absorbed liberal thing and the other is more of a group psychology issue. They reinforce each other, witness the lemming like return to the fold after Edwards quit. I had thought that there might be some good effect gotten at DU, it has such a huge readership that some newbies might be untainted by the dominant opinions, but it's hard to tell. It does look as though regulars are possibly impossible to reach as long as they're being reinforced by "like minded people". "Thus far, but no farther" seems to be the operating rule, they will not cut loose from their group.

Maybe that's not the place, or maybe it just requires endless hammering, and it may be possible that time might be better spent elsewhere, not necessarily on the net.

What we're discussing here is pedagogy -- the methods of teaching -- in this instance the most expeditious method of reaching people who (precisely because they are already presumably motivated) should be the easiest to reach. Most often however the opposite is true: the activists are as closed-minded as any Abrahamic fundamentalist. Why?

Here, very tentatively (and based not only on my years behind a typewriter but my years as a part-time college instructor also), are some possible reasons:

(1)-U.S. citizens -- especially Caucasians -- are conditioned from birth to the harshly exclusive values of a cult of attractiveness that is based as much on material possessions as it is on the degree to which one inherits the requisite Barbie-doll (or Ken-doll) features. While the essential baubles and fashions vary with the subculture -- Mercedes-Benz SUVs and Hermés for the plutocrats; Bernard Hinault bicycles and Birkenstocks for the protestors -- the social imperative that mandates such displays is the same at every level of society: implacable and above all vindictively conformist. Thus, just as the boardroom baron (or baroness) will murder an entire population for the profits necessary to buy the most lavish Mercedes, so will the ghetto gangster kill for the most stylish sneakers. Likewise, the goal in either case is identical: an arsenal of possessions that function as gatekeepers even as they ensure one is respected (and feared) by one's peers -- the prerequisites to power summed up in the terms "telegenic," "photogenic" and "charismatic."

(2)-U.S. citizens of all races are conditioned, again from birth, to regard language in much the same way they regard possessions. Hence language not only identifies one's caste -- note for example (and reductio ad absurdum) the dialects identified as "nurdspeak" and "ebonics" -- but language also serves as a gatekeeper. Sometimes the linguistic gatekeeping is also regional. In Seattle -- by far the most viciously xenophobic city in North America -- the slightest hint of a Northeastern accent will make one a pariah, so much so New Yorkers and Bostonians who plan to be influential in Seattle typically undergo expensive therapy to lose their characteristic speech patterns. Albeit to a far lesser degree, the same sort of bias against "yankees" is evident in the South.

(3)-The common denominator that unites these phenomena -- the shared sociological constant -- is total emphasis on form combined with the equally total exclusion of content -- an exclusion so methodically harsh it is actually a total rejection of content or even the notion of content, as in the post-modern dogma that meaning is invalidated by subjectivity. (It is a bit of an aside, but this denial of content is the unique identifying characteristic of the U.S. education system, which is defined by its requirement that teachers be trained so thoroughly in teaching methods -- pedagogy-- they are allowed no opportunity to become expert in the subjects they are to teach. Again, form over content: hence we have people teaching English who know everything there is to know about teaching methods but are nevertheless so functionally illiterate they cannot even distinguish subject from predicate and thus cannot possibly judge whether a student's writing makes sense or not. A telling analogy would be to an auto-shop teacher who could not distinguish between a spark-plug wrench and a vacuum gauge: while such an auto-shop teacher would not be tolerated for even a single day, the same abysmal ignorance of tools prevails in any language class where the teacher knows neither the parts of speech nor their proper syntactical relationships -- the officially approved circumstance that afflicts the students of at least 40 percent of the nation's public school English teachers.)

(4)-The emphasis on form and the exclusion of content is especially evident in U.S. politics, where it results in an eerily zomboid sloganism -- the self-hypnotic repetition of slogans as if they were mantras even as the meaning (truth) of the words is discarded as irrelevant. Hence not only the grotesque falsehood of avowed fascists leading chants of "hope" and "peace" but the public's almost sexual eagerness to participate in the chanting and thus their own seduction. Again, the Step Right Up syndrome, suspended judgment and all.

(5)-Socialism and especially Marxism are content-intensive. But the people of the U.S. have been taught -- uniquely -- that content is irrelevant. Since the introduction of content is analogous to the grafting of new limbs on an existing tree, it is as if the tree has been encased with some barrier-substance that makes such grafting impossible. Because education elsewhere in the world is so radically different from U.S. education, the barrier that insulates the people of the U.S. from content exists nowhere else on earth -- which means the methods of indoctrination that have proven successful among all other peoples will invariably fail when used here.

(6)-As a consequence, the peoples of the U.S. are the most closed-minded people on the planet.

(7)-Historically, I can find only one other instance of such closed-mindedness: the mujhiki of Tsarist Russia -- the back-country peasants who were so homicidally ignorant and sadistically religious, they murdered every teacher and medical doctor the Soviet government sent them -- until finally, after years of such atrocities, the Soviets stopped sending teachers and doctors and sent extermination squads instead.

Thus I fear the same fate awaits the United States.

The U.S. has become the most ignorant, violent, genocidal, environmentally destructive, enslavement-minded nation in human history -- all the more so since nearly 70 percent of the U.S. population believes they are the Abrahamic god's chosen people with a divine mandate to savage the ungodly whether animal, vegetable or mineral. In response, the other peoples of the world will eventually recognize that their only alternative is to eliminate the U.S. tyrannosaur before it extinguishes human life -- if not all life on this planet. The U.S. ruling class foresaw this possibility as early as 1945 -- perhaps even as early as the 1920s -- and has responded accordingly: hence the recruitment of Nazi war criminals, the creation of torture states, the over-riding fear of socialism, the oil and resource wars now spreading throughout the world.

Based on my reading of history, it will take at least another half-century for the emergence of an ethos capable of uniting the rest of the world. In all probability this will be a kind of eco-Marxism, differing from its parent chiefly in its recognition of the need for local autonomies and its emphasis on the fact that capitalism is not only the antithesis of social democracy but is by definition ecocide -- total war against the environment. Then it will take another half-century for the unification to occur. Opposing that unification process will be the suicide-bomber mentality at the core of Abrahamic dogma and therefore also at the core of capitalism and U.S. policy both domestic and foreign: "better dead than Red," the infamous axiom oft proven in Vietnam: "we had to destroy the village to save it from the Communists."

I have no idea who will win; the ultimate contestant is Nature, and she is always unpredictable. In any case, we will be dead long before the issue is decided.

Thus as far as my lifetime is concerned, I have no hope at all: my circumstances will only worsen. The only development that might prevent that -- the advent of socialized medicine sufficient to lower my medical costs to the point I can live on my retirement pension -- is not going to happen. Not now; not ever. Note how the Democrats promised in 2006 to reform Medicare Part D -- the Prescription Drug Lord Benefit they themselves helped enact, the biggest rip-off of elderly and disabled people in human history -- and then, as if to spit in the face of every one of us who so voted, did absolutely nothing to relieve us of its ever-increasing costs, much less eliminate the built-in euthanasia of the so-called "donut hole," a secondary deductible that terminates all our prescriptions -- including chemotherapy drugs -- just when we need them to stay alive.

Thus too I write for the people of the future. As to the present -- and unless I can somehow arrange to spend my final years in Europe -- I am stuck in Moron Nation, where the people are already so dumbed down they cannot distinguish between a sinking ship and a lifeboat.

Wolf you know what some bitch pushing Medicare plans told me:

People who can't afford the donut hole can go on medicaid. As long as they're willing to sell all their earthly possessions first to qualify. I threw out the word euthanasia but that didn't even merit a response apparently.

Your Step Right Up theme is awesome by the way

Ultimate thanks and credit goes to Tom Waits:

Melody and lyrics (click as indicated):

http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/waits_tom ... lbum.jhtml (http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/waits_tom/302238/album.jhtml)

I merely put Waits' superb work in its proper political context.

Ultimate thanks and credit goes to Tom Waits:

Melody and lyrics (click as indicated):

http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/waits_tom ... lbum.jhtml (http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/waits_tom/302238/album.jhtml)

I merely put Waits' superb work in its proper political context.

Sir, you swim in deeper cultural waters than I imagined.

I'll have a gravel on the rocks.

http://mt.laweekly.com/sea/reverb/tom-waits.jpg

Your Step Right Up theme is awesome by the way

Yes. Some persistent themes in American culture - tent revival evangelists, snake oil salesmen, and carnival barkers. Step right up! - and be saved, cured, or titilated. Turn on television, and see the same three themes over and over again.

Wolf you know what some bitch pushing Medicare plans told me:

People who can't afford the donut hole can go on medicaid. As long as they're willing to sell all their earthly possessions first to qualify. I threw out the word euthanasia but that didn't even merit a response apparently.

Your Step Right Up theme is awesome by the way

A coworker at my new job, best friend of 20 years to the boss' wife and a true part of the family, was diagnosed this morning with inoperable lung cancer (her breathing capacity is 34% of what it should be and she could never come off the ventilator once put under; alas, quitting smoking 7 years ago was too little and too late). We have no health insurance.

My rock ribbed military vet and Republican boss wept when he got the call. It should be an interesting policy discussion over the coming months...

Ah freedom...

the freedom to die.

The coming adventure is finding someone who'll even do the biopsy on an uninsured patient.

What we're discussing here is pedagogy -- the methods of teaching -- in this instance the most expeditious method of reaching people who (precisely because they are already presumably motivated) should be the easiest to reach. Most often however the opposite is true: the activists are as closed-minded as any Abrahamic fundamentalist. Why?

Here, very tentatively (and based not only on my years behind a typewriter but my years as a part-time college instructor also), are some possible reasons:

(1)-U.S. citizens -- especially Caucasians -- are conditioned from birth to the harshly exclusive values of a cult of attractiveness that is based as much on material possessions as it is on the degree to which one inherits the requisite Barbie-doll (or Ken-doll) features. While the essential baubles and fashions vary with the subculture -- Mercedes-Benz SUVs and Hermés for the plutocrats; Bernard Hinault bicycles and Birkenstocks for the protestors -- the social imperative that mandates such displays is the same at every level of society: implacable and above all vindictively conformist. Thus, just as the boardroom baron (or baroness) will murder an entire population for the profits necessary to buy the most lavish Mercedes, so will the ghetto gangster kill for the most stylish sneakers. Likewise, the goal in either case is identical: an arsenal of possessions that function as gatekeepers even as they ensure one is respected (and feared) by one's peers -- the prerequisites to power summed up in the terms "telegenic," "photogenic" and "charismatic."

(2)-U.S. citizens of all races are conditioned, again from birth, to regard language in much the same way they regard possessions. Hence language not only identifies one's caste -- note for example (and reductio ad absurdum) the dialects identified as "nurdspeak" and "ebonics" -- but language also serves as a gatekeeper. Sometimes the linguistic gatekeeping is also regional. In Seattle -- by far the most viciously xenophobic city in North America -- the slightest hint of a Northeastern accent will make one a pariah, so much so New Yorkers and Bostonians who plan to be influential in Seattle typically undergo expensive therapy to lose their characteristic speech patterns. Albeit to a far lesser degree, the same sort of bias against "yankees" is evident in the South.

(3)-The common denominator that unites these phenomena -- the shared sociological constant -- is total emphasis on form combined with the equally total exclusion of content -- an exclusion so methodically harsh it is actually a total rejection of content or even the notion of content, as in the post-modern dogma that meaning is invalidated by subjectivity. (It is a bit of an aside, but this denial of content is the unique identifying characteristic of the U.S. education system, which is defined by its requirement that teachers be trained so thoroughly in teaching methods -- pedagogy-- they are allowed no opportunity to become expert in the subjects they are to teach. Again, form over content: hence we have people teaching English who know everything there is to know about teaching methods but are nevertheless so functionally illiterate they cannot even distinguish subject from predicate and thus cannot possibly judge whether a student's writing makes sense or not. A telling analogy would be to an auto-shop teacher who could not distinguish between a spark-plug wrench and a vacuum gauge: while such an auto-shop teacher would not be tolerated for even a single day, the same abysmal ignorance of tools prevails in any language class where the teacher knows neither the parts of speech nor their proper syntactical relationships -- the officially approved circumstance that afflicts the students of at least 40 percent of the nation's public school English teachers.)

(4)-The emphasis on form and the exclusion of content is especially evident in U.S. politics, where it results in an eerily zomboid sloganism -- the self-hypnotic repetition of slogans as if they were mantras even as the meaning (truth) of the words is discarded as irrelevant. Hence not only the grotesque falsehood of avowed fascists leading chants of "hope" and "peace" but the public's almost sexual eagerness to participate in the chanting and thus their own seduction. Again, the Step Right Up syndrome, suspended judgment and all.

(5)-Socialism and especially Marxism are content-intensive. But the people of the U.S. have been taught -- uniquely -- that content is irrelevant. Since the introduction of content is analogous to the grafting of new limbs on an existing tree, it is as if the tree has been encased with some barrier-substance that makes such grafting impossible. Because education elsewhere in the world is so radically different from U.S. education, the barrier that insulates the people of the U.S. from content exists nowhere else on earth -- which means the methods of indoctrination that have proven successful among all other peoples will invariably fail when used here.

(6)-As a consequence, the peoples of the U.S. are the most closed-minded people on the planet.

(7)-Historically, I can find only one other instance of such closed-mindedness: the mujhiki of Tsarist Russia -- the back-country peasants who were so homicidally ignorant and sadistically religious, they murdered every teacher and medical doctor the Soviet government sent them -- until finally, after years of such atrocities, the Soviets stopped sending teachers and doctors and sent extermination squads instead.

Thus I fear the same fate awaits the United States.

The U.S. has become the most ignorant, violent, genocidal, environmentally destructive, enslavement-minded nation in human history -- all the more so since nearly 70 percent of the U.S. population believes they are the Abrahamic god's chosen people with a divine mandate to savage the ungodly whether animal, vegetable or mineral. In response, the other peoples of the world will eventually recognize that their only alternative is to eliminate the U.S. tyrannosaur before it extinguishes human life -- if not all life on this planet. The U.S. ruling class foresaw this possibility as early as 1945 -- perhaps even as early as the 1920s -- and has responded accordingly: hence the recruitment of Nazi war criminals, the creation of torture states, the over-riding fear of socialism, the oil and resource wars now spreading throughout the world.

Based on my reading of history, it will take at least another half-century for the emergence of an ethos capable of uniting the rest of the world. In all probability this will be a kind of eco-Marxism, differing from its parent chiefly in its recognition of the need for local autonomies and its emphasis on the fact that capitalism is not only the antithesis of social democracy but is by definition ecocide -- total war against the environment. Then it will take another half-century for the unification to occur. Opposing that unification process will be the suicide-bomber mentality at the core of Abrahamic dogma and therefore also at the core of capitalism and U.S. policy both domestic and foreign: "better dead than Red," the infamous axiom oft proven in Vietnam: "we had to destroy the village to save it from the Communists."

I have no idea who will win; the ultimate contestant is Nature, and she is always unpredictable. In any case, we will be dead long before the issue is decided.

Thus as far as my lifetime is concerned, I have no hope at all: my circumstances will only worsen. The only development that might prevent that -- the advent of socialized medicine sufficient to lower my medical costs to the point I can live on my retirement pension -- is not going to happen. Not now; not ever. Note how the Democrats promised in 2006 to reform Medicare Part D -- the Prescription Drug Lord Benefit they themselves helped enact, the biggest rip-off of elderly and disabled people in human history -- and then, as if to spit in the face of every one of us who so voted, did absolutely nothing to relieve us of its ever-increasing costs, much less eliminate the built-in euthanasia of the so-called "donut hole," a secondary deductible that terminates all our prescriptions -- including chemotherapy drugs -- just when we need them to stay alive.

Thus too I write for the people of the future. As to the present -- and unless I can somehow arrange to spend my final years in Europe -- I am stuck in Moron Nation, where the people are already so dumbed down they cannot distinguish between a sinking ship and a lifeboat.

As I have to maintain some hope in order to function for the time being with the children of the Moron Nation, (again I recommend the really bad movie Idiocracy) thank you for the thoughts on form vs. content and will review my curriculum with that in mind. To what end I teach I can't really say anymore, I have maybe 10% of my kids that really keep me going. If I can develop the perceptual aspect of the mind in some, I would hope to think that these kids may help the generations you refer to in 50 years.
Editted wednesday, thought you might prefer this image to what I had here before:

http://blogs.theage.com.au/schembri/coffee.jpg