Monthly Archives: October 2016

A Nonviolent Strategy to End the Climate Catastrophe

Posted on by
Reply

emgnpollution2

By Robert J. Burrowes

As the evidence mounts that we are fast approaching the final point-of-no-return beyond which it will be impossible to take sufficient effective action to prevent climate catastrophe – see ‘The World Passes 400 PPM Threshold. Permanently‘– the evidence of ineffective official responses climbs too. See, for example, ‘Climate Con: why a new global deal on aviation emissions is really bad news’.

Even worse, we continue to be given response options that, even when they are well meaning, are naïve and inadequate whether they are suggested by individuals – see, for example, ‘Committing Geocide: Climate Change and Corporate Capture‘– or major environment organizations such as Greenpeace, 350.org and
Friends of the Earth.

Moreover, given the myriad indications of progressive environmental breakdown in domains unrelated to the climate catastrophe, one must be terrified and delusional to suggest or even believe that anything less than a comprehensive strategy, which goes well beyond anything governments and corporations will ever endorse, gives us any chance of averting the sixth mass extinction event in planetary history. A mass extinction that will include us.

As an aside, if you believe the ‘end of century’ scenario (for human extinction) being driven by the same corporate interests that drove climate denial for so long, then you are simply a victim of their latest attempt to drive ‘business as usual’ while delaying action for as long as possible at any cost.

Another problem, if you understand anything about human psychology and political organization, is that mobilizing people in large numbers to act strategically and powerfully is not easy. Of course, if it wasn’t so difficult, this crisis would not have arisen in the first place. We would have responded intelligently and strategically decades ago as some aware individuals, starting with Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 100 years ago, suggested.

To briefly recap the wider nature of the crisis we face: Consider our synergistic and devastating assaults on the environment through military violence (often leaving vast areas uninhabitable), rainforest destruction, industrial farming, mining, commercial fishing and the spreading radioactive contamination from Fukushima. We are also systematically destroying the limited supply of fresh water on the planet which means that water scarcity is becoming a frequent reality for many people and the collapse of hydrological systems is now likely by 2020. Human activity drives 200 species of life (plants, birds,animals, fish, amphibians, insects, reptiles) to extinction each day and 80% of the world’s forests and over 90% of the large fish in the ocean are already gone. Despite this readily available information, governments continue to prioritize spending $US2,000,000,000 each day on military violence, the sole purpose of which is to terrorize and kill fellow human beings.

So what are we to do?

Well, if you are inclined to assess the evidence and to design a response strategy that has the possibility of success built into it,then I invite you to consider the strategy outlined on the Nonviolent Campaign Strategy website.  This strategy identifies all twelve components of a nonviolent strategy to end the climate catastrophe, including the myriad of strategic goals for such a strategy to be comprehensive and effective. You are very welcome to suggest improvements in this strategy and to invite other individuals and groups to participate in helping to implement it.

If you are happy to leave strategic responses to others but still wish to contribute powerfully, then you and others you know are welcome to participate in the simple fifteen-year program outlined in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth‘. You might also consider signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World‘.

One final point: a tragic outcome of modern humans terrorizing their children into obedience (to maintain social control) is that most of the human population is (unconsciously) terrified, self-hating and powerless. For a full explanation of this, see ‘Why Violence?‘ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice‘.

So don’t wait around waiting for others to act first. It is your leadership that is required in this circumstance. And it is your leadership that might ultimately make the difference.

 

Biodata: Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?‘ His email address is flametree@riseup.netand his website is at http://robertjburrowes.wordpress.com

Robert J. Burrowes
P.O. Box 68
Daylesford
Victoria 3460
Australia
Email: flametree@riseup.net

Websites:
Nonviolence Charter
Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth
‘Why Violence?’
Nonviolent Campaign Strategy
Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy
Anita: Songs of Nonviolence
Robert Burrowes
Global Nonviolence Network

I Participate

Posted on by
1

they-live-street-signs

By Jonathan Bessette

Source: Adbusters

Recall that you’re sitting in a rapid transit vehicle, carried along the sky-line above cement highways, paved in homage to the Romans, who designed a system of militarized paths stretching everywhere, causing everything to lead back to one place. Here we are everyone, the year of the Monkey, 2016, 98 years after The Great War … too bad it isn’t the year of the Dalmatians … Mickey Mouse recently Tweeted that Disney is working on buying the rights to the Chinese lunar calendar. Imagine 12 animated classics framing each and every year for the remainder of humanity’s existence. 

At this point human society is so vast, so complex, so multilayered, that it is impossible to stay updated, engaged, and participating in every area of local and global importance. Education takes us from a place of innocence, creativity and joy, forcing us to fall into the institutional lines of desks and faced forward attention. As a nodal point of knowledge each new person will be filled to the brim with information that makes them useful to the status quo.

Neuroscience now tells us that the brain has plasticity and the neurosynaptic networks that are created through nurturing, which become identity and personality, can be changed and overwritten. Newer pathways can be formed and strengthened and older ones can be reduced. Does this mean that our free-will has a physical manifestation as identity, as culture, and every choice affects the people, animals and objects around us? Everything we think and do reinforces everything we think and do, creating a strange logical loop which justifies our lives as ourselves. Without any major impetus, what reason do we have to change? Why compromise our internally consistent narrative and accept the narrative of someone else? What stands to be different?

Surreality is becoming a more constant state as life in the present starts to look like Science Fiction of the future from the past. The last historian wandering around Paris in the 21st Century, forgotten by a technologically advanced world that cares only for materialism. A beguiled Case, the lead character of Gibson’s Neuromancer, disenfranchised because he can no longer participate in the romance of cyberspace, looking something like a hacker barred by the law to approach or touch a computer. Of course cyborgs, robots, virtual reality and AI dance at the periphery, the momentum of current technological trends, yet we titillate ourselves with the practical possibility of these totems nearing our hearts and minds.

Information overflows like never before. Some cry Apocalypse! End Times! The Rapture! But most of the world is still filling up their gas tanks, believing that the day when Climate Change will actually affect them is the day that it will be clearly outlined in a power point presentation, at their offices or wherever they work, explaining the equity found in maintaining current profit margins while in the same breath rearranging the economic vehicle of prosperity.     

“Change without Changing!” might be the Party Slogan for whoever runs for the Presidency after Obama sputters to a close.

Take my hand and run through the ever-increasing fields of soya beans, where we can hear the Monsanto genetically-modified breeze blowing the answer in the wind, whispering corporate sonatas, proving that commercial capitalism is a system of religion. Faith in Profit! The Gospel of Endless Progress! Join our Church of Business! Maybe Monsanto can use its private militia to assassinate Thomas Piketty, because of the seeds he’s sowing about capitalism being a mechanical beast that needs regulation because its fuel is the disparity between rich and poor … the larger the gap the more efficacious the fuel.

Then I think whether or not you’ll be reading this on paper or a flat-screen … whether either will be made from recyclable resources, and the argument that the printed word is less sustainable than the digital, so let’s put them to the test, right here, right now:

What can you do with a single piece of printed paper? Read it, eat it, burn it, re-write on it, make origami, a paper airplane or a boat, use it as a funnel, snort powders with it, wipe our bums? What can we do with a tablet? Access every possible available medium via the Internet and software?

It takes at least a lumber, ink, metal, and print industry to create the basic elements to manufacture printed media on a large scale. The average printed matter, kept in modest condition, can last up to 100 years and still be usable. The space that a single printed work takes up is quite large, creating the need to provide space of the material itself. When recycling an old book there are few components to worry about, making it rather simple.

It takes at least most types of mining and the processing of raw materials (petroleum, silicon, zinc, aluminum), software and hardware development, manufacturing, and the assembly of components to create a tablet. The average tablet, kept in modest condition, can remain functional until it’s obsolete. It certainly will not last 100 years, and even if it did the components, chips and circuitry would be so worn down that anything you might have used it for would no longer be possible. Of course you can store a million, a billion, even a zillion books on a single tablet, but will everyone have equal access to it? Tablets are extremely difficult to recycle, their components don’t just make up another tablet. The loss from entropy alone assures destruction, and we cannot grow more zinc, petroleum, or aluminum.

But really none of this matters, we don’t have any control over what corporations choose to do with our futures, or what medium we will use. These new, futuristic developments, intended to define human culture, are being devised and formed inside of grand boardrooms, in tall skyscrapers, by CEOs and shareholders. They, the 1%, are only concerned with whether the product they create for us will become a necessary commodity, like food, like water, like shelter … like Subway, like Coke Cola, like Single Room Occupancies (SROs).

You hear someone talking about the protest on Burnaby Mountain. People don’t want Kinder-Morgan expanding the capacity of an already existent pipeline because it will significantly increase the traffic of oil tankers in the Burrard Inlet. Someone else discusses the unrest of activist groups in Vancouver; about the substandard living conditions; the war on the poor; the two new prisons … they care about housing those who arise from poverty and have been given nowhere else to go. Anger overtakes you for a moment and you think, I don’t like this, why is there so much injustice, maybe I can do something about it…

A flabbergasted voice backtracking intellectual missives comes on over the radio, you’re not sure if it’s in your head or not:
“Revolution is just going around and around, it’s a cycle, it begins with violence and it ends with violence and it only achieves the same power structure that precedes it.”

You think about the French Revolution, the Arab Spring, Anonymous, and realize grass-roots change can rise up from the ground, from the dirt, from the dust whence we came, to challenge the oligarchical deities of the political / corporate aristocracy. We can sell everything we own and buy whole streets collectively, live there together, change the land and what’s on it together. We can join all kinds of innovative communities. We can gather in massive groups and walk through the streets, calling attention to everything corruption has built up around us. We can participate in Civil Disobedience, because the obedience that is asked of us causes harm to someone or something that is alive and is not fairly allowed to defend itself.

No matter how much Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan and Justin Trudeau tell you that the money will trickle down, no matter how much they tell you that they are the ones who created the railroads, produced the banks, developed the industries that sustain our economies … they didn’t do a damn thing. We laid the tracks, we hammered the spikes, we drove the trains, we maintained the services, we built the buildings, we painted the walls, we fitted the plumbing, we opened the doors, we mopped the floors, we surveyed the land, we mineral tested the rock, we operated the drills, we processed the crude and we shipped the products. None of these things that they presume to own did they make or build. They didn’t put one brick in the wall, they didn’t dig one trench, and they didn’t turn one switch. It’s all ours…

Now an unsettling feeling might skitter across you when you realize that you are implicated in this whole thing. Why do we feel so disenfranchised? Why does the 1% own so much more influence, so much more than we little peons? I feel powerless but every day I participate in the construction of human society. Every action contributes to a massive effect called the singularity of my life. Don’t fall into the kinds of aporia that Jacques Ellul observes in The Technological Society, where no one claims responsibility for the projects of technology. Who made this computer? Was it the engineers, or the design team, the software developers, the hardware makers? Or was it the companies who mined the silver, the petroleum, the zinc, the aluminum, the silicon? No single person in the process can take responsibility for the whole … so no one does, they just accept it, and its justification is its presence.

Well then … we are in a pickle aren’t we? But maybe revolution is the act of taking responsibility? Clips of revolution flicker through your mind-film, you see riots, Molotov cocktails, police lined up with transparent plastic shields. You realize you do not want to risk your comfort, your coziness, your conformity, so you fit in and play nice and salute whoever is in power. Or maybe you are just not interested, you have your soma, your serial monogamy, your fair trade Americano. Besides, you’re too busy, you’ve got kids, you work 60 hours a week, you recently bought a home in one of the most expensive housing markets in the world, you already have enough responsibilities …

Saturday Matinee: The Cable Guy

Posted on by
3

The-Cable-Guy

“The Cable Guy” (1996) is a dark satire written by Judd Apatow and directed by Ben Stiller which straddles the line between comedy and psychological thriller. Jim Carrey (still in the midst of his rapid rise to fame) stars as Chip Douglas who, after setting up free cable for Steven (Matthew Broderick) begins to behave in increasingly comical yet unsettling and stalker-like behavior to attach himself to his new “friend”. The film features metacommentary on Hollywood narrative tropes while effectively using them in the service of a cautionary tale about mass-media obsession and social alienation.

Watch the full film here.

Any Third Party Vote is a Vote for Hillary Clinton

Posted on by
1

1984-screenhillary-1024x576

By Peter Breschard

Source: Dissident Voice

Buddy boy, don’t you get it? This isn’t the year to cast a “protest” vote. If you don’t vote for Trump, you’re really voting for Hillary.

Huh?

Listen, kid, you just don’t know how all this works, do you? I know you pretty much think neither Clinton2 nor the Trumpster should be controlling the White House joy stick. Am I right or am I right?

I guess so.

You don’t want to vote for someone who helped bomb the shit out of the Middle East or somebody who you don’t know if they’ll blow up the whole world either. The Big H has the track record as a killer and Trumpy only has the potential. Right?

Sure. But….

Listen, pally, is it the American way to convict somebody of a crime even before they commit it? Or do we only punish those who’ve already voted to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi women?

Well, so far Mr. Trump has only been stupid talk.

Exactamundo! Only ridiculous chatter. You know whatever he says is meaningless. You also know that he knows he’s bullshitting. It’s a game to him. On the other hand Clinton2 pretends it isn’t a game. He lies and winks. She lies and pretends it’s the Lord’s own truth.

I don’t know about that.

Of course you do, kiddo. You’re for Medicare for All, right? Well, the Trumpster has been for that. At one time or another. The Hillary wants to keep that Obamacare farce going.

It’s not like he wants socialized medicine, though.

You opposed the Iraq War, right? You know the Big Guy was at one time against it too. Clinton2 said she made a mistake. Maybe a couple of million died with the help of her vote and she says she made a mistake. Big whoop. Trumpy, he’s more flexible.

Well, that’s sort of true.

Kid, you know this isn’t an election where you can vote for a minority party. This might be the most critical election ever. You know you don’t want that Hillary in office.

She does support the death penalty when she feels like it. And she likes fracking too.

My brother, look at what they did to your Bernie.

You’re right about that. But the Republicans aren’t any better.

Now that even the Bush family is voting for Hillary Clinton, I mean, what more can I say? Do you support the whole Bush agenda? Don’t you think the first thing Clinton2 will do is give Jeb! a cabinet position? You don’t think Papa Bush said he was voting Democrat for the first time in his life without getting something in return? This is still politics, buddy boy. Imagine Jeb! as Secretary of State.

True. There must have been some sort of deal there.

Citizen, at least the Trumpster is straight about being corrupt.

That’s sort of the reason I’m thinking of voting for a third party candidate.

Patriotic American, wait until after the election and mobilize then. Trump can be reined in by a unified Democratic Congress. Remember the most important thing is to keep a war monger like Hillary Clinton out of the White House. It’s the known evil versus the unknown evil.

You’ve given me a lot to think about. Fortunately, there’s a little time left.

Pal of mine, just remember, any third party vote is a vote for Hillary Clinton to be the next President of these United States. And you know nobody wants that to happen.

US media steps up campaign for Clinton

Posted on by
2

By Patrick Martin

Source: WSWS.org

This week has seen a series of editorials by usually pro-Republican newspapers denouncing Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in scathing terms. The commentaries have been accompanied by a series of press exposés of the real estate billionaire’s shady business practices.

The stepped-up intervention by major media outlets reflects the broad consensus within the American corporate and political establishment, including prominent Republicans, behind the Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. This support is based mainly on Clinton’s bellicose stance toward Russia and her close ties to Wall Street and the military/intelligence complex.

The flurry of anti-Trump and pro-Clinton editorials is at the same time a reflection of concern within the ruling class over the lack of popular enthusiasm for Clinton, particularly among younger voters, who largely see her as a corrupt representative of the status quo. The near-unanimity of the major media in support of the Democratic candidate stands in stark contrast to the broadly felt distrust and dissatisfaction with the candidates of both major big business parties. This disjuncture is one expression of the chasm that exists between the entire political system and the general population.

USA Today, the largest-selling US newspaper, with a combined print and digital circulation over 4.1 million, denounced Trump Friday as a “dangerous demagogue” and urged its readers not to vote for him. The flagship publication of Gannett Corporation, the largest US media holding company, said it had never taken a position on a US election in its 34-year history, but was breaking with that tradition because the Manhattan real estate billionaire was “unfit for the presidency.”

The newspaper attacked Trump for appealing to racism, taking advantage of small businesses in the operation of his real estate and casino empire, refusing to release his tax returns, and systematically lying. But its main criticism was on foreign policy, where it echoed the attacks on Trump from the right by Clinton.

“Trump has betrayed fundamental commitments made by all presidents since the end of World War II,” USA Today declared. “These commitments include unwavering support for NATO allies, steadfast opposition to Russian aggression, and the absolute certainty that the United States will make good on its debts… He is ill-equipped to be commander in chief.”

The newspaper said its editorial board “does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement,” but it called Clinton “the most plausible alternative to keep Trump out of the White House,” while allowing that others might vote for a third-party or write-in candidate or abstain. But it categorically urged its readers not to vote for Trump.

This approach was echoed by the Chicago Tribune, long a standard-bearer for the Republican Party, which nevertheless endorsed Barack Obama for president in his two campaigns. The newspaper endorsed Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson in an editorial published Friday. Like USA Today, the Tribune called Trump “a man not fit to be president of the United States.”

Hillary Clinton, “by contrast, is undeniably capable of leading the United States,” the newspaper wrote. But it refused to support her, citing her supposedly left-wing views on expanding federal spending. Instead, it backed the Libertarian ticket, which it described as “two moderate Republicans–veteran governors who successfully led Democratic states.”

The Arizona Republic, which has never endorsed a Democratic presidential candidate in its 126-year history, endorsed Clinton earlier this week, declaring, “The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified.” The editorial declared, “Despite her tack left to woo Bernie Sanders supporters, Clinton retains her centrist roots.” In other words, Clinton is a thoroughly right-wing Democrat, completely subservient to corporate America.

Other traditionally pro-Republican newspapers that have backed Clinton over Trump include the Dallas Morning News and the Cincinnati Enquirer. Clinton has dozens of endorsements from major daily newspapers. Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, has six, including the Detroit News, the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Winston-Salem Journal. Trump so far has none.

An editorial board member of the Wall Street Journal, which spearheaded the impeachment drive against President Bill Clinton and has long vilified Hillary Clinton as a corrupt semi-socialist, denounced Trump in a column published in the newspaper Friday under the headline, “Hillary-Hatred Derangement Syndrome.”

Dorothy Rabinowitz blasted Trump’s “casual disregard for truth, his self-obsession, his ignorance, his ingrained vindictiveness.” She noted the fascistic character of the Trump campaign, writing, “No one witnessing Mr. Trump’s primary race–his accumulation of Alt-Right cheerleaders, white supremacists and swastika devotees–could fail to notice the menacing tone and the bitterness that came with it.”

The choice in the election, she continued, “will be either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton–experienced, forward-looking, indomitably determined and eminently sane.”

Adding fuel to the anti-Trump campaign are press exposures of the operations of his business empire and his eponymous foundation. The Washington Post continued Friday with the latest in a series of investigative reports on the Donald J. Trump Foundation, which had already revealed an illegal campaign contribution of $25,000 to the Florida state attorney general just before she quashed an investigation into the bogus “educational” efforts of Trump’s real estate institute, and a dubious payment of $258,000 to settle legal bills owed by various Trump-owned businesses.

Reporter David Farenthold discovered that the Trump Foundation had never been registered with the state of New York to obtain the certification required under state law before a charity can solicit donations from the public. The Trump Foundation raised more than the $25,000 threshold for seeking certification in each of the last 10 years. By failing to seek certification, the Trump Foundation avoided audit of its transactions.

Newsweek magazine chimed in with a cover story devoted to blasting Trump as a stooge of the Castro regime in Cuba, claiming he authorized spending $68,000 in Cuba to explore potential hotel and casino operations, at a time, in 1998, when such spending was illegal without approval by the US government. The clear purpose of the article, which was of a right-wing, anticommunist character, was to depress Trump’s support among older Cuban-American voters in south Florida, a critical “battleground” state where polls show a tight race between Trump and Clinton.

Meanwhile, the parade of prominent Republicans who have either denounced Trump or endorsed Clinton, or both, continues to swell. The latest was former Senator John Warner of Virginia, a former secretary of the Navy with close ties to the military-intelligence apparatus.

The Clinton campaign continues to highlight endorsements from former Republican congressmen and officials of the administrations of George W. Bush and his father, George H. W. Bush. A conference call Thursday featured former commerce secretary Carlos Gutierrez, former secretary of the Air Force Mike Donley, former deputy White House Chief of Staff Jim Cicconi, and three former congressmen.

The increasingly right-wing appeal of the Clinton campaign was underscored in an op-ed column by billionaire Steve Case, former CEO of AOL Time Warner, who cited as one of his major reasons for backing the Democratic candidate: “I agree with Clinton on the need to control the deficit.” He added that Clinton was “our best hope to remain the most innovative and entrepreneurial nation in the world.”

Nearly all of the newspaper editorials and endorsement statements have cited foreign policy and Clinton’s greater reliability as US “commander-in-chief” in a future confrontation with Russia. This has been particularly the standpoint of the bevy of former Bush administration officials who spearheaded the war in Iraq, including neo-conservatives such as Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot Cohen and Robert Kagan.

A driving force behind this outpouring of ruling class support for Clinton is concern that the former secretary of state is so unpopular, as the personification of wealth, privilege and the reactionary status quo, that she could actually lose the election to Trump.

Trump makes an appeal, albeit of an entirely demagogic and right-wing character, to layers of the working class and lower middle class devastated by plant closures, declining real wages and deteriorating social conditions. He says crudely what millions are experiencing in their own lives: America is sinking into ever-deeper social and economic crisis. Clinton’s complacent pledges to continue the “progress” made under Obama only further discredit the Democratic Party and her campaign.

The Problem With Progressives Defending What Clinton Said In Hacked Audio

Posted on by
Reply

DEM_2016_Clinton.JPEG-19e1f_c0-266-3500-2306_s885x516

By Kevin Gosztola

Source: ShadowProof

Early in the Democratic presidential primary, Hillary Clinton’s campaign, including her network of super political action committees, spread dishonest attacks about Bernie Sanders and his supporters routinely. Which is part of what makes the progressive response to the hacked audio of Clinton at a private fundraiser in February remarkable.

The fundraiser, as The Intercept reported, was hosted by “Beatrice Welters, the former U.S. ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago, and her husband Anthony Welters, the executive chairman of an investment consulting firm founded by former Clinton aide Cheryl Mills.” Clinton offered donors her thoughts on what made a “political revolution” appealing to millennials.

“Some are new to politics completely. They’re children of the Great Recession. And they are living in their parents’ basement. They feel they got their education and the jobs that are available to them are not at all what they envisioned for themselves,” Clinton suggested. “And they don’t see much of a future.”

Clinton maintained it was not a good idea to tell idealistic people, particularly young people, that they bought into a “false promise.” So, it was up to politicians like her to say there is another way to make progress that can actually produce achievements because Sanders doesn’t know how to achieve the plans he promoted.

What she said sparked a backlash on social media, particularly from supporters of Sanders who have not forgiven Clinton and the Democratic National Committee for how they conspired to rig the primary process against Sanders. But the campaign’s response to this backlash was swift.

Clinton spokesperson Glen Caplin told The Washington Post, “As Hillary Clinton said in those remarks, she wants young people to be idealistic and set big goals. She is fighting for exactly what the millennial generation cares most about – a fairer more equal, just world. She’s working to create new pathways to jobs and career opportunities, to build more inclusivity and community, and to ensure everyone gets a fair shot.”

“She believes that the most diverse, open-minded generation in history wants their voice heard in this election and that’s why she worked with Senator Sanders on a plan to provide students with debt-free college, and it’s why she’s traveling the country listening to their concerns and talking about not only what’s at stake in this election, but her plan for the generation.”

Sanders admitted he was “bothered” by Clinton’s remarks but stated on CNN, “I agree with her,” and, “There are young people who went deeply into debt, worked very hard to get a good education, and yet they are getting out of school, and they can’t find decent-paying jobs. And that’s a major problem. They are living in their parents’ basements.”

“We’re in the middle of a campaign. And I—trust me. If you go to some of the statements that I made about Hillary Clinton, you can see real differences. So we have differences. There’s nothing to be surprised about. That’s what a campaign is all about.”

Liberal pundit and Vox.com editor-in-chief Ezra Klein praised the comments as an example of the “audacity” of Clinton’s “political realism.”

“Her persistent theme is the danger of overpromising, and the difficult work of persuading voters — particularly young ones — to stick around for the slow, grinding work of change. Her rallying cry is that modest victories can add up, over time, to something much grander,” Klein argued.

One of the more obnoxious efforts to defend Clinton came from Michael Tomasky over at The Daily Beast. He was upset that he had to stop watching golf and football and write about this latest uproar among the “far left.”

“Of all the arrant bullshit I’ve seen on Twitter this election, this is easily the bullshittiest. She insulted no one,” Tomasky proclaimed. “In fact, quite the opposite—for someone speaking behind closed doors to ardent supporters, she was not only restrained, but she openly and directly asked her supporters to be patient with the impatient; that is, to understand the views and motivations of the younger people who wanted more radical change.”

According to Tomasky, people should celebrate Clinton for being “restrained” because the political class usually is less guarded when expressing contempt for the left. Except, it is not like Clinton made this statement because she is some kind of scholar interested in anthropology or social sciences. She wasn’t didactically exploring the finer points of what drives cultures or demographics to protest certain conditions in communities. She was speaking to a room full of rich people, probably from the top 15 percent, who were reasonably terrified at the time that Clinton would not be a strong enough candidate to survive an upswell of left-wing populist anger.

In February, when Clinton made these remarks to her donors, Sanders had raised more money than Clinton and the polls going into the Nevada caucus were close. The media’s major takeaway from that month’s debate was that Clinton painted  Sanders’ plans as unrealistic.

It simply is not true that she was not insulting anyone. If one listens to the recording, it is clear Clinton was working the room. “I mean, I’m still trying to understand the revolution part. Because here’s how I think about it,” she said. Donors giggled and chuckled. She played to them.

Clinton played to her rich donors again when she said:

…[T]here’s just a deep desire to believe that we can have free college, free healthcare, that what we’ve done hasn’t gone far enough, and that we just need to, you know, go as far as, you know, Scandinavia, whatever that means, and half the people don’t know what that means, but it’s something that they deeply feel.

A transcript does not communicate the sarcasm or derisiveness of Clinton’s comment, but when she said “whatever that means,” it was not an example of empathy and understanding. She wholly rejected the idea that the government should move toward social programs like Medicare For All and free public college tuition. She was engaged in a kind of humor that would go over well at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference or CPAC.

The same month Clinton made the recorded comments, her campaign recruited a black congressman, South Carolina Representative Jim Clyburn, to be the face of opposition to Sanders’ college plan and gin up controversy by suggesting it would doom historically black colleges.

Clyburn said, “[If] you start handing out two years of free college at public institutions are you ready for all the black, private HBCUs to close down? That’s what’s going to happen.”

The Democratic presidential nominee only worked with Sanders on a plan for “debt-free college” when her campaign and the Democratic National Committee were terrified Sanders supporters would not fall in line at the national convention in Philadelphia. Clinton’s campaign needed to support a few aspects of the “political revolution” to make it appear it was worthwhile to vote for her (even if she never meaningfully pursues these agenda items as president because she doesn’t really believe in them).

Is it really audacious to stand tall and insist the status quo is unalterable? Or to cast doubt whether Sanders and young people really have all the answers on how to transform the system to work for the 99 percent instead of only the top one percent?

Clinton wants people to be idealistic but not too idealistic. Her message is that older generations, who are part of the political class, need to determine what change is and is not achievable. Set the goals. Then, convince millennials these goals are achievable unlike their idealistic vision for revitalizing the country, which Sanders inspired them to support.

It makes little sense for Sanders or any of his supporters to say they agree with Clinton. Her assessment is not born out of a genuine interest in making the “political revolution” possible. It is born out of an interest in managing anger, co-opting energy, and steering action into policy plans that the Democrats are comfortable advancing for the purposes of pure politics—for touting during campaigns against Republicans.

That does not bode well for the Sanders agenda if she is elected president, but the bigger question is whether the coalition that made up the backbone of the “political revolution” will show enough solidarity and have the courage to make clear demands of Clinton as president.

It is one thing to encourage others to hold their nose and vote for Hillary Clinton because she is the lesser of two evils and Donald Trump is one massive evil that this country must not elect. It is quite another thing to downplay, misrepresent, justify, and ignore the truth of what Clinton stood for or pretend the fact Sanders and her are “collaborating” means she’s had some change of heart.

Clinton is still the same politician, who will not support a ban on fracking and who hawkishly supported bombing Libya. She is the same politician, who fervently opposed Medicare For All and still does not support a $15 federal minimum wage. Yet, it seems no matter how often corporate Democrats undermine progressive action or populist reforms, there are always enough progressives willing to excuse this action and even praise the calculated way in which Democrats play politics and punch down at the left.

Stop Trump! Stop Clinton! Stop the Madness (and Let Me Off)!

Posted on by
4

869b45d356923d7150751daa3504016c

Source: Stop Imerialism

“That’s the real issue this time,” he said. “Beating Nixon.  It’s hard to even guess how much damage those bastards will do if they get in for another four years.”

The argument was familiar, I had even made it myself, here and there, but I was beginning to sense something very depressing about it.  How many more of these goddamn elections are we going to have to write off as lame, but “regrettably necessary” holding actions?  And how many more of these stinking double-downer sideshows will we have to go through before we can get ourselves straight enough to put together some kind of national election that will give me and the at least 20 million people I tend to agree with a chance to vote for something, instead of always being faced with that old familiar choice between the lesser of two evils?

Now with another one of these big bogus showdowns looming down on us, I can already pick up the stench of another bummer.  I understand, along with a lot of other people, that the big thing this year is Beating Nixon.  But that was also the big thing, as I recall, twelve years ago in 1960 – and as far as I can tell, we’ve gone from bad to worse to rotten since then, and the outlook is for more of the same.

—Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail ’72

 

Another bummer indeed. It’s been nearly four and a half decades since His Majesty, Dr. Gonzo, wrote those words…and my oh my has the rot turned putrid, the stench overwhelming.

Were it only the fact that a corporate imperialist sociopath and a raving pseudo-fascist gasbag are competing to become the Murderer-in-Chief, one could simply retreat to the friendly confines of the Hobson’s Choice Inn.  There, among the carpets and curtains carrying the stains of elections past, one would watch the political circus in peace while doing the work of organizing against both Tweedle Bum and Tweedle Bummer.

But this time, there’s something even more sinister afoot, something far worse than mere cardboard cutouts in formal dress. No, this time it’s the pompous arrogance and vacuous prattling of “leftists,” “anti-imperialists,” and other assorted mental contortionists doing their damnedest to browbeat everyone within earshot (eyeshot?) that THIS TIME it’s important!

“How can you sit aside so smug and allow the fascist Trump to win? You’re being irresponsible,” they chirp.

“How can you attack Trump and let the Warmongering Witch of the West become President? You know what she’ll do,” they drone.

And the response to the denizens of both camps remains the same: If you’re not opposing both Janus faces of Dillary Crump while working to guillotine the many-headed hydra of the ruling class, then what the hell are you really doing?  Oh, right, I forgot – this is all “strategic,” it’s about avoiding a calamity by accepting a disaster.  I’m sure the children of Libya or Muslim-American and Mexican-American immigrants will understand as they are crushed under the bus beneath which they were thrown by a “progressive left” so quick to speak for them.

But perhaps it might be useful for the Left, of which I consider myself a part, to reflect on just what the sort of ‘sophisticated’ and ‘pragmatic’ politics of lesser evilism hath wrought: the continued evisceration of the working class by both the red team and blue team of the single ruling party, perpetual war for profit and Empire, an immutable rightward drift that makes Richard Nixon look like Eugene Debs, and a parasitical ruling class of finance capital whose greatest trick has been convincing the people that it doesn’t rule them.

And where are the victories?  What can we point to as the great breakthrough justifying the tactical vote?  [crickets]…[a single tumbleweed rolls along an empty desert landscape]

Have we seen anything but an acceleration of the worst aspects of imperialism and capitalism?  The climate is in crisis and we’re told by leftist royalty like the great Noam Chomsky that we should vote for Clinton because she at least recognizes the peril of climate change while Trump wants to put a lump of coal in Pachamama’s stockings.  But the obvious question then becomes: so what?

So what Clinton pays lip service to the global threat? She was an ardent supporter of the “All of the above” energy policy of Obama while promoting fracking around the world, taking massive campaign donations from energy industry lobbyists, and tacitly supporting the construction and expansion of the Keystone XL pipeline until it became politically untenable (thanks in no small part to the Bernie Sanders campaign).  And, of course, who could forget the votes she cast in support for expanded offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, a shameful vote which directly contributed to the Deepwater Horizon spill in 2010.

I suppose the question should be asked of Chomsky: Is a begrudging vote for Hillary to be cast solely on the grounds of her having appropriately progressive and focus-grouped talking points?  It seems that’s just about the size of it. So then the inevitable follow-up question would be: Why f*cking bother rewarding her for knowing the importance of lying well?

And how about that pesky little World War III problem?  I can almost hear the “Oh, don’t exaggerate…Hillary doesn’t want to start a war with nuclear-armed Russia” cries from the tastemakers of the liberal unintelligentsia.  Well, let’s allow the Queen of Chaos to speak for herself.  In a raving, Strangelovian speech given before the mouth-breathing jingos of the American Legion, Clinton explained:

We need to respond to evolving threats, from states like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea…We need a military that is ready and agile so that it can meet the full range of threats — and operate on short notice across every domain — not just land, sea, air, and space, but also cyber space…You’ve seen reports — Russia has hacked into a lot of things, China has hacked into a lot of things — Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee! Maybe even some state election systems, so we’ve gotta step up our game…Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight to those who go after us. As president I will make it clear that we will treat cyberattacks just like any other attack…We will be ready with serious political, economic, and military responses.

Did anyone else feel a shiver run down their spine, as I did?  Clinton literally advocates for war with Russia, arguing that a cyberattack which may, or may not, have originated in Russia be treated as an act of war.  Nuclear-armed Russia should expect a military response from the United States over allegations of hacking?  It’s sort of a pot calling the kettle black and trying to smash it with a goddamn sledgehammer kind of situation.

Now, of course, there are plenty of good people on the Left – Adolph Reed, Noam Chomsky, Arun Gupta, and many others – arguing that Clinton is a necessary evil to block Trump from bringing to fruition a full-fledged fascist movement that would have dire ramifications for social justice movements.  And there is undeniably an element of truth in that.

However, the wisdom of the logic relies on a false premise: Trump represents an existential threat while Hillary does not.  This basic assumption is undeniably flawed as global war with countries like Russia and China is indeed one of the great threats to humanity; this is precisely what Clinton’s belligerent foreign policy leads toward.  And there was a time when anti-war still was synonymous with Left activism.  What happened that we are now told that the pro-war position is necessary in order to stop, er, um, fascism?  How far we’ve fallen.

Trump: The Fascist “Anti-Imperialist”

In the unending search for the most imbecilic political logic, one comes across that rare breed of obtuse ignoramus who suggests that Trump is the anti-imperialist’s choice.  If that word has any meaning left today – something that is very much open for debate given recent developments – its application to Donald Trump is about as appropriate as referring to Clinton as the anti-fascist’s choice.

Trump doesn’t mean no more imperial wars; he simply means no more pretending our wars aren’t imperial.  He’s not for ending the wars, but rather fighting them with the nakedly neo-colonial intentions made overt that Clinton would only secretly share over candlelit dinners with Huma Abedin, Madeleine Albright, and Mephistopheles.  With people like Walid Phares, Michael Flynn, and Keith Kellogg as advisers, Trump will retain a pro-Israel imperial policy in the Middle East while advocating for NATO’s expanded mission of counter-terrorism.  Oh, excuse me, Trump wants Denmark to pay “it’s fair share” of NATO costs – pardon me while I release to the heavens a flight of doves in his honor.

What anti-imperialist isn’t enamored with a candidate who calls for a full military invasion of Syria and Iraq? And, of course, there’s no connection whatever between imperialism, colonialism and white supremacy, right?  Trump can spout the most virulently racist filth heard in US politics since George Wallace and Barry Goldwater went on a Tinder date to the Old Ebbitt Grill, and yet these anti-imperial mannequins swear up and down that Trump is an enemy of the Empire.  Even his complimentary reach-around to Bibi Netanyahu isn’t enough to shake the cobwebs from the faux anti-imperial noodleheads of the commentariat. Sigh.

And so, where does this leave us on the Left?  Everyone wants to bludgeon leftists into supporting Clinton to stop Trump using the familiar cudgel of “necessary evil”, while offering little to no additional direction other than “once the election is over we will…”  Yeaaaaaah, that’s worked out well for us thus far.

Others secretly root for Trump to upset the apple cart and open a space for the Left, conveniently forgetting that the Left remains a fractured and disunited bloc while the fascist right grows in strength and organization every day.  And commentators of the Left rush to tell their readers and fellow travelers that THIS or THAT is what they should do.

I’ve got an idea. How about we take a breath, drink/smoke/snort something nice and strong, close our eyes and listen close to hear the echoes of Dr. Gonzo reverberating off the walls of the Left echo chamber:

“Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.”

Or, if that’s just too droll:

“In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity.”