You could hear the deep sadness in the preacher’s voice as he named “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government." With those words, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., launched a scathing indictment of America’s war in Vietnam. It was April 4, 1967.
How do republicans keep winning? They cheat. I believe that the republican party is involved in a massive, pervasive vote-flipping scheme anchored by unaccountable electronic voting. I think that this is especially true in local and state elections where the results will fly under the radar. Do the people of Wisconsin keep voting in the troglodytic Scott Walker? Nope. He has been installed by virtue of Diebold. We are involved in a long-term, carefully planned and plotted out coup d'etat by virtue of electronic vote-flipping that the authorities will NEVER examine and which will hand the far right every statehouse, and ultimately, the grand prize, a wholesale revision of that pesky Constitution, with all of those inconvenient rights it allegedly grants to people. Until we examine the results of our voting and put into place a system where we can check the veracity of the tallies we will continue to see republicans capturing enough state governments to force a Constitutional convention, when all hell will break loose (literally, all hell).
I am not a fan of Freud's assertions, but isn't it the super-ego that seeks 'oneness' and the id the tendency to respond at an instinctual level?
Grappling with the "the takers" begins with a young man responding to an ad in the classifieds that reads:
TEACHER SEEKS PUPIL.
Must have an earnest desire to save the world. Apply in person.
40 to 85% of Americans are deaf dumb blind ignorant and delusional ..... and Republicans cheat ...
The truth was that except for a few nerds who avoided the draft by being in college, extremely few people of a revolutionary mind... had read Marcuse the Freudian. College students excepted, Marcuse was mostly pretense. Not that his writing was pretense but most of the people who claimed to read him were engaging in pretense... college student sincerity... the intellectual show etc.
I do so wish that the old fogey crowd (of which I have season tickets) would stop calling up the Sixties ( directly or indirectly ). The Sixties were their own time. They were driven not by college student radicals carrying signs mentioning Marcuse ( I never ever saw such a thing lol. If it happened it happened on a college campus). The Sixties were driven by a deep need for civil rights that would risk life and limb to realize what we call the dream - the prize! The Sixties were driven by the draft that forced men to kill which is a whole different thing than an all volunteer army. The Sixties were driven by a sense of justice and of possibility for the future.
The Sixties were not driven by greed nor in response to greed. In the decades since the Sixties, the Sixties have died. Some old fogeys had best recognize that fact. To a modern generation the Sixties was all about sex, drugs, dropping out and homeless hippies. They don't know and it seems significant that an older generation wants to reawaken a true Sixties consciousness decades after they did all they could to forget it. There is no continuity with the Sixties and that is that!
The young need a new consciousness and I sure wish their elders would stop trying to associate that developing consciousness with an old and basically moribund one from the Sixties. Sure there were great things but that doesn't mean that talking about them these many decades later will provide bona fires with the future. It makes me think of how as soon as people started to call for Resistance, the Dems glommed on to the term as if they had invented it. That hypocrisy is self evident. Hopefully they will recognize that either they fight to impeach Trump or take a back seat amidst their own irrelevancy.
I don't know what the young people will do but I sure wish the old fogeys would stop trying to lead them back to the past. Those days are over and something else is needed. I think the potential is there as the women's march showed... though I didn't notice anyone carrying a sign with Marcuse' name on it... did you?
I think ignorance is maybe at the root. But just how and why we continue to be as ignorant as we are is a matter of debate.
"Love trumps hate" was coined by the Clinton campaign and I think it was the result of purposefully misconstruing what HRC probably said and all the insider laughed cynically when the sheep starting using it.
I'm sure what HRC really said was, "I just love Trump's hate! It is so usable to convince people to oppose him."
Every time someone repeated the slogan, thinking they were saying that compassion will win out over antipathy, the insiders were thinking how much they adore that they could paint Trump as a bigot, using the same words.
This article is so isolated within the US context only. The sixties were a time of global anti-colonial uprising, narrowly following the previous popular uprisings that brought about "communist" systems, which took away power from the upper classes and gave it to the masses (at least on paper). That historical context came about a change in collective global conscience - and the "sixties" in the US was part of that. The global context right now is quite different.
I find very little to agree with in the article. It seems to assume that somehow Hillary would have been better. A Princeton study in 2014 on the US political system found that there is no correlation between voters needs and desires and US governmental policies that are actually implemented, but that there is a very high correlation between the needs and desires of the big donors and of the uber-wealthy and the governmental policies. We already live in a plutocracy, and whether Trump or Hillary won that wasn't going to change.
What if Bernie had won? Ha! If by some miracle he had successfully run the gauntlet of dirty tricks by the MSM and the Deep State and had actually won, the MSM and the Deep State would have never let him govern. They would have mired him in manufactured scandals from dawn to dusk, without giving him a chance to catch his breath. The fire they are directing at Trump because they disagree with him on a few issues would be magnified a hundredfold because Bernie would have represented a deep and fundamental threat to all of their interests.
The author states that maybe the answer is a fundamental shift in values, some sort of revolution in ways of thinking that could change everything. Such a radical and rapid shift would cause a great amount of social chaos, and history tells us that the most ruthless and vicious strongmen virtually always take control in situations of extreme chaos.
The only real chance I can see, and it is a slim one, is to return to the Labor vs. Capital narrative, uniting all the common people so that they have some small hope to successfully resist their subjugation, particularly before the technological revolution in Artificial Intelligence and Robotics comes to fruition in the next 10 years and most people are thrown out of work and the plutocrats decide to cut off the safety net for the great majority.
Given that is such a slim chance, the prudent course may be to start searching for a lifeboat to survive the turbulent seas when this ship goes down. Maybe the survivalists of the late 20th Century weren't as off kilter as they appeared then and just had the timing wrong.
Two things wrong with this article: (1) America's depravity did not begin with the Vietnam War; (2) it fails to recognize the fact that while money may not litterally make the world go around, it has a much bigger effect on our collective behavior than religion these days, and that's not going to change anytime soon. MLK's last book, Where Do We Go from Here?, showed he got that by proposing a Universal Basic Income -- the most effective way to undermine the corrupting influence of money on human consciousness that there is. Just do it!
Ignorance is enforced by overcrowded, underfunded, undervalued public schools whose boards are often dominated either directly or indirectly by local business. This business influence is not evil it just tends to reinforce obeisance, authoritarianism, incuriosity, classism, and conformity. Ignorance and inferiority thrive in such a substrate.
I disagree with your Sanders scenario. Many people who voted for DJT have said they might have voted for Sanders. You underestimate Sanders's staying power and political acumen.
He's been around a long time. He's got more street cred than you know. He's widely and justifiably trusted, a quality whose rarity makes it most valued of late.
Look for paradigm shift: Fossil fuels to Cannabis
Bernie is also tarnishing his street cred by essentially sheepdogging for the Democrats.
Plenty of folks see through that.
I didn't say it was impossible for Sanders to win or that I didn't admire or like Sanders. I stated that if he had won, you would have seen attacks on him by the MSM and the Deep State that would make all past attacks pale by comparison. He would have been under withering fire from the day he was elected, and every single charge against him or those associated with him in the past, including those against his wife for alleged mismanagement at some educational institution where she had significant responsibilities, would have been magnified and scrutinized to a virtually unimaginable degree. And if that weren't enough, the Republican machinery would begin manufacturing claims wholesale, which the MSM would dutifully amplify without verification. And of course if all that didn't work, they would kill him.
There is no way on this Earth they would have ever allowed him to govern as president.
What is wrong with the sixties? At least people talked to each other instead of hiding behind a screen.
A basic income is one that you get from working from someone else of be self employed. No one owes anyone anything .
Yes I remember that! The global way now is me me me.
More young people need to read and be educated by their elders. We pass on instead of pretending something did not exist. The times are different, but they are not better unless one is rich and is in the high tech world.
Really? I work in public schools, and have not noticed these things except for underfunding. They do not teach "ignorance" that comes from the homes.