RBN v. AOC And Caucus-Left. Confusing Whining With Revolution

Note: This entry isn't a continuation of the previous "Polly Ticking" focused on the Revolutionary Blackout Network. I wanted to take advantage of the news regarding the omnibus vote to make a point regarding RBN to then share some thoughts on "revolution" via some brief, unrelated personal anecdotes. Those issues mentioned here that pertain to those discussed in "Polly Ticking 2.875" are to be discussed in greater detail in "part 2.95", in which I support any points made here that aren't substantiated.

.

By definition, allies do not fly the same flag, so to speak. Education and standing shouldn't be seen as detriments to a working class struggle; they provide additional means to the fight. If anything, a wealthy man who faced the system and lost it all is far more useful to the revolution than a life-long working class individual, for their rage is of a similar intensity even if of a different shade, and if they surmount their shame, their humility provides a profound wisdom, offering "insider" knowledge that's invaluable, and otherwise not accessible to the working class. Never dismiss a potential ally for what they are not. 

The Fence Defence Advisce

Listening to military experts discuss Russia's S-300, S-400 and S-500 surface-to-air missile/anti-ballistic missile systems, it all seemed too obvious to me that the 500 systems were more recent than the lower numbered ones, the name perhaps betraying a tad more info to the enemy than is desirable?

I suggest that armies start at 3000 — because 2000 is now the past; accept it — and work backwards. 3000 suggests an unknown future that your weapons have been specifically designed for, so imagine what they'll do in the early 2000s. Plus, armies will obviously decide to attack any 1500 units before the fierce 3000 ones, not realising that the 1500s are 14 generations more advanced.

Gotta fight smart. Didn't Sun Tee-zoo say "Fight with your head; wear a helmet" in the The Arts & Crafts of War?

What's that? Drop the craft? It's just art? Is that what you're saying: it's just art?

Sorry, folks, I'm told I made an error.

Correction: If leaders wanna be smart like me, they should read Just Art, by Sun Tee-zoo

By Dipshit Logic, She Saved the World?

A revolution isn't about how loud one whines and complains or about petty attacks that constantly target a few individuals, blaming them for being inefficient against the beast that is the system; that's "dipshit" behaviour.

I believe that's the official term used to refer to practitioners of such revolutionary measures: dipshits? I'm just going off of what I heard was used by some to label expert revolutionaries, which I assume it's what they are based on the commentary they offered. I must confess that I'm not all that familiar with the socialist jargon, sorry.

But speaking of dipshits... uh, I mean, revolution, I'm surprised Revolutionary Blackout's (RBN) Nick Cruse and Compton Jay (CJ) didn't discuss the results of the omnibus vote held last Thursday, 22-Dec, and herald Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for her heroic vote, stopping all wars and resolving immigration issues with her "nay".

What gives?! Didn't she save the world? They must be too busy with the holidays to do their job properly, methinks, which is worrying because "unless [they] keep an eye on AOC and Bernie, and all progressives, then they fool people to — they are psyops — and that's what they do they fool people to take their money and direct them to the Democrats so they'll vote blue."

In fact, a few days before that, AOC, being their prime focus — obsessively so — RBN was telling viewers that she and Bernie Sanders were among the most dangerous elements in the West given their role to fool people while "their vote is directly correlated to the increase of the military industrial complex." (Ref. @2:31)

To drive the point home, in the days — months, too — prior to the vote on the omnibus bill, Cruse confirmed for his viewers that AOC & The Squad, and Sanders, too, aren't just in support of Israel being an apartheid state, it's their very votes that support such efforts and grant Israel the will to do so, and Palestinians are dying because of the Progressives, the Caucus-Left, and the Dems as well. Yes, AOC, too, even if she voted "present"; if she's not stopping it, she's a part of it, don't you listen to RBN? (Ref. AOC Stans in Tears; In Her Best Steve Urkel Voice; The Squad is Okay with Apartheid Israel (the last stands apart but the impression left is the same; watch any ten of their vids and at least seven will serve up that conclusion))

And after the vote, on 24-Dec, the uploaded “The Squad PULLS White Left Media To The Right | Kyle Kulinski Makes a Fool of Himself” finds the pair presenting the same footage of anti-war-protesting "hecklers" and repeating more or less the same complaints they'd voiced two months ago, each time focusing on Kyle Kulinski's take on the matter, hence attacking him to attack AOC to attack the fake-Left to attack whites to attack Dems!

They'd even interviewed one of the two protesters (both LaRouchites; I initially stated that it was just one) who happened to be volunteers for Diane Sare, a New York independent running for election to the US Senate, and rather than place the emphasis on promoting an independent candidate, it was placed on trashing AOC, the Progressives, and the Caucus-Left (which Kulinski is a part of). The always insightful duo that is The Duran, who don't focus on US politics and third-party paths, did a hugely far better job of helping an independent through the interview they did with Sare.

They've made no real mention of the omnibus or vote results; all's a re-run of two angry Black guys who haven't learned how to target their anger in a fair and productive manner.

Yes, Chris Hedges and Chomsky make the same observations that RBN makes, I hear Cruse say, and, heck, I've been making the same observations and I was probably making them a decade ago, but none of us — not to place myself in the same 'class' as Hedges or Chomsky — nor any of those who address these subjects seriously spend our time shitting on AOC and on all those who are the most likely allies, nor on diminishing people to labels that are both reductive and idiotic given the way they are applied and what they achieve.

If thinking it: I currently focus on RBN for the example it serves up within a societal topic I greatly care about and toward which the wrong perspective is generally applied, in my opinion, i.e., change. But rest assured that making a superficial and crass point about Leftists and then repeating it ad nauseum isn't in my plans, especially not doing it through a sustained focus on RBN, and even less through constant self promotion achieved by belittling anyone and everyone, whether or not I realize it.

That said, you'd think, given the significance of this great news and RBN's focus, that those promoting themselves as being among very few who actually tell it like it is — claiming to be "better journalists than all white liberals and all them sell-out clowns working in the mainstream media," including "corporate Democrat tools like TYT, Majority Report, and Humanist Report" — would do just that, tell it like it is, more so due to the insane level of importance they assign to AOC and Bernie Sanders. Cult of frustrated fans of personalities? Per the thumbnail, right, she is, after all, leading the pack, and in front of Marx and King!

Our future rests on her, right? It's just gotta seeing the level of hate and anger and the obsessive intensity and regularity with which RBN blames nearly everything on her, if not Bernie and Sam Seder, then work their way down through their list of "fake" Leftists and faux progressives, attacking all those which are a product of the problem, not the actual problem? If I'm wrong, how to make sense of these titles and claims: "AOC is why the Left had no revolutionary discipline," or "AOC is the problem, not identity politics."

Yet, here she is, doing precisely what they spit on her for not doing, as AOC opposed the federal bill, the only Dem to do so, while Rashida Tlaib voted "present"; all other Dems supported it. The Republicans that opposed the omnibus are, consequently, more leftwing than the Dems, per RBN's dipshitting, if I'm understanding the term correctly?

Here's what AOC did, which would, technically, counter nearly all of RBN's criticisms against her, and, consequently, against the Progressives? It was a brave act:

In a statement released 23-Dec (available below) AOC stated that she opposed the legislation because it included "dramatic increases in surveillance, border patrol forces, and militarized spending after years of deeply disturbing conduct."

"I campaigned on a promise to my constituents: to oppose additional expansion and funding for ICE and DHS — particularly in the absence of long-overdue immigration reform. For that reason, as well as a dramatic increase in defense spending that exceeds even President Biden's request, I voted no today on the omnibus bill."

Based on all their complaints and asinine attacks, you'd expect that RBN would devote a few minutes to address this, right? Nope. Zero mention of AOC or Tlaib's vote were made by RBN in any of their uploads made in the days after the vote, when they otherwise spend hours and hours whining about AOC and other Squad members' past votes should these have not been the votes desired by RBN, as the technical aspects and the limitations of change being applied from the inside aren't facets to examine and discuss and learn from, they're irrelevant as, plain and simply, the 'wrong' vote means the American Left is comprised of corporate-Dem-licking sell outs and everything they say is part of a psyops.

That's the same type of logic they apply to anyone that critiques RBN; I'm not criticising their toxic approach for seeing it as being detrimental to what's required to unite the Left if seeking to break the duopoly, whilst they're simultaneously arming the Right, I'm just voicing what I'm voicing because I'm anti-Black and want to re-direct them toward the Dems, duh, obviously. 

And the 'right' vote, however, is ignored, why?

But what is the right vote? Many seem to think she's let down her constituents, voting against their interest. There were plenty of nasty Tweets made in reply to that statement she released. And many accused her of abandoning Ukrainians and wishing their death. But we know what RBN thinks since, indeed, as ironically as it may be, all is a black or white issue with them, and you simply can't be on the same side if you don't see their way on all important issues. That said, people aren't misinformed on Ukraine, for the propaganda campaign waged by the West is only slightly significant, right? No, these people must be "warmongering motherfuckers" or "evil white moderates," certainly?

Being the real anti-war people, what to make of the fact that Cruse and CJ only see tribes and opposition without a middle ground being possible, as there's no room for negotiation or discussion, or space for misunderstanding — which they do a fair bit of — hence why the pair remains mostly ignorant of pertinent aspects relating to human behaviour and dynamics, focusing only on "us or them" broad strokes while doing little more than attack others. 

I'd waited to see if they addressed AOC's "nay" before firing off the first, swear-filled version I'd written in reaction to their hypocrisy; on 26-Dec they uploaded "Q. Anthony Omene | Squad Votes ICE | Marianne Williamson Running in 2024 | Jordan Chariton's Article." Squad Votes ICE; there we go. At least they talk about the bill and vote, right?

That video... sigh. I've never seen individuals be so full of themselves and who, despite the slew of false facts and the false impressions they serve, despite the incredibly-reductive and simple-minded interpretations they ascribe to too much, despite all the vitriol they fling and the hate they spew, and, in light of all their own claims and behaviour, in spite of possessing a level of self-awareness that's severely deficiently warped if not entirely lacking, they would actually attack others for any self-promotion. CJ's review of Jordan Charlton's article is somewhat torturous as he keeps hitting aspects you hope he'll turn on himself and RBN, but no such luck. With Cruse, too; each time they bring up a point that describes what they're doing so perfectly, they either don't see it or deny that any of that applies to them; somehow, they're special.   

Finally, the only mention they made of the Bill and vote was to trash the Progressives, bringing it up as an example of non-Leftism by the "fake Left".

Like Ilhan “Headspace” Omar (their nickname for her, it seems)...:

“...that votes for the omnibus bill that funds ICE War, and Military-Industrial Complex war, and send money to Ukraine, no critique at all coming from the NATO-Left, but the REAL Left, the real Left, [incoherent self-promotion] RBN is gonna give you an honest, serious assessment here of the ruling class.

“The Democratic party is the Military-Industrial Complex, and if you vote for the Democratic party, you enable the Military-Industrial Complex. We’re independently [minded] and I do not care what you call yourself independent or vote red-blue, the same way I don’t care if you say you’re an anti-Imperialist communist; you see these clowns all the time on Twitter, got Mao flags, quoting the, uh, Communist Manifesto and then they vote for Joe Biden, fuck outa here! Fuck outa here! You see these clowns everywhere on Twitter. You are not anti-imperialist; you are not anti-Capitalist if you’re voting for a war party.”

There's so much 'stupid' in just that I don't know where to start, only wanting to do a brief post. I'll point one out: both red and blue are the war party, hence Cruse saying he doesn't care if one votes red or blue doesn't stand; it's total BS.

In that same video, Cruse brought up a Truthout article titled, "Democrats Are Making a Devil’s Bargain on Pentagon Funding. It’s Not Paying Off," and with the subtitle: "Progressives can't win unless Pentagon spending is put on the chopping block"

"This person's article is going to make a very common sense argument that apparently AOC and The Squad never thought about... [add broad insult and RBN self-promotion here]," says Cruse.

I got the impression he hadn't read the piece, the simple "you can't put money on X if it's placed on Y" interpretation suggesting he never made it past the opening paragraph and relied a bit too much on the subtitle. It's about ratcheting, not displacement.

The "quick deal" aspect — agreeing to pass military spends in exchange for some social spending, never proportional — is one that RBN actually feeds by constantly shitting on the Progressives for all they don't deliver while never taking into account the reality of what they're going against, so, they're willing to make sacrifices to show any small gains in an ill-placed attempt to satisfy their base. This also ties into the mentality that's responsible for many poor people going to jail due to plea bargaining, the Blacks being those most abused by this practice.

No matter what they do or don't, the Progressives are always shat on, no matter the decision or the details, by the rightwing if not their base, this aspect also motivating one to turn away, say "screw this," and focus on themselves and their career.

Real Boneheaded Nuisance?

RBN is putting all their focus on those individuals they don't want anyone to focus on, and Cruse keeps boasting how he understands the media while everyone else is "an idiot that just gobbles the shit up"? 

If this vote means that AOC is sure to be passed up for appointments where she could apply change and not just register what can only be taken as a symbolic but meaningless gesture that's sure to change nothing, what good is the value of that "nay" vote in the wider scheme of things, per an inside game? Maybe, in this context, RBN's focus on votes amounts to vapid finger-pointing in many cases. Not all, the Progressives deserve much criticism, but nothing with their obsession is normal or productive, and by dipshit logic, they've gotta be working for the Republicans if not the CIA, oh, my! 

So, Cruse and CJ spend their time going through old material, digging whatever they can use to spin 'anti' content on anything and anyone related to the CPC, the DSA, and the Caucus-Left? If not CIA or GOP, then they gotta be doing it for clicks. 

The reason why I wanted to focus a post on AOC's vote and RBN's absence of any mention of it is that it instantly showcases the hyperbolic — if not moronic — nature of their attacks and the superficial aspects they focus on, always negating, never promoting.

Which third-party path are they proposing once they've turned people away from Dems? Marianne Williamson certainly isn't an option for them, they've made that clear — she's garbage — but Jimmy Dore is their ideal candidate, as well as others who aren't even planning to play an elected political role, as far as I know. If they hate the DSA and its approach so much, instead of obliquely promoting the Republican party, why aren't they members of the Socialist Party USA and help promote that? They've already got some of the tough bureaucracy taken care of, and, since real Marxism and nothing but is what RBN claims to want, I'm sure they'll get their run for their measly membership-fee money.

But none of that is of any concern to them; RBN clearly doesn't act as a watchdog, and they sure as hell don't seem to care about "telling it like it is" if it plays against what lies under their false-front truth-teller image and their single-minded message: Don't vote blue. 

What does RBN offer? A constant focus that reduces the coercive nature of insider politics into blunt accusations of "pro-apartheid", "pro-war", "pro-imperialist", and "pro-establishment" stances, spewing constant streams of hate-filled and superficial attacks on anyone they perceive as not being in line with them... All I hear is anti-progressive and anti-Dem talk that's meant to pass off as anti-imperialism and anti-war rhetoric but fails to communicate any of this to those who don't already share their exact views, being too preoccupied with shitting on minor elements who, nonetheless, are aiming to do good, thus adding to the pile of contradictions that illustrate the lack of self-awareness from which RBN suffers, and the limited context and scope that lies behind their judgments.

That they figured out that the Dems are equally bad is not the huge feat that deserves sustained attention; after all, people speak of the lesser of two evils for a reason. Here's a few that didn't just realize this (dig through my past posts, too, plenty of mention there), as RBN should know that people aren't finally catching up to them or Hedges, who hasn't made his first mention in the article they base themselves on; here's proof: 

• Democrats: Membership in the War Party? | Center for Citizen Initiatives (ccisf.org), dated 19-Mar-2021; or,
• Democrats Are Now the Aggressive War Party | Consortium News, dated 8-June 2016; or 
• Are Democrats truly the ‘war party’? | vvdailypress.com, dated 2-Sep-2020

The last should be of particular interest to RBN, as it aims to confirm that the Dems are the real war party, and uses that to put a conservative spin on other 'Dem-associated' efforts, presenting a view that was widely shared and deeply exploited:

"The troops on the ground are known as Black Lives Matter, which hides its anti-American motives under the guise of social justice while calling for race and gender conflict; and Antifa, which professes opposition to fascism while engaging in its violent tactics in our cities and neighborhoods. None of them will be voting Republican this year."

The issue is getting some to break the fear of the other winning and what that entails, which is what keeps people bound within the two-party options and not wasting their vote on a lone independent, which is also why independents feel they need to connect with one of the two parties if they're to get anywhere and not pull a "Ralph Nader". As much as I admire the man, the infrastructure wasn't there for him. Building this is what ought to be the focus, not shitting on people caught in the system that is the problem. 

And keep in mind that, this time, it's for real that the GOP in full control may herald a bad period; what's happening is global, not just limited to US elections

As such, to think that the problem is the Progressives and Bernie Sanders and to focus so much anger on them, not the problem, this betrays a strong possibility that some comprehension issues or cognitive impairment are in play if not some agenda other than what's purported to be their goal. Or is any change good change, no matter how regressive things get?

Going by their logic, RBN must be controlled opposition, working for the Republicans, right?

In my opinion, they are not acting as a force for good, nor for bad, necessarily; they are a divisive force and merely another cog in the system which is the problem, unable to respect the seeds that forge differences or seize the effect of all they point to as being propaganda, being more concerned with insulting those who don't share their outlook or who've, naturally, accepted the lies as truths rather than on piercing through to these individuals in non-hostile ways in order to get them to see the reality. Join forces. Now is not the time to manufacture enemies. 

Because reality is what the now serves up, not what one hopes to see materialize tomorrow, and because the reality is a duopoly, and because they never discuss concrete, viable steps to take and they've adopted a highly-filtered view of "networking" and "bridge building" that's the complete opposite of what's required, and because they make negative attacks their norm and focus, they're creating a far more fractured Left in a duopoly world, and not helping to build a tripartite possibility, which leaves an armed insurrection as the only non-electoral path to complete change, and it's not something I can recommend or promote without a successful "defund the military" campaign having been achieved.

One of the points raised in the 'broad strokes' section that's at the bottom of "Reform v. Revolution? Have A Reforution! - Polly Ticking 2.875"

• Aggressively attacking a faction of progressives with no alternate route to offer other than the repeated mention that "people are complete losers and idiots" for still believing that the Democrats will deliver on anything will:
  • Achieve the one thing that gives reason to those afraid of seeking a third-party option: dilute votes, encourage many to abstain, and incite some to vote GOP.
  • The idiocy and animosity of tribes, isn't that what all all wish was no longer a primary defining characteristic of one's political landscape?

Does the I See Change

I once held a management position for a company whose owner could be somewhat of a slave driver given that, as laudable as it is, the problem was, he'd never worked for anyone, having started his company while young and it had bloomed into a multi-million dollar enterprise. He understood sacrifice; he had no clue about the 'feelings' of an employee, and that their motivation is the paycheck, they had nothing more to gain, really, from the type of dedication he expected, knowing only that. He wasn't mean or unfair, but if the week demanded 80 or 60 hours, what difference did it make? Clients had to be billed and, so, work needed be done... He failed to understand that the employees' payout weren't affected or incremental, so, past a certain number of hours, he could stick his work where... 

People were frustrated, many had tried to speak with him... nothing ever changed.

Given my role, employees constantly complained to me, hoping I could force procedural changes to ameliorate their lot. I kept telling them the same thing: I can't encourage you to strike, but I can guarantee you that if you all show up two hours late one morning — everyone; absolutely no one shows up before the two hours and no one takes his calls — then, I know for a fact that you'll have his full attention. Select two people, and when you all come in, go about your day normally while they set up a meeting with him then join you. He'll know you're serious and there's power behind the demands, and he'll treat you with respect for having made your point without scrapping a full day or more. Those two hours, they'll be like ten for him, trust me.

It never happened. Employees kept complaining about the same thing until I was able to introduce some changes, but only because I could provide financial reasons for doing so.

When I left, employees were doing less than 40 hrs per week, accomplishing as much as before. I'd pushed for a change in pay structure, so that it was no longer about the number of hours worked, but simply about getting the job done; it resolved a whack of gripes in one swoop. People were complaining about the longer hours, but I'd noticed a lag I could only attribute to motivation, as past a certain number of hours, the productivity rate per man-hours would drop, and because teams had to help each other out to finish the week's workload, this created a lot of dawdling, either to get help or to avoid helping. Calculate the reduction in operational costs for cutting all those hours of work, and it translated into happier employees making a bit more money if productive and quality conscious, and over $100K in cost savings per year.

Another time that comes to mind: Recalling a story from my dad's youth had convinced me of a new strategy for a quick-buck side business to the main seasonal business a friend and I had in Toronto while in school, as we took advantage of the Victoria long-weekend to sell fireworks, which could only be sold twice per year in Ontario at the time (Canada Day being the 2nd).

My dad had won a competition as a teen, having the kiosk that had made the highest profit during their school fair. While others sold all sorts of goodies and soda bottles, which they sold for 10¢ a piece (early 60s), he sold just Coke or 7uP at 2 for 25¢. That story had boggled me completely when I'd first heard it as a young kid. At the time, 5¢ wasn't necessarily chump change.

We'd tried one summer using roman candles as loss leader selling them 49¢ each but they cost us 50¢ each. We had three locations; 2 fixed (rent) plus selling out of a truck. The 49¢ wasn't a draw. We didn't make much money, but on the last day before the traditional night of fireworks, I'd found out that the Big Two breweries were selling beer directly to the public, the provincial alcohol stores being closed for the holiday; people came from far to get beer.

The next year, we decided to try again, but with a limited inventory, selling on just one day, not three, and just out of the truck, no store front.

I headed straight for the Molson brewery with with big signs that said 3 for $2, so, at least we were making 50¢ rather than losing 3¢ on the same sale. Sold out of everything, even the pricey fireworks, in just under 2.5 hrs. The 3 for 2 worked like mad. Prep time and operational costs next to nil, we each pocketed about $1000 for less than an afternoon of work compared to just over $200 and roughly 90 man-hours the previous summer.

Then there was the time when, on my first official day in a major company, first thing in the morning, I went to see my boss and told him I wanted to change the entire reporting method and the processes involved. This was after having done a painful week with the person I was to replace, impatiently waiting for her to go as I couldn't believe what she was teaching me were the processes she and the company had adopted; she was obviously incompetent if she hadn't forced a change or made the recommendations, I felt. It took a bit of coaxing but I got the go ahead.

I had decentralized the reporting, digitized all steps, created templates to facilitate the reporting task for all managers, and what was a stressful affair to produce the preliminary weekly numbers ready for the Monday noon meeting — getting all reports done could take up to a day and half — no longer was, and I didn't even need to come in early on Monday mornings like my predecessor; I was in by 09:00 and had all final reports ready by 09:30.

Or, there's the time that, a pilot project carried out in two brand divisions of a large corporation reaching its end, I took it upon myself to offer an assessment of our division's use, fails, strengths, etc., and offered future recommendations, not aware that the directing manager of the other division had already made a decision regarding the program, and that the division I worked for had decided to follow her lead; I had learned of that after giving a copy of my assessment to my directing manager and the company's president.

I'm called into my boss' office one afternoon; the president was there. Both were laughing. Then they started teasing me that I needed to learn how to properly budget a project, and how to round up, usually by 10,000 given the average project cost. Unaware of the solution they were going to take, I'd submitted a $800 proposal — we just needed a capture device we could get at Radio Shack for less than $10 per unit, times the number of locations; we already had the reporting structure in place.

The other division had spent over $75,000, had less accurate data than ours, they wasted more time fiddling with the software that came with their total package, and they had to manually transfer the data from the third party system into the company's reports, which our numbers were already included in for our division's reports.

I ended up getting a bonus that was way bigger than my recommended budget.

•     •     •

There's nothing real spectacular about those few examples I just provided; bragging isn't my intent, it's conveying how significantly impactful changes rarely demand re-building the world. So much depends on perspective. And not limiting one's.

I just approach things differently, refusing to be boxed in by "standard" or "past" practices, though I'm not sure there's really an element of choice in the matter. A stubbornness of sorts and self-assurance are probably more in play than any talent. I'm not happy when told: Don't think, just follow the steps.

You'll know that I genuinely care about a topic or issue when understanding the "why" is far more important to me than the "how", which tends to be just the one possible way that's been absorbed or interpreted by the person trasmitting that "how", this usually having been developed or assumed with limited scope, this, in turn, being the cause of ambiguity and/or redundancy, precisely because a good grasp of the "why" is lacking.

That said, the stupidest thing anyone can say to me, which the involuntary grimace I'll offer in retort will tell you, is: It's gotta be done that way because it's always been done that way.

•     •     •

What too few seem to grasp is that: For most of what defines our systems and structures of society, there's very little there that's inherently natural, all of it man-made and not stemming from nature; we choose to live the way we do (as a society, not an individual) and, outside of the dictates of our basic needs, we ascribe value to what we do as a choice, not natural law.

So much depends on the relationships one builds, for change is always a two-way proposition.

For those examples I give, I can provide ten times more where the demonstrably better, cheaper solution I've offered is shot down for no justifiable business reason; it boiled down to personal ones having to do with control, fears and insecurities, etc. There's some that have been rejected due to justified business reasons, based on aspects I could not have been aware of. Keep in mind that I've mostly freelanced, being hired to implement and/or streamline data and communication processes, yet, "fighting for change" is a more accurate label than "consulting".

People generally say they want change, but then oppose it in all sorts of ways when facing it.

It's not just the employees, it's the owners and senior managers, too, who often end up opposing a change, this, despite the irony in having been hired to produce change.

People don't approach methods and means, procedures and processes like I do simply because they're not called on to do as much; they're tasked with the surface, applied realm assigned to them and the limited scope it affords. And there's a security, too, encrusted in what becomes a routine, which is an aspect that comes to the surface only once people are confronted with a change at which point, oftentimes, owners will admit that they want everything as is, just... um, you know... better. Without all the bad parts, but the same.

Unless the value of breaking out of one's comfort zone is communicated, all will provide some degree of friction to a change unless already sold on its value. In order to sell a change's value to someone not possessing a pre-existing familiarity with a targeted end state, one must not present a new 'state', but an idealized old-state. The same. But better.

Indeed.

Either way, "change" is an issue. It's not really what people want. They just want to be free of problems and enjoy real freedom, which means being able to be sick without worrying sick about it, and to be able to afford to eat what one wants, taking the occasional trip, and not having to get a third job because the fridge broke down, and not needing a second job in the first place...

What people really want is far more simple than what most seem to assume; and far more simple to deliver than what Capitalism will allow.

To change this, we must unite; efforts should be placed on convincing people of this path, not on demonizing needed allies, and not on guilting people out of the only viable option until one is provided.

This unity cannot be achieved by establishing superlatives, for, although there can be many goals, there must be only one battle if our fight is to be successful.

Twitter source

Sources

• Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Was the Lone Democrat to Oppose $1.7 Trillion Bill | businessinsider.com 
• Democrats Are Now the Aggressive War Party | Consortium News
• Democrats: Membership in the War Party? | Center for Citizen Initiatives (ccisf.org)
• Are Democrats truly the ‘war party’? | vvdailypress.com