Reform v. Revolution? Have A Reforution! - Polly Ticking 2.875

ReformRevolution HEADER 45 Polly2

Posted: Dec 22, 2022   5:15:52 PM   |   Last updated: Dec 22, 2022   5:15:52 PM
by Pascal-Denis Lussier

Because Revoforms Are for Sissies

23-Dec-2022: Edit; some grammatical errors were corrected.


Note: Regarding Matt Taibi's "There's no sense of humour on the political Left" remark made on Ben Shapiro's show, do know that I take offense to that comment. Thank you.

Also: Apologies for the delay on this post. Need a bit of a break these days; detach myself from constant 'news'... plus, frankly, the holidays are somewhat rough for me and these efforts tend to heighten a sense of isolation — just one tangible bit of positive feedback, just once since reviving DMS&UY would have been nice, if I'm honest — so, I may finish up some of the other posts I never got around to, setting them aside for what seemed like higher-priority topics, but I'll probably focus more on the backend and on finalizing some features to start off the new year all streeted up. Cheers!

Happy Holidays!

Preface - Objectively Objectionable

"[AOC] and Bernie are running psy-ops for the CIA to keep people from finding out about foreign policy." Nick Cruse

RBN - Disagree without being Disagreeable

Last Tuesday, Revolutionary Blackout (RBN) uploaded the above episode; the first segment refers to an article titled, "Can the Left Disagree Without Being Disagreeable?" published on the same day in CounterPunch, written by one of my fave thinkers, "Indian Marxist historian" Vijay Prashad. That's not how I would instinctively categorize Prashad, hence the quotation marks, but it's the one he's widely placed in. "Cool dude, smart man," would be the one I'd use. 

In the article Prashad states:

It is peculiar that a call for negotiation between Russia and Ukraine is now painted as a ‘talking point’ of Vladimir Putin rather than a gesture towards peace. That is the toxic nature of debate, including within the left, where anything that is not identical with what someone believes is pilloried as the absolute opposite position; the space for nuance and dialogue is being withered by this sort of attitude.


I am interested in discussion and debate, not in treating left discourse as a multiple-choice exam where there is only one correct answer to every question.

Out of disagreement comes understanding. But out of malicious slander only comes disorientation.

He provides more examples, these illustrating the ridiculous turn that today's political, and politicized, discourse has taken, wherein mainstream elements firmly set the binary option one's tribe is to take, enforcing the obligatory "With us or against us" doctrine popularized by Bush Jr. As I've said numerous times by now: The "all black or white because grey is for dictator-spooning, tyrant-licking, authoritarian-fondling QAnon-fetishists" way of thinking is something I find troublingly baffling. I normally call it "f***ing idiotic, deleteriously puerile behaviour from mentally weak tribalists," but I'm trying to be a tad more agreeable than usual. What?!

The point that Prashad is making is clear, I thought, which is, essentially: Can Lefties possess different conclusions/views and not let that be a reason to not treat each other with decency and respect? "Agreeable" is to be taken, simply, to mean: In a pleasant manner. 

Compton Jay (CJ), alone for some time before other RBN hosts join him, discusses the article, as he'd come across it and the topic 'is his thing', but, per what he advances, I'm not convinced he read the (short) piece. Nonetheless, he examines the question posed by Prashad, that it should be seen as a rhetorical one meant to illicit reflection on one's behaviour and encourage civil discourse is entirely missed, it seems. 

“We would clarify what exactly is “left” so if the left includes reformers who are also advocates of imperialism, no,” claims Compton Jay, continuing with, “then I go on to say, it also depends on what is meant by disagree. If by “disagree” you mean strike breaker versus non-strike breaker, hell no. [...] [H]ow I take the question is that the reason there's disagreement is because we're talking about reformists and revolutionists [sic] working together, and that's where the friction is. We're talking about reformers, which is largely the professional managerial class, and revolutionist [sic], which is largely the working class with some class traitors sprinkled in.”

Trying to puzzle together what Prashad meant, CJ rambles all sorts of things, then offers an hypothetical comprised of two groups of three outlets, RBN, Jimmy Dore, and Convo Couch making up one, TYT, The Majority Report, and The Humanist Report making up the other. He then goes through headlines and extracts current issues that are, according to CJ, defining progressive issues.

He concludes that the first group can, and have, disagreed and were agreeable, and so has the second group, but, when it came time to see if all six could disagree and be agreeable, after answering “no” to the same issues, namely, NATO, funding war, Palestine, Imperialism, the railway strike, etc., CJ concludes with:  

“I think the question more applies to those groups that group together: can they disagree without being disagreeable? Yes, but can reformist — that's really the question we're asking — can reformists and revolutionaries disagree without being disagreeable, and that's the question I'm not quite sure about; that's the question I'm not quite sure about.”

Rome joined in. In answer to the question, he barked and growled what's becoming his standard rant about people not understanding 'cause we're all too brainwashed and stupid that we're sucked into the system and controlled into being blind idiots... I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist. No disrespect meant.  

JayBe (James Fauntleroy) went for his mix of over-the-top melodrama, pantomime, and grandstanding to offer up specific cases he sarcastically shot down.

"...disagree, you mean like bombing women and children? Are we supposed to be, like, OK, that's a small disagreement... it's like we agree..."    

Nick Cruse joined last; he's become a huge irritant I can only take in limited doses. He's got a toxic approach, always calling those who don't share his 'vision' names, always belittling huge groups of people while praising himself, yet, too often betraying his own ignorance while calling anyone not shitting on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or TYT or Majority Report — he seems to have a particular thing for that one — all sorts of swears. He acts as if he's outwitted Washington and unveiled its secrets, and now spends his time semi-scream-talking the same grand revelations that have been a point of debate for many years. Now, events are converging to force a crux on the matter, for both parties are tired of the other and of not being able to apply a firmer control. There are bigger foes than those who attempted to deliver but failed miserably, stuck and morphed by the system that's too powerful and will win every time. But 'be obsessed, attack, attack, attack and serve it up five times worse than those I shit on for doing exactly what I can't seem to realize is pretty much all I do' is his mantra?

After grating ears with semi-incoherent monologues telling his audience how he does everything right and all politicians are dog vomit, he fares no better with the simple question asked by Prashad.

“Anti-Imperialist I have a lot of different anti-capitalist voice I listen to because even if you have different takes, if you're, if you're getting those two things right, I want to work with you. Like, those are, uh, leftists who disagree with each other.”

In another video uploaded today, while discussing an interview Ryan Grim, Washington, DC bureau chief for The Intercept, had done with OAC — two of their favourite targets — and a comment she made about handling disagreement being a challenge, Cruse, after the hosts served up pointless derision in response to that bit, says:

"[I]magine if a republican was trying to court [AOC]  and then AOC respond[s]: ‘Oh, I would never support the Republican party. You guys are against gay people and you guys are against abortion,’ and then the Republican guy said, ‘Come on man we got to manage our disagreements.' Do you guys see how stupid this is, either we are on the same side or we are not."


•     •     •

Sabby Sabs (Sabrina Salvati) is, along with the aforementioned four, one of the five official members of RBN. All have their own show or channel outside of RBN, but operating as RBN members. Sabs brought me to RBN, if I recall correctly.

I can't stand her show. Annoys the crap out of me, from the opening shout outs to the way she turns a simple thing into a revelation worth repeating and replaying and stretching from 20 seconds into 4 minutes. And it's her prosody, too, and her Lydian way of intoning a question to a C#. Pausing. Repeating. Pausing. Repeating. Paus—Holymotherfu.... I feel like I'm watching Political Corner... of Sesame Lane and Wall Road.   

HOWEVER, in the context of a discussion or speaking outside of her show, she's a smart one; she and Briahna Joy Gray are two who've shown a tremendous understanding of the fight that lies ahead of a progressive change, and the most grounded take regarding what a third-party path entails.

Trying to get a sense of how her audience reacted to the pedantic approach she served up, the comments surprised me, led me to think that a portion of the Black community is, truly, politically ignorant, the sad result of the treatment afforded to kids in public schools? Blacks having been, historically, kept out of politics no doubt carried forward an apathy that was the product of white 'influence'? Well, not my cup of coffee, but it seems like there's a strong appreciation for her slow, methodical, manner, and, here's the clip, here's an interrogatory quip, and here's the clip, again, and repea—oh, for chrisssake get on with it!


The Left's Right Progress

Polly Ticking 2.75
This is the second part to "Reform v. Revolution? More Preliminaries - Polly Ticking 2.75" (and fifth in Polly Ticking series)

The first part attempted to provide a sense of the particular disparities that are in play while assuming that readers have some familiarity with the groups involved as well as the issues relating to the tensions that are forcing a split, the relevant details having been provided in previous posts on the topic of progressives.

In this one, I address elements that are directly related to the tensions that are deepening the divide, this split being far-reaching, and holding more importance than most assume, in my opinion, as it's shaping another current and force that's bound to justify violent behaviour should certain rhetoric continue its escalatory trend, the group that's to coalesce catering to all sorts of dissaffected voters, drawing significant numbers from the far-Right. Properly directed, the energy that's building up could produce tremendously positive results for the masses, but Lefties being what they are, I'm being realistic and worried that he first is what's to occur.

That said, I discuss Revolutionary Blackout Network (RBN) in a mostly oblique manner in this one, another installment being on the way. Here, I aim to highlight — without addressing them, which I do in the next one — what I see as being fundamental issues with their mindset and approach, it being one that's bound to result in a situation that'll offer far more to complain about than the present one that's cause for complaint.

Keep in mind: I focus on specifics but what I target shouldn't be taken as what's targeted, per se, i.e., it's not the particular instance I mention that's of interest, it's its broader significance and the mindset that it betrays.

RBN had its YouTube debut on 20-Feb-2022; Nick Cruse and Compton Jay (CJ) have been active Leftist 'activists' for a while, Cruse doing related journalism and originally operating under the name Fred Hampton Leftists, from what I gathered. To be frank, their 'history' isn't something I've cared to research, that side being irrelevant to the now and the message they carried going forward; what I needed to know to gauge their worth as the voice of a movement they claimed to be lied in what they packaged and delivered.

The side of RBN that had prompted the previous post (Polly Ticking 2.75) wasn't initially seen as such, but the core of the issues I wanted to discuss through the three mindsets I'd discussed in part one of the Polly Ticking series, represented by Cenk Uygur, Lance from The Serfs, and Dylan Burns, actually link directly — almost as a flip-side of — to everything I see wrong with RBN, addressing this providing a better path to communicating the same conclusions that follow from my assessment of the progressive situation and fight.

RBN - Nick Cruse and CJ

I'd crossed the RBN channel a few times but it only really managed to capture my attention in early October, whence I thought I may have found a meaningful voice from a non-tribal space that very few actually occupy, their focus matching the very points I raised through the posts that discuss the progressives, as does their conviction that a third-party route is the only real option to real change; I'd initially seen an interesting energy and a great rallying potential that revived an optimism. I figured they were worth keeping an eye on seeing the "correctly" progressive kind of progressivism practiced by this group — "network" is meant to be taken as just that in this case, and not the "broadcaster" sense that we now commonly associate with the term when used in that context.

Being highly critical of the The Squad and of the Caucus-Left (a.k.a. NATO-Left), RBN saw itself attracting growing views and subs as the usual progressive gripes and conflicts gained more public attention, even managing to draw the attention of rightwing outlets into Progressive affairs, but for their usual, destructive reasons. Intensifying their anti-Squad/Dem/white-liberal rhetoric turned significant attention toward RBN after CPC members faced anti-war heckling and received deserved heat for their ignorant, hence, complicit stance on Ukraine, this simultaneously forcing to the fore the whole DSA/CPC approach that the Democratic Progressives and Caucus-Leftists represent, their goal centred on bringing about change from the inside.

This aspect, the very approach that should be adopted by Leftists, has been a point of contention early on, but at that point, before the string of disappointment, complaints came from the usual naysayers instantly seeing as the better course whatever it is that's the opposite of what's being proposed, it not being the right shade of "socialism" or "progressivism", or stemming from one's need to be in the limelight, to be seen as the hero of change — too much had been volunteered and too good a career had developed out of it to just let those Lefties direct change and take credit — if not due to petty personal quarrels, all these aspects having far too much to do with far too much of the friction and obstacles that are a persistent hindrance to veritable efforts to apply change. In many ways, the Left is its own worst enemy.

Leftists know this, as all those who've dedicated any energy toward bringing about change has, or will, voice this sad reality: Leftist attitudes are, ultimately, to blame for the fundamental failings of Leftist efforts — it's easy to find whiny, self-entitled and/or self-righteous, yet, highly-bigoted a-holes among this segment — the various groups seemingly functioning under the impression that one must continually put forward a bitter, militant attitude aimed at-large or a hyper-tribal one aimed at the obvious 'other', armed with an extreme intolerance that fires crass judgments at Olympic speeds, shielded by an anti-other indoctrination feeding reactive, collective impulses to disregard, isolate or silence anything and anyone deemed to fail the "tolerance worthiness" test that's applied per a single consistent characteristic: whim.

It's a slew of different reasons and motivations and causes, but this maelstrom of sentiments and values, ideals, ideas, and goals, no matter how complex and seemingly incompatible certain parts may seem, practically always plays out the same way within whatever forum is pertinent to that instance, and it is the lack of unity that invariably results out of underlying causes typical of Leftist movements, agendas, or targeted actions that pre-guarantee their effort's failure or betray a willingness to compromise that's sure to produce results situated below the minimum threshold set.

•     •     •

Unfortunately, RBN embodies the worst of that, I'm sorry to say. In my opinion, it's geared to achieve the opposite of what it states. 

Of course I support my claim:

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

For at least three decades now, it's near impossible to examine the Democratic party deeds and the policies they introduced, blocked, endorsed, and voted through, or against, and to find within all that anything that supports the notion that it's the "people's party", an image that would have been long dead had it not been for both the DSA and the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), the first being a political organization, not a party, the second representing a faction of, supposedly, like-minded representatives aiming to advance a progressive agenda.CPC

One mustn't forget that the Democratic party is made up of a hodge-podge of different factions that cover a far wider set of political ideals, thus being a far less ideologically homogeneic party than the Republicans; the CPC represents the furthest left-leaning faction.

Starting from the 1970s, fewer factions have made labour unions a central part of their agenda, and since Clinton, the party has veered onto a Third Way path, though only arguably so, and based on appearances only, in my opinion, as the only Leftist elements that are a part of their campaigns and agenda are social policies that tickle people's desires or irks — and/or a combination of — and detracts attention from the more obscure and less publicly engaging but very rightwing economic policies carried out by establishment Dems. And they never manage to deliver anything resembling what they promised on the social front anyways.

The CPC has been around since 1991, the effects of Reaganomics on the 'lower' social tiers having left their mark; the vigour that had fueled a renewed hope and revived notions of the Dems being the party that's fighting for the working class was eventually snuffed out, all their attempts producing similar disappointments until members stopped trying, assuming their 'rightful' place in the Democratic party, some, like Maxine Waters, buckling down on their career, seemingly forgetting their once progressive ambitions. Bernie Sanders acted as caucus chair from 1991 to 1999, then quietly focused on his Vermont until all was ripe for a comeback, and vying for the top seat, no less, albeit less than less is what Sanders and the people got for having trusted the Dems... ('So lets repeat that again in 2020,' said Bernie) .

The CPC had completely stagnated, but Clinton, then Bush, acting as if only 1% of the population deserved consideration, the rest having earned the right to be placated and merited being told to blame the Muslims, but just the terroristy ones otherwise that'd be bigotry, wouldn't it? If wondering: the Russians were on a nemesis hiatus at the time, officially reintegrating their Western foeship in 2014, clearly missed by the US and UK, who've always had Russia on their mind nonetheless... After those two and their F-U to Americans, duping them in worse ways then those whose countries they bombed for supposedly duping their people, the masses having grown real restless and just wait until they find out what Wall Street was doing with mortgages!

Eager to serve a purpose, unfortunately, just when the times called for the type of fruity, dangerously-socialist-sounding, worker-focused mumbo-jumbo like the CPC loves to blabber about, the Dems were able to stuff them back into their Commie closet, relieved — it grates the ears, their Commie talk, distracts from thinking properly about money —  since they had a Black guy who was willing to pretend he's Black until elected. And with Obama as President, the CPC became redundant. Superfluous. I mean, unless the lighting is bad, the guy's Black, right? That was it! The battle is over, equity will rain on the land, wrongs will be righted, and from then on, finally, all will equally enjoy a level, whip-free playing field, giving sense and true value to an actual meritocracy, this... wait... uh... isn't the guy Black? Then why is he... WTF! Get the CPC, stat!

And that's when the DSA hit it big (albeit having endorsed Obama... but they can't be blamed for that; the dude really did look like he was Black). With the help of Sanders, and with younger generations desperately seeking anything other than the money-obsessed ol'-foggies club that was marginally just a tad less evil than the tax-cut-obsessed ol'-foggies club, their membership swelled up to just under 95,000 members (from ≅5,000 in 1982).

And they were able to get DSA members elected into office, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Cori Bush, and Jamaal Bowman all getting into Congress through the DSA; eleven state legislatures positions were also seized. This was a major win; all were hopeful, even after getting screwed on "Change" and "Hope" by that vanilla-pudding-sucking, honky-tonk oreo!

Sorry, didn't mean to get all racial like that .

The new crop of progressives, primarily, those now referred to as "The Squad", weren't introduced into current politics and propelled to 'stardom' as part of a covert Commie plot to take over the US, undermine Democracy, and turn everyone into a conformist, obliterating Freedom along the way.

They gained quick attention, and funneled interest toward the DSA whether tied to the party or not, like Ilhan Omar, this shift managing to lower the average age of DSA supporters from 63 to 33, precisely because they answered a need that was no longer fronted by 70-year-olds with Hồ Chí Minh beards, hence, the DSA provided re-renewed-renewed hope for all those who'd stopped believing that the two-party style of pretend-democracy worked for them in any way except to screw them over, but never in the good way.Socialist Party USA

The 'real' socialist party hardly made any gains; the Socialist Party USA had, in 1973, branched off from the Socialist Party of America (SPA), founded in 1903. Those who would form today's iteration of the DSA in 1982 had separated from the SPA in 1972, forming the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) in 1973 before a merger with the New American Movement (NAM) coalesced the DSA.  having done so after a faction within the SPA had pushed for a name change, voted on by members, becoming the Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA), as they no longer presented independent presidential candidates, the "party" in the name no longer being relevant and a source of confusion.

The separation was due to irreconcilable ideological differences, anti-war sentiments being among them: the three groups decided to follow three very different courses; they are:

  1. SDUSA wants to unite labour unions and rights groups, forming a coalition in order to apply the pressure that will let them transform the Dems into a social democratic party. This is an outside-outside approach.
  2. Socialist Party USA adheres wholly to Marxist principles, hates the DSA for 'pretending to be a socialist party,' and wants absolutely nothing to do with the Democratic party; they only nominate fully independent candidates. This is an outside-inside/outside approach.
  3. DSA is Marxist-scented; it is not a Socialist movement in spite of being referred to as "the largest socialist organization in the United States."  Their aim is "fights for reforms today that will weaken the power of corporations and increase the power of working people." The manner by which they hope to bring about that change is to get enough DSA members elected into governmental positions, especially Congress and Senate (only one thus far). The DSA has no ties with the Democratic party, but it's clear that a quid pro quo relationship has been forged, what the DSA offers being greatly useful to establishment Dems, the Progressives themselves having proven useful to the GOP. This is an outside/inside-inside approach.

Here's what most people get wrong, especially all those on the real Right: The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is 100% in the reformist camp; they marry socialist approaches with Democratic ideals to provide better conditions to the working class. It is not a Communist party. Also it is not, properly, a political party, and it doesn't seek to undermine the American way of life so it can destroy it and rebuild a new socialist state of oppression, per the GOP fearmongering that passes off as campaigning.

Given the power of money and the power of establishment Democrats, thanks to money, it's the DSA that's actually undergoing constant reform, finding itself continually shifting toward the right as the ratchet yanks and locks and yanks and locks all of US politics toward the far right, the DSA adjusting their approach and relationship with the Dems as needed, their progressive candidates increasingly sounding less 'Leftish' because of it.

Left versus Right

The aspect of the DSA that's pertinent here is its "fight from the inside" approach and the type of painfully slow progress people can expect as those DSA members that make it into the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) are forced into a game that has them making many concessions, taking as many backwards steps as forward ones or having to give up too much somewhere else to make meaningless gains elsewhere.

This is an inseparable part of the chosen approach; an aspect that seems to be forgotten by many supporters who've turned into harsh critics of the DSA and CPC, and, now, of anyone who supports either of those (or any parts or the whole of the Dems and GOP), these supporters being those I refer to as the Caucus-Left (CL), these, in turn, attacking those who disparage the DSA/CPC's efforts.

There's the main split among the Lefties, but the behaviour of some anti-CLs itself causes a more minor yet firm split, then there's splits based on one's favourite cause and subsequent priorities, if one went on Tucker Carson and were happy about it, plus the division if one's name is Jimmy, or if one sees dialectical materialism as a form of solipsism, or whether a coalition is what one prefers over a caucus, though some weirdos like alliances best, and what's your stance on arctic rewilding, and did you only ever say mean things about Assad but once said a bad one about gay Asians in the last 20 years? Then you may not be the right shade of Left to do Leftism stuff with us!

And now, with Hakeem Jeffries as the new leader... Pelosi's replacement is keenly anti-Leftist (the actual Left kind) and looking forward to reining in eager CPC members, which could translate into less hope for supporters, but, methinks, the easy irritant that is Jeffries may very well spark a heated dynamic that may provide a very necessary injection of motivation, firing the squad to produce results even if just to rub it in Jeffries' face, so to speak.

Nonetheless, as I've discussed across several posts (see "Related" section below), so long as they're operating as subordinates of the Establishment Dems, they're facing the whole machine head on, and it's geared to absorb their energy and use it to the Dems' advantage in a manner that they'd never be able to apply were those that genuinely espouse a "progressive" mindset functioning outside of the DNC structures, as their own party. Otherwise, as is, their tomorrow in politics relies on not upsetting the wrong person the wrong way, but their 'shit stirring' is welcomed and productive in terms of helping the Dems contain the negative backlash or redirect it toward the GOP whilst fooling a whole class of hope-filled voters that the Dems is their party.

In Side is Out

This path has left many disillusioned given the deep betrayals that were witnessed, left with the profoundly disheartening reality that one is forced to face one's own government in a fierce battle that's entirely gamed against them, this, just to get one's fair due instead of hearing corrupt A-Holes lie to them one more time while using tax dollars to fund some unwanted war, eagerly printing up more dough for missiles — not citizens, no way — if corporate tax loopholes proved to be more wonderful than the amount needed to cover the cost of bombing the shit of out Bendtoyanksland, which is all good, 'cause you invested a few hundred thousand dollars in Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, right? If you didn't, there's why you're working class: lack of discipline and foresight.

This is America! With bootstraps or a good strapping when not pulling, you could have turned that $10 a week allowance from your momma into a dream, a good one with big titties and a Lamborghini, but, instead, you dare blame the meritoriously elite people who sacrificed candy and comic books and outings with friends in order to invest their $10 in Boeing each and every week?!

Poor Global Southerners come to the US dreaming of a $10/week allowance so they, too, can have the dream... and what do you do? You're looking for a [gag] handout?! 
What kind of vile Commie are you? The kind that's dependent on progressives, I bet? So, what are you waiting for? Read on:

Unfortunately, albeit the fact that some good does seem to be emerging from the more direct discussions that have been spurred by the anti-war confrontations with "The Squad" members that had gone viral, this and related events, in contrast with the treatment afforded to Ukraine and a narrative that's now held together with Duct Tape, Scotch Tape and elastics unable to do the job, may have triggered a deeper awakening among many across several factions, but, nonetheless, tribalities and greed are making sure that what's been happening sits mostly on the side of bad.

Keep Your Eyes on the Scenic Road - PDL

"Scenic Route" - PDL - Oil, acrylic, and Pastel

I can certainly understand one's need to vent particular frustrations and to direct that anger in a specific direction, but so doing becomes destructive when the act is no longer the product of an impulse to externalize one's rage in a targeted manner and this becomes a regular feature of one's discussions and a planned activity that's absorbed into one's routine; putting in more than half of one's efforts into trying to forge lame-ass links between what's at the root of one's real anger and certain individuals, even visiting the past to try to dig up whatever may serve that purpose, well, that pretty much just confirms the "destructive" part, doesn't it?

I'm sick of hatred; I'm including the usual, extreme kinds, but the variety I have in mind sits within what's now not only acceptable, but also expected; the US duopoly is now the quintessential emblem of that hate, but Capitalism is what's giving it cause, keeping it alive, and covering the bottom line.

Not falling victim to all that's revered and sought as the payoff of one's success is required if the shackles imposed by the current system are to be broken. Otherwise, all those claiming to be a force for change only offer a replacement if not a slight variation on the exact same theme, usually proving that the change they advocated was motivated by navel-focused reasons that betray their real goal once they've gained some financially-backed recognition — those who are truly dedicated to said fight are assured to never make such a gain.

Maybe it's an expected turn that comes with age, or, maybe, it's because Palki is continually on my mind and, recalling that natural hatred she's culturally obligated to respect, perhaps I figured that I could compensate by eradicating more than my share of hate, that way, Baby Jesus would have to let her in and through the pearly gates of heav—what's that? What the hell is a Vishnu? Oh. Is that like Eastern Protestantism? Really? Since when? Oh. Well, maybe if I compensate she won't be reincarnated as Baby Jesus? Seems fair. That's gotta be rough, one's childhood in a household fraught with tension like that. I mean, virgin mother and OK-with-it husband, yeah, right. No wonder the kid calls the ceiling "father" when not doing it for clouds; always looking up and talking to nobody...  kinda creepy. Yessir, all's bound to be sane and stable in that family; no visits from Child Protection Services expected there, right. More like visits from corrective services, 'cause wasn't the Joseph-Mary-Jesus clan Black? Can we be sure that Jesus was arrested for the right reasons or was profiling involved, the Romans framing him, planting some blasphemous manuscripts in Jesus' robe pockets while pretending to frisk him... you know how it goes? And, while on the topic, what I wanna know is: Did the wise men mix up myrrh resin with heroin, perchance? That would explain Catholicism, wouldn't it? And, by the way, it's pronounced "Christmas" not "Krishna"; I don't know why all Hindus have a hard time saying that word properly?

Any hoot, where was I?

Right, we were discussing Palkis weren't we? And I was just about to describe how the Indians had beaten back Chinese soldiers with sticks in the—what's that? In this post? Are you sure? Hold on. [...] You're right.

Sorry, folks. As I was saying: Maybe it's that I no longer have the energy for it, but I'm beyond being fed up with the perpetual-pettiness people, and with their constant emphasis on hating an 'other', placing too much of their energy on promoting that hate, either directly or not; nowadays, who you hate is what determines which club you belong to.

If due to getting older, I wanna say that it's related to wisdom, not 'life fatigue', as what seems more accurate is that, simply, I wanna focus my energy where it matters, which means placing it on approaches that, I believe, stand a chance of producing a lasting positive change that actually resembles what I claim to want. Therefore, encouraging and participating in any tribal sports or love (see: fucked-up hatred) are, consequently, the least productive things I could be doing to get there. Ditto tribalists.

To be sure: I didn't mean that my doing a tribalist would be unproductive as that would depend on who the tribalist is, I should think, as well as what euphemism is implied by "do", too. Rather, I was asserting my firm belief that the tribalists' tribalisms are the least helpful behavioral modes in play, that entire component turning into an impassable hurdle, for this doesn't just feed the problem, it's become a serious, integral part of it. You may have noticed that I'm not shy about referring to the long-term impact of this tribalism as a mental impairment? Seen from the outside, it's baffling behaviour.

Sure, it's also nothing new, and I do recall this aspect being present when I was a kid, however, I don't remember folks being so incredibly obtuse and proud to be so stupid because there's only one truth in life, and it's the opposite of whatever the other side said it is. This makes life easier and the job of punditry easy, opening itself to a slogan like: Be a Dem and act like a GOP; don't think, just react! (The GOP equivalent: Same as always)

Righter, Right, and Wrong

I see the automatic reactions, the instant grimaces, and the train of thought that's all caboose that missed the station on its way to the all-too-predictable, reality-lacking, partisan-backing conclusions forwarded by tribalists, and I'm deeply discouraged, as the ingredients required to break the two-party curse are clearly missing, indoctrinated out of reality, producing a limited discourse ridiculously boxed-in with anti-other framings that, in "non-Rightists" are imbued with a self-righteousness expressed with thick arrogance while Rightists paint that 'side' as a radical-left-filled Commie zoo, for each is filled with the assurance that they are correct, oblivious of any info that's missing in their assessments, this partially due to the shameful lack of self-awareness displayed, the product of a willful ignorance fortified by a firm belief that the 'other' is devious scum, making it illogical to want to look past the first layer that establishes that reality. That is, unless one is an anti-American terrorist and pedophile, obviously?

Left and Right Reality in US

One of the more stunning aspects of this tribalism is the general awareness that exists regarding the synthetic, highly-manipulative nature of the duopoly that's in place precisely to keep people apart and blind to anything they'd much prefer people not see, yet, everyone in the mainstream and most of the indie world, too, all fall in line and unabashedly play whatever role befits the tribe they publicly associate themselves with. But it's not empty role-playing that's delivered; the level of conviction indicates belief. After all, it's the framework that's established the role-appropriate behaviour that gives sense to a career, which requires enemies to remain competitive; there's no racism in Washington, it's all tough love, didn't you know?

Years of tribalities have warped people's thinking, rendering them blind to several facets that allow them to serve a party-beneficial reality, this being achieved by belittling the other, this, itself, reinforcing stereotypes and cartoonish notions of that other to gain or retain the support of voters. A defining characteristic of the CLs is how quickly they arrive at set conclusions based on pigeon-holed views of half of America, and how confidently belittling they are, relying on group pressure to cut through confusion, this facet a CIA tactic that's been absorbed and twisted and now used as a weapon that exploits the guilt and shame that gave weight to "cancel culture."

From what I've been able to make out, this was widely spread through "radical training" efforts related to the Black Lives Matter movement, and it's the Internet that's made it an efficient but dangerously-over-abused tactic that began regulating proper conduct for all in a disturbing way. If you happened to be in a similar situation to the one I was in, finally sticking my head out of the sand after two years and witnessing all that... um... tribality, well, let's just say it was hard not to think that the so-called Left had all joined some weird cult. It's that essence that gave validity to the tenuous "Woke" label, in my opinion.
Left and Right Reality in US

That all is reduced to a binary issue demanding a black-or-white stance that stamps a category label on people is increasingly the norm, this aspect incrementally re-adjusting the life of many as more overt expressions of one's political loyalties gain prominence, one's "team" gradually being assigned important and divisive social significance, also providing an ill-founded point of pride or hate.

The graphic represents what should be the normal reaction to the current political landscape, not necessarily the constant state of things. Presently, that the fight needs to target elites has nothing to do with anti-elitism per se albeit, for many, that is their battle; the core reasons that validate this fight target bad elites (see: evil) and a system that facilitates the oppressive exploitation of people, even nations. These aspects are no longer a part of a problem that's limited to Americans, but concerns the world; US elites currently pose an existential threat to the entire world, which the great majority of the world — the exceptions being Westerners ignorant of a more widely shared and substantiated reality —  is in full agreement on, seeing the US as a far bigger threat than China and Russia.

That the establishment functions in a manner that's geared toward enforcing a division is no coincidence. Although it's impossible to state whether this aspect was intended by Founding Fathers, it's been shaped into a frighteningly effective mechanism that shields government, allows it to get away with all sorts of criminal acts that are beneficial to the ruling class, and lets the Establishment carry on an imperialist and self-colonizing agenda no matter the party that's elected to not serve the people, the progress of the country turned into a game of ping-pong focused on wedge issues perpetually left in a state of partial resolve while wealth is syphoned to the world's most hypocritical and amoral oligarchs who need to plunder outside their borders to sustain their greed-fed growth, which too many see as blameless champions of Democracy & Freedom, their supporters opting for denial, refusing to properly acknowledge their crimes for the victory this will surely mean for the other.

Left versus Right

Ever since Clinton's turn in office and the devastating blow he'd inflicted on Democratic-party trust following his blow job on Yugoslavia, his blowjob at home, and blowing off working class issues, leaving this group in a far worse position than the campaign promises had let on — go figure — opposition had begun firmly shifting toward views that saw the Establishment as the only valid target to aim for if a change was to be won on any front, the two parties increasingly seen as two fronts that served the same entity.

Certainly, the moneyed-bodies that affect a firm control over US policies, domestic and foreign, have held the reins that directed the applied decisions of both parties, but with time comes the inevitable change forced through retirement if not with buy outs and bankruptcies or the sudden rise of new competitors, fluctuating markets and the unpredictability of consumer habits continually readjusting the course of any corporation that's on top of things data and analytic-wise; Big Tech radically changed how that game was played and who really holds the reins.

I believe that events have taken a more vicious turn as of late — dominant attitudes signal an authoritarian shift no matter who wins the 2024 US elections — precisely due to the establishment itself being a victim of a schism, the ol' school folks not quite seeing things the same way as the young yahoos who suddenly held more wealth but, as they'd eventually find out, only enjoyed the appearance of having true power, this amid neoliberal globalist ambitions whose requirements surpassed conservative sensibilities, hence, the course plotted for these Dem-led efforts providing the ideal elements to veer onto a theocratically-coloured nationalistic path that many among them have longed for, isn't that right, Ben?

This would explain the divergent positions on Ukraine; usually, all of Washington is in lockstep on the subject of wars, only arguing on the quantity of explosives to use, and only making a big deal out of military foibles or fuck-ups come election time. We saw how quickly all aligned, no matter their differences at the time, with the US withdrawal of Afghanistan.

One thing that's become abundantly clear to many is that neither party cares about the working class beyond the number of votes that can be extracted from them, otherwise treating the masses as faceless, expandable tools who deserve to be exploited just for being such tools.

Well, I say "abundantly clear," but this brings me back to that "one of the more stunning aspects of this tribalism" that I mentioned earlier, as denial of this awareness takes all sorts of forms, even from those shouting insults at anyone not willing to "function outside of the electoral system," which, I'm assuming isn't meant to mean what it says, given that RBN isn't a sovereign-citizen movement as far as I know.

Dis Course

The course some "Leftists" have adopted has more in common with what Rush Limbaugh was doing than with anything deemed to be sensible Leftist behaviour couched in a reasoned strategy arising out of long-term thinking. RBN is proving itself to be this.

No, "long-term thinking" does not rule out establishing immediate goals or taking a route that aims to produce results as quickly as possible.

This is an important aspect given the frustration now felt due to the painfully slow crawl's pace with which any real gains are being made through current modes. The lack of urgency in those supposedly fighting for a change on the people's behalf and their willingness to even discuss strategies meant to unfurl over several election cycles — should elections go their way and the then candidates agree with the proposed agenda — is no longer tolerated by a significant segment of their base; the "time requirements" perpetually imposed on the working class have reached their natural limits, people's patience having been worn thin ever since they'd been told to believe in Bernie Sanders, and then did... The second time, that was more than most could — and should — bear.

•     •     •  

There's a difference between milking the cow to then shake the milk and enjoy a milkshake and blowing up the cow to extract pre-shook milk, especially if one is planning on milking the same cow the next day to then cream the milk and freeze it to enjoy ice cream versus putting a butter-fed cow in Antarctica hoping to extract pre-frozen cream.;

•     •     •  

Their intentions may be good — not the cow's, RBN's — but their content appears to be increasingly motivated by questionable reasons inherent to efforts reliant on public support and popularity, consciously or not. Because attacks on a segment garnered increased attention, they seemed to have hooked on that as as reason to both intensify and double their output.

I gained a greater awareness of them because their material captured the moment that allowed one to revel in a targeted anger-fest given the Progressives' explicit stance on Ukraine and treatment of protesters and their concerns, as well as the railway workers strike. There's plenty to be angry over beyond those, but RBN has adopted an increasingly distorted and destructive view and approach that does far more good for the Republican party than it's bound to deliver for the working class.

•     •     •  

An entity with the uniting spirit and power of BLM is needed, but one that isn't centred on race; going about it that way is like trying to fix the windshield wiper for an engine that's running out of oil and about to seize. The battle must focus solely on class, anything else introduces segmentation, impacts the potential number of participants negatively, and focuses too much attention on areas that will be resolved if class issues are addressed, or will be far easier to resolve effectively — including time and cost — within a new class paradigm.

Yup. I didn't say class-less as I don't believe such a state is possible nor would it be desirable; the issue isn't classes, it's what we define as a "class" and the value we attribute to said class within a hierarchical system, but that's a different breed of discussions.

And the mention of "time and cost" may not matter to you and you may find it crass when discussing solutions to social issues, but that's part of the serious disconnect between those wanting change and those in power, and between protests that demand change but rely on the good nature of corporations and politicians to do the right thing and those who create reasons that compel corporations and politicians to apply a change.

What Am I Getting At?

RBN - Faces of US Left

The first part established my own position as a way of transmitting the general atmosphere if viewed from a relevant perspective, briefly examining how much of the cause for divide among progressives is tied to one's perception — or awareness of, and importance ascribed to — US imperialism as it's played out through its foreign policy, and how this feeds the division, one side either ignorant of facts, for whatever reason, or acting maliciously.

Notice that RBN regroups media personalities and politicians in their discussion of 'party' politics. I wasn't aware of RBN or of this fact when I'd addressed why it was important to do so; it seemed like a no-brainer, despite some opposition to this view.

RBN is right on many things, and I'm largely in agreement with the group's goals, but not their methods; they're toxic and destructive and achieve the opposite of the necessary unity — of being agreeable; we got one planet to share — and theirs will favour the Republican party.

They're categorical, jump to increasingly detached conclusions that typifies everyone in crass and idiotic ways that are wholly unproductive or unbefitting of a progressive ideal. The acts and traits they attach to some appear to be based on their inability to consider the human dynamic and the various facets, psychological and behavioral, which tend to make more sense than seeing the Progressives as evil CIA psy-ops agents.

But the Caucus-Left does nothing to help matters, avoidance being the 'in' thing, as they know that the establishment Dems are evil, but their evil is more palatable, domestically, than what the Republicans will serve up. That said, hearing Cruse assert in another one of today's videos that the GOP is more Left than Biden on many things, the list is long... Ouch! Look below the surface, man!

Without a careful game plan... which RBN doesn't offer, just anti-progressive anger and callous calls to defund everything without ever a serious thought given to what secure and productive abolition implies rather than doing it in an ill-thought out and half-assed way that creates huge problems. I touch on that, too, in the next one.

I've offered a tremendous amount of peripheral info at this point, the details given serving to identify the outlines of the key differences between related progressive factions, and aspects to consider if wishing to devise a serious and effective strategy..

For the moment, I offer these two as defining elements of the division fracturing Leftists.

  • Principles over party
  • Fight: the US Establishment & Security State not the 'other'

Unlike RBN, I don't see the "Reform versus Revolution" split they focus on as being relevant, at least, not to the degree they ascribe to it. This split is superficial the way they address, as is the whole defund issue, the two being inter-related. 

That said, reform or revolution along with "Force the Vote" and "Defund the Police" are a focus in the next installment, which gets to the meat of what I've attempted to provide an adequate skeleton to.

Still To Beat

Having mentioned that one of the differentiating behaviours I'd identified between the two main progressive divisions is the apparent trust and loyalty toward the Democratic party and certain governmental institutions that the Caucus-Left still embraces, this imbuing many of their foreign policy views in shocking naiveté, I'd forgotten to mention the absolute best example I'd come across, one that I may have summoned up purely to make fun of this aspect, thinking the absurdity of such funny, that is, until I actually came across the following:

One of the most baffling retorts I've yet heard, delivered in late August as if a "gotcha" derived out of a "eureka" followed by the beaming pride of one having just realized what they'd said and thinking it's gotta be the end-all-argument to their debate, Dylan Burns refuted for his viewers the claim that what's happening in Ukraine is a proxy war involving the US.

After some rambling on the topic, he proclaimed, 'How do I know that it's not a proxy war? Because President Biden said so, biatches (or one of those)! Joe Biden said it himself it's not a proxy war, so there!"

Be honest: Is the weed good over there?

The patriotic naïveté is heartening, reminiscent of older days when being US President identified something noble to most, and their word carried weight. However... today? Holy crap! What planet is Burns from?

Is it US President, Democrat, Joe Biden, or a need to win any argument and a willingness to say any stupid thing that made him think that that holds any validity whatsoever?

And he's supposed to be an independent, free-thinking, establishment-challenging voice?


Biden and Buttigieg for the workers

Broadly Stroking

The broad strokes:

  • Differing opinions on which is the best path and vehicle to assure actual progress on a progressive agenda have concretized into a firm division.
    • The poles can be labeled: Third-party vs. fight-from-the-inside (ffti)
      • The insider folks are those who favour the efforts of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and who support the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), directly endorsing some of its members; these are greatly centered around The Young Turks (TYT), its staff and its founder having dedicated much to the ffti.
      • Third-party people have given up on the ffti plan, and have turned against those who promote this path and the DSA/CPC vehicle for those candidates they're meant to care about.
  • What started with a fracture and two main groups has moved on to splintering
    • The first clear sign of a divide relates to Syria, the "with us or against us" mentality set down by Bush Jr. given a more potent life by the Dems for all their subsequent "liberation" efforts (all justified based on lies no better than Bush's WMD lie).
    • Acknowledgment of a firm split saw "real" and "fake" being added in front of "progressives"; both groups called the other "fake".
      • "Progressives" remains an umbrella label for various shades of such; the initial divide appears to be best described as a "walking away" from the established course.
    • The Professional Managerial Class (PMC) refers to college-educated folks with good 'white-collar' jobs; these are the people who fill key political and media positions, and who assume the voice of the working class. 
    • The Caucus-Left (CL) is the term I employ for those CPC-supporting ffti folks;
    • A racial component is pushed to the foreground by certain factions, this aspect 'naturally' segregates efforts and shifts focus toward identity politics rather than class issues.
  • Differing opinions on which form of change is desired.
    • This concerns the "Reformist vs. Revolutionary" division.
    • This a thematic division with seemingly little thought actually given to this side of things.
  • Divergence is seen in one's willingness to challenge the corporate/establishment Dems and what lies behind their true intents.
    • CPC supporters are seen as pro-imperialist, pro-war, pro-oppression people.
      • There's a great deal of petty, judgmental, and unrealistic navel gazing betrayed by the many who voice these complaints.
        • Basic human behaviour as well as a slew of mundane factors go entirely disregarded; basal, binary outlook: since X, they must be evil.
  • What's necessary are attitudes and methods that seek to unify efforts and rally people toward the same cause.
    • A robust infrastructure that allows for both centralized and decentralized modes to be exploited — as well as 'internal' and independent means — whilst facilitating communications, coordinating actions, act as recruitment tool, etc., is necessary; the US Establishment isn't comprised of a bunch of yahoos and dingbat amateurs who'll be thrown off by the bite of hurtful-but-accurate slogans, especially if on canary-yellow cardboard. Each attempt not done right is sure to make each subsequent attempt harder if not impossible.
    • It's gotta be grassroots (people and small businesses + tap directly into all unions).
    • Financing infrastructure — countrywide; certified and safe; from e-donations to memberships or whatever method one can think of (see: Trump).
  • 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 characteristics of one's political landscape?
  • Opposition has already begun taking steps to counter any third-party routes   
    • Establishment Dems and Republicans, as well as caucus members, all have provided clear signs that the current third-party momentum that's building, having gained a palpable intensity since last summer, is scaring them.
  • RBN's 'make people angry" approach is an ill-thought-out to not-thought-out "plan"; it's generating hatred and closing doors
    • They are helping to pave an easy way for the Conservatives

The relevant institutional hierarchical structure that Revolutionary Blackout Network ascribes:

CL ⊂ PMC ⊂ White Liberal ⊂ Dems ⊂ US Establishment ($)

Where to Find / Additional Info



Polly Ticking - Part 2.5Polly Ticking - Part 2Polly Ticking - Part 1Tales of Euro-DominationProgressive PAC Backs Shontel BrownTYT - False Progressives


Post your comment

Your feedback is greatly appreciated. However, please know that, due to spammers, all comments are moderated, and spam is simply flushed, your spamming/troll efforts being a total waste of time for you and no more than an annoyance for DMS&UY.


No one has commented on this page yet.

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments

Your support goes a long way


There's a change!

Have content, research, or dev needs? Email to discuss. Flexible; competitive rates.

Corrections & Adds  

Dedicated Topics