Reform v. Revolution? More Preliminaries - Polly Ticking 2.75

On My Street, Yours, Too: I've reintroduced the "Daily Run Down Our Street" section, having killed off the original version and rebuilt a new one that provides greater flexibility and reusability of the data through info blocks. The goal is to let users create docs on-the-fly per the search topic or country entered, as well as to aggregate info that gets spread across several posts.

In terms of packaging the type of info found here, and similar, with long-term relevance in mind, mine isn't ideal but I nonetheless like it, i.e. the format I seem to have naturally adopted, which lets me touch on many topics that may appear to be unrelated, yet, under the surface, if not explicitly clear, contain a shared throughline that underscores the message I wish to impart, or the reflection I hope to trigger. I believe it should be readily discernible to users that merely generating content in order to attract traffic, ad views, and clicks isn't anywhere near being my aim. Though they probably should be(?). Read more here.

Also, I'm currently redoing all corners of My Street, having 'found', established, and refined my focus and aim — despite appearances — since I'd initially slapped those pages together, so to speak. I've already introduced many changes in the past two weeks which, I hope, will soon translate into a better, more productive, and more meaningful user experience. Much of this you'll never see or be aware of, which includes content packaging, and the data schemas to take further advantage of API methods, as I'm also, finally, creating the needed dataobjects, listings, arrays and queries and callbacks, etc., with which external info can be applied across three spheres: media, politicians, military/extremism.

I'm currently more in a coding mood, I think. Needing to ease on writing for a bit... replenish, and all that. But that phase, which is a usual one, is nearing its end, I feel, having been 'there' for the past couple of weeks.

.

.

Power Blackout

The moment isn't just ripe for a change, it is absolutely begging for one.

Unfortunately, being what humans are, we'll deny this reality, then argue about it, fight against change, wasting our energy trying to hold on to a past that can no longer be, wasting our time trying to convince ourselves that this is that and it must always be so. Meanwhile, as those clutch on to yesterday as some aim for the day before that and others theocratically decide that yesteryear would be better, and they all bicker, the wrong people are likely to seize tomorrow.

The political decisions made today carry a momentous weight, as they will shape tomorrow's tomorrow in new, unimaginable ways either way.

Having heard a disparate array of voices across the political spectrum, I'm confident in my belief that, albeit the many disparities, the people stand united, but are unaware, kept apart, focused on the differences distorted by politicians and media, playing into the hands of the ruling elites who've always divided, to conquer.

"Don't forget: War is a racket, and there's going to be hell to pay for this one!" said by Irish EU Rep. Clare Daly in closing to a scathing speech made during a EU session on the Russo-Ukraine war.

Revolving

Revolutionary Blackout Network. I thought these people were truly and thoroughly well-researched and in the know on Black culture until I found out they aren't white folks. Now, I don't know what to make of them. How long have they been Black? More than a year I hope? Still, I don't know... how can we be sure they're qualified?

Yes, I'm aware: everybody knows that the people who understand Blacks the best are the Asians.

And it's not that I wouldn't want to listen to Black folks and do as they say, but it'd feel so weird... you know, unnatural. Like a baboon teaching a human about human politics.

Of course I'm kidding, and I'm not, sort of. I personally don't believe any of that and there's lots there to be offended over, for sure, but, given the increasingly acerbic turn their rhetoric has taken, I'm honestly given the impression that, my being white, this is precisely how the main folks behind the Revolutionary Blackout Network (RBN), predominantly, Nick Cruse and Compton Jay (CJ), would want me to introduce a critique of their efforts if it's to come from an authentic white dude.

Yes, a critique. I do address the "Reform v. Revolution" divide, this representing a driving force, albeit a primarily thematic one, that RBN has turned into a defining feature that establishes which efforts are worth attention, yet, I see clear problems with their mindset and value in voicing them given RBN's 'fight'. They, and all else, as always, can do what they will with my opinions and/or conclusions.

Clarifying Intent

I don't make it my specific aim to attack a tribe nor outlets or individuals, and, although my political leanings are clearly to one side and I do judge the Right from a firm Leftist position, nonetheless, I try to remain fair and criticise what deserves it no matter the outlet or tribe if I feel there's something to be gained by doing so. "Gain" is abstract and may point to a reason that sits more on the personal side of things, such as expressing "much-needed venting", though these moments will always relate to matters that reflect popular interests, even if abstractly. Sometimes, simply recording a public version that rectifies or adds another perspective to certain events is good enough a reason, even if drowned by a competing version.

I don't have a hard-and-fast rule I apply, but I do operate per a strict, well-defined code of ethics. Especially as of late, it should be clear to anyone having read a few posts that I'm staunchly anti-imperialist and I fervently believe that the capitalist system we currently operate under has reached its end. Each new day affirms to me that absolutely nothing good can come from continuing to function under the inequity-creating inadequacies that are rushing us to our doom whilst turning the world into an authoritarian state that's bound to be more oppressive than anything claimed to be feared by hardcore conservatives and Libertarians — letting them have their way and deregulating all would only accelerate this process; we've had all the lessons we need to know better; you can't cure cancer by creating a better environment for it to grow in — and I do see value in attempting to communicate this end in order to avoid it.

And, no. A solution doesn't automatically entail "Communism". I personally believe that hybrid economies that prioritize people over profits will produce richer nations with all of its citizens enjoying a higher quality of life. The privatization of a nation's resources is equivalent to rape being done to that nation's people on a daily basis, and it is possible to retain — even ameliorate on — all the benefits attributed to Capitalism, but without funneling wealth to a very few. Corporations that are run exactly like private ones but with the government owning majority stocks, profits and dividends being used to offset a service cost to citizens, or channeled toward infrastructure costs or other services, possibly lowering taxes, is the simplest example that's miles ahead — per case studies — of the privatization model that's considered the only true American way, yet, serves little good to Americans, finding a way to shed accountability and shafting the working class while finding new ways to extract all it can, destroying the environment, ecological and personal, funneling wealth to very few, leaving tax-paying citizens with more woes than positives because someone somewhere decided that chunks of the country, or the rights to them, could be sold off at a price that turns out to be a huge cost on citizens?!

I also believe that "Democracies", as we know them, can be among the least productive of systems, and aren't the best fit or an actual solution for every nation or for all periods. For example, having had a better look at Russia, examining the validity of claims made by the West, I can say that the country could not have 'cleaned up' its act, tightening the screws on the oligarchs and their corruption, radically improving in a short period its situation and re-instituting itself as a world power despite the sad state that Russia found itself in in 1991, if Putin hadn't held on to power — fair elections were held put he played the system when he'd reached his term limit, presenting himself as the second in command then took over the presidential role once elected. Probably the best thing that could happen to the US is going 16 to 20 years with a morally-strong, anti-corruption, people-focused wise man and solid, trustworthy council that's focused on cleaning up governmental inner workings and setting a course for the country that the majority actually want, all with a good, healthy break from the ridiculous tribalities that plague it.          

I look around, examine the societies Westerners have built and what we've allowed our lives to become versus the possibilities that, simply, are, and I see the crass, arrogant, and callous attitudes and methods through which we try to impose our ways over the entire world, somehow fooled into believing that Freedom & Democracy are the reasons, and that forcing on their ways of life — which we know little about — our "markets" is beneficial to all, us too, when, in fact, only the ruling class and their elite buddies benefit, the wealth-creation sold as Capitalism's 'good deed' and redeeming value sapped out of the so-called "developing world" rather than spread inside that country. How does the West gauge a country's progress? By a nation's corporate and market homogeneity with whatever ideal the West needs to sell, which results out of the commodification of all aspects of life and the course this sets us on, draining the beauty that, simply, is, and I can't help but feel that we've allowed ourselves to take a wrong turn, that we've allowed the nefarious forces that take hold of mediocre people to redefine life into something no one really wants, yet few seem to grasp that this, simply, doesn't have to be.

Be, Leave

Our course is far more controlled than many appear to be ready to accept, and it's the lack of foresight that betrays this reality. Here, I'm not talking about determinism versus freewill, but about the very mundane that sets the course of a country, and just how much external influence and resources go into shaping a nation's path toward what it believes is Freedom & Democracy, their sense and worth of real Democracy having been equally shaped into a Western elite-serving interpretation of this concept.

It's this aspect that, I believe, is key to an understanding of the current divide among progressives, and other factions, too, which some are slowly turning into a tribal war within the tribe. This aspect has been identified as a "pro-war", "pro-imperialist", and "pro-establishment" stance, but it goes deeper than that, and, albeit expressed as such, I'm not sure those aspects are true. Rather, the difference appears to lie in the denial they embrace, which some outlets, politicians, and individuals identify as being hyper-grounded... which it isn't if one considers over 100 years of history that amply showcase just how dangerously deluded that attitude may be.

I still haven't been able to determine their motivation; some of it seems to be linked to a fear of the consequences on their 'business' or affairs that follow certain stances, some of it appears to stem from a targeted form of contrarianism that's automatically established based on the other tribe's take — it's uncanny how members from either tribe invariably find some angle to disagree on, hence why both usually make a big deal out of an agreement — which would explain the lack of consistency applied in regard to certain moral and political positions and why the same act done by both parties aren't treated anywhere near the same way by those 'progressives' (or any political group, but within varying expectations and with different implications, aspects progressivism is meant to counter).

I'm not sure how marked this behaviour was before, but I'm far from the only who's noticed both a reversal of sorts in a, relatively, mainstream segment of those who self-identify as Leftists, offsetting what should be a complete alignment on core political ideals. While differences on policy implementations are always expected — opting for different vehicles is fine providing that the chosen path leads to the same destination — the path itself has become a point of contention between concerned Leftists, and animosity is increasingly being aimed at one another.

I don't want to go into the underlying issues and elements that explain the split here, but you'll find links to related posts if you scroll down to the bottom of the page; the first two thumbnails starting from the right, as well as the one for "Polly Ticking 2", lead to ones that express the general frustration that's felt toward the "TYT-Progressive / NATO-Left" crowd, also referred to as "boutique leftists."

What's important to be aware of is how their behaviour is perceived and that this informs the 'other' progressive's position, RBN's being the focus here; what they express stems from the exact same sentiments I voiced, although their conclusions are far more pronounced then mine. Their main complaints can be summed up as:

The Progressive Democrats:

• do not understand the needs and urgency of the working class;
• act as controlled opposition, their real goal being to funnel votes back to the Dems;
• are more concerned with their political career than bringing about the change they promised, their real loyalty lying with the establishment Democrats;
• have shifted Right, forced to stay within the Democratic party's scope;
• are for a police state, and back imperialist goals;
• remain blind in regard to the oppressive, fascist entity that the Dems are morphing into (along with a portion of GOP as another portion desperately seeks to impose its theocracy (sorry, Ben, not enough like you anymore, apparently); 
• the fight-from-the-inside approach isn't working, and it's a scam.
  
  

(Note: The thumbnails without a brand watermark are RBN's, the episodes shown can be access on YouTube here)

I must admit that the behaviour I'm seeing from those 'NATO-Left' progressives is something I've a hard time wrapping my head around unless I accept that they're willingly playing interference and putting up a false front in order to redirect more ambitious Left-leaners away from third parties and cults and toward the Dems. There's some of that for sure; how much of that is 'concerted effort' and how much is 'external influence'

Otherwise, there's a conservatism that lies underneath their progressive front that comes to light through their unwavering belief that US institutions, which includes the Democratic party, can, ultimately, do no wrong... unless a Republican gets anywhere near them.

This aspect — the conservatism — surprised me, yet, this makes sense and I should have expected it, I suppose, given the type of people who, today, are those likely to garner significant public attention simply for being a "Leftist" and advocating Leftist ideals through mainstream outlets and venues and/or for playing a direct political role acting as Leftists that behave like Righties: they're not working class.

And because they're not working class, they're not willing to sacrifice "what they've worked hard to get/reach/accomplish, etc."

Their take on Ukraine, which depends on a surface and superficial understanding of pivotal events, is nowhere near acceptable given the momentous import of all that's transpiring through all that's linked, what this implies, and the possible futures this points to. Their apparent denial of any explanation that goes beyond the obvious one sold to us by Western media offers several possible reasons that don't single out a clear cause, Russophobia and the belief that the US operates under good intentions only, never doing any wrong until proven guilty of such being some of the more obvious ones in the mix.

The latter is made clearer in the way they deny any possible involvement by the US in the Iranian and Chinese protests that are underway — limiting ourselves to those — if even daring to mention this as a possible reality. Those protests simply haven't followed a normal course; as soon as the focus goes straight from a specific event and complaint to chants of "Down with the government" within a country that the US seeks to bend to its wants without having attained the desired success, then you can pretty much bet that the CIA is involved covertly, a fact that's confirmed with just a bit of work if one knows what to look for, NED-related evidence being overt. The National Endowment for Democracy is the vehicle used by the CIA to drive regime changes, and there's usually significant Open Society donations or involvement that precedes. It's undeniable: the US is involved in both.

This doesn't negate the validity of the angst voiced by those protesting, but it does put into question the momentum and scope of said protests and whether the demands they put forward — a new Western-type of 'Democratic' government. Please — would in fact reflect the people's immediate and honest wants were it not for the influence and sway amid the swell of energy and the pent up anger that's allowed a release, the chaos and confusion making it easy to manipulate a direction and message in the movement's voice, speaking for a body whose members found themselves protesting before any of them could settle on a slogan.

Ironically, those playing a role in amplifying a single, murky event to the scale and sustained tension they now feed and cheer for, namely, the US and the West, are actually those that deserve a good solid chunk of the deep ire that, we're told, is targeted at the Iranian government.

The demands and the riots that ensued have little to do with the 'morality police' and a hijab per se, if properly heard, that is, unless over half the country were morality officers working full time to oppress people. Otherwise, cruel and unnecessary sanctions, never mind toying around with the JCPOA in order to spur a reaction from Iran that would justify a military intervention from the US, letting them, in the interim, tighten the crushing sanctions all the more, these being directly responsible for the state of affairs, for it is these that are the real cause of suffering, the situation fueling tensions and violence within the country.

I've no doubt that the ruling regime deserves much criticism, but the "democratic" rulers imposed by the US, in Iran or anywhere, have always been far more brutal than whatever regime they felt needed replacement, and these invariably end up being the cause of genuine, naturally grown, thus, unprompted and organic protests that are, essentially, calling to get the US out of their government.

Albeit previous discontentment voiced against the Iranian regime and its religious hold over the country, hearing Iranians talk about how people pretty much live as they want — if not impacted by sanctions — many laws being slowly shed through individual non-participation, with more people intermingling across religious and political groups, and comparing this mega riot with past protests and contextualizing it within current global events and the US' current "interests", the present protest seems way over the top, to say the least.

Tehran-based researcher Setareh Sadeqi, having earned her Ph.D. from the faculty of World Studies, University of Tehran, was interviewed by The Grayzone's founder and editor, Max Blumenthal, in a segment released last Saturday. While she equally wanted the same restrictions removed and for women to be given greater rights, she expressed having zero doubt that the CIA were behind the current seizing Iran given the disproportionate level of intensity in all that's expressed and what's transpired, based on an event that, albeit disheartening, remains foggy — few know the details other than having grasped the connection we're expected to instantly accept: the morality police arrested 22-year-old Mahsa Amini; she [mysteriously] collapses before leaving an administrative building; she was obviously beaten and killed by the morality police.

Very-related aside: Americans foaming at the mouth to invade Iran, or attack the country in any way in order to deliver Freedom & Democracy® to Iranians, because, in truth, the White House deeply cares about those nations it's been crapping on for at least 75 years, making life miserable for anyone with the wrong passport is its awkward way of showing it cares?

To these I ask: Why would the US be justified to invade a country for one woman based on tensions they arranged to rile up?  If a wide scale protest is cause for regime-changing intervention, why didn't NATO invade the US in 2020? And, between the US' regular police and Iran's morality police, which one is responsible for more senseless deaths? Lots of questionable oppression seen from them...

So, really? The US is justified its meddling because of an oppressive regime? Saudi Arabia is a good buddy country, need I say more to contradict that excuse if the previous paragraph didn't satisfy? Don't forget who abandoned the Afghan women, these having heard the same sweet promises that enriched elites, left many Afghans dead or wounded, and the women and children in a far worse situation than the one they were facing before the US came and went in between wasting twenty years; please have a chat with your neighbour, for some may need a reminder. That anyone sees the US as a force of liberation and not the imperialist, opportunistic monster that's led by corporations that it is... gotta wonder how bad a situation they're living to think that.

Sadeqi affirms that what is shown to the Western world sells a false impression, as it's hooligans who are maintaining the tension through the continued waves of violence they unleash across the country, destroying shops and businesses that attempt to carry on as normal, destroying property along the way; violence among the people, not just between the state's forces and rioters, is increasing.

An aspect that she took as a clear sign of US involvement — the US-led efforts follow a formula <insert yet another mention of Zbigniew Brzeziński here> and there's recognisable patterns and methods that guarantee the presence of certain NGOs with a very specific interpretation of "Democracy" — this having motivated her to look just below the visible layer, having also noticed parallels with past US coup efforts in Iran, was the way sentiments were initially centred on specific issues that were already being addressed through the day to day, then all was cranked up to 13 and people were chanting "Death to the government" and nothing less than a complete overhaul of the country's entire governing body and ways of governance will do because: 'What those Amreecan sounding peeopels promised, my freeyend, datiswhat de Heereeneeans wantased, yes.'

And, as usual, as it does best, the US promised promises it always promises it would never promise, for promising promises that promise a non-promised end is against the rules-based order that rules the order on which promises are based; the government explains it better, using a clearly obscuring legalese that makes it all far more much more less comprehensible than what I was able to muster and string together just now...  so, unless you're pro-US, you're always wrong, OK?

Sadeqi confirmed a key aspect: In light of the global split that's announced itself a decade ago, and, due to the course events have taken recently and fearing that any instability would be seen by the West as an opportunity to "encourage" a regime change, the Khameini government had already seized on the need for a change, and had opened talks with the goal placed precisely on dismantling the morality police but upholding certain religious observances, as well as having re-opened discussions with several organizations focused on human rights, feminism, and related activist causes in order to jointly decide the course that's to be taken concerning the hijab. (Ref.: Iran’s protests spark regime change campaign | Grayzone)

This aspect presents the overshoot that confirms the West's involvement; beyond the well-recorded history of such acts, should entities and people identified on the protest sites and methods that leave behind physical proof still be considered insufficient evidence for pro-Establishment and/or pro-Exceptionalism folks, be they of the so-called "Lefty" type, including silly "NATO is for peace" Leftists.

Because of their no-stance stance, simply avoiding the subject of US involvement except, perhaps, to brand someone a rightwinger or some sympathizer of person-X, imperialist issues crucial to a progressive position are never addressed, these highlighting the devious nature of the US establishment and the real challenges faced in attemting to bring about change, nor do they take advantage of such moments to question the US' right to meddle in other countries' affairs or to educate people about the detrimental effects of the neoliberal shock therapy that invariably follows wherever the US "liberates" a nation, thus, they're not fermenting the type of mentality that can efficiently identify the inter-connectivity of social issues, why many domestic issues depend on foreign policy matters. Hence, they do little to truly incite viewers to pressure the White House to mind things at home instead; it's as much the people's responsibility to rein in their own government, and the world would appreciate it, thank you. Instead, all their energy goes into countering anyone they perceive to be rightwingers. Keep in mind that these are the people still screaming Russian interference for what was a truly negligible impact that isn't even worth the mention.

But that's not my focus for this post; it's the fact that none of this is addressed by the 'NATO-Left' flavour of progressives, nor are such topics taken seriously by these if not attacked as conspiracy theories, but all they provide to substantiate their argument as they dismiss any claims that may 'damage' the Dems, is derision and labeling. That these practices are well documented is irrelevant.

Brief Related Aside: To the dismay of its creator and of all those who care about the accuracy of information that make up repositories of our history, Wikipedia has quickly turned into a propagandistic machine that the liberal establishment managed to gain control over, using it to "set in stone," so to speak, their desired narrative. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of good, accurate info available on Wikipedia, as much care goes into producing many topics, but, if dealing with anything that links to US politics, do know that the info is tightly controlled and presented in order to influence views, not inform people. That said, The Grayzone being a constant thorn in the US and UK establishment's side who've been at the receiving end of many efforts to smear the site and its reporters, recently — until publicized by Blumenthal — saw itself being described as being both a far-Right and far-Left entity. That's when you know you're pissing off all the right people. Good on them!

Hoping for Hope

It's this aspect, a refusal to delve into a dark side that's an undeniable reality that these Dem-supporting progressives manage to deny, pushing, instead, reasons to place one's trust in the party and the institutions that have done little more than betray voters who have grown restless and who are finding it increasingly difficult to see hope in anyone or any path that points to the same entities for a solution to the problems they created and, clearly, couldn't care less about rectifying.

Not bringing to light these betrayals is upsetting; attacking those who do is troubling, ditto on their efforts to present an antisepticised vision that merely demands rolling up one's sleeves and doing more door-to-door campaigning, putting in steady years of dedication playing the politician to force a change that anyone in their right mind should want: a system and politicians that work for the people, not for a select few and their corporations. Backpedaling with justifications for the Dems' failures and criminal behaviour — as well as their illegal wars — and spitting venom at those who seek to circumvent rather than reinforce a corrupt governmental system and the hyper-imperialism it survives on, this view and attitude is having decreased effect, and it's turning a growing number of people against these progressives, the label no longer matching many areas of this group's outlook.

Amidst all that's happening, the same focus being placed on the same political battles, the same complaints, the same attacks, and prepping for the same strategies... calling cognitive dissonance all around seems appropriate. And people, those seeing events play out through politicians and the media, aren't fools; they know there's more going on and are seeking those who are questioning events and who are willing to push through the BS and seek answers. Unfortunately, this opens the floor to many charlatans who focus on narratives that sell, and offer answers only a few can possibly have, and I'm sure it's not them.

Miscepolination Laws?

The efforts of a bulk of those that form the loose hub that RBN is actively a part of are also key forces helping to bring about the shifts that are underway; the splits within both parties that I mentioned in previous posts are the result of a realignment that's occurring, itself resulting from the simple fact that neither of the two parties locked into the duopolistic dance cater to the majority of voter needs and wants. Additionally, there's a growing disgust in the face of a government that promises to the people but delivers to the Military Industrial Complex in order to deliver to the oil and gaz companies, other corporations being next in line; regular voters are important, they just happen to be last on the "important" list. No one's fault, right? Just the way nature is and the world works, right?

Add the normal confusion that arises out of current events and the narrative gaps that are multiplying for anyone but those with their head in the sand, like the Kyle Kulinskis of this world, and other so-called 'progressives', and the tribalism that drew the limits of what could be considered an acceptable explanation and course of action no longer present reasonable bounds for many as their approaches, constrained by what has proven to deliver so very little to the working class — this, after having given their work to people in China and elsewhere — are now assumed to be a waste of time, energy, and resources. People wanted a change; they were promised a glorious one; they got shafted one time too many.

Understanding the deep anger that ripples through large swaths of the working class and an increasing number of middle class folks implies having grasped the deep mistrust that now dominates, albeit the expression of such leads to varying paths being found and taken, the added impact of an establishment-serving mainstream media pumping out a steady stream of elite-pleasing lies breaking up naturally-formed coalitions, scattering many across the forbidden divide.

I've dropped my habit of pointing it out despite the fact that, albeit I know better, I still rely on the Left-Right polar convention to distinguish between liberalism and conservatism, these meant to, loosely, refer to the Democratic and Republican parties respectively, but know that it is just that, a convenient convention when discussing American politics. And one that's really becoming more of a hindrance than a real convenience since there's currently no such thing as an actual, functional Left in the US. Using "Left" and "Right" to refer to the Dems and GOP now confuses matters as it fails to adequately capture the split that's increasingly melding elements more traditionally tied to one party or the other whilst it fails to differentiate between true progressive Leftists versus Dem-bound 'Leftists' (I normally use single quotaion marks for the "so-called Left", when not referring to it as just that, so-called). Left or Right still stands in terms of one's politics, but creates false interpretations and expectations applied at the party level.

That's the thing: it's not parties that are realigning, it's factions within the parties, some of these having moved beyond the lines that have come to define the "us" and "them" that each dedicated tribal member came to recognize as a politicaly-bound reality; that forbidden divide, although forged by real ideological differences, rests on mostly fictitious characteristics and overblown stereotypes that have congealed into the set expectations about one another that each seeks to validate in all that is said or done by the other.

Nonetheless, you'd think that, per the traditional Left-Right dichotomy that redefines the Left as "center-right", it would be easy to situate where on the one-dimensional political pole the main factions that make up the 'classic' tribes would be situated, but an honest attempt to do so proves otherwise, requiring two if not three dimensions to explicate the "cross-overs" occurring. My attempt, above, is rapidly proven false if examining particular positions. I know that the Caucus-Leftists would situate current progressives as being closer to the Right, even overlapping it in some ways given their view on Ukraine as well as some interactions with people deemed to have said Leftist no-nos at some point in their lives, yet, the pro-Imperialist stance that these are fooled into backing indicate the opposite...

This shift seems to be the cause of much confusion and the reason for many missed opportunities, an aspect I'd like to examine in more depth in another post, time permitting.

Keep in mind that the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) currently boasts 101 members and only a few stand out as true progressives, for only a few arrived via the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) or the Justice Democrats , and all have consistently disappointed their base, betraying what's meant to be their cause far too often. They delivered another major slap that's still fresh: Rashida Tlaib was the only one that voted to not break up the railway workers' strike.

The Caucus-Leftists (CL) — I think that's the one I'll use to refer to those inaptly labeled as TYT-Progressives — are seeing their support wane, unable to deliver any concrete results; a portion of the media that supported The Squad+ Progressives are increasingly turning on them while the media that still supports them are becoming all the more entrenched in party politics that sees everyone not in line with their views or conclusions as a foe, and anyone crossing the line and fraternizing with confirmed rightwingers known to have espoused rightwinging stuff are doing it for bad reasons if not out of greed, and no Caucus-Leftist can ever be at peace until these individuals are called out.

So, now, Progressive-supporting so-called progressives (Caucus-Leftists) are branding progress-seeking progressives as frauds and rightwingers, Trump trumpeters and Putin lovers, and attacking anything they say or do without really having heard or properly assessed what's said and done. For some, that behaviour is warranted, even deserved, as this space has managed to attract riff-raff and opportunistic individuals given voters' frustration in the face of the CPC's inability to deliver on anything, and the CL's refusal to examine certain topics or areas other than to disparage those who do.

But the times, they are a changing... And change excites conservatism in most people.

The Pieces No Longer Fit

Consider the following goals, which are those of a current member of Congress:

• No member of Congress should accept a donation campaign from a federal lobbyist or a federal political action committee (PAC).
• Members of Congress should be prohibited from lobbying for life.
• Ban on members of Congress trading individual stocks.
• A single subject rule; disentangle bills that lump all.

.

I gotta admit that the last is an issue I've always had a hard time wrapping my brain around; a medley of disparate bills and acts all wrapped up in a package that's sure to have people not vote on what they want to vote on and not not vote on what they didn't not want to not vote on, which justifies not voting on the thing that they had to vote on but didn't want to, and vice versa. Maybe. Exactly. Congress is constantly confused on what not not to vote on. But the stress causes brain tumours. Big Pharma makes more money when more laws are stuffed into a single bill, I bet? The price of brain tumour medicine is sure to indicate whether this rule becomes law. Maybe.

Here's the surprising thing: Those goals are those of Florida's 1st congressional district representative, Matt Gaetz, who's as rightwing as Marjorie Taylor-Greene isn't leftwing. Yep, that's edging far-Right territory.

This type of divide-straddling attitude that's behind Gaetz's proposal is also seen in regard to several policy stances; the ultimate intent of some is, justifiably, cause for concern, but how much so? And is the justification for the concern itself justified, or rooted in a reactive recoil that's invariably seen in at least one group whenever habit altering changes are in play?

Gaetz had been invited to appear on TYT to discuss the midterms, but I seriously don't know what Cenk Uygur was thinking if what unfurled is what he had had in mind; it was a silly and unproductive show of silly and unproductive bipartisanship. You don't invite someone on your show to greet them with an aggressive scowl and murmur, "OK, let's get this over with."

More on this 'event' in another post; I mention Gaetz because he's made his intent public last week, which provided a 'packaged' example of goals traditionally seen as belonging to the Dems being addressed as bipartisan issues by a faction within the Republicans who've been pushing for more bipartisan efforts.

That most of these efforts have been brought up in between having made upsetting, oft racist statements is somewhat expected since such requests stem from the Freedom Caucus, which is considered to be the furthest-Right element in the Republican party. This does, however, indicate that there is a willingness to re-shape the political landscape in radical ways that's also on the Right, but the social end they seek may prove to be incompatible with Leftist ideals.

Albeit there is a pull toward the Left that seems to have some effect on many, hence such a willingness being demonstrated by those Rightists, this is no match for the pull the Right is able to apply on all of society. But how relevant is this, i.e. the traditional Left-Right assignments, if these are being entirely redefined per shifting politics at the individual level, this, in turn, producing a realignment within both parties that's sure to generate serious fractures that may very well lead to a viable two-party-challenging third party one way or the other.

Finally. The 'awakening' witnessed, the momentum that's been gained... The times are ripe for change. The elites know it, fear it; measures to demonize this course are already being applied. 

What's Left. Standing

"Anyone who defends them is a psy-ops," said Nick Cruse in the 8-Dec segment titled, "Chris Hayes uses Illogical Logic to Defend the Scab Left." By them, he's referring to the CPC and Caucus-Left, voicing the deep anger he felt following the latest railway-strike developments.

You can only promise so much and repeat which politics define you best so many times before failing to deliver on one's promises and to match one's stated beliefs can still earn you any degree of attention if trust is crucial to that relationship. This has much to do with the sudden turn on CPC members and the CLs that support them. Enough people have pointed it out now, and enough people see it: the fight from the inside is a waste of time and energy.

For those who are in a position similar to mine, having seen the proverbial writing on the wall and not having any real voice to bring attention to it in any meaningful way, do know that ours is one helluva frustrating place, especially when competing isn't a goal but amplifying a warning is. The time is ripe, the window is closing; too much time has already been wasted by those advocating a change whilst being too firmly stuck in yesterday's forms and structures, hoping to create a new 'old' so it can bring about change rather than play a direct part in making one happen, doing so by circumventing all that will otherwise prevent the change they are advocating from ever materializing.

With the pressure that's been turned on them from an increasingly angrier and restless base, there seems to be a growing awareness among the CL's, but it's hard to say just how positive an impact this is having as it seems to have been interpreted by some as a reason to harden their stance, tighten their sphere of interaction, and increase their intolerance, as if inciting a greater level of hatred toward a good chunk of the country was to produce anything close to a desired resolve.

Conversely, the way GOP is typifying what it considers the Left, attributing to it all sorts of wants and goals that are entirely removed from any demonstrable reality, is extremely maddening, and its demonstrative of a callous and uncaring view of others and of a propensity for treating anything and anyone as a commodity and tool in an end-justifies-the-means mentality that does make it hard to even want to bridge any gap with opposing tribal members given the disingenuous ring their behaviour carries forward.

There's an important difference that separates the politics practiced by social-justice Dems and almost any GOP: For the members of the GOP, it's all a game. That's the team they fell in, and playing for that side, saying and doing whatever one needs to win is all part of the fun. For those true progressives, on the other hand, it's 'their life'; it's not about political points and sponsors, it's about people, i.e., the voters, those whose interests they are meant to represent.

That's not to say that all Republicans have zero convictions and don't believe anything they put forward, but, for the most part, they know damn well that no one would be fool enough to buy what they veritably preach unless already rich or superbly indoctrinated, so they rely on tactics that turn people's concerns into a sport, and, seemingly, have fun watching the Dems always fielding the ball, which the GOP can play aggressively, not having to offer anything to voters and sure to please corporations with a sneeze or a fart, as they've always done, just not as globally as the Dems were willing to do, hence how the establishment Dems became more corrupt than most mafia bosses.

The Caucus-Left certainly doesn't qualify as such, but they also seem to live in tremendous denial. Of this, the Dems' level of corruption and evil, and of their neocolonialist ambitions, thus taking a far more pro-imperialist stance than one would expect given the label they self-identify as.

I'm still trying to figure out what motivates their stance, for I'm willing to give many of these CLs the benefit of the doubt regarding their intentions, wanting to believe that those functioning under the TYT umbrella, or with direct ties to the network, aren't in fact 'paid opposition', the network's goals not having been railroaded into an unwanted role due to a sizable investment.

It's important to recall that Cenk Uygur, and many who got their start with TYT, invested much time, effort, and money, too, into the "fight from the inside" path that's been embraced, this aspect making it harder for some to let go, admit defeat. At which point does the sunk cost fallacy sink in?

I've seen a similar behaviour in academics who must face the fact that the theory they dedicated their life to has been disproven. Nullified. This seen as an extension of themselves; being rendered irrelevant. Invalidated. This is what establishes that, no matter the claims, dogma plagues scientific/academic progress in the same way that religious dogma impedes a more generalized progress. And the same is true in politics. Losing their place, their meaning, their income... it gnaws; it's there. We all share certain insecurities just not the same comforts; the greater the comforts, the heavier the weight of those same insecurities. 

Communicating this reality to this segment can't be done through approaches whose sole tactic relies on being as antagonistic as possible, not if one is aiming on, ultimately, combining efforts, a near necessity to assure firmer results; this is, in part, something I want to address re RBN, who now spit more venom toward the group of CLs and the CPC than they do toward rightwingers, some of these gaining significant space in their politics.

I'm seeing some signs that the CL's walls are coming down, albeit only partially so, which makes feeding divisive tribalities counterproductive, and these undermine constructive approaches, be they critical of the Caucus-Left, making at-large attacks on a tribe's tribe being, in this case, good if from within the CPC, but bad if applied toward external players, like the CLs, given their connections with the CPC, DSA, and other groups, as well as their higher profile.

There are forces at work that affect their performance and what they're able to deliver, and these are the same forces that we're all exposed to, most to a lesser degree or on behaviour with little impact on society, but we're all vulnerable, in need of attention and fear rejection, susceptible to greed, react positively to perks, and become quickly accustomed to a standard of living, prone to re-interpret our own hardships in a manner that assigns merit for one's hardwork no matter how disproportionately high one's payoff may be, and no matter the amount of circumstantial luck that played a part. For that very reason alone, it's unrealistic to place all of one's hopes on progressives who are expected to play the long game and to build a career we simultaneously expect them to jeopardize, being willing to throw away the comforts they've gained with every perceived opportunity just to establish irrefutably good intentions? Well, we all gotta be realistic, methinks. 

And a good strategy takes those aspects into account; it leverages such facets to its advantage. 

Last week, Sam Seder (The Majority Report) provided commentary that I took as a real positive sign: He was reacting to Rev. Robert Schenck, the conservative evangelical minister that testified before a House committee on 8-Dec, who had detailed huge efforts, demanding much time and money, applied toward influencing the Supreme Court's decisions on key issues, favouring conservatives on whatever they may present to the court.

Seder, though aware of issues related to corruption, was stunned — like everyone, I should think — by all that had been done and by just how far evangelicals were willing to go, and how intricate a plan they'd weaved, including placing people in positions and in careers which were secondary to what these provided: an access that facilitated their real job, which was to influence decisions.

That type of involvement, given the evangelical's connections and the roles many have occupied within certain branches of government, it's safe to say they 'imported' those skills and didn't stumble upon them during Sunday's services.

The CIA, and their various organisations and 'assets' and their access to unlimited funds and Pentagon resources, possessing the ability to circumvent Congress whilst knowing approval is a mere formality best avoided if plausible deniability is supposed to mean anything... imagine what they're up to, full time. Seeking to play whatever hand wherever they may in order to have one more thumb over one more government.

If evangelicals do it for abortion and gays, what do you think the US Establishment is willing to do for money? What about when the USD's survival is at stake?

If one is to believe that about evangelicals, then one ought to be able to consider as very plausible the fact that Ukraine was the US's remake of their "Afghan trap", though they had a harder time getting Russia to cross that border so they could vilify it to the world and sanction Russia's arse to oblivion. Proof that it's another Western-participating, US-led CIA plan? It smacks of arrogance and look at the failure it's turning out to be.

Like I said before, it's the elites' desperation that worries me. I've a feeling their detachment knows no bounds.

.

What the...?

"Hold on!" you shout, realizing you've reached the bottom of the page. "Wasn't this supposed to be about some Blacks out-revolving a reformist nut's work? 'Arbee's N' is what, I believe, you called it? Well, where are they?"

Before you finish your thought, please allow me to say: No, I'm not a hypocritical hyper-racist, I decided to split the post into two. Maximize postings, and all that... RBN is the focus of the next part. An understanding of the context that frames their claims, positions, and affiliations is necessary if one is to grasp a wider relevance from what I advance as a critique. The backdrop is what makes it worth anyone's while to read anything I have to say concerning RBN, as it is what gives sense to their necessity... but is it just me or has Nick rapidly turned into an insufferable arse?  

.

.

.

Related Posts