tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13132260549907966782024-02-20T00:51:09.681-08:00Random Musings from a Muse"Life is hard when you don’t know who you are. It’s harder when you don’t know *what* you are. ...
I was lost for years. Searching while hiding. ...
I won’t hide anymore. I will live the life I choose."
-- Bo Dennis, "Lost Girl"Liviana (SuccubaSuprema)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07191032294285487395noreply@blogger.comBlogger293125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1313226054990796678.post-79278940261330399532019-08-04T21:13:00.000-07:002019-08-14T23:30:20.814-07:00A Modern Progressive Manifesto (Version 2.0)<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FUee0a4cCSg/XUeX965ImrI/AAAAAAAANDE/aK9AyOcKSoYoDEqNVFUNUjhsu4moBzjHQCLcBGAs/s1600/Wallace_WhereDoWeGoFromHere%2B-%2BCopy.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="460" data-original-width="770" height="382" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FUee0a4cCSg/XUeX965ImrI/AAAAAAAANDE/aK9AyOcKSoYoDEqNVFUNUjhsu4moBzjHQCLcBGAs/s640/Wallace_WhereDoWeGoFromHere%2B-%2BCopy.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">A Modern Progressive Manifesto,</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;">(Version 2.0),</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>by "Liviana" (Giovanna Laine)</b></div>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">(This is a follow-up to my previous piece, "The Name 'Progressive' - Its Proponents, Would-Be Usurpers, & Wannabe Exploiters," published <a href="https://random-musings-from-a-muse.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-name-progressive-its-proponents.html">here</a>, <a href="https://www.realprogressivesusa.com/news/community/2018-12-15-the-name-progressive">here</a>, and <a href="https://medium.com/the-progressive-flame/the-name-progressive-its-proponents-wouldbe-usurpers-wannabe-exploiters-60f7ea08f5aa">here</a>.)</span><br />
<br />
A specter is haunting America — the specter of Progressivism. All the powers of the US establishment have entered into a devious alliance to exorcise this specter: Democrat and Republican, corporation and mainstream media, internet trolls and USIC <i>agents provocateurs</i>. Where is the candidate who has not spoken contemptuously of Progressivism or tried to claim the mantle of a Progressive?<br />
<br />
Two conclusions emerge from these facts:<br />
I. Progressivism is already acknowledged by all American powers to be itself a power.<br />
II. It is high time that Progressives should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish our views, our aims, our tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Specter of Progressivism with a manifesto of the movement itself. U.S. Representative Pramila Jayapal (Democrat from the State of Washington) called attention to this second conclusion in <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/09/progressives-democrats-2020-election-1049959">early December of 2018</a>, and, a little more than a month later, in <a href="https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/14/here-is-the-progressive-agenda/">mid-January of 2019</a>, a "Progressive Agenda" was published in <i>CounterPunch</i>. The authorship of this piece is not entirely clear; it was published under the name Ted Rall, who is indeed a writer, but the body of the piece contains some ambiguity, which might be taken to suggest that Rep, Jayapal and some of her fellow Democrats who have sought to claim the mantle of Progressivism might have had some share in drafting the said agenda. At any rate, the final paragraph begins with the assertion:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Progressives: you are no longer the ugly stepdaughter of the Democratic Party.</blockquote>
<br />
which is, bluntly, historically inaccurate, as <a href="https://random-musings-from-a-muse.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-name-progressive-its-proponents.html">my previous survey</a> of the history of Progressivism (also published <a href="https://www.realprogressivesusa.com/news/community/2018-12-15-the-name-progressive">here</a> and <a href="https://medium.com/the-progressive-flame/the-name-progressive-its-proponents-wouldbe-usurpers-wannabe-exploiters-60f7ea08f5aa">here</a>) has shown, and as will be evident from the ever-growing non-partisanship of Progressivism for more than 120 years. The piece in <i>CounterPunch</i> is also not entirely satisfactory for other reasons. A proper manifesto for Progressives, specifically Modern Progressives, is thus still in need. To this end, I have looked at what Progressives have advocated from the beginning of the Progressive movement among those who might be called Proto-Progressives in the People's Party of the 1890s and followed that through the Historical Progressives who found a champion in the person of Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, through the birth of Modern Progressivism <i>via</i> Henry Wallace in 1946 and its toddler phase and growing pains under his influence and subsequently till 1952, its adolescence under the influence of <i>Star Trek</i>, <i>Julia</i>, <i>Bewitched</i>, and other forward-thinking television series, as well as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and George McGovern, not to mention Bob Dylan, Simon and Garfunkel, The Beatles, the Jefferson Airplane, Diana Ross and the Supremes, Marvin Gaye, and other voices of Soul and "the counterculture," up through Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich, to today, and have thereby sketched the following manifesto.<br />
<br />
<b>Chapter I: Posers and Progressives</b><br />
<br />
The word "Progressive" has a long history in American politics, going back over an hundred years, but its meaning has often been vague, or intentionally perverted, much like other such terms. In the United States today, there are no less than four different groups using this name for themselves, and one of those differs from the other three rather significantly, not merely in terms of having an actual legacy from the original Progressives, but also in terms of its approach to challenges and its focus on economic concerns and not social concerns alone. What is this one, which I have called "Modern Progressivism," which takes as what many view as the main part of its name a term both beloved and despised? It frightens some, this word "Progressive," while others seek to wrap themselves in it without understanding its import. It is these latter which have actuated me to distinguish Modern Progressivism by the addition of the qualification "Modern," for not only is Modern Progressivism, the actual successor of Historical Progressivism (and indeed first came into its own led by one of those Historical Progressives, whose image is seen above), Modern in the sense of being <i>in the present</i>, but it is also Modern in the sense of <i>Modernistic</i>.<br />
<br />
<b>Chapter II: Civic Responsibility</b><br />
<br />
Objectivists and Neo-Objectivists talk often about a struggle between individualism and collectivism. I say that this is a bifurcation fallacy. Collectivism is often used as a synonym for communism (as a general thing, not necessarily Marxist Communism, although that would fall under the header). Objectivists and Neo-Objectivists also generally lump tribalism into the category of collectivism, but this is a rather serious misunderstanding of what tribalism is (unfortunately, few seem to have any real grasp on the meaning of tribalism, and sociologists haven't helped with their semantic revisionism turning the word into a pejorative describing something which is more akin to sectarianism than tribalism). It also betrays the fallacy involved, for tribalism is not collectivist, not communist. Tribalism is, rather, cooperative. It involves a Cooperative economy, in which the tribe benefits the individual and the individual benefits the tribe. A tribe is a community, not a commune. The people of a tribe work together, they cooperate, for the good of the tribe and the individuals who make up the tribe. One might even say that it is a midway point between collectivism and individualism, although I wouldn't say that. It is not, to me, a blending of collectivist and individualist attitudes, but rather, something different from both.<br />
<br />
Almost any question has at least three answers, and the third is not simply a moderate position between the other two. That would still be an acceptance of the dichotomy, the dualism, involved in the bifurcation fallacy. It would be merely an in-between position, taking some from one side and some from the other side. Such is not a unique position or perspective, but simply a blending. Some would even say that it is fence-sitting, although such a claim would be simply an attempt to reinforce the polarization and the bifurcation fallacy which are products of dualism.<br />
<br />
Cooperativism is not a collective; it is individuals working together for the common good, and that means the good of the individuals as well. This is something which has largely been forgotten in our society, the ideal of civic republicanism, the Commonwealth. The ideal is enshrined in the Preamble to the American Constitution:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"We the People, in order to... promote the general welfare ..."</blockquote>
<br />
This is an ideal of Enlightenment Liberalism, as well as of the Historical Progressive movement and Modern Progressivism which arose at the end of World War II (which must be distinguished from the Fauxgressivism of Democratic Party loyalists [which is mere partisanship] and the Regressivism of outrage mongers [which is a loss of the plot, focusing on the superficial instead of the substantial, and which would, through presumptuous ignorance of history and the zeal of youth, undo progress which has already been attained], as well as from the Fauxgressivism of opportunists, which is ephemeral and survives solely so long as it supports their self-serving psychology). Classical Liberalism taken to extremes, especially in its economic aspects under Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, abandoned this ideal, leaving it to the Historical Progressives who were later succeeded by Modern Progressives as well as to the original Social Liberals, who also became a distinct thought-current at the end of World War II (in the US; it had already become distinct in Europe). But somewhere along the way since then, the Liberals lost sight of that ideal, while the Conservatives began to move away from Social Conservatism in the direction of Right-Wing economics (<i>via</i> the euphemism "Fiscal Conservatism"), eventually falling into the pit of Neoliberalism, the Liberals themselves soon following them into the same Extreme Right pit, and both imagining that Neoconservative foreign policy will save them from the unsustainable economic dystopia to which Neoliberalism invariably leads.<br />
<br />
This left only Modern Progressives to bear the standard of civic republicanism, which remains to this day one of the features of Modern Progressivism. Civic republicanism may also be regarded as civic responsibility, a responsibility of the individual to the local area in which he or she resides, a responsibility to the community, and by extension, to the wider society of her or his nation. This is a salient feature of Progressivism since the 1890s. It is not the only salient feature, however, but the others do tend to encourage this kind of civic responsibility on the part of the individual to her or his community.<br />
<br />
<b>Chapter III: Enduring Ideals, or Salient Features, of Progressivism</b><br />
<br />
What, then, are the salient features of Progressivism, or more precisely, what does a Modern Progressive stand for?<br />
<br />
In order to answer this question, we must look at what Progressives have advocated from the beginning of the Progressive movement in the 1890s and follow that up to today. Looking at the Progressive Party platforms from 1912, 1924, and 1948, as well as things which have been advocated by personalities such as Franklin D. Roosevelt (in particular in his "Second Bill of Rights"), George McGovern, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein, and others, we can deduce certain enduring ideals, which for Modern Progressives can be summarily expressed as follows:<br />
<br />
1. Economic Reform (including Spending Reform and Banking Reform). This would entail advocacy for labor and global environmentalism, as well as Fair Trade practices, and the restoration of anti-monopoly laws and policies. Included in this would of course be the implementation of a living wage as well as a Federal Job Guarantee (while a Basic Income as an improved and expanded Welfare, SSI, and Social Security would be provided to those unable to work; a UBI, although deriving from Objectivist/Neo-Objectivist thought, would serve Neoliberal interests, and is not what is here being advocated). Banking reform would include FULL nationalization of the Federal Reserve System (no more private banks owning shares of the Fed, the origin of which, according to Warren Mosler in a Twitter private message on 17 July 2019, "was probably the need for convertible currency back in the gold standard days, which today is inapplicable" -- Mr. Mosler further agreed that private banks should no longer hold shares in the Federal Reserve, and that it should be fully nationalized, made <i>purely</i> a creature of the federal Congress), in order to, among other things, realize the full potential of our fiat currency. Spending reform would include use of funds to restore, repair, and rebuild our crumbling infrastructure <i>via</i>, among other things, the elimination of waste and "pork." In addition, the operational realities of our currency system should be acknowledged: the US federal government is the monopoly issuer of a sovereign, free-floating, non-convertible, fiat currency, and thus cannot run out of money or go broke, nor does it have any need to tax or borrow to fund spending; federal spending is not funded by federal taxes or by loans (bonds), nor by both together.<br />
<br />
2. Electoral Reform (including Campaign Finance Reform). Among other things, this would involve restoration of the representation of the people instead of representation of corporations, as well as a change in the way elections are determined, ending the first-past-the-post model and replacing that with ranked-choice voting, single transferable vote, proportional representation, or perhaps some combination thereof. Progressive positions on the Electoral College vary, with some wanting to dispense with or abolish it entirely, while others see value in the Electoral College as a safeguard against the excesses of factions following after fads and trends (I find myself in the latter camp, agreeing with James Madison and the other Founders that democracy can too easily devolve into mob rule, what de Tocqueville named "the tyranny of the majority," just as I also agree with them that republic too often devolves into empire, and so a new system was needed, a democratic federal republic).<br />
<br />
3. Healthcare Reform, or, more precisely, Reform to Healthcare Insurance. Specifically, Progressives have, since the Progressive Party platform of 1912, called for "a national health service." By the time of the 1948 Progressive Party platform, this had become an explicit call for "a national system of healthcare insurance," and today is explicitly a call for Expanded and Improved Medicare for All. Some opponents of this goal imagine that it removes individual liberty, but if individual liberty should be taken to mean only the freedom to allow greedy profit-seeking corporations to take advantage of the individual with costs to that individual which are far greater than those of the national system of healthcare insurance to that same individual, then that is a rather unusual understanding of liberty.<br />
<br />
4. Foreign Policy Reform, away from unnecessary wars and imperialistic, for profit, military interventions, and an end to ridiculous expenditures on the military, which has not been involved in a defensive war since the end of World War II, thus rendering talk of spending on "defense" rather unbelievable. This is not to say that we should end all defense spending, but merely reform how we spend, and how much we spend. The Cold War ended in December of 1991, when the flag of USSR was taken down for the last time. It's time to stop living in the past and to progress to the future.<br />
<br />
5. Reform of Environmental Policy, such that we actually take environmental concerns seriously instead of simply giving them lip service. Teddy Roosevelt's efforts at conservation are well known, nor was he the only environmental advocate among Progressives, Historical or Modern.<br />
<br />
6. Education Reform, including restoration of the prominence of the Seven Liberal Arts as necessary studies for all free persons to maintain freedom, and elimination of fees for vo-tech schools, trade schools, and undergraduate colleges and universities. Education, instruction, and enlightenment are the most certain means by which fanaticism and intolerance can be rendered powerless, and it should never be forgotten, that in the poorest unregarded child that seems abandoned to ignorance and vice may slumber the virtues of a Socrates or a Hypatia, the intellect of a Stephen Hawking or a Ludwig Wittgenstein, the genius of an Ursula Le Guin or a Gene Roddenberry, the capacity to benefit mankind of a Washington or a Roosevelt; and that in rescuing her or him from the mire in which he or she is plunged, and giving her or him the means of education and development, the people that do it may be the direct and immediate means of conferring upon the world as great a boon as that given it by Charles Babbage and Hedy Lamarr; may perpetuate the liberties of a country and change the destinies of nations, and write a new chapter in the history of the world. Science and technology have brought us many wonders our ancestors could only dream of, but we will fall if we do not continue to advance, not only scientifically and technologically, but also philosophically and artistically, as of our understanding of history. Without an understanding of the past, we cannot hope to make secure our present or our future.<br />
<br />
7. Civil Liberties and Civil Rights. The Bill of Rights to the US Constitution recognizes certain rights and liberties of the people. We believe that the Constitution should never be amended in order to remove recognition of personal rights and liberties, but only to expand such personal rights and liberties, and to extend recognition of other Human Rights as belonging equally to all persons, regardless of ethnicity, skin color, chromosomal sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or creed, not by turning the oppressed into the oppressor and vice-versa, but by dismantling or reforming those structures which have facilitated oppression. We stand firmly, therefore, for all of the rights recognized by the Bill of Rights, as well as the responsibilities associated with some of them.<br />
<br />
The basic principles behind these tenets have not changed over the decades, although the ways to actualization thereof have evolved with the times. This, then, is a Modern Progressive Manifesto. Our goal is reform, as it has been since the 1890s. This reform must be done peacefully and democratically, and as such, we reject calls for violent revolution and any other use of violence as a political tactic. Literal violent revolution can end only in disaster and defeat, or in substituting one tyrant for another, or a multitude of despots for one.<br />
<br />
<b>Chapter IV: Closing Statements</b><br />
<br />
The Seven Salient Features of Modern Progressivism which I have enumerated here may be compared and contrasted with the Seven Knowledge Areas of <b><i>Real Progressives</i></b>. At first glance, a difference may be noticed, namely, where I have included Education Reform and Civil Liberties & Civil Rights, neither of these is readily apparent in the Seven Knowledge Areas of <b><i>Real Progressives</i></b>, if only the names be considered, and likewise, where they have included Technology & Innovation and Equality with Justice, neither of these is readily apparent in the Seven Salient Features if only the names be considered. Dig a bit deeper, however, and what I have called Education Reform and Civil Liberties & Civil Rights would cover Equality with Justice (indeed, when discussing Civil Rights & Civil Liberties, I become explicit in the matter of Equality, stating that these Rights and Liberties should be extended equally to all, without regard for "ethnicity, skin color, chromosomal sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or creed" -- and likewise become explicit in the need for Justice in such Equality by noting that it must be effected "not by turning the oppressed into the oppressor and vice-versa, but by dismantling or reforming those structures which have facilitated oppression").<br />
<br />
That leaves only Technology & Innovation omitted, and yet, this also fits under what I have dubbed Education Reform. Also worthy of note is the fact that Education is one of the Four Pillars of <b><i>Real Progressives</i></b>.<br />
<br />
Progressives disdain to conceal our views and aims. We openly declare our ends as the reform of existing social and economic conditions. Let the establishment tremble at our political revolution. The People have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a planet to save.<br />
<br />
Join us, and together we shall stop the corporate oligarchs who would become our new feudal lords, and instead we shall restore our democratic federal republic and bring the necessary reforms to truly make America great for <b><i>all</i></b> of her citizens, and not for the wealthy alone. Join us in reformation of our nation. Join us in Progress.<br />
<br />
<b>For Further Reference:</b><br />
<br />
<a href="https://archive.is/2rU27">Progressive Party Platform, 1912</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://archive.li/BLqn6">Progressive Party Platform, 1924</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://archive.is/cZhi9">Progressive Party Platform, 1948</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://berniesanders.com/issues/">Bernie Sanders on the Issues</a> (updated for 2020 campaign)<br />
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A previous version of this piece was originally published <a href="https://random-musings-from-a-muse.blogspot.com/2018/07/a-modern-progressive-manifesto.html">here</a>, and republished <a href="https://medium.com/the-progressive-flame/a-modern-progressive-manifesto-faae5257c541">here</a>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
If you like what I do at <i><a href="https://random-musings-from-a-muse.blogspot.com/">Random Musings from a Muse</a></i> (my blog), at <i><a href="https://medium.com/the-progressive-flame">The Progressive Flame</a></i>, and/or on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjS1fEDvioY1_oH9ITqCphA/featured">my YouTube channel</a>, please consider becoming my patron through <a href="https://www.patreon.com/Liviana">my Patreon</a>. If you'd like to help <b><i>Real Progressives</i></b>, please consider patronage with <a href="https://www.patreon.com/realprogressives">their Patreon</a> as well.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-size: x-small;">Fair use notice</span></b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">For more information: <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><b><span style="font-size: x-small;">Copyright notice</span></b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">All original content in this blog is © Copyright 2013-2019 & <i>an. seqq</i>. by "Liviana" (Giovanna Laine).</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Liviana (SuccubaSuprema)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07191032294285487395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1313226054990796678.post-43164031840649718702019-02-13T15:00:00.001-08:002019-04-27T06:45:46.107-07:00Progressive MembershipsMemberships in Progressive Fire on G+ & FB, & Memberships in My YT Discord<br />
2019-02-13<br />
<br />
<br />
In the heady days of the election of 2016, the Google Plus community which was originally "Bernie Sanders for President 2016" and then "Berners for Jill Stein," which became "Progressive Fire" after the general election, had some 2400 members. We were the largest pro-Bernie community on Google Plus, and then the largest pro-Jill community on Google Plus (larger even than the community which is "Green Party of the United States Official"). Some decrease in membership during the "off season" was expected, and at one point in 2018 we got down to 1640 members. As of today, 13 February 2019, the number of members has picked back up a bit, but we have known since October of last year that the consumer version of G+ is being phased out. In consequence, I set up a Facebook group for "Progressive Fire," and knowing that many were not keen on Facebook or the censorship and invasion of privacy there, I also opened up my own Discord server (where there are no ads, no fees other than for purely optional perks, no invasion of privacy, and very little censorship apart from what each server owner sets in his or her rules and guidelines) for my YouTube subscribers to members of the PF community on G+. This offer/invitation was made back in October or November.<br />
<br />
Now let's look at the membership numbers. Each of the following screenshots was made just a few moments ago today.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-o3rRA2aFVjQ/XGSWWjvhmkI/AAAAAAAAMIE/F2TEN1ZL_lUp5O6MzLe_q4qZlu-7aJz7ACLcBGAs/s1600/PF%2BGoogle%2BPlus%2Bmain%2B2019-02-13.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="590" data-original-width="1600" height="147" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-o3rRA2aFVjQ/XGSWWjvhmkI/AAAAAAAAMIE/F2TEN1ZL_lUp5O6MzLe_q4qZlu-7aJz7ACLcBGAs/s400/PF%2BGoogle%2BPlus%2Bmain%2B2019-02-13.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
In case you can't make that out, let's focus and circle:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qSXG84K6Qrc/XGSXmsNpfNI/AAAAAAAAMIQ/a9E0RrTQJLYgC2kn4HILt0zGV2DAxAApwCLcBGAs/s1600/PF%2BGoogle%2BPlus%2Bmain%2B2019-02-13%2Bmembers.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="389" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qSXG84K6Qrc/XGSXmsNpfNI/AAAAAAAAMIQ/a9E0RrTQJLYgC2kn4HILt0zGV2DAxAApwCLcBGAs/s320/PF%2BGoogle%2BPlus%2Bmain%2B2019-02-13%2Bmembers.png" width="311" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">That says 1,704 members.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
1,704 members in a community on a platform which will be gone before the end of April.<br />
<br />
Let's have a look at PF on FB:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-E_DMdT0nWig/XGSYBlJ_tGI/AAAAAAAAMIY/YISpjq63_48gl3ZXfLIrLVkFRBs91vq5gCLcBGAs/s1600/PF%2BFacebook%2Bmain%2B2019-02-13.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="854" data-original-width="1318" height="258" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-E_DMdT0nWig/XGSYBlJ_tGI/AAAAAAAAMIY/YISpjq63_48gl3ZXfLIrLVkFRBs91vq5gCLcBGAs/s400/PF%2BFacebook%2Bmain%2B2019-02-13.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Again, maybe you don't know where to look, so let's focus again:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZRmT3y6UdYg/XGSYkvRuI5I/AAAAAAAAMIg/KMQNfn-ICawCkM8WI7HWDuI688T3uhlQwCLcBGAs/s1600/PF%2BFacebook%2Bmain%2B2019-02-13%2Bmembers.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="259" data-original-width="383" height="216" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZRmT3y6UdYg/XGSYkvRuI5I/AAAAAAAAMIg/KMQNfn-ICawCkM8WI7HWDuI688T3uhlQwCLcBGAs/s320/PF%2BFacebook%2Bmain%2B2019-02-13%2Bmembers.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">That says 31 Members.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
31 members.<br />
<br />
Now let's have a look at the Discord server I own which I set up for my YouTube subscribers, where I post everything I post at either/both of those PF platforms (and where I also post quite a bit more than I post on either of the PF platforms):<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ks_Olt-jc6g/XGSZLT6CcAI/AAAAAAAAMIo/gHH-IdlNAjoXyompoWNcbwTHukOj-vCAACLcBGAs/s1600/LLs%2526V%2Bmembers%2Badmin%2B2019-02-13.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="208" data-original-width="971" height="85" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ks_Olt-jc6g/XGSZLT6CcAI/AAAAAAAAMIo/gHH-IdlNAjoXyompoWNcbwTHukOj-vCAACLcBGAs/s400/LLs%2526V%2Bmembers%2Badmin%2B2019-02-13.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
I would hope that this is large enough and focused enough that I don't need to make it any larger, but just in case, ...<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ycSWQXJyIAU/XGSZ1gwhRKI/AAAAAAAAMI0/JgKnIkD7zjkpisYPMte7hCRlbenuZmBTwCLcBGAs/s1600/LLs%2526V%2Bmembers%2Badmin%2B2019-02-13%2Bfocus.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="97" data-original-width="191" height="162" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ycSWQXJyIAU/XGSZ1gwhRKI/AAAAAAAAMI0/JgKnIkD7zjkpisYPMte7hCRlbenuZmBTwCLcBGAs/s320/LLs%2526V%2Bmembers%2Badmin%2B2019-02-13%2Bfocus.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">That says 68 Members.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Most of the members of both PF at FB and my YT subscriber Discord server did not come from PF on G+. I am extremely annoyed with the fact that few of you have joined either PF on FB or my Discord. I'd much rather have you in my Discord (and I suspect most of you would prefer it to FB; we didn't use G+ because we loved FB, after all).<br />
<br />
I know many of you are advocating some platform called "MeWe" (of which I never heard before the announcement from Alphabet, Inc. that they would be phasing out the consumer version of G+), and others are dispersing to assorted other platforms. I fully understand the dislike many of you have for Facebook. Discord can do everything which can be done on G+, Facebook, Twitter, <i>and Skype</i>, <b><i>and more</i></b>. If you all had come to Discord when I first invited you, you would have been able to opt out of a change to their Terms of Service pertaining to arbitration/lawsuit, but some of you weren't listening when I said "Yes, it was <i><b>started</b></i> by gamers for gamers, <b><i>but it has grown well beyond that now</i></b>." Some of you weren't listening when I stated, in response to concerns about "some new thing" (as if "MeWe" is some sort of legacy social media platform!), that Discord has been around for over 3 years (almost four now).<br />
<br />
You want to disperse to the four winds instead of sticking together where we're more effective?<br />
<br />
You want to go to a platform with a puerile name like "MeWe"?<br />
<br />
You don't like the fact that I prohibited the divisive and unproductive discussions of "Gun Control vs the 2nd Amendment" and "Religion vs Atheism" in PF on G+? Guess what? Those prohibitions stand in PF on FB, <b><i>but they don't exist in my Discord</i></b>. You will be expected to argue in good faith and follow the laws of Logic (and not spew a bunch of sophist bullshit), but as long as you do so and follow the other guidelines and rules (I believe there is only one rule I have set, which is a prohibition on hate speech), go for it. If the SuperMod, one of the Mods, or I tell you to cool your heels for a bit, though, you should respect that instruction and govern yourselves accordingly.<br />
<br />
So you have a choice. Go disperse and become less effective through dispersal, go to a platform with a name a child could improve, come to FB and put up with Zuckerberg's ineptitude and capitulation to the Atlantic Council, or come to Discord.<br />
<br />
Here's the link for the PF group on FB:<br />
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/176605796560275/">Progressive Fire group on Facebook</a><br />
<br />
You'll need to let me know who you are if you be new to FB and want in.<br />
<br />
Here's the link to set up an account on Discord and download either the PC client or the phone app (or both; I use both):<br />
<a href="https://discordapp.com/">Discord - Free Voice & Text Chat "for Gamers"</a><br />
<br />
Once you've set up an account and downloaded the client and/or app, here's a permanent invitation to my Discord server:<br />
<a href="https://discord.gg/eq87PQD">Liv's Livestreams & Vids</a><br />
<br />
You'll get an "NSFW" message upon entry; that's merely a safety feature I installed.<br />
You'll need to tell me who the fuck you are if you want into the actual server beyond the lobby. The lobby is only for vetting newcomers. You'll be able to see the rules and guidelines channel from there, too. There are a lot of trolls and dipshits roaming around Discord, so I vet newcomers pretty severely, which is why you need to tell me who the fuck you are if you actually want in.<br />
<br />
Thanks for your attention to this. Have a nice day.<br />
<br />
~ Giovanna,<br />
Owner of Progressive Fire,<br />
Editor of The Progressive Flame,<br />
PMO Member of Real Progressives,<br />
Philosopher,<br />
YouTuber,<br />
Blogger,<br />
etc.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Liviana (SuccubaSuprema)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07191032294285487395noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1313226054990796678.post-28067419343403587342018-12-30T12:17:00.000-08:002018-12-30T12:33:09.588-08:00The Name 'Progressive' -- Its Proponents, Wouldbe Usurpers, & Wannabe Exploiters<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HSjMxAZlyf8/XCkiZOSVnUI/AAAAAAAAMEs/J1DYiWOlKQs2fyt53NTQEMD3n0g6mwUwQCLcBGAs/s1600/Henry%2BA%2BWallace%2B-%2BFather%2Bof%2BModern%2BProgressivism.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="402" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HSjMxAZlyf8/XCkiZOSVnUI/AAAAAAAAMEs/J1DYiWOlKQs2fyt53NTQEMD3n0g6mwUwQCLcBGAs/s320/Henry%2BA%2BWallace%2B-%2BFather%2Bof%2BModern%2BProgressivism.png" width="268" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Henry A. Wallace, Father of Modern Progressivism</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">The Name 'Progressive' -- Its Proponents, Wouldbe Usurpers, & Wannabe Exploiters</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;">by Giovanna Laine</span></div>
<br />
<br />
<b><i>Introductory Remarks</i></b><br />
<br />
Historical Progressivism, that is, what went by the name from the period of around 1890 until around 1945, was a relatively vague thing, concerned primarily with "reform," which meant that anyone who advocated for what they thought was reform could claim to be a Progressive. Reform is itself a rather vague term, of course, due to its subjectivity. I have discussed this in slightly more detail elsewhere, but suffice it to say that this is why members of multiple political parties and various ideological perspectives were labeled, and labeled themselves, as "Progressives" during this "Historical Progressive" era. As time went on, the term began to take on some distinct meanings, but it would not be until after the end of World War II that Progressivism truly distinguished itself from other currents of thought in the American political arena.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Modern Progressivism</i></b><br />
<br />
Modern Progressivism was born about 1946 when Henry Wallace became the editor of <i>The New Republic</i> magazine, and came of age in 1952 after he realized that the USSR wasn't what he thought it was initially (due to the rather sanitized presentation he was shown when he visited the country). Modern Progressivism has some rather distinct perspectives, according it the status of something truly unique, different from other socio-political and economic perspectives in American thought. Initially, these included extreme Leftist economic views, but since 1952, Modern Progressives have been generally Socialist while rejecting Marxist Socialism.¹ Henry Wallace was a Progressive Republican before becoming a Progressive Democrat in 1936, and subsequently FDR's second Vice President in 1941, and was thus an Historical Progressive before becoming the Father of Modern Progressivism. Two or three other camps in the United States today claim the label Progressive, neither of which has any historical connection ("lineage," if you will) from the original Progressives before the end of World War II. I mean to discuss these and draw some distinctions between them and what I have named "Modern Progressivism."<br />
<br />
<b><i>Social Liberals and Modern Progressives</i></b><br />
<br />
Social Liberalism also became a distinct movement in the US about the same time as Modern Progressivism, although it, like Modern Progressivism, had its roots in late 19th century ideals. Classical Liberalism had still held onto the status of dominant "Liberal" perspective in America into the 1930s, with its economic <i>Laissez-Faire</i> attitude taken to extremes under the administrations of Presidents Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover. Relegating this now-named "Classical" Liberalism to the past, Social Liberalism in the US went more simply by the name "Liberalism." Almost from the beginning, Social Liberals and Modern Progressives had disagreements, in spite of some shared goals, and the disagreements were sometimes about how to approach the actualization of these goals, with the Liberals gradually adopting a top-down approach while the Progressives favored a grassroots approach.<br />
<br />
One of the most well-known of these disagreements, however, was to do with the Vietnam War in the 1960s and '70s. The Social Liberals had largely formed within or gravitated toward the Democratic Party, with Modern Progressives establishing a new "Progressive Party" in 1948 and nominating Henry Wallace for President. This party, however, included a number of Communists who would not listen to Wallace's criticism in 1950 of the invasion of South Korea by the North Korean Communists, and the executive committee of this Progressive Party issued a statement of opposition to US involvement in Korea the same year. Wallace subsequently left the party. His new and more accurate understanding of the Stalinist regime which he had from 1952 also didn't sit well with them, but by this time he was already gone, and he gave his support to Dwight Eisenhower in the 1952 and 1956 Presidential contests (for reference, a brief examination of the 1956 Republican Party platform will demonstrate how much the Republican Party has changed since then).<br />
<br />
The Progressive Party of 1948 disbanded in 1955 as a result of the Cold War and the Red Scare witch hunt led by Joseph McCarthy. Many Modern Progressives had already dispersed into one or the other of the two main parties. The conflict over the Vietnam War between Liberals and Progressives saw the Liberals supporting the war effort, since it was being prosecuted by Democratic Presidents like JFK and LBJ, while the Progressives, with nothing like the partisan loyalty of the Liberals, opposed the war effort, anti-war perspectives having also been one of the defining characteristics of the Progressive Party of 1948.²<br />
<br />
A brief account of the 1968 and 1972 Democratic Presidential campaigns will help to further establish some of the history between Social Liberals and Modern Progressives, the relevance of which will be apparent in discussing the post-1988 situation.<br />
<br />
When Lyndon Johnson withdrew from his re-election campaign in 1968, Liberals and the Democratic Party establishment rallied behind the pro-war candidate Hubert Humphrey, while the Progressives in the Democratic Party split in two, with some favoring Eugene McCarthy and others supporting Robert F. Kennedy. The Conservative Southern Democrats also split in two, with some behind Humphrey while others backed the notorious segregationist George Wallace. RFK was assassinated on 5 June, and the contest was then between Hubert Humphrey and Eugene McCarthy. In 1968, only the District of Columbia and 14 states held primary elections in the Democratic Party, the remainder determined by caucuses before or during the national convention. The results were telling.<br />
<br />
At the time of RFK's assassination, the total delegate count was 561 for Humphrey, 393 for Kennedy, and 258 for McCarthy. Contrast these numbers with the popular vote in those states (and the District) where primary elections were held: 38.73% for McCarthy, 30.63% for Kennedy, and a mere 2.21% for Humphrey, with the remainder of the vote going to other candidates (including LBJ) and write-in candidates. Interestingly, Richard Nixon received 0.18% as a write-in on the Democratic ticket. That year's Democratic National Convention in Chicago was the scene of a police riot against anti-war protesters. Hubert Humphrey easily won the nomination (despite having won not a single primary), with McCarthy coming in a distant second and George McGovern taking third place. The scandal of a candidate who had not won a single primary being given the nomination by the party establishment led to a reform in which more states would hold primary elections for the Democratic Party.<br />
<br />
This sorry election year left Progressives angry and determined to win in 1972. This time, 21 states and the District held Democratic primary elections, and 12 states held caucuses before the national convention. The clear winner of the caucuses was George McGovern, who was backed by most Progressives, and although Hubert Humphrey running again got slightly more of the popular vote than McGovern, this amounted to only five states won, compared to McGovern's victory in 15 states. The delegate totals were 1000 for McGovern to only 354 for Humphrey (even George Wallace did better in delegates and states won than Humphrey this time around). At the 1972 Democratic National Convention, McGovern received 57.37% of the votes, to to Humphrey's 2.22%.<br />
<br />
Progressive grassroots activism had forced more states to hold primaries and had secured the Democratic nomination for President for one of their own, "the Peace Candidate" George S. McGovern, who was also widely noted as an ecology candidate and a supporter of equality for women (McGovern publicly supported ratification of the ERA, but was not present in the Senate on the date the vote was held in March of 1972, due to his presidential campaign). The Democratic Party establishment and many of the Liberals in the party resorted to forming a group called "Democrats for Nixon," which helped to get Richard Nixon re-elected, and in 1973, the Democratic Party revised its charter and bylaws to prevent grassroots reform or takeover of the party. They have not nominated another Progressive for President since.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Fauxgressive Democrats or Partisan Fauxgressives</i></b><br />
<br />
Throughout the 1980s, Republicans waged a propaganda campaign to turn the word "Liberal" into an insult, and were so successful that George H.W. Bush was able to dismiss one of Michael Dukakis' statements with the retort "That's just Liberal," the sneer in his words all-too-evident. For their part, Democrats did not seem to have the spine to defend the term. Following the 1988 election, a number of partisan Democrats who had up to then referred to themselves as "Liberals" sought to rebrand themselves by co-opting the name "Progressive." In light of the history between Social Liberals and Modern Progressives, this was a strange choice, all the more so because these rebranded Liberals did not see any need to change any of their positions nor adopt any Progressive ideals. Modern Progressives have often called these rebranded Liberals "Fauxgressives," and I generally refer to this second camp of people calling themselves Progressives as "Fauxgressive Democrats" or "Partisan Fauxgressives."<br />
<br />
<b><i>Regressive Outrage Mongers</i></b><br />
<br />
Sometime after August of 2011, a new faction or movement began to coalesce. Largely composed of young people within, or sympathetic to, the Democratic Party, this camp did not fully form until sometime in 2012, but it remains disorganized and without any official leaders (although several persons, living and dead, have influenced this camp, and it does have some personalities held in respect generally). The earliest manifestations of this camp began to arise in the late 1990s as extremists of Political Correctness, and by 2003, they had engaged in semantic revisionism to such an extent that they had redefined "Political Correctness" in such a way that anyone who disagreed with their extremist take on PC (as well as those who tried to offer constructive criticism and even those who merely asked sincere questions about PC) could be dismissed as "racists and sexists and homophobes" automatically.<br />
<br />
Toward the end of 2011, these PC Extremists began to merge with what have sometimes been called "Fourth Wave Feminists" (a largely authoritarian perspective counter to the view of the mainstream of Second Wave Feminism that Feminism was about not only Equality, but also Liberation from being expected to live up to anyone else's standard, even that of other Women), distorters of Kimberlé Crenshaw's original iteration of Intersectionality (while Ms Crenshaw had intended for the focus of Intersectionality to be on the structures which enabled and facilitated oppression, these proponents of "activism in the tweets" and later also "activism in the streets" had changed the focus to Identity Politics), and keyboard warriors who used a limited understanding of Social Justice as a bully's weapon.<br />
<br />
As these elements came together, a few poorly understood concepts from Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault were added into the mix to justify a rejection of objective truth and cherry-picking of historical and scientific fact (this has led to Conservative, Ultra-Conservative, and Reactionary elements claiming that this camp is somehow "Postmodernist," but that is a somewhat inaccurate assertion; rather, they have a small bit of influence from both Post-Structuralism and Postmodernism, but few if any of them in my experience have demonstrated more than a cursory understanding of either of those philosophies; however, Derrida and Foucault actually had some influence on them, while William Jennings Bryan, Teddy Roosevelt, the Muckrakers, Robert LaFollette, FDR, Henry Wallace, George McGovern, and other Historical and Modern Progressives had no influence on them, because <i>they don't study History</i>, regarding it as suspect and unreliable -- and frankly, they don't study Philosophy, either, but managed to pick up a <i>cursory</i> understanding of <i>a few</i> concepts of Post-Structuralism and Postmodernism through filtered sources).³ This camp sought some way to distinguish themselves from the Democratic Party establishment (apparently due to a dislike of hierarchy), and so took the name "Progressive" from the Fauxgressive Democrats.<br />
<br />
Some of their opponents on the Left have called them "Outrage Warriors" or "Outrage Mongers," while Modern Progressives as well as some Liberals, Conservatives, Ultra-Conservatives, and Reactionaries have given them other names including "Neo-Puritans" and "Regressives." I have at times called this third camp "Postmodern Outrage Mongers" (note "Postmodern," not "Postmodernist"), but I have come to prefer the term "Regressive Outrage Mongers" for them, since so much of what they advocate would result in the undoing of progress achieved over the past 60 years (as an example, some of these kids have called for a return to racial segregation!).<br />
<br />
<b><i>Fauxgressive Opportunists</i></b><br />
<br />
The fourth camp of persons trying to call themselves "Progressives" (if indeed it can be separated from the second camp of "Partisan Fauxgressives") seems to have formed during 2016 as a result of the popularity of Senator Bernie Sanders, who refers to himself as a Progressive (and has the history to support him being regarded as a Modern Progressive). This camp also consists of partisan Democrats, but their motivation for claiming to be Progressive differs from that of the second camp. While the second camp rebranded in an attempt to distance themselves from the caricature of Liberalism which the 1980s Republicans had created, this fourth camp seeks to use the name "Progressive" as, essentially, an advertising gimmick. That is to say, they exploit the name in an effort to con Modern Progressives into giving them campaign contributions, volunteer campaign work, and votes. These have also often been called "Fauxgressives" by Modern Progressives who see through the act, but in order to distinguish them from the second camp, I prefer to name them "Fauxgressive Opportunists" or "Opportunistic Fauxgressives."<br />
<br />
<b><i>Distinctions</i></b><br />
<br />
So what are Modern Progressive ideals and goals? What distinguishes us as Modern Progressives from these other camps apart from having a "lineage" from the original Historical Progressives? That first question has several answers, and I will offer them in a subsequent article. For the moment, I will simply make a few observations of distinctions.<br />
A) Modern Progressives, unlike Fauxgressive Democrats / Partisan Fauxgressives, are non-partisan as a movement, although individual Modern Progressives may feel some sense of loyalty to some political party or another (but this is usually something like the Green Party of the United States, Socialist Alternative, or one of the several parties using "Progressive" as part of its name, rather than either of the two main parties). Modern Progressives are Leftist, or at least Left-leaning Centrists, while Partisan Fauxgressives continue to support politicians who promote Neoliberalism (an extreme Right Wing economic perspective).<br />
B) Modern Progressives see Identity Politics as divisive, and while not ignoring social concerns, are likely to regard economics as the primary struggle which must be won before any of these other concerns can be addressed in more than a temporary and token manner. This is of course quite a different perspective from that of the Regressive Outrage Mongers, who focus on Identity Politics. Attributing any economic perspective to the Regressive Outrage Mongers is challenging, since they give lip-service to Leftist or Centrist economic ideals, but their focus on Identity Politics establishes obstacles to the actualization of any Leftist goals (Leftism requires Solidarity to achieve its goals, while Identity Politics is divisive), and they seem all-too-willing to vote for the candidates chosen by the Democratic Party establishment, although some try to buck the system but wind up voting for Opportunistic Fauxgressives..<br />
C) While Opportunistic Fauxgressives give lip-service to Progressive ideals in an attempt to win public office, Modern Progressives actually believe in these ideals. These Fauxgressive Opportunists are pro-establishment and so will support the Neoliberal economic policies favored by the establishment.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Concluding Remarks</i></b><br />
<br />
When I attempt to make these distinctions, I have often been told that word meanings change. As a person with a little formal training in Linguistics, I know this, but I also know the difference between descriptive, prescriptive, and proscriptive lexicography. Most common-use dictionaries nowadays are descriptive (that is, they describe the way the words are commonly used), while technical dictionaries (such as a dictionary of philosophy, for example) will prescribe how technical terms in their field should be used (and sometimes also proscribe incorrect uses).<br />
<br />
Sometimes I have been accused of a No True Scotsman fallacy. As someone with considerable training in Logic (one of my two undergraduate majors was Philosophy, and, as is the case with most undergrad programs in Philosophy, at least in the US, the focus of my program until senior-level classes was on Logic and the history of ideas, specifically the history of ideas in the context of Philosophy), I do find it annoying when people start tossing the names of fallacies around inaccurately, especially when they refuse to listen to correction and won't even consider references given to them which provide the correct explanations of these terms. I'm not infallible, but I do have some idea of what terms in my own field mean, and probably a better idea than those with no formal training in a discipline which is a part of my own field.<br />
<br />
One of the key elements of the <i>Elengkhos</i> (Socratic Dialectic) involves the quest to understand by sorting out word meanings. This is done through a process of dialogue in which Socrates asks what one of his interlocutors means by a given word, gets an answer, applies logical analysis to the definition to find flaws, the interlocutor refines the definition, Socrates again looks for flaws, and so on, until, ideally, they arrive at a definition upon which they can agree, and then they proceed with the dialogue.<br />
<br />
In Chapter III of his <i>Analects</i>, Kong Fu Zi (Confucius) says "If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things." This quote is often paraphrased as "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name."<br />
<br />
The purpose of language is communication. Ludwig Wittgenstein discussed the confusion and frustration which can arise when people trying to communicate are playing different <i>Sprachspiele</i> (Language Games), using the same game pieces but with different rules. This is one of the reasons the definition of terms up front is recommended for "polite academic discourse." If we use the same words, but with different meanings, communication becomes at least challenging, if not impossible. Words do not mean just whatever someone wants them to mean, and common use can turn a word into its opposite over time, if nobody should care enough to correct those using the word incorrectly. An example with which many English speakers will likely be familiar is "literally," which is nowadays becoming more and more often used to mean "figuratively" and not literally at all. Do we want to communicate? Then we need to understand the correct meanings of words.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>Notes</i></b><br />
<br />
1. Modern Progressives are generally in favor of some type of Socialism other than Marxism, although some proponents of Modern Progressivism have supported slightly-Left-of-Center Social Democracy rather than Socialism, while some others have continued to espouse various forms of Marxism while rejecting Stalinism: Council Communism, for example (which is what the USSR was originally supposed to adopt, until Stalin consolidated his power and got rid of all of the soviets [regional/local councils] except the Supreme Soviet, resulting in centralized economic planning, rather than regional and local economies). I myself am a Cooperative Commonwealth Socialist (I support local democratic economic cooperatives working together through confederation).<br />
<br />
2. Worth noting before moving on, the Democratic Party establishment had tried to prevent Franklin D. Roosevelt from choosing Henry Wallace as his Vice Presidential running mate in 1940, but FDR insisted, going so far as to threaten to not run for re-election if he could not have Wallace. In 1944, Roosevelt, weakened by illness, didn't have the strength to battle the party establishment again, and they replaced Wallace with Truman. FDR did, however, name Wallace his Secretary of Commerce, in which position he continued under Truman until the latter fired him in 1946. Why the Democratic Party establishment was so opposed to Wallace is also telling: he opposed racial segregation and supported the advancement of women's rights.<br />
<br />
3. A common theme for this third camp is a limited or incorrect understanding of many of the ideas they claim to espouse. They're basically young (for the most part, although some of them are older than I am, and I'm from Generation X) and naïve with superficial knowledge of a few ideas. Their situation is actually a rather sad one, because they want to effect some kind of positive change, but they haven't bothered to take the time necessary to understand the context in which the current situation exists (I mean the historical context and the ideological currents which have come out of the past to influence the present). Wanting to effect positive change is admirable, but you can't just jump into the deep end of the pool before you learn how to swim.<br />
<br />
<b><i>For Further Reference</i></b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.davidpietrusza.com/1948-progressive-party-platform.html">Progressive Party Platform, 1948</a><br />
http://www.davidpietrusza.com/1948-progressive-party-platform.html<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/henry-wallace-americas-forgotten-visionary-politician_b_8569658.html">Henry Wallace: America’s Forgotten Visionary Politician</a><br />
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/henry-wallace-americas-forgotten-visionary-politician_b_8569658.html<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1956">Republican Party Platform of 1956</a><br />
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1956<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/oct/28/facebook-posts/viral-meme-says-1956-republican-platform-was-prett/">Politifact on the 1956 Republican Platform</a><br />
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/oct/28/facebook-posts/viral-meme-says-1956-republican-platform-was-prett/<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-1968#ref1087640">United States presidential election of 1968</a><br />
https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-1968#ref1087640<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.vox.com/a/presidential-primaries-2016-republican-democrat/1968-scandal">The primaries scandal in 1968 that changed everything</a><br />
https://www.vox.com/a/presidential-primaries-2016-republican-democrat/1968-scandal<br />
<br />
<i>Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72</i>, by Hunter S. Thompson (available <a href="https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/fear-and-loathing-on-the-campaign-trail-72-hunter-s-thompson/1109601282?ean=9781451691573#/">here</a>)<br />
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/fear-and-loathing-on-the-campaign-trail-72-hunter-s-thompson/1109601282?ean=9781451691573#/<br />
<br />
<a href="https://sites.google.com/site/primarycaucus/home/Democrats1972">Presidential Primaries and Caucuses Democrats 1972 - PrimaryCaucus (a map-based history of the presidential nominating process)</a><br />
https://sites.google.com/site/primarycaucus/home/Democrats1972<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/George-McGovern">George McGovern</a><br />
https://www.britannica.com/biography/George-McGovern<br />
<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/-DW4HLgYPlA">Kimberlé Crenshaw's keynote address "On Intersectionality" at WOW 2016</a><br />
https://youtu.be/-DW4HLgYPlA<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
This article was <a href="https://www.realprogressivesusa.com/news/featured/2018-12-15-the-name-progressive">originally published</a> on <b><i>Re</i></b><b><i>al</i></b><b><i> Progressives™</i></b>, on 15 December 2018.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">All original content in this article is © Copyright 2013–2018 & an. seqq. by Giovanna Laine, who grants <b><i>Re</i></b><b><i>al</i></b><b><i> Progressives™</i></b> a non-exclusive license to publish the article in perpetuity so long as (a) the substance of the article remains unaltered, and (b) this copyright notice is attached.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Liviana (SuccubaSuprema)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07191032294285487395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1313226054990796678.post-12454172605823130362018-12-13T20:04:00.002-08:002018-12-13T20:04:37.436-08:00Henry Wallace, Father of Modern Progressivism<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pkMQxlFVb5A/XBMrs_k8vUI/AAAAAAAAMDY/3kZxk53XMxgLUqrLHS7VcCmZv4Njk21BQCLcBGAs/s1600/Henry%2BA%2BWallace%2B-%2BFather%2Bof%2BModern%2BProgressivism.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="402" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pkMQxlFVb5A/XBMrs_k8vUI/AAAAAAAAMDY/3kZxk53XMxgLUqrLHS7VcCmZv4Njk21BQCLcBGAs/s320/Henry%2BA%2BWallace%2B-%2BFather%2Bof%2BModern%2BProgressivism.png" width="268" /></a></div>
<br />Liviana (SuccubaSuprema)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07191032294285487395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1313226054990796678.post-78582384756023793522018-10-27T22:36:00.001-07:002018-10-28T04:44:16.488-07:00What the Heck Is Progressivism?<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QeGfyIBpKow/W9U_Nyla2HI/AAAAAAAAL9g/7Zb_kSTNB8Q4UuwpjBBnSUvDzqJ7fys0gCLcBGAs/s1600/Henry%2BWallace%2527s%2BProgressive%2BParty%2Bon%2Bthe%2BDemopublicans%2B-%2BCopy.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="299" data-original-width="530" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QeGfyIBpKow/W9U_Nyla2HI/AAAAAAAAL9g/7Zb_kSTNB8Q4UuwpjBBnSUvDzqJ7fys0gCLcBGAs/s1600/Henry%2BWallace%2527s%2BProgressive%2BParty%2Bon%2Bthe%2BDemopublicans%2B-%2BCopy.png" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: x-large;">What the Heck Is Progressivism?</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">by Giovanna Laine</span></b></div>
<br />
<br />
Historical Progressivism, that is, what went by the name from the period of about 1890 until about 1945, was a relatively vague thing, concerned only with "reform," which meant that anyone who advocated for what they <i>thought</i> was reform could claim to be a Progressive. Reform is itself a rather vague term, of course, due to its subjectivity. I have discussed to some length the Historical Progressives already, and how Modern Progressivism is the legitimate heir of the original movement. In this piece, I would like to address some distinctions between the three camps which claim to be "Progressive" in the United States today. I have also discussed this to some extent elsewhere in my work both at <i>The Progressive Flame</i> and on my YouTube channel, but I do not believe that I have made things entirely clear thus far in print. With this piece, I hope to rectify that.<br />
<br />
Modern Progressivism was born about 1946 when Henry Wallace became the editor of <i><a href="https://newrepublic.com/">The New Republic</a></i> magazine (founded in 1913 by some of the Historical Progressives), and came of age in 1952 after he realized that the USSR wasn't what he thought it was initially (due to the rather sanitized presentation he was shown when he toured the country). Unlike Historical Progressivism's hazy nature, Modern Progressivism has some rather distinct perspectives, including initially <i>very</i> Leftist economic views, but since 1952, has been generally Socialist while rejecting Marxist Socialism (although some proponents have supported slightly-Left-of-Center Social Democracy rather than Socialism). I have discussed some of the ideals of Modern Progressivism elsewhere (see the links below).<br />
<br />
There are two other camps in the United States today who claim the label "Progressive," neither of which has any historical connection ("lineage," if you will) from the original Progressives before the end of World War II (Henry Wallace was a Progressive Republican before becoming a Progressive Democrat in 1936, and subsequently FDR's second Vice President from 1941-1945, and was thus an Historical Progressive before becoming the Father of Modern Progressivism).<br />
<br />
These are (a) rebranded Social Liberals, Democratic Party loyalists, who first referred to themselves as "Progressive" after the 1988 election, because they hadn't had the spine to defend the term "Liberal" against Republican attempts to turn it into an insult throughout the 1980s, whom Modern Progressives call "Fauxgressives," and (b) outrage mongers inspired by a cursory understanding of Derrida and Foucault, who were mostly younger Democratic Party members more interested in keyboard warrior activism than studying social, political, and economic history and ideas in order to get a thorough grounding before going out and doing any activism, whence one of the names some of their opponents give them, "Social Justice Warriors," the latter word in reference to their initial "keyboard warrior" aspect, who didn't even coalesce into anything worthy of being called a movement until about 2012, who are more likely to be referred to by Modern Progressives as "Regressive Outrage Mongers" or "Postmodern Regressives," due to the fact that the consequences of their activism often seem to be likely (whether intentionally or unwittingly, such as the current call among some of them for segregation) to undo progress which has been accomplished over the past 60 years or so.<br />
<br />
This gives us three camps, whom we can refer to briefly as:<br />
<br />
1) Modern Progressives (1946 to the present)<br />
2) Fauxgressive Democrats (1989 to the present)<br />
3) Postmodern Regressives (2012 to the present)<br />
<br />
and while a more accurate name for the second would be "Rebranded Social Liberals who have continued to be loyal partisan Democrats, some of whom use the name 'Progressive' in an effort to solicit campaign contributions and votes from Modern Progressives" and a more accurate name for the third would be "Outrage Mongers inspired to some extent by Derrida's Poststructuralism and Foucault's Postmodernism, who have <b><i>usurped and misused the language of</i></b> Political Correctness, Intersectionality, and Social Justice to spread their outrage and victim mentality, thereby <b><i>blocking</i></b> the actualization of Leftist goals" the unwieldy character of these more accurate names obviously makes for poor communication and dialogue. Unfortunate though Jordan Peterson's misguided campaign to blame Postmodernism for all the ills of contemporary society, and his conflation of Postmodernism with the Right Wing conspiracy theory idea of "Cultural Marxism" (which was inspired by Weimar Germany era piffle about "Kulturbolschewismus," a term used primarily to attack Modern Art), may be, and in spite of the rather <b><i>poor grasp of a few ideas</i></b> of Postmodernism by the third camp, nevertheless, naming the third camp "Postmodern Regressives" is still more accurate than giving them some less precise designation, and helps to distinguish them from Modern Progressives (who are not "Modern" <i>solely</i> in the sense of being "up to date" and currently extant, but <i>also</i> in the sense of having embraced values of Modernism).<br />
<br />
Of these three camps, obviously the Modern Progressives are in fact Leftists (or, at the very least, Centrists with a Leftist tinge).<br />
<br />
Democratic Party loyalists, those whom we call Fauxgressives, whatever they may say, are supporting Neoliberal economic policies, and that means that, whether they realize it or not, they are advocating an Extreme Right-Wing economic perspective.<br />
<br />
The final group (again, the Postmodern Regressives) ... I'm not sure they have <i>any</i> economic perspective, as a whole, at all. They seem to be mostly concerned with authoritarian social policies, although they give lip service to Leftist economic ideals. However, their obsession with identity politics serves only to establish obstacles to the actualization of any Leftist goals, so it's difficult to say what they actually believe in economic terms, probably due to the fact that most often they don't seem to have any clue what the hell they're talking about. They're basically (for the most part) young and naïve with superficial knowledge of a few ideas. It's one of the reasons they have turned Feminism on its head, for example; what was about Liberation and Equality during the 1960s and '70s has become something rather different. Their situation is actually a rather sad one, because they want to effect some kind of positive change, but they haven't bothered to take the time necessary to understand the context in which the current situation exists; I mean the historical context and the ideological currents which have come out of the past to influence the present. Wanting to effect positive change is admirable, but you can't just jump into the deep end of the pool before you learn how to swim.<br />
<br />
By way of contrast with Fauxgressive Democrats, Modern Progressives are not partisan (as a group, although some individuals might feel some loyalty to an authentically Modern Progressive, Left-libertarian political party such as the Green Party of the United States or one of the various parties using the word "Progressive" as part of its name), but will instead consider the policies of a candidate over party membership.<br />
<br />
In contrast to Postmodern Regressives, Modern Progressives oppose authoritarianism. Also, while advocating for equal rights under the law for all (regardless of pigmentation, ethnic ancestry, national origin, chromosomal sex, sexual orientation, and/or gender identity; indeed, the reason the Democratic Party establishment did not want Franklin Roosevelt to pick Henry Wallace as his Vice Presidential running mate in 1940, and absolutely refused to allow him a second term as Vice President, was because he <a href="https://blackpast.org/1948-henry-wallace-radio-address">opposed racial and sex discrimination and would not support racial segregation</a>; <a href="https://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/Felsenthal-Files/March-2016/Bernie-Sanders-Arrest-Kartemquin-1963/">Bernie Sanders was arrested advocating for civil rights for Blacks in 1963</a>, <a href="https://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2015/06/30/32-years-before-scotus-decision-sanders-backed-gay-pride-march">supported the first ever Gay Pride parade in Burlington, Vermont, as Mayor in 1983</a>, voted against the anti-equality "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996 [see previous link], and <a href="https://youtu.be/W0kCDFxODx4">treated Transgender persons as people as early as 1983</a>), Modern Progressives do not allow Identity Politics to divide us and distract us from the primary struggle, which is economic (because reforming or dismantling the [mostly capitalist] structures which have enabled and/or facilitated oppression is the first step in ending oppression).<br />
<br />
For more information, see<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/-uJonanReRQ">"Solidarity vs Intersectionality"</a> at my YouTube channel:<br />
https://youtu.be/-uJonanReRQ<br />
<br />
<a href="https://medium.com/the-progressive-flame/what-is-a-progressive-c3829b6f180c">"What Is A Progressive?"</a> at <i>The Progressive Flame</i>:<br />
https://medium.com/the-progressive-flame/what-is-a-progressive-c3829b6f180c<br />
<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/l8_-J7ytXE8">"What Is a Progressive? What Is a Leftist?"</a> at my YouTube channel:<br />
https://youtu.be/l8_-J7ytXE8<br />
<br />
and <a href="https://medium.com/the-progressive-flame/a-modern-progressive-manifesto-faae5257c541">"A Modern Progressive Manifesto"</a> at <i>The Progressive Flame</i>:<br />
https://medium.com/the-progressive-flame/a-modern-progressive-manifesto-faae5257c541<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">An earlier draft of this piece was <a href="https://archive.fo/ZhvJD">first published</a> on Google Plus on 5 September 2018.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<b style="font-size: small;">Fair use notice</b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">For more information: <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Copyright notice</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">All original content in this blog is © Copyright 2013-2018 & an. seqq. by "Liviana" (Giovanna Laine). </span><br />
<br />
<br />Liviana (SuccubaSuprema)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07191032294285487395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1313226054990796678.post-58895752147467771242018-10-04T21:28:00.001-07:002018-10-04T21:28:38.242-07:00Kavanaugh, Due Process, Privacy, Torture, and the Supreme Court<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wWnO8MQol38/WE_s82NTwsI/AAAAAAAAFpk/LoVqmN3dIv8ueXzXzqMR47WtIJyrii1hACPcBGAYYCw/s1600/ConstHead.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="435" data-original-width="800" height="174" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wWnO8MQol38/WE_s82NTwsI/AAAAAAAAFpk/LoVqmN3dIv8ueXzXzqMR47WtIJyrii1hACPcBGAYYCw/s320/ConstHead.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><u>Kavanaugh:</u></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><u>Due Process, Privacy, Torture,</u></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><u>and the Supreme Court</u>,</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;">by "Liviana" (Giovanna Laine)</span></div>
<br />
<br />
Okay. Kavanaugh.<br />
<br />
Brace yourselves.<br />
<br />
I'm going to give you five links, representing most of the latest intel to come across my desk before I wrote this (this was originally posted on G+, Facebook, and Discord, in various stages of completion, on 28 September 2018; there have been a few developments since then, but my own view has remained unchanged). Then I'm going to give you my take.<br />
<br />
Tim Black (Video):<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/ERKNE_ghJ5s">Kavanaugh Returns!</a><br />
<br />
Deb Della Piana (Video):<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/glpFxkexvrg">Shut the Fuck Up-The Kavanaugh Hearings Edition, September 27, 2018</a><br />
<br />
<i>Minneapolis Star-Tribune</i> (AP):<br />
<a href="http://m.startribune.com/ford-kavanaugh-testify-before-senate-judiciary-committee-capitol-hill/494459441/">After powerful day of testimony, Senate panel plans a Friday morning vote</a><br />
<br />
<i>The New Republic</i>:<br />
<a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/151440/brett-kavanaugh-disqualified-supreme-court">Brett Kavanaugh Disqualified Himself From the Supreme Court</a><br />
<br />
Carey Wedler (Video):<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/MTLpCS-LuAI">The TRUTH about Kavanaugh's "harassment" and "assault"</a><br />
<br />
<br />
So now, here's my take ...<br />
<br />
Giovanna Laine:<br />
I don't like Brett Kavanaugh.<br />
<br />
I don't want him on the Supreme Court.<br />
<br />
My reasons are many, and were already formed before the news of accusations of sexual shenanigans was revealed. But most are focusing solely on that aspect of who he is and whether or not he should be confirmed.<br />
<br />
His behavior in these hearings has not endeared him to me, but I cannot say how I might have behaved were I in his shoes. Ms Ford seems like a credible witness; she not only submitted to, but passed, a lie detector test (which is by no means evidence of anything, quite honestly, apart from her conviction that she would be able to pass it), and furthermore wants an investigation. Mr Kavanaugh has neither submitted to a lie detector test nor does he seem to want any investigation (if he's changed his mind about an investigation, I haven't seen indication of that, so please direct me to any evidence which says otherwise).<br />
<br />
What I find disturbing about this whole affair is how the division falls neatly along party lines. Republicans invariably (claim to) believe Kavanaugh to be innocent, while Democrats invariably (claim to) believe Ford's story. It is predictable, of course, business as usual, and oh so tiring.<br />
<br />
What I find <b><i>most</i></b> disturbing, however, is what one of those sides is advocating. And it annoys me greatly that I have to agree with the other side on this, because I despise both of them, both parties -- not Kavanaugh and Ford, but Republicans and Democrats. One side is advocating that the vote must go ahead today, that there's no reason for any kind of investigation. And their motivation for this? The midterm elections are coming up, and the investigation might last until they are over. It's absolutely nothing but political expediency. There's no concern for justice, no concern for truth, just a concern for how well or how poorly their party might fare in the midterm elections as a result. And they're not considering that pushing this vote through without an investigation might actually hurt their performance in the said elections. Short-sightedness, at the very least.<br />
<br />
But, then again, I can't imagine anyone with half a brain seriously suggesting that either of the two main parties is particularly noted for foresight, or self-awareness.<br />
<br />
I believe there should be an investigation (and, if the investigation should turn up reason for indictment, a trial), and only after that DUE PROCESS should any vote be held. I do not believe he should be disqualified purely on the basis of an accusation. We have Due Process precisely because there was a time when an accusation was all that was necessary for a presumption of guilt (heresy trials, witch hunts). It hasn't been 31 years yet since a young woman by the name of Tawana Brawley made accusations which later seemingly turned out to be bogus, and which might have destroyed lives of the accused had they not been cleared.<br />
<br />
"But Giovanna," some would say, "is their career or life more important than her body sovereignty?" No. But is her body sovereignty more important than someone's life?<br />
<br />
Again, anyone can claim anything; the claim alone does not make itself true. I can claim to be Mary Queen of Scots. Will you all address me as "Your Royal Majesty" if I do so? Of course not, nor should you. Truth does not depend on a mere assertion, nor how "believable" someone views the person making a claim to be, nor even on the character of the person making the assertion. It certainly does not depend on partisan affiliation or leanings, nor what one has between one's legs, what chromosomes someone has, or what brain gender someone has.<br />
<br />
Truth must cohere with reality and be self-referentially consistent. It is not a matter of what team someone plays for, nor is it a matter of convenience or expedience.<br />
<br />
This article gives some of the reasons why I opposed his appointment before I ever heard of Christine Blasey Ford:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://fee.org/articles/the-constitutional-reasons-to-oppose-kavanaugh-for-the-supreme-court/">The Constitutional Reasons to Oppose Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b style="font-size: small;">Fair use notice</b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">For more information: <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Copyright notice</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">All original content in this blog is © Copyright 2013-2018 & an. seqq. by "Liviana" (Giovanna Laine). </span><br />
<br />
<br />Liviana (SuccubaSuprema)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07191032294285487395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1313226054990796678.post-35884519204646988392018-07-31T13:48:00.000-07:002018-07-31T13:50:03.926-07:00The Menagerie, Part 2 (b), or, Dimensions of Perspective Revisited<br />
<b><i><span style="font-size: x-large;"><u>Woops. This is unfinished. Check back later.</u></span></i></b><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: x-large;">The Menagerie, Part 2 (a),</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">or,</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Dimensions of Perspective Revisited,</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;">by Liviana (Giovanna Laine)</span></div>
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,<br />Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.<br /><br />~ William Shakespeare, <i>The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark</i>, Act I, Scene 5</span></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
(continued from <a href="http://random-musings-from-a-muse.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-menagerie-part-2-or-dimensions-of.html">previous post</a>)<br />
<br />
<u><span style="font-size: large;">MORE (AND BEYOND)</span></u><br />
<br />
We now have a total of nineteen different dimensions which contribute to a person's perspective (or worldview). However, this collection of nineteen dimensions of perspective is hardly a complete picture. We can expand these 19 dimensions fairly easily to 163 using another Platonic solid, the pentagonal dodecahedron, which has 160 diagonals (100 space diagonals and 60 face diagonals), to which can be added the ordinary Euclidean 3 dimensions, and adding the 30 edges would yield 193 dimensions of perspective:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-b4mfuDvJqWI/WJDe-P8SIsI/AAAAAAAAGFE/jDFBAxcWN5Iw9K-NCfORWaPY0eSYeeUbQCLcB/s1600/Dodecahedron_-_01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="313" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-b4mfuDvJqWI/WJDe-P8SIsI/AAAAAAAAGFE/jDFBAxcWN5Iw9K-NCfORWaPY0eSYeeUbQCLcB/s320/Dodecahedron_-_01.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I will begin, however, by expanding to only 33 dimensions of perspective using the Euclidean three dimensions and the thirty edges of the pentagonal dodecahedron (in other words, I will only offer "more" and not go on to "beyond," at this time). I will not be labeling the 20 vertices of the pentagonal dodecahedron as I did the 8 vertices of the cube above (each vertex was labeled with a letter from A to H inclusive), because by now, the reader should understand how I am doing this. Each of the edges of this Platonic solid, just like those of the cube, terminate at two of the vertices.<br />
<br />
The pentagonal dodecahedron has twelve faces, twenty vertices, thirty edges, and one-hundred-and-sixty diagonals. The twelve edges of the cube each terminate in two of the eight vertices. The thirty edges of the pentagonal dodecahedron also each terminate at two of the twenty vertices. While labeling each vertex may help the reader to visualize where the edges are in three dimensions, the reader may also simply count the lines in the image above and choose any of them for any of the 33 dimensions I will be here enumerating, adding in the three dimensions themselves to get the final three of the 33.<br />
<br />
Of these, I have already presented 19, which means I will only be adding 14 more. The list is as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Politics (Statism vs Anti-Statism)</li>
<li>Economics</li>
<li>Civil Liberties and Civil Rights</li>
<li>Politics (Centralization vs Decentralization)</li>
<li>Imperialism vs Non-Interventionism</li>
<li>Social Attitudes</li>
<li>Cultural Attitudes</li>
<li>Epistemology</li>
<li>Globalism vs Localism</li>
<li>Aesthetics</li>
<li>Ecology vs Exploitation</li>
<li>Idealism vs Pessimism</li>
<li>Ontology and Metaphysics</li>
<li>Diversity vs Uniformity/Conformity</li>
<li>Ethics</li>
<li>Romance and Sexuality</li>
<li>Politics (Democracy vs Autocracy)</li>
<li>Religion and Sacred Tradition</li>
<li>Mysticism</li>
<li>Compassion vs Selfishness (related to Ethics)</li>
<li>21 Introversion vs Extroversion</li>
<li>22 Dionysianism vs Apollonianism (and Passion vs Ratiocination)</li>
<li>23 Self-Affirmation vs Self-Abnegation</li>
<li>24 Conceit vs Humiliation</li>
<li>25 Perception vs Judgement</li>
<li>Sensation vs Intuition (related to Epistemology)</li>
<li>27 Bellicosity vs Pacifism</li>
<li>28 Dominance vs Submission</li>
<li>Identity</li>
<li>Cooperation vs Competition</li>
<li>31 Geography/Environment</li>
<li>32 Education vs Ignorance</li>
<li>Time</li>
</ol>
<br />
<br />
I will here discuss those numbered from 20 to 33:<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>20. Compassion vs Selfishness</i></b><br />
Compassion vs Selfishness is related to Ethics and Economics. In the introduction to what remains perhaps her most notorious work, <i>The Virtue of Selfishness</i>, Ayn Rand wrote:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.<br />
<br />
Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: <i>concern with one’s own interests</i>.<br />
<br />
This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.</blockquote>
<br />
I am not certain from what dictionary Rand got this alleged definition. The English Dictionary of the <i><a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/selfish">Oxford Living Dictionaries</a></i> defines "selfish" as:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
The <i>Oxford Living Dictionaries</i> are, as one might expect from the title, descriptive lexica; that is, their definitions are based on contemporary ("living") usages, rather than prescriptions of how words should be used (as would be the case in a prescriptive lexicon). To put this another way, a descriptive lexicographer would offer definitions based on contemporary understandings of words, while a prescriptive lexicographer would offer definitions which might reflect older understandings of the same words; the descriptive lexicographer tells how people <i>do</i> use words, and a prescriptive lexicographer tells how people <i>ought</i> to use words.<br />
<br />
That having been said, I find the notion that "selfishness" was defined without any "moral evaluation" in 1961 to be dubious. I wasn't alive at the time, but I did enter this world only a few years later, and I cannot recall anyone of my acquaintance having ever thought of "selfishness" as anything other than unethical, or at least immature.<br />
<br />
Rand's argument (if it can be called that), however, rests not upon a dictionary definition, and is less a defense of "selfishness" in the ordinary sense in which we use it today than it is a condemnation of the concept of "sacrifice." While I am no fan of "sacrifice," preferring instead the concept of "offering," I am not certain she properly understood the term "sacrifice," although she contended that "selfishness" as we know it is sacrifice of others to oneself, and "unselfishness" is sacrificing our own interests to others, and rejects both forms of what she regards as "sacrifice." I contend that benevolence or altruism does not necessarily require self-sacrifice at all, but I'll come back to this shortly. First let me address the concept of "sacrifice."<br />
<br />
The English word "sacrifice" derives from two Latin words "sacra" + "facere." The literal meaning of "sacra facere" is "to make sacred, to set apart for consecration/dedication." The underlying concept of the word to the people of Latium was one of propitiation, that there was some divinity who was angry with the people, or who might become so, and thus had to be appeased in order to avert his or her wrath.<br />
<br />
By contrast, the Celts of Gallia had a word "adbertâ," which literally meant "to bring, carry, bear to or toward." The Proto-Celtic root of this word survived into Old Irish as "idbart" (Modern Irish before the orthographic revision had it as "íodhbuirt," more recently as "íobairt," and Gaelic has "iobairt") and into modern Welsh as "aberth." The Arch Druid Crommán mac Nessa argued that the worldviews reflected by these two conceptions are incompatible, that the Celts gave offerings as a manifestation of a survival among the Celtic peoples of the Proto-Indo-European conception of "reciprocal gift-giving," while the Italic peoples gave sacrifices out of fear; mac Nessa further argued that this difference in outlook arose after the Italo-Celtic split, and the migration of the Italic peoples into what is now Italy, where the environment included dangers like earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.<br />
<br />
Rand went on to attack a straw man effigy of Altruism, insisting that the concept dictates that "any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil." She further focused on Altruism as an ethic in itself, taken outside the context of any broader ethic in which it exists, as if it were its own self-contained system, a portrayal which is, to put it mildly, an unrealistic caricature. While it is certainly true that the literal meaning of "Altruism" refers to "others" (from French "autrui" ["altrui" in Old French], meaning "of or to others," from Latin "alteri," the dative singular form of "alter," meaning "other"), I am unaware of any <i>inherent</i> concept of self-abnegation in the word. Indeed, only in Zoology is the term defined in a manner which necessitates harm to self in order to benefit another. While the Abrahamic tradition inculcates such masochism to some extent, the practice of charity is by no means exclusive to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, nor their relatives and offshoots (or "deviations," which is perhaps the least insulting way those who regard themselves as "orthodox" refer to such offshoots), nor even to religions which, like the Abrahamic tradition, teach a conception of self-abnegation (such as some forms of Eastern religions like Buddhism).<br />
<br />
Indeed, the concept of charity or Altruism is inherent to the natural state of humanity in Tribe, nor is Tribalism reducible to "Collectivism" as Rand held; Tribalism is Cooperativism. While some things are indeed held in common by the Tribe as a whole, private property also exists in a Tribal economy. The central concept of Tribalism as an economic system is not Communism, but Cooperative Commonwealth, the notion that the Tribe is the basic unit of society, and that individuals in order to share in the benefits of the Tribe must also contribute to the Tribe, with the council of Elders determining by custom later codified into law where to distribute the "renders" (taxes) and where to direct the cooperative work. One who does not contribute to the Tribe, who takes without giving, is considered a "slacker," and, as Tacitus noted in <i>Germania</i>, persons who shirked their duties to the Tribe were one of three classes of criminal who warranted execution by being pressed into the mud of a bog under a wicker hurdle (the other two classes were cowards and the "disreputable of body," which some argue refers to "sodomites," but which mac Nessa asserted is a reference to child molesters; the original text in chapter 12 reads: ""... ignavos et imbelles et corpore infames caeno ac palude, iniecta insuper crate, mergunt. ..." which I translate as "the lazy ones, the cowardly ones, and those who are disreputable of body into the sludge of a bog, with a hurdle thrown over, they plunge"). Those who are disabled, elderly, or otherwise <i>unable</i> to contribute are not slackers or shirkers, but are to be provided for, as their inability is not the product of a choice to not contribute.<br />
<br />
Rand anticipated this objection and dismissed the concept of society entirely in the first essay in her little book, claiming that "... there is no such entity as 'society,' since society is only a number of individual men." She insisted on characterizing whatever group within society (whether it be the majority or some other group) settles questions as a "gang," choosing a word which she knew was loaded with negative emotive value. She further dwelt on the concept of "values" and interpreted that in connection with an economic understanding of the term, leaving aside the more typical (in Philosophy) term "virtues," which would have been more for her to wrestle with in her posturing before her audience, getting to the word "virtue" only after having spewed ten or eleven pages of opinionated piffle focused on "value" in the sense of Economics, as "that which one works to gain and/or keep." When she did finally get around to addressing the concept of "virtue," she did so in relation to "value" as she had defined it, offering a definition of "virtue" which I cannot recall having ever seen in any philosophical work (indeed, it turns on its head the Greek conception of ἀρετή, "aretê," which is "virtue" in the sense of "what enables function," as in, "the virtue of a knife," indicating its function or purpose, that quality which enables it to fulfill its function, which would be "sharpness" for most knives). Her definition of "virtue" is: "the act by which one gains and/or keeps it [value]." The choice of the word "act" is revealing: it exposes her ethic as some manifestation of Legalism, in spite of her frequent use of the term "principle" in her work. A "principle" in Ethics is a guide, whereas a "law" in Ethics is a positive injunction to perform some (more or less specific) act or a negative prohibition to not perform some (more or less specific) act. However, immediately upon defining "virtue" in this idiosyncratic manner, she departed from it to discuss "rationality" as "man's basic virtue." Rationality is not an act, but a quality. Ratiocination is an act, namely, the act of utilizing or exercising one's rationality.<br />
<br />
The other two "virtues" which Rand gave were "productiveness" (a thinly-veiled allusion to the Calvinistic work ethic) and "pride," which she defined as "the recognition of the fact 'that as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of character that make his life worth sustaining—that as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul'." This contention about "self-made wealth" (like the contention of some of her followers about "free choice") also ignored the facticity of human existence; much of any given person's current situation exists as it does because of how things have been done in the past, such that some enter the world with advantages, while others enter the world in an already disadvantaged state, due in no small measure to the inequities arising through force having been used in the past to exploit their ancestors (this is not about "race," but is instead about Capitalism, Mercantilism, Feudalism, Colonialism, and Imperialism). Corporate entities have expropriated wealth unto themselves, more often than not by means of unjust action. To stop all social contract of "give and take" without having righted those wrongs first and then insist that "my property" or "my self-made wealth" is justification for anything one wishes to do in connection with said property is to ignore the causes of present circumstances and thereby perpetuate already extant injustice. It is a pipe-dream no less unrealistically Utopian than Marxist Socialism which imagines that a dictatorship will pave the way for a "classless society."<br />
<br />
She also claimed that Ethics has largely become based on subjective whim in recent centuries, but in fact, this is not the case. The word "ethics" comes from Classical Greek "ethikos," which signifies "custom," and the earliest conceptions of Ethics and Law arose from social custom (she even pointed out that Aristotle "based his ethical system on observations of what the noble and wise men of his time chose to do," so she <i>was</i> aware of this fact, but chose to spin it into an attack upon Aristotle for neither seeking validation for these customs, nor asking why they existed). Customs do not arise from an individual's "rational free choice," as in her individualist perspective (more recently re-branded as "voluntaryist"), nor from ephemeral fads of popularity (as she alleged were the sources of an ethic based on a conception of "the good of society"), but from the habits and traditions of the society in which the individual lives. To cry about "free choice" (rational or otherwise) in such a context is to betray philosophical and social immaturity; of course in certain societies, one's freedoms and liberties are greater than in others, but even in those, one yet has duties in the form of obligations and responsibilities: one must obey the law. While this is not an absolute (there are unjust laws which should be challenged in the courts, and some societies allow voice to individuals to petition for changes to laws, and/or to select representatives who can effect such changes), it is nevertheless part of the cost of social life; society is not all "take," but is instead "give and take " If one should refuse, through "free choice," to conform to such responsibilities and obligations, then that one is also necessarily giving "free choice" to accepting the consequences of such refusal. "Libertas in legibus," is the saying, "Liberty under the laws." It is Law which ensures Liberty against the "gang" (but, to point out that which should be obvious: without Liberty, Law is mere oppression).<br />
<br />
Rand attempted to dismiss the benefits of society as well, by asserting that "... everything man needs has to be discovered by his own mind and produced by his own effort." On the contrary, when one lives in a society, one does not discover or produce all necessary things. She even went so far as to claim that a person must learn everything himself or herself. Nothing is further from the truth; some things cannot be learned by experience or reason, but must be taught. An example of her own offering is "the laws of Logic." Logic is not, as I have already pointed out many times and in diverse places, mere common sense, but a discipline. It requires study (of someone <i>else's</i> work) and practice. In origin, Logic as a discipline was developed by observation, namely, by Aristotle observing the arguments of lawyers in court, which again required <i>others</i>. Nor is there need for every individual to reinvent the wheel; things already learned and produced do not have to be redone by each person; progress (even of a technological sort) would be impossible in such a scheme, for there would be no learning from the work of one's predecessors. She wrote: "No percepts and no 'instincts' will tell him how to light a fire, how to weave cloth, how to forge tools, how to make a wheel, how to make an airplane, how to perform an appendectomy, how to produce an electric light bulb or an electronic tube or a cyclotron or a box of matches. Yet his life depends on such knowledge—and only a volitional act of his consciousness, a process of thought, can provide it." On the contrary, "his life" depends on <i>others</i>. One does not acquire such knowledge as "how to perform an appendectomy" by reason alone, but by being taught by experienced surgeons. Nor would a person be able to perform such a surgery on himself or herself; it must be done by <i>another</i>. In all of these things, Rand ignored or intentionally glossed over the benefits of society in order to affirm the individual, and then presumed to go on to mock a straw man of the positions with which she disagreed by referring to "doctrines which tell you ... that ethics has nothing to do with reality, with existence, with one’s practical actions and concerns" after having ignored reality herself in her effort to justify her own ethic!<br />
<br />
She later (later in the same essay, in fact, although much later, devoting less than a single page to the admission) contradicted herself on this, writing: "Man is the only species that can transmit and expand his store of knowledge from generation to generation; the knowledge potentially available to man is greater than any one man could begin to acquire in his own life-span; every man gains an incalculable benefit from the knowledge discovered by others," and admitted that a person may benefit from living in a society, but refused to admit that such benefit must go hand in hand with cost, deriding as she did the needy as "Parasites, moochers, looters, brutes and thugs ... of no value to a human being ..." Almost immediately after this passage, she discussed, briefly, political implications of her ethic, stating that its "basic political principle" is "No man may <i>initiate</i> the use of physical force against others," and expanded "man" to also include "group or society or government" (because here such an expansion was useful for her purpose, whereas she rejected the notion of such an expansion in other aspects of her essay, asserting instead the primacy of the individual). Then she wrote, as one with any familiarity with her disciples' dogma might expect: "The only proper, <i>moral</i> purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence—to protect his right to his own life, to his own liberty, to his own <i>property</i> and to the pursuit of his own happiness. Without property rights, no other rights are possible." (Italics in original) I have already addressed this conceit about "property" above as being divorced from the facticity of human existence and unrealistic. Certainly private property should be a thing, but in order for an "Objectivist" paradise to be brought into existence, the playing field would have to be levelled first, and that is something to which "Objectivists" would never consent. It would make no difference, however, for their "paradise" would be as ephemeral as attempts to establish such a society have already been in Honduras and Chile; it would become a disaster just as it has in those nations.<br />
<br />
Rand wrote (italics in original):<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The basic <i>social</i> principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others—and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. To live for his own sake means that <i>the achievement of his own happiness is man’s highest moral purpose</i>.</blockquote>
<br />
I am not certain in what sense this could be described as "social," apart from the passive admonition against "sacrificing others." As above, this also ignores the facticity of human existence and is likewise unrealistic. One can claim to be an end unto oneself, but reality does not permit such a state of existence for a Human Being, apart from some person becoming a hermit and relying on none but himself or herself, and accepting the consequences of such a choice. In that state of existence, all of one's "self-made wealth" becomes meaningless; "wealth" has value only in the context of a society, where it can be used to purchase goods and services, to pay debts, and so on. Again, what of one's children? Does one have no ethical obligation to care for them, at times "sacrificing" one's own desires for their good? Should they be birthed and then put into a trough set adrift on the currents of a river with the hope that they die in infancy or be rescued and raised by a she-wolf? Indeed, the few mentions of "child," "children," "son," or "daughter" in the entire book are largely devoid of any ethical import or imperative, or used as an <i>Argumentum ad Misericordiam</i> against the <i>faux</i>-Socialism of the Soviet Union, and the few references to "family" seem to be mostly used as examples in discussion of negative concepts. The astute reader would surely be left wondering if Ayn Rand hated children and lacked any capacity for affection. This "Objectivist Ethic" is, far from rational as Rand attempted to characterize it, utterly preposterous!<br />
<br />
Rand further mocked more recent philosophers of Ethics as "neomystics" for having, according to her, substituted "the good of society" in place of "the will of God" as the standard for Ethics, yet she did the same thing, by asserting, through the mouthpiece of her literary creation John Galt: "It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of 'Value' possible." If "the will of God" and "the good of society" be not rational bases for an ethical standard, then neither is her conception of "maintenance of the organism's life." Her choice to assert that "the ultimate <i>value</i> ... is the organism's <i>life</i>" is no less subjective or arbitrary, and there can be times in which an organism will choose death over life, such as in cases of great agony, debilitating disease, imminent but slow death, and the like, or even to save another's life. She attempted to justify her position by asserting that "Metaphysically, <i>life</i> is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself ..." yet this is such a ridiculous assertion even on its face that it cannot be taken seriously. Life does not exist for itself; life exists for some purpose, not merely its own perpetuation, since life is finite. We who are philosophers of Ethics must find value <i>for</i> life, not merely <i>in</i> life itself. Origen said that the purpose of life is to become a person. Others might say that the purpose of life is pleasure, or happiness, or self-actualization, or the elimination of suffering, or any of a number of other goals, including the concept of social, political, and economic justice in a cooperative society in which people share and work together, with both rewards and costs. Psychologists have found that Altruism, far from being self-abnegating, can be its own reward (see, for example: <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200607/pay-it-forward">Pay It Forward</a>), that we are hard-wired for Empathy (see: <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/born-be-good/200902/darwins-touch-survival-the-kindest">Darwin's Touch: Survival of the Kindest</a>), and that it takes more intelligence to cooperate than to be greedy (see: <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201702/greed-is-good">Greed Is Good?</a>).<br />
<br />
Rand rightly rejected "the premise that the happiness of one man necessitates the injury of another," but wrongly denied that "rational self-interest" as she intended it does not mean a "right to sacrifice others," turning what she called an "assumption" that it does into an example of Abusive <i>ad Hominem</i> in which she attacked those who see her "rational self-interest" for what it is, as ethically bankrupt and intellectually deficient, going on to claim that the "Objectivist Ethic":<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
holds that the <i>rational</i> interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as <i>traders</i>, giving value for value.</blockquote>
<br />
On the contrary, in her scheme, the individual owes nothing to society, but is free to benefit from society. This is not "trade" as she went on to equate with the principle of Justice, but selfishness in the ordinary understanding of the term, as an unethical or immature quality. She mocked the idea of wanting to have one's cake and eat it, too, yet this is exactly the outcome of her view: to receive all the benefit but not pay the cost.<br />
<br />
One who expects to receive the benefits of living in a society, whether it be a Tribe, a nation-state, or even a "nuclear" family, must be willing to contribute to that society as well, or be subject to some form of punishment, even if it be "only" expulsion or exile. One must do one's part. To behave otherwise is to be guilty of parasitism, and worthy of no better appellation than that of "leech." Rand and her cohorts have loved applying the designation of "parasite" to those who advocate for or benefit from Altruism, and have insisted that parasites are not "individualists." On the contrary, "individualists" in the sense she intended (influenced, perhaps, to some extent by Herbert Hoover's anti-labor euphemism for austerity and opposition to Solidarity, "Rugged Individualism") are the worst parasites of all. Society is "give and take," not "take" alone. "Give and take" is the very essence of any society, the contract between members of the society for mutual interdependence and cooperation for the common good. Thus, in Rand's notion that a person might be virtuous and "selfish," by which she claims to mean the "values" of "self-esteem" and "rational self-interest," she overlooked the vice of non-action, insisting that a person may act in his or her own interest without harming anyone else, but she failed to take account of (indeed, she explicitly denied) the reality of society; no person is an island unaffected by others, nor can one's action or lack thereof in a society always have no effect on others. If you receive, you must also give, or go somewhere outside of society where you do not have to give, but also cannot receive. This is a simple fact; if you expect rights and privileges to be guaranteed by a society, then you must also submit to responsibilities and duties to a society. The Human Being is a social animal and does not exist in a vacuum; we form societies and agree to not only the rewards, but also the costs, of living in such societies.<br />
<br />
There is much more to criticize in Rand's little book (and very, <i>very</i> little with which to agree); I could, for example, address her odd claims about reason and consciousness and focus, which reflect a very modern Western concept and devaluation of the techniques of Mystics (indeed, she explicitly condemns Mysticism in the same work, on epistemological grounds, asserting that Reason alone is the justification for belief, which ignores the very real history of Rationalism, a school of thought in Epistemology which affirms Reason, but also Intuition [explained above] and Inspiration, as justification for belief; she also condemns Mysticism as an ethic, falsely claiming, undoubtedly through limited knowledge or understanding, that Mysticism as ethic sets value "beyond the grave" and in a "supernatural dimension"), and while Mysticism has been a topic in this post, the post is not intended to be or become nothing but a critique of Ayn Rand's pseudo-philosophy. Anyway, I am far more interested in what Friedrich Nietzsche had to say on the subject of compassion than what Ayn Rand had to say about anything, although I will disagree with some of his notions as well. So much for Ayn Rand's irrational notions about Ethics. Thus, we turn to "Compassion" and Nietzsche's view thereof.<br />
<br />
<br />
21. Introversion vs Extroversion<br />
<br />
<br />
22. Dionysianism vs Apollonianism (and Passion vs Ratiocination)<br />
<br />
<br />
23. Self-Affirmation vs Self-Abnegation<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>24. Conceit vs Humiliation</i></b><br />
Conceit vs Humiliation is a dimension which extends from unwarranted pride (conceit or arrogance) to humiliation (which is an extremely low self esteem). In between are pride (which is to say, the <b><i>virtue</i></b> of warranted pride in one's achievements and the like) and humility.<br />
<br />
<br />
25. Perception vs Judgement<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>26. Sensation vs Intuition</i></b><br />
Sensation vs Intuition is related to that branch of Philosophy known as Epistemology (see above). When philosophers consider the question of what is justification for belief, those who favor Empiricism assert that "Experience" is the only justification, while those who favor Rationalism say that "Reason" is the only justification. These, however, are loaded terms. By "Experience," the Empiricist intends "Sense Perception" primarily, and, as a corollary to that, "Experimentation and Observation." By "Reason," the Rationalist intends "Deductive Logic and Mathematics" primarily, and, as a corollary to those, "Intuition and/or Inspiration." The Empiricist's focus on Sensation and "the Empirical Method" is fairly self-explanatory. The Rationalist's support of "Intuition," however, requires some elucidation. Intuition is commonly thought of as referring to some sort of instinctive or perhaps even semi-magical understanding. However, the term in reality refers to "immediate" understanding <i>without <b>conscious</b> reasoning</i>. Having a "gut feeling" or "hunch" is not some sort of "psychic" phenomenon, but rather is a subconscious grasp of something based in part on things already learned. While these two approaches have at times seemed to be irreconcilable, the Epistemological Pragmatist accepts both as justification for belief, realizing that some things can be demonstrated through the Empirical Method, but other things must be intuited or consciously reasoned; the solution of mathematical problems is always done by means of reason or intuition.<br />
<br />
<br />
27, Bellicosity vs Pacifism<br />
<br />
<br />
28, Dominance vs Submission<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>29. Identity</i></b><br />
Identity has to do with one's sense of self. This sense may involve a number of factors, such as ethnicity, culture, gender identity, nationality, residence, voluntary association, and so on. Identity is not inherently detrimental, but, depending on other factors (other dimensions of perspective), it can be perverted into a sort of "us vs them" mentality. Both major parties in the United States use "identity politics" in various ways, which are mostly perversions of identity which either explicitly promote an "us vs them" mentality, or implicitly lead to such a divisive perspective. In the former case, the pundits and ideologues promote the idea that "I am good, and therefore those who are 'like' me are also good, so therefore, those who are 'different' from me must be 'evil' in some sense." In the latter case, a focus on Identity as "interest group" leads to various groups divided and in competition for attention to their concerns from political figures. One can, however, maintain Identity without sacrificing Solidarity with others. The oppressed should of course <b><i>not</i></b> abandon their cultures, their associations, and so on, but they <b><i>should</i></b> stand <b><i>together</i></b> and demand attention to ALL of their concerns from political figures. It has been rightly said, "There is strength in numbers," but when we are all divided into our separate little interest groups, we're not standing together, and our strength is diminished. This is also related to the dimension of "Cooperation vs Competition."<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>30. Cooperation vs Competition</i></b><br />
Cooperation vs Competition has many intersections with other dimensions, such as the dimension of "Identity" just discussed. Another dimensional intersection is with Compassion vs Selfishness, and another, which I would like to discuss a bit at this point, is with Economics. "Free Market Capitalism" has as one of its ideals something sometimes called "Spontaneous Order," which <a href="http://www.freemarketprinciples.com/principles.php">has been expressed</a> as "When individual rights are respected, unregulated competition will maximize economic benefit for society by providing the most goods and services possible at the lowest cost." This ideal presupposes private ownership of the means of production, with the lion's share of net profit going to the owner. While advocates of some forms of Socialism also espouse an idealization of competition, in a socialist economy at its most fundamental manifestation, the means of production are owned by those who do the work of production (a Cooperative Business). This ideal of the producers owning and controlling the means of production is shared by advocates of some forms of Tribalism as well, particularly forms which look to Brehon Law for inspiration; under Brehon Law, the Tribe owned the land on which the cattle graze, although portions were allotted to individual households by the system of Tanistry. However, in such a tribalist economy, the various households of the Tribe cooperated with one another, rather than compete. They were certainly free to compete with other Tribes, but within the Tribe, a sense of cooperation ruled the economy, such that, for example (keeping the agrarian setting, but moving the temporal factor to a modern-day setting), if I own a tractor and you have a bigger allotment of land than I, then I will come round and plough your field, and in return, you will give me some of the crop produced at the harvest. This sort of cooperation is what kept rural communities from devolving into chaos during the early years of the Great Depression. Tribalism in the modern sense, however, is not always primarily agrarian, and involves more than this basic form of cooperation, extending into Cooperative Associations and Cooperative Businesses in which, for example, a household or family might own a business and do so as a Cooperative (or "Co-op").<br />
<br />
<br />
31. Geography/Environment<br />
bowl<br />
<br />
32. Education vs Ignorance<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>33. Time</i></b><br />
Time in this context refers to age, longevity, and so on. Those things affect your perspective. If you live in a society where the average lifespan is only 30, you're going to look at things differently from someone in a society where the average lifespan is 85. And with age, perspectives change. What you found crucially important at age 14 is not so important to you now.<br />
<br />
Time also refers in this context to one's temporal environment, which is to say, the age or era in which one lives. Persons who lived in the Iron Age had perspectives which those living in the Information Age might find alien, and vice-versa. In the same sense that one's spatial environment has an effect on one's outlook, so too does one's temporal environment.<br />
<br />
<br />
<u><span style="font-size: large;">BEYOND THE BEYOND</span></u><br />
<br />
Even if we expanded to the full 193 dimensions of perspective which could be represented through the pentagonal dodecahedron, however, the picture would still be incomplete. If we wanted a complete conception of the many dimensions of perspective, we would need to tesselate Euclidean space and go with a Schlegel diagram projecting a Platonic solid into four dimensions, something like this representation of an icositetrachoron:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_w_GAyoSoOI/WJDkvY1HACI/AAAAAAAAGFU/9mXm-eSfVHgbPD01niOK2yMnRCvWtJWaQCLcB/s1600/Schlegel.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_w_GAyoSoOI/WJDkvY1HACI/AAAAAAAAGFU/9mXm-eSfVHgbPD01niOK2yMnRCvWtJWaQCLcB/s1600/Schlegel.gif" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
but even such an approach could easily fail to account for a complete picture, and ... I'm not sadistic (<i><b>or</b></i> masochistic), so I'll stop with the 33 dimensional representation (at least for now). The point to this is not to blow your mind, but to open it to seeing beyond the limited and limiting schemes which society promotes in the interests of perpetuating the <i>status quo</i>. As noted in the quote from Shakespeare at the beginning of this discussion, reality is bigger than our biggest conceptions, and Socrates said "The unexamined life is not worth living." Love wisdom and seek the truth, my friend, dream and analyze, make your way into the light and find the lost word. I can only offer an imperfect map, but perhaps it will be of some help (and remember when emerging into the light for the first time to temper your experience by moving quickly into a penumbral light, to give your perception time to adjust).<br />
<br />
If you would like to explore Geometry further, and apply its concepts to Worldview as I have done, this video may offer some keys:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/2m68ESYiCy0/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2m68ESYiCy0?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">The title of the post comes from </span><i style="font-size: small;">Star Trek</i><span style="font-size: x-small;"> (The Original Series), Season 1, episode 12; episode 12 overall; production code 16.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<b style="font-size: small;">Fair use notice</b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">For more information: <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Copyright notice</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">All original content in this blog is © Copyright 2013-2017 & an. seqq. by "Liviana" (Giovanna Laine). </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Liviana (SuccubaSuprema)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07191032294285487395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1313226054990796678.post-91862349537975256082018-07-30T21:32:00.004-07:002019-08-04T18:48:19.456-07:00A Modern Progressive Manifesto (Version 1.5)<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-clw3P2iIZsY/W1_UN8glsiI/AAAAAAAAKZQ/be4Y9mMeaI8UZA-ifjUYql__J4aW1nyMgCLcBGAs/s1600/Henry%2BWallace%2Bon%2BProgressives.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="838" data-original-width="500" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-clw3P2iIZsY/W1_UN8glsiI/AAAAAAAAKZQ/be4Y9mMeaI8UZA-ifjUYql__J4aW1nyMgCLcBGAs/s1600/Henry%2BWallace%2Bon%2BProgressives.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">A Modern Progressive Manifesto,</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Version 1.5,</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>by "Liviana" (Giovanna Laine)</b></div>
<br />
<br />
The word "Progressive" has a long history in American politics, going back over an hundred years, but its meaning has often been vague, or intentionally perverted, much like other such terms. In the United States today, there are no less than three different groups using this name for themselves, and one of those differs from the other two rather significantly, not merely in terms of having an actual legacy from the original Progressives, but also in terms of its approach to challenges and its focus on economic concerns and not social concerns alone. What is this one, which I have called "Modern Progressivism," which takes as what many view as the main part of its name a term both beloved and despised? It frightens some, this word "Progressive," while others seek to wrap themselves in it without understanding its import. It is these latter which have actuated me to distinguish Modern Progressivism by the addition of the qualification "Modern," for not only is Modern Progressivism, the actual successor of historical Progressivism (and indeed first came into its own led by one of those historical Progressives, whose image is seen above), Modern in the sense of being <i>in the present</i>, but it is also Modern in the sense of <i>Modernistic</i>.<br />
<br />
Objectivists and Neo-Objectivists talk often about a struggle between individualism and collectivism. I say that this is a bifurcation fallacy. Collectivism is often used as a synonym for communism (as a general thing, not necessarily Marxist Communism, although that would fall under the header). Objectivists and Neo-Objectivists also generally lump tribalism into the category of collectivism, but this is a rather serious misunderstanding of what tribalism is (unfortunately, few seem to have any real grasp on the meaning of tribalism, and sociologists haven't helped with their semantic revisionism turning the word into a pejorative describing something which is more akin to sectarianism than tribalism). It also betrays the fallacy involved, for tribalism is not collectivist, not communist. Tribalism is, rather, cooperative. It involves a Cooperative economy, in which the tribe benefits the individual and the individual benefits the tribe. A tribe is a community, not a commune. The people of a tribe work together, they cooperate, for the good of the tribe and the individuals who make up the tribe. One might even say that it is a midway point between collectivism and individualism, although I wouldn't say that. It is not, to me, a blending of collectivist and individualist attitudes, but rather, something different from both.<br />
<br />
Almost any question has at least three answers, and the third is not simply a moderate position between the other two. That would still be an acceptance of the dichotomy, the dualism, involved in the bifurcation fallacy. It would be merely an in-between position, taking some from one side and some from the other side. Such is not a unique position or perspective, but simply a blending. Some would even say that it is fence-sitting, although such a claim would be simply an attempt to reinforce the polarization and the bifurcation fallacy which are products of dualism.<br />
<br />
Cooperativism is not a collective; it is individuals working together for the common good, and that means the good of the individuals as well. This is something which has largely been forgotten in our society, the ideal of civic republicanism, the Commonwealth. The ideal is enshrined in the Preamble to the American Constitution:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"We the People, in order to... promote the general welfare ..."</blockquote>
<br />
This is an ideal of Enlightenment Liberalism, as well as of the historical Progressive movement and Modern Progressivism which arose at the end of World War II (which must be distinguished from the Fauxgressivism of Democratic Party loyalists [which is mere partisanship] and the Regressivism of Postmodern/Poststructural outrage mongers [which is a loss of the plot, focusing on the superficial instead of the substantial, and which would, through presumptuous ignorance of history and the zeal of youth, undo progress which has already been attained]). Classical Liberalism taken to extremes, especially in its economic aspects under Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, abandoned this ideal, leaving it to the historical Progressives who were later succeeded by Modern Progressives as well as to the original Social Liberals, who also became a distinct thought-current at the end of World War II. But somewhere along the way since then, the Liberals lost sight of that ideal, while the Conservatives began to move away from Social Conservatism in the direction of Right-Wing economics (via the euphemism "Fiscal Conservatism"), eventually falling into the pit of Neoliberalism, the Liberals themselves soon following them into the same Extreme Right pit, and both imagining that Neoconservative foreign policy will save them from the unsustainable economic dystopia to which Neoliberalism invariably leads.<br />
<br />
This left only Modern Progressives to bear the standard of civic republicanism, which remains to this day one of the features of Modern Progressivism. Civic republicanism may also be regarded as civic responsibility, a responsibility of the individual to the local area in which he or she resides, a responsibility to the community, and by extension, to the wider society of her or his nation. This is a salient feature of Progressivism since the 1890s. It is not the only salient feature, however, but the others do tend to encourage this kind of civic responsibility on the part of the individual to her or his community.<br />
<br />
What, then, are the salient features of Progressivism, or more precisely, what does a Modern Progressive stand for?<br />
<br />
In order to answer this question, we must look at what Progressives have advocated from the beginning of the Progressive movement in the 1890s and follow that up to today. Looking at the Progressive Party platforms from 1912, 1924, and 1948, as well as things which have been advocated by personalities such as Franklin D. Roosevelt (in particular in his "Second Bill of Rights"), George McGovern, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein, and others, we can deduce certain enduring ideals, which for Modern Progressives can be summarily expressed as follows:<br />
<br />
1. Banking reform, including FULL nationalization of the Federal Reserve System (no more of the BS about private banks owning shares of the Fed and the Fed being dodgy or defensive about what exactly this means), in order to, among other things, realize the full potential of our fiat currency.<br />
<br />
2. Campaign finance reform and electoral reform. Among other things, this would involve restoration of the representation of the people instead of representation of corporations, as well as a change in the way elections are determined, ending the first-past-the-post model and replacing that with ranked-choice voting, single transferable vote, proportional representation, or perhaps some combination thereof. Progressive positions on the Electoral College vary, with some wanting to dispense with or abolish it entirely, while others see value in the Electoral College as a safeguard against the excesses of factions following after fads and trends (I find myself in the latter camp, agreeing with James Madison and the other Founders that democracy can too easily devolve into mob rule, what de Tocqueville named "the tyranny of the majority," just as I also agree with them that republic too often devolves into empire, and so a new system was needed, a democratic federal republic).<br />
<br />
3. Healthcare reform, or, more precisely, reform to healthcare insurance. Specifically, Progressives have, since the Progressive Party platform of 1912, called for "a national health service." By the time of the 1948 Progressive Party platform, this had become an explicit call for "a national system of healthcare insurance," and today is explicitly a call for Expanded and Improved Medicare for All. Some opponents of this goal imagine that it removes individual liberty, but if individual liberty should be taken to mean only the freedom to allow greedy profit-seeking corporations to take advantage of the individual with costs to that individual which are far greater than those of the national system of healthcare insurance to that same individual, then that is a rather unusual understanding of liberty.<br />
<br />
4. Foreign policy reform, away from unnecessary wars and imperialistic, for profit, military interventions, and an end to ridiculous expenditures on the military, which has not been involved in a defensive war since the end of World War II, thus rendering talk of spending on "defense" rather unbelievable. This is not to say that we should end all defense spending, but merely reform how we spend, and how much we spend. The Cold War ended in December of 1991, when the flag of USSR was taken down for the last time. It's time to stop living in the past and to progress to the future.<br />
<br />
5. Reform of environmental policy, such that we actually take environmental concerns seriously instead of simply giving them lip service.<br />
<br />
6. Economic reform, including advocacy for labor and global environmentalism, as well as Fair Trade practices, and the restoration of anti-monopoly laws and policies. Included in this would of course be the implementation of a living wage as well as, potentially, a Universal Basic Income or Federal Jobs Guarantee; Progressives differ on which of these would be a better idea, but I would suggest that the FJG is preferable for those able to work, while a UBI would be an improvement on Welfare, SSI, and Social Security (see plank 3, above, for part of what must also be done to prevent a UBI from serving Neoliberal interests).<br />
<br />
7. Spending reform, including use of funds to restore, repair, and rebuild our crumbling infrastructure via, among other things, the elimination of waste and "pork."<br />
<br />
8. Education reform, including restoration of the prominence of the Seven Liberal Arts as necessary studies for all free persons to maintain freedom, and elimination of fees for vo-tech schools, trade schools, and undergraduate colleges and universities. Education, instruction, and enlightenment are the most certain means by which fanaticism and intolerance can be rendered powerless, and it should never be forgotten, that in the poorest unregarded child that seems abandoned to ignorance and vice may slumber the virtues of a Socrates or a Hypatia, the intellect of a Stephen Hawking or a Ludwig Wittgenstein, the genius of an Ursula Le Guin or a Gene Roddenberry, the capacity to benefit mankind of a Washington or a Roosevelt; and that in rescuing her or him from the mire in which he or she is plunged, and giving her or him the means of education and development, the people that do it may be the direct and immediate means of conferring upon the world as great a boon as that given it by Charles Babbage and Hedy Lamarr; may perpetuate the liberties of a country and change the destinies of nations, and write a new chapter in the history of the world. Science and technology have brought us many wonders our ancestors could only dream of, but we will fall if we do not continue to advance, not only scientifically and technologically, but also philosophically and artistically, as of our understanding of history. Without an understanding of the past, we cannot hope to make secure our present or our future.<br />
<br />
9. Civil Liberties and Civil Rights. The Bill of Rights to the US Constitution recognizes certain rights and liberties of the people. We believe that the Constitution should never be amended in order to remove recognition of personal rights and liberties, but only to expand such personal rights and liberties, and to extend recognition of other Human Rights as belonging equally to all persons, regardless of ethnicity, skin color, chromosomal sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or creed, not by turning the oppressed into the oppressor and vice-versa, but by dismantling or reforming those structures which have facilitated oppression. We stand firmly, therefore, for all of the rights recognized by the Bill of Rights, as well as the responsibilities associated with some of them.<br />
<br />
The basic principles behind these tenets have not changed over the decades, although the ways to actualization thereof have evolved with the times. This, then, is a Modern Progressive Manifesto. Our goal is reform, as it has been since the 1890s. This reform must be done peacefully and democratically, and as such, we reject calls for violent revolution and any other use of violence as a political tactic. Literal violent revolution can end only in disaster and defeat, or in substituting one tyrant for another, or a multitude of despots for one.<br />
<br />
Join us, and together we shall stop the corporate oligarchs who would become our new feudal lords, and instead we shall restore our democratic federal republic and bring the necessary reforms to truly make America great for <b><i>all</i></b> of her citizens, and not for the wealthy alone. Join us in reformation of our nation. Join us in Progress.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
If you like what I do here at <i>Random Musings from a Muse</i>, at <i><a href="https://medium.com/the-progressive-flame">The Progressive Flame</a></i>, and/or on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjS1fEDvioY1_oH9ITqCphA/featured">my YouTube channel</a>, please consider becoming my patron through <a href="https://www.patreon.com/Liviana">Patreon</a>.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-size: x-small;">Fair use notice</span></b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">For more information: <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><b><span style="font-size: x-small;">Copyright notice</span></b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">All original content in this blog is © Copyright 2013-2018 & an. seqq. by "Liviana" (Giovanna Laine).</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
Liviana (SuccubaSuprema)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07191032294285487395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1313226054990796678.post-54559261599965410032018-06-13T04:37:00.000-07:002018-06-13T05:39:54.526-07:00A Response to Democratic Party Apologists<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-U7gnS31s7ks/WyD1A6KBwvI/AAAAAAAAJww/oenHrghFkM4YhgoFMoa5hkTWDM2A2asfgCLcBGAs/s1600/Lady%2BLiberty%2BGreen%2BProgressive%2BBirdie%2BHas%2BFlown.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="511" data-original-width="747" height="218" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-U7gnS31s7ks/WyD1A6KBwvI/AAAAAAAAJww/oenHrghFkM4YhgoFMoa5hkTWDM2A2asfgCLcBGAs/s320/Lady%2BLiberty%2BGreen%2BProgressive%2BBirdie%2BHas%2BFlown.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">A Response to Those Who Are Willing to Vote,</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">and Want Us to Vote,</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">for Corporate Democrats, to "Stop Trump,"</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>by Liviana (Giovanna Laine)</b></div>
<br />
<br />
If you think the Democrats are going to do anything substantially different, you have been played. They talk differently, they put on a show, they pretend to be on your side. As soon as your back is turned, though, out come the knives. The more some talk about "unity" and "working together," the more annoyed I become. Why? I will not work with someone who can't see what's really going on and keeps buying into the Democrats' <i>argumentum ad metum</i> and feigned smiles of phony friends who are nothing but neoliberal, neoconservative fauxgressives even after being told where to look for the evidence. You're so terrified of da big bad Twump (who is actually nothing more than a big orange blowhard), that you can't bring yourself to look at this honestly and see that both main parties are equally corrupt and serve the same masters, namely, the corporate oligarchs, the 1%. Ever heard of P.U.M.A. ("Party Unity My Ass")? Well, those people didn't mean it, but when we said "Bernie or Bust" and "Bernie or Jill," we meant it. We will not work with you, we will not fall in line so you can use our votes. After all, it was you guys who told us that you didn't need us back in 2016. Guess who asked us to come help build and own a party? The Green Party. How did that not needing us in 2016 work out for you? Now you want to come and beg us to come back, while constantly trying to shame us & blame us for <b><i>your</i></b> mistakes? You want to get Trump out of the White House? You want to end the corruption in government? You want to drain the swamp? Well, have I got a deal for you. All you who are serious about this can pull yourselves out of the anti-democratic Party and come to the Greens, because we're not coming to the rescue of your party. We want them out of power just as much as we want the Republicans out of power. So there's your choice. Take it or leave it, but stop trying to cajole us back into your corrupt party to support your corrupt candidates. #DemExit & #GreenEnter now.<br />
<br />
What exactly do you know about the change I want? Why do you call it Radical? I'm not a Radical, I'm a Progressive. Do you understand the difference between those two terms? I doubt it, since you don't even know the difference between a Progressive, a Regressive, and a Fauxgressive. Do you know what they used to call what you're now calling "incrementalism," what we call "Democrat incrementalism"? Back in the '60s, it was known as "gradualism" or "liberal gradualism." You know who condemned that? Do you know why? Because "It is always the right time to do what is right," as he himself said.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kAUXKb9ykRo/WyD2hNuIyHI/AAAAAAAAJw8/nlWTLGAXwzo_doSzncj_n-khgINRoQ6RQCLcBGAs/s1600/drug-of-gradualism-MLK-MLKing-01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="225" height="400" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kAUXKb9ykRo/WyD2hNuIyHI/AAAAAAAAJw8/nlWTLGAXwzo_doSzncj_n-khgINRoQ6RQCLcBGAs/s400/drug-of-gradualism-MLK-MLKing-01.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
You've talked about changing the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College, to eliminate Free Speech, to eliminate the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, to eliminate Due Process. You don't have the knowledge to start rewriting the Constitution. You have nowhere near the amount of education in Classics & History & Philosophy which the founders had. They wanted to avoid the flaws of all the other systems which had come before, so they gave us something totally new, not a democracy which is subject to the whims and fads of popular opinion, which so often devolves into dictatorship, not a republic which is so prone to fall into imperialism, but a democratic federal republic. Is it perfect? Certainly not (and especially not after all the attempts of the 1% and their lackeys in the Democratic and Republican parties to turn it into a corporate oligarchy). Is it better than a pure democracy, a pure republic, a monarchy, an autocracy, a dictatorship, an empire? Absolutely (even now, still, but for how much longer if you don't pull your heads out of the jackass, I couldn't say). Can it be improved? Of course, but only if you know what the hell you're doing, and frankly, someone who can't even tell how he is being bamboozled by partisan rhetoric and logical fallacy is in no position to even contemplate such an undertaking. Presumptuousness, daring, obstinance, denial, ignorance, these are not virtues, but hindrances to such an undertaking. Have you even studied any legal systems? Even the American legal system, & its origins in English common law? Are you remotely familiar with Roman law? Have you ever even heard of Brehon law? Do you know the difference between Retaliatory Justice and Compensatory Justice? Can you tell me why the Roman Republic became an Empire? Why did the Athenian democracy become a dictatorship? Have you read Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Tacitus, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau? How about the writings of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison? Alexander Hamilton? Do you know who Sulla was? Have you read Juvenal's Satires? What do you know about Machiavelli? Have you read any of his works? If so, did you read more than selections from The Prince, more than the entirety of The Prince? Do you know why Machiavelli talked about the difference between appearance & reality? Do you know what the expression "bread and circuses" means? For someone with such ambition, you are woefully ignorant of anything related to Enlightenment Liberalism, Social Liberalism, historical Progressivism, or Modern Progressivism, or the history of this country and how it came to be and why. You're in no position to start screwing with the Constitution. You know who else didn't want the Constitution to be changed by people who didn't understand the consequences of their actions? Do you have any idea why we have an Electoral College? Have you ever read Federalist Number 10? Because if you've read Federalist number 10, which was written by James Madison, then you would know.<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
You say you'll change the Constitution.<br />
Well, you know, we all want to change your head.<br />
You tell me it's the institution.<br />
Well, you know, you better free your mind instead.<br />
~ John Lennon</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
You want to lecture us about how to win elections, too, telling us to do things we've been doing for decades already. Oh you're going to tell us about winning elections now? Where were you when Hillary was running? Why didn't you tell her what she needed to win an election? For all her supposed knowledge & experience & intelligence, she sure screwed the pooch on that one. If she were as intelligent, experienced, competent, & knowledgeable as you all kept claiming she was, surely she should have realized that she needed to win Electoral votes, and not just a popularity contest. But she didn't. And you guys think she would have made such a dandy president.<br />
<br />
I'm being mean? Buck up, buttercup. Y'all can dish it out, but can't take it? How many insults did Hillary's supporters throw at us in 2016? We were "sexist, misogynist, chauvinist, racist," and all kinds of other nasty things, simply because we knew she was a corrupt and untrustworthy fake who should never be allowed anywhere near political power again? Oh, the Russians must have told us that! Hey guess what? I lived in Arkansas the whole time her husband was governor except for the first six months of his first term and the last seven or so months of his last term. I knew she was a fake long before most of you even knew she was alive. Any Southern woman with even half a brain can tell when some Yankee woman is affecting affability, and I could certainly tell that she was not a person to be trusted. So tell me the Russians turned me against Hillary again.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZyXSNSxu63Y/WyEBMPfDfmI/AAAAAAAAJxo/xeDGjVmAvFkmjwQ2346MODGkgy3Mjt7jACLcBGAs/s1600/Elephants_%2526_Asses%2B-%2BCopy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="395" data-original-width="352" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZyXSNSxu63Y/WyEBMPfDfmI/AAAAAAAAJxo/xeDGjVmAvFkmjwQ2346MODGkgy3Mjt7jACLcBGAs/s320/Elephants_%2526_Asses%2B-%2BCopy.jpg" width="285" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
You just want to win to stop "Trumpism"? No. Your party sucks just as bad as Trump does. We're not going to let you back in power. Get it? You told us to piss off, so now you get what you asked for. Coming here and trying to blame us, shame us, scare us, and beg us to be good little serfs so the corporate oligarchy can stay in power in its two headed monstrosity which pretends to be two different parties, that's not going to work. We are wise to your corruption. We are wise to your anti-democratic attitudes & bylaws. You know, there's an old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I've been watching what the Democratic Party has been doing since the '70s. I am aware of how they changed their charter and bylaws in 1973 because they didn't want to allow Progressives to nominate another candidate, and the Democratic party has not nominated a single Progressive for president since then. I'm aware of how the Democrats added superdelegates to further promote a top-down organization instead of allowing grassroots activists and reformers to save the party from itself. Now they want to add yet another hurdle, you must identify as a Democrat in order to run on the Democratic Party ticket. Oh, and let's not forget all those closed primaries. Hey, didn't the DNC lawyers state last year before a judge that we should have known the primary was rigged? Didn't they also state that the DNC had the right to pick their nominee in a smoke-filled back room? Are we back to Tammany Hall? Has Boss Tweed been reincarnated? Is his name Debbie Wasserman Schultz now? And you want to play nice with us so we'll come and vote for your party. No. A resounding, unreserved, and unremitting no. Go join the Whigs & the damned Anti-Masons on the trash heap of history. We will not allow your politicians to pimp us out to the corporate oligarchy anymore. No. Have I made myself clear yet? If not, then I will say it again. No.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-g1eP0rtki6g/WyD4OPuszbI/AAAAAAAAJxI/VIU_UeW4qIApLEav0Hcz0Ckvi7uYRJo1ACLcBGAs/s1600/16%2B-%2B1%2B%252886%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="480" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-g1eP0rtki6g/WyD4OPuszbI/AAAAAAAAJxI/VIU_UeW4qIApLEav0Hcz0Ckvi7uYRJo1ACLcBGAs/s320/16%2B-%2B1%2B%252886%2529.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
You tell me about the 130 million Americans with pre-existing conditions and how they're going to lose healthcare insurance if we don't "stop Trump." Are you one of them? Because I'm one of them. Go try this crap on someone else, and fail again, and again, and again, because we're not falling for it. Only partisan dupes are going to buy it. ACA is government-ENFORCED, private, for-profit "insurance." It's neither Progressive nor Leftist. Look up <a href="https://archive.li/cZhi9">the Progressive Party platform for 1948</a>. Look at that. Universal Health Care. Did you ever hear of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EZ5bx9AyI4">the Second Bill of Rights</a>, proposed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Progressive Democrat, in his State of the Union address to he joint session of the US Congress, on 11 January 1944, in which he stated that all, regardless of station, race, or creed, should have the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health? Did you ever read <a href="https://archive.li/2rU27">the Progressive Party Platform of 1912</a>, when Teddy Roosevelt was their candidate for President? Did you know that it called for the union of all the existing agencies of the Federal Government dealing with the public health into a single national health service? Yeah, we've been trying to get this for over 100 years now, and instead, we get "incrementalism." Y'all screwed yourselves, again and again, despite multiple warnings, & now want us to save you from your own stupidity, arrogance, & utter lack of principles, so you can screw us again. NO. Democrats dug your own grave, shot yourself, poisoned yourself, & refused to stop till you wound up braindead, so we removed the feeding tube & unplugged you. FUNERAL TIME FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-REqYZBm8-PM/WyD408BzlyI/AAAAAAAAJxQ/HpZI9JGeTqYE6yWywFPBkbGg5nqm3HfygCLcBGAs/s1600/FDR%2B%2526%2B2nd%2BBill%2Bof%2BRights.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="668" data-original-width="980" height="272" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-REqYZBm8-PM/WyD408BzlyI/AAAAAAAAJxQ/HpZI9JGeTqYE6yWywFPBkbGg5nqm3HfygCLcBGAs/s400/FDR%2B%2526%2B2nd%2BBill%2Bof%2BRights.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Who am I talking to? You, Democrat. I told you your only hope to get Trump out of office, because WE ARE NOT JOINING YOUR CORRUPT ANTI-DEMOCRATIC PARTY OR VOTING FOR YOUR NEOCONSERVATIVE/NEOLIBERAL CANDIDATES. The ball's in YOUR court, sport. You gonna throw the game again or come to the Greens? You can't win without us, and we aren't playing the game for your team OR the Republicans. Because it's not a game. We weren't playing when we said "Bernie or Jill." We won't vote for your corrupt candidates, no matter what you dress them up as. Go Green or lose. Simple as that.<br />
<br />
Oh, I'm being mean again? Play victim to someone else. You came to us accusing us of electing Trump, but we <i>told</i> you Hillary would lose if you forced her on us. You thought we were playing. You thought you could insult, shame, scare, or cajole us into voting for her anyway. Then when we refused, you said that you didn't need us. For the past 2 years, you've doubled down, electing corporate pimps to the DNC, purging Progressives from leadership positions, refusing to reject corporate donations, refusing to get rid of superdelegates, pursuing the same corporatist & neocon policies, and blaming everyone but yourselves for your loss in 2016, as well as spewing a bullshit conspiracy theory that anyone who dared to disagree with you was a "Russian bot," and now, after getting exactly what you asked for ever since the Convention in 2016, you're going to halfheartedly play nice and still accuse us of being divisive and blaming us for Trump winning in 2020 because you KNOW you won't win without Progressives, and when we tell you to get fucked, you're going to play victim? Keep it up. We're not budging. The Democratic Party will join the Whigs & Anti-Masons. Better get off that doomed ship; there's a madman at the helm and it's headed for an iceberg AND a maelstrom.<br />
<br />
You want to "dump Trump"? You can't do that as a Democrat. Your party started this battle, and now it's a war of attrition and scorched earth, till your party is dead. It's like you thought you could invade Russia in winter or something. You picked the wrong foe and made a colossal tactical error.<br />
<br />
As for "Justice Democrats" and other efforts to "reform" the Democratic Party, or take it over, I keep saying that they are wasting time, effort, and money tilting at windmills when they could be building up an authentic alternative. #DemExit & #GreenEnter<br />
<br />
A person can conceive of all manner of things, but when the facts are in the way, those conceptions might need to be reconsidered. The Democrats revised their charter and bylaws in 1973, to prevent another Progressive-nominated candidate for president like George McGovern, to stack the deck against any grassroots reform of the party, to make nigh-impossible any grassroots takeover of the party, and to secure the party positions of power of those in the Democratic Party establishment. Not content with this, in the '80s, you added superdelegates to further the top-down nature of the party. You rigged your Primary in 2016, you insulted us, you mocked us, you attempted to shame us and scare us and threaten us and so forth to get us to fall into line and support your corrupt candidate, you purged Progressives from party leadership positions in 2017, while ensconcing your own corporate sycophants in such positions, and now you want to add yet further insult to injury. You told us after the convention in 2016 that you didn't need us. You lost that election. Starry-eyed idealists keep trying to save you from your own suicidal tendencies, and have been trying this for several decades to no avail. In fact, most of these efforts not only failed spectacularly, but got co-opted by the party establishment. And people who have no idea of all this history keep telling us to give you one more chance. That if you don't get it right this time, that if you rig things again, that if you screw us over, <b><i>yet again,</i></b> that <b><i>then</i></b> it will finally be time to #DemExit ... Hey, it's well past that time. Nor will we tolerate or be moved by appeals to pity, appeals to fear, attempts to shift blame for YOUR repeated screw-ups (whether that be the screw-ups of the party establishment or the screw-ups of the people who keep trying to fix them after being told over and over that it can't be done, and SHOWN WHY IT CAN'T), or any other fallacious donkey shit you try to pull. The Democratic Party has done its best to disenfranchise Progressive Leftist voices for half a century or more, but every time you realize you need our votes and our financial contributions, here you come fawning over us, trying your best to convince us that things will be different now, just like an abusive spouse, and some have developed dysfunctions from this & keep going back for more abuse, and won't hear, refuse to even consider, reason, telling us that we are wrong, that we don't understand, that the party can be fixed, that they can make the party better.<br />
No.<br />
They.<br />
Can't.<br />
<br />
And you tell me that we should work together with the abuser and the one who keeps going back for more? I just don't even have words to express my frustration at having explained this in great detail, repeatedly, at having pointed to the exact places in the charter and bylaws which make the Democratic Party a top-down organization, while also pointing to the Green party charter and bylaws as an example of a grassroots organization, having explained the differences, pointed out the numerous betrayals of the Democratic Party, explained what Neoliberalism is and when and why the Democratic Party embraced it, shown the numerous examples of intransigence on the part of the leadership of the party with regard to Neoliberalism or any kind of change in direction, only to be told again and again and again "give them just one more chance, they need you, and after you save them again, they will finally see that you're a good person and should be treated with respect and given an audience and maybe a few token positions of leadership." I'm not going to work together with these people, ever again. I saw what they were back in the early '90s, and proudly cast my vote in 1996 for someone who gives a damn about the people, the famous consumer advocate Ralph Nader, Green Party nominee for President. If only he had won, if only the rest of the country had woken up to the shit that the two main parties already were, and still are today. Work together? With people foolish enough to waste their time, to waste their money, to waste their energy, trying to save a sadomasochistic party which is intent on suicide and taking as many of us with it as possible? LOL, no.<br />
<br />
They tell us we have to choose an elephant shit sandwich or a jackass shit sandwich, but either way, it's still a shit sandwich. We don't want a shit sandwich. We'll take some sunflower seeds instead.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qUKaVrwFyzM/WyD_8e3YHNI/AAAAAAAAJxc/jRVdULhUHXUlIGJq7DAK8AGTRYgGKnGxgCLcBGAs/s1600/GPUS_Sunflowers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="596" data-original-width="958" height="248" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qUKaVrwFyzM/WyD_8e3YHNI/AAAAAAAAJxc/jRVdULhUHXUlIGJq7DAK8AGTRYgGKnGxgCLcBGAs/s400/GPUS_Sunflowers.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br />
If you like what I do here at <i>Random Musings from a Muse</i>, at <i><a href="https://medium.com/the-progressive-flame">The Progressive Flame</a></i>, and/or on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjS1fEDvioY1_oH9ITqCphA/featured">my YouTube channel</a>, please consider becoming my patron through <a href="https://www.patreon.com/Liviana">Patreon</a>.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-size: x-small;">Fair use notice</span></b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">For more information: <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><b><span style="font-size: x-small;">Copyright notice</span></b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">All original content in this blog is © Copyright 2013-2018 & an. seqq. by "Liviana" (Giovanna Laine).</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Liviana (SuccubaSuprema)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07191032294285487395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1313226054990796678.post-34012044778528640532018-06-09T01:57:00.001-07:002018-06-10T21:22:07.672-07:00Cocktail Recipe: Piña Colada Rosada<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Cocktail Recipe: Piña Colada Rosada,</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>by Liviana (Giovanna Laine)</b></div>
<br />
<br />
So I do occasionally experiment with cocktail creations of my own design, and some turn out to be not so good, while some turn out to be delightful. I do still have my bartender's uniform from an establishment which I shall not name here, a black tanktop and black shorts with a certain logo reminiscent of Athena on both ... so perhaps I'm not entirely inexperienced in the art of bartending, although I never went to bartending school. With that little ... um ... tease ... out of the way, I'll provide you with one of my own cocktail recipes, for a drink I call a "piña colada rosada." Rosada is a Spanish word for "pink."<br />
<br />
As you may know, a piña colada is a cocktail made with coconut milk, pineapple juice, and rum. I personally prefer to used a spiced silver rum for this, because I have a little Captain in me, as they say.<br />
<br />
To make my piña colada rosada, you'll use the same ingredients as a standard piña colada (and again, I do recommend that particular silver spiced rum, Captain Morgan), plus a bit of guava nectar. The guava nectar, in addition to adding an additional tartness, gives the cocktail a slight pinkish tinge.<br />
<br />
If you would like to do this very easily, you'll need only two ingredients: the rum, and a smoothie made by Bolthouse Farms called "Tropical Goodness," which is made with coconut water, pineapple juice, apple purée, pear juice, banana purée, pink guava purée, orange juice, and dragonfruit purée, among other ingredients. This won't come out quite as pink as it would if you did it with only rum, coconut milk, pineapple juice, and guava nectar, but it's still quite tasty.<br />
<br />
If you try it out, using either recipe, please let me know what you think.<br />
<br />
<i>(Edit: I've been asked about quantities. That's for you to decide; I mix my drinks rather strong, so I didn't want to give the amounts I use and get anyone totally sloshed with a single cocktail.)</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div>
<b><span style="font-size: x-small;">Copyright notice</span></b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">All original content in this blog is © Copyright 2013-2018 & an. seqq. by "Liviana" (Giovanna Laine).</span></div>
<br />
<div>
</div>
<br />
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<br />Liviana (SuccubaSuprema)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07191032294285487395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1313226054990796678.post-28821370052747205252018-06-04T08:23:00.002-07:002018-06-09T01:29:42.633-07:00What Is a Progressive?<div>
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iNW_mh736n8/WxUCzXGSC9I/AAAAAAAAJt0/IfW9KiuyXg09o3UfDmr8ojVw_t__pyk-gCLcBGAs/s1600/Progressive_Moose_walking_by_Spartan7W.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="240" data-original-width="314" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iNW_mh736n8/WxUCzXGSC9I/AAAAAAAAJt0/IfW9KiuyXg09o3UfDmr8ojVw_t__pyk-gCLcBGAs/s1600/Progressive_Moose_walking_by_Spartan7W.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Spatan7W's "Progressive Party Bull Moose" is used under the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en">Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International</a> license.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>What Is a Progressive?</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>by Liviana (Giovanna Laine)</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For the past two and a half years, the term "Progressive" has been rather frequently used in American political discourse. But what is a Progressive, exactly? This is a very good question, because three very distinct groups currently apply the label to themselves in the United Stats, and an historical use also exists. What is this historical usage, what are the three groups currently claiming the title, and how do these three groups differ from one another?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Beginning in the 1890s and continuing until at least 1917 (some historians argue that it extended to 1920 or even into the 1920s), the "Progressive Era" in the United States can best be characterized as a period of often populist efforts to promote Reform. This reform was attempted in response to political corruption going back to at least the Boss Tweed leadership of Tammany Hall, as well as issues arising from industrialization and urbanization. What "reform" meant to any given person was a rather subjective matter, just as it remains today.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As a result of this subjectivity, members of various political parties applied the label "Progressive" to themselves, or had it applied to them by others. The People's Party (also known as the Populist Party) was established in 1891, and was perhaps the first organized manifestation of the Progressive movement, which would therefore trace its roots to the Populist movement; the two movements did share at least one ideal, that of a more direct democratic system than was then in operation. By 1896, most of the members of the People's Party had merged with the Democratic Party, although a few held out till 1908. Some Democrats and Republicans likewise embraced the Progressive movement and name, and in 1912, a former Republican President, Teddy Roosevelt, formed the Progressive Party (sometimes called "the Bull Moose Party"). By 1918, most members of this party had joined (or returned to) the Republican Party, with some joining the Democratic Party, and the Progressive Bull Moose Party was no more. Woodrow Wilson had co-opted much of the platform of the Progressive Party for his 1916 re-election bid, and this, coupled with his slogan "He kept us out of war," won him the election. He never attempted to implement any of the platform he had stolen from the Progressives.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In addition to varying party affiliations, various ideological perspectives with their several agendas were associated, whether by self-identification or the view of outsiders, with the Progressive movement. Social attitudes which might today be called "Liberal," "Moderate," and "Conservative" were all associated with the label "Progressive." Some advocated for an end to tariffs and excise taxes in favor of a tax on corporate income; others wanted to see this also extended to personal income. Some sought to have the gold standard on which the currency was based replaced by a silver standard, and to see the banks more regulated. Still others wanted the right to vote to be extended to women. Some pushed for prohibition of alcohol. Some called for modernization through technology and science. Some advocated for greater labor union activity. Foundations with charitable goals were established. Improved transportation and education were effected to benefit rural America. The "Muckrakers" were investigative journalists and novelists who exposed corruption, scandals, and waste in both government and the corporate world, leading to calls for various reforms in both sectors. Some even regarded Jim Crow laws and eugenics as somehow "Progressive," while African-Americans set about working on their own Progressive reforms involving better education, legal activism to secure equal rights, and assorted other things. Various other reforms were also encouraged.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In 1921, many Progressive goals had been achieved, and the Progressive movement began to fade. Some regard the modernization and mechanization of industry in the '20s to be Progressive, but at any rate, the wider reform movement had settled down, and the first stirrings of an economic laissez-faire attitude had begun. Policies and laws based on the economic aspects of what we now call "Classical Liberalism" were taken to unsustainable extremes, with trickle-down economics deregulation of various industries, anti-labor efforts, a "hard money" approach to currency (leading to less currency in circulation and thus increasing unemployment), risky lending by banks (which encouraged bubble economies), rampant speculation in the stock market, and so on, promoted by the very pro-business Republicans including presidents Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover (who infamously preached "Rugged Individualism" as an anti-solidarity message). These laws and policies favoring big business and banking, and seeking to restrict the efficacy of collective bargaining and the power of labor unions, were among the main factors which resulted in the Great Depression. In 1924, Robert M. LaFollette, Sr. had established a new Progressive Party, which continued until 1934. His 1924 run for President was endorsed by the American Federation of Labor (AFL, which later merged with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or CIO, to form the AFL-CIO) and the Socialist Party of America.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
With the stock market crash and the dawn of the Great Depression in 1929, attention was shifted to economic concerns, as should be expected. President Hoover's efforts had failed to address the situation to anyone's satisfaction. Progressive Republican Senators from western states urged him to take steps which might have had some effect, but his pro-business views led to him dismissing their calls and moving further to the economic Right. In 1932, another Roosevelt was elected President, and among his supporters were the same Progressive Republican Senators who had been ignored by Hoover, while other, Conservative, Progressive Republicans opposed his platform. In 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was sworn in as the 32nd President of the United States. He set about implementing "the New Deal" and espoused what could be regarded as Progressive social attitudes. His Vice President, John N. Garner, a Southern Conservative Democrat, opposed many of FDR's policies, and broke completely from the President in 1937. When FDR won re-election in 1940, he named his Henry A. Wallace as his new Vice President. Wallace had been a Progressive Republican, and didn't join the Democratic Party until 1936, having been appointed Secretary of Agriculture by FDR in 1933 and having supported he New Deal from its beginning. The Democratic National Convention in 1944 refused him the nomination for Vice President and instead nominated Harry D. Truman. FDR then named Wallace as Secretary of Commerce, in which position he continued under Truman's presidency until September of 1946. Henry Wallace then became the editor of <i>The New Republic</i>, and in 1948, formed yet another Progressive Party, running for President as the nominee thereof.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-o2i2LWhX9JI/WxU44XqAUrI/AAAAAAAAJug/Hz_VA80pVR0RfiRiGHsOjwyCnZG3ptSTwCLcBGAs/s1600/208690-henry-a-wallaces-quotes-6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="274" data-original-width="510" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-o2i2LWhX9JI/WxU44XqAUrI/AAAAAAAAJug/Hz_VA80pVR0RfiRiGHsOjwyCnZG3ptSTwCLcBGAs/s1600/208690-henry-a-wallaces-quotes-6.jpg" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It was sometime between 1946 and 1948 that what I call the "Modern Progressive" movement became a distinct perspective in American politics, and Henry Wallace and his Progressive Party of 1948 were part of this movement. His platform included national health insurance, welfare expansion, desegregation, nationalization of energy, an end to the Truman Doctrine and the Cold War, and conciliation with the Soviet Union. The Communist Party USA endorsed Wallace for President, and he refused to disavow their endorsement. In 1952, however, Wallace began to oppose Communism, and specifically what was being done in its name in the USSR, having learned of what life was like inside the Soviet Union from Gulag survivor Vladimir Petrov.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uyNzGpNa4z8/WxUpv8Gy2iI/AAAAAAAAJuA/RcWcGoUvNsIEz_MParM0k7OyyrYCsX-JQCLcBGAs/s1600/Is_%2526_Is_Not.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="429" data-original-width="597" height="287" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uyNzGpNa4z8/WxUpv8Gy2iI/AAAAAAAAJuA/RcWcGoUvNsIEz_MParM0k7OyyrYCsX-JQCLcBGAs/s400/Is_%2526_Is_Not.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Top Row (L-R): Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Henry Wallace.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Wallace also supported the re-election of Republican President Dwight D. "Ike" Eisenhower in 1956. The Republican Party platform of 1956 was surprisingly Progressive, even by today's standards, and certainly more Progressive than the Democratic Party platform of 2016 (in spite of claims that the 2016 Democratic platform was "the most Progressive platform ever in the history of the Democratic Party," which, even if that claim were true, would be a sad indictment of how far the Democrats have strayed from the platform of FDR).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RgNbKFC1s4w/WxUvq1WfIbI/AAAAAAAAJuM/tRXFEwTw6-AGKWWi5I4GCtUbvJC2H3gxACLcBGAs/s1600/1956republican.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="553" data-original-width="542" height="400" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RgNbKFC1s4w/WxUvq1WfIbI/AAAAAAAAJuM/tRXFEwTw6-AGKWWi5I4GCtUbvJC2H3gxACLcBGAs/s400/1956republican.jpg" width="392" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For "Modern Progressives," the meaning of "Progressive" is largely intended to refer to an attitude toward change in society (and requires support for reform and progress). The Social Liberals also arose around the same time as the Modern Progressives, and are now generally called simply "Liberals," while the Liberals of the past became known as "Classical Liberals." Liberal, like Progressive, Moderate, Radical, Conservative, Ultraconservative, and Reactionary, are terms properly reserved for attitudes toward social and/or cultural change. However, "Progressive" has also come to imply some economic views as well, Modern Progressives typically falling somewhere Left of Center on he economic scale, embracing either Let Social Democracy (Social Democracy is Centrist, with some forms falling a little to the Right of Center, and some a little to the Left) or some form of Socialism, while rejecting the extreme Leftism of Marxist Socialism. During the Vietnam War, Modern Progressives opposed the war, while Social Liberals supported it, most of them being Democrats by the time and the war prosecuted by Democratic Presidents JFK and LBJ (as well as later by the Republican President Richard M. Nixon). Progressive grassroots activists helped secure the Democratic nomination for President in 1972 for George McGovern, who was, among other things, an anti-war and pro-ecology candidate.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qJma6_Q91UU/WxU39Sc2_HI/AAAAAAAAJuY/5PIkoloy2qEY0e7SUZ9U7w_asH_2IGxxgCLcBGAs/s1600/McGovern%2BButtons.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="568" data-original-width="867" height="209" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qJma6_Q91UU/WxU39Sc2_HI/AAAAAAAAJuY/5PIkoloy2qEY0e7SUZ9U7w_asH_2IGxxgCLcBGAs/s320/McGovern%2BButtons.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Following McGovern's defeat by Nixon in the '72 election (a defeat assisted by some establishment Democrats), the Democratic Party in 1973 revised their charter and bylaws to prevent another grassroots Progressive nomination, to avoid any grassroots reform of the party, and to stack the deck against any grassroots takeover of the party, transforming the "Democratic" Party into a top-down organization an ensuring that those in power in the party would be likely to retain their party positions. The Democratic Party has not nominated a single Progressive for President since, although Progressives have continued to vie for the nomination, notable examples being Dennis Kucinich in 2004 and 2008, and Bernie Sanders in 2016. Every attempt to reform the Democratic Party has failed, most such efforts having become co-opted by the party establishment.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Following consistent wins by Republicans throughout the 1980s, Democrats beginning in 1989 started moving toward "fiscally conservative" (economically Right Wing) views, influenced by Tony Coelho. This move to the Right would be cemented during the presidency of William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton in the '90s with the Democrats embracing Neoliberalism (an extreme Right Wing corporatist perspective which has been associated with the Fascist dictator of Chile, Augusto Pinochet, and which takes its name from the economic aspects of Classical Liberalism taken to extremes under Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover), and the Republicans began moving further to the Right themselves in an effort to stay to the Right of the Democrats on economic matters; many Democrats who had previously called themselves "Liberal" (that is, Social Liberal) also attempted to rebrand following the 1988 election (due to the Republicans having done their best to turn the label into a smear, and the Democrats having no spine to defend their designation), by co-opting the label "Progressive," but without changing their views on social change. As such, those Liberals who still (whether consistently or occasionally) claim to be Progressive are known by Modern Progressives as "Fauxgressives." During the presidency of Barack Obama, the Democrats would chase the Republicans by moving even further to the Right, resulting in the Republicans again moving further to the Right.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Tl-avNTjkVQ/WxU-mXbq8oI/AAAAAAAAJus/8n65HMRxSk45XgzdAKHmONkio0Jkj3c7gCLcBGAs/s1600/Kucinich.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="624" data-original-width="1024" height="195" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Tl-avNTjkVQ/WxU-mXbq8oI/AAAAAAAAJus/8n65HMRxSk45XgzdAKHmONkio0Jkj3c7gCLcBGAs/s320/Kucinich.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Also during the Obama presidency, a group which had previously perverted Political Correctness by embracing the worst aspects thereof, including a tendency to authoritarianism, intolerance of even the slightest dissent (and sometimes even of sincere questions), and self-righteous busybodyism, began to distort Kimberlé Crenshaw's original iteration of the concept of "Intersectionality" into a focus on Identity Politics, even as some of them were usurping the language of Social Justice advocates in an effort to spread their outrage and facilitate their promotion of a victim mentality. These would gradually coalesce, by 2012, into an apparently disorganized movement involving influences from Jacques Derrida's metaphysical Nominalism, Michel Foucault's pessimism and dislike of the idea of objective truth, sex-negative and androphobic fringe elements of Second Wave Feminism, and the social Liberalism of the Democratic Party, among other things. These Outrage Mongers inserted themselves into the Occupy movement and rendered it impotent by pushing Identity Politics to divide the movement into rival groups based on "Identity," whereas the Occupy movement was at its inception successful through an emphasis on Solidarity. Many of these Outrage Mongers also label themselves "Progressive," but due to their focus on divisive Identity Politics and their intolerance and authoritarianism, Modern Progressives have come to regard them as "Regressives."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Bernard "Bernie" Sanders brought the name "Progressive" back into the popular consciousness in his 2016 run for the Democratic Party nomination for President. With a long history of rejecting the partisan loyalty of the Democratic fauxgressives (he has been an Independent most of his career) and the divisive Identity Politics of the regressives (indeed, he even explicitly pointed out that Identity Politics is divisive), Senator Sanders established his credentials as a Modern Progressive. Unfortunately, for reasons which remain unclear, upon being denied the Democratic nomination for President in 2016, he endorsed Hillary Clinton, who is in no way Progressive.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Ha-2OEIo2bA/WxVUtG_OEBI/AAAAAAAAJu4/KQqplE1h-Pw3W2CuEECVZDym6nOL3IudQCLcBGAs/s1600/8b0156e3-3070-4784-97d8-781e3865797b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="227" data-original-width="227" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Ha-2OEIo2bA/WxVUtG_OEBI/AAAAAAAAJu4/KQqplE1h-Pw3W2CuEECVZDym6nOL3IudQCLcBGAs/s1600/8b0156e3-3070-4784-97d8-781e3865797b.jpg" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Meanwhile, even as Democrats were telling Progressives that they didn't need us, David Cobb of Green Party candidate for President Jill Stein's campaign, issued <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/304577-a-call-to-progressives-help-build-and-own-the-green">an invitation</a> to Progressives to come "help build and own the Green Party," and several new "Progressive" parties were formed, including "the Progressive Party," "the New Progressive Party," "the Progressive Independent Party," "the Progressive Bull Moose Party," and others. Some of these have been influenced by regressives, while others may hold true to the Modern Progressive current. How many of them will last until the next presidential election in 2020 remains to be seen, but the <a href="http://www.gp.org/">Green Party of the United States</a> remains the Progressive Leftist party in the US with the largest membership and the longest history, as well as an established infrastructure and apparatus, members in public office, and experience getting on the ballot in spite of the numerous hurdles set by the two major parties -- and our numbers are growing. Join us, and help realize the ideals of Modern Progressives which were born in the 1890s and entered adolescence in 1948, attaining adulthood in 2016, and slowly waking up to the pernicious deception of the "two" party system in the two years which have passed since then. See the lies of the fauxgressives for what they are, eschew the intolerance and authoritarianism of the regressives, and reject the bifurcation fallacy of the "two" party system. Join us and help reform the Democratic Federal Republic, and save our Earth from the depredations of those whose greed cannot be satisfied.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WGb2bJWxkxg/WxVWtZ5tjNI/AAAAAAAAJvE/oGMq8jv49C09sLlNtx1VNqs1S_WM4BRcwCLcBGAs/s1600/Cw7YyuXWEAAu_NT.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="960" height="400" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WGb2bJWxkxg/WxVWtZ5tjNI/AAAAAAAAJvE/oGMq8jv49C09sLlNtx1VNqs1S_WM4BRcwCLcBGAs/s400/Cw7YyuXWEAAu_NT.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-size: x-small;">Fair use notice</span></b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">For more information: <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><b><span style="font-size: x-small;">Copyright notice</span></b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">All original content in this blog is © Copyright 2013-2018 & an. seqq. by "Liviana" (Giovanna Laine).</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Liviana (SuccubaSuprema)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07191032294285487395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1313226054990796678.post-17078576170123706282018-01-26T14:03:00.001-08:002018-01-26T14:03:07.384-08:00Softened Cubist Dusk<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">"Misty Dusk Violets,"</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;">by Giovanna Laine</span></div>
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2tw7nRpOTmQ/WmukY2Z7xLI/AAAAAAAAI_M/xZy7E-GUxmgABoVUVLZ8KMhQTGowfxBbgCLcBGAs/s1600/Misty%2BDusk%2BViolets%252C%2B%25C2%25A9%2B2018%2Bby%2BGiovanna%2BLaine.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="687" height="209" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2tw7nRpOTmQ/WmukY2Z7xLI/AAAAAAAAI_M/xZy7E-GUxmgABoVUVLZ8KMhQTGowfxBbgCLcBGAs/s400/Misty%2BDusk%2BViolets%252C%2B%25C2%25A9%2B2018%2Bby%2BGiovanna%2BLaine.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Click to view larger.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
"Misty Dusk Violets," © Copyright 2018 by Giovanna Laine</div>
<br />
<br />
.Liviana (SuccubaSuprema)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07191032294285487395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1313226054990796678.post-51016767246972068862017-10-23T05:31:00.000-07:002018-01-12T04:03:23.819-08:00Liv's Livestreams & Vids, Volume I<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: x-large;">Liviana's Livestreams & Videos,</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Volume I,</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>by Liviana (Giovanna Laine)</b></div>
<br />
<br />
So, some time has elapsed since last I updated this blog. I am not retiring this blog, however. I have republished some of my older posts from here on <i><a href="https://medium.com/the-progressive-flame">The Progressive Flame</a></i>, but I have also (as some of you already know) started a YouTube channel, previously known as "Liviana t'Charvanek," then "Liviana Philosopher," and now called "Giovanna Liviana's Philosophy," which you can find <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjS1fEDvioY1_oH9ITqCphA/featured">here</a>.<br />
<br />
In this post, I will embed (and link) all my videos to date.<br />
<br />
My first video, production code 00001, is about an hour and a half long, a response to the first topic in a livestream by others (which eventually led to my being a guest on their show, and which guest appearance you can find in the "Other Appearances" list on my channel). It is called, simply enough:<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi5GasA-jRc"><br /></a>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi5GasA-jRc">A Response to Late Night Echo Chamber EP2, Topic 1</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Wi5GasA-jRc/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Wi5GasA-jRc?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
The second video, production code 00002, was a continuation of the first, and was a response to the other topics in the same livestream. It is less than 30 minutes long, and is also simply named:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/y0fvtWqSO1I">A Response to Late Night Echo Chamber EP2, Topics 2-7</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/y0fvtWqSO1I/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/y0fvtWqSO1I?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe><br />
<br />
<br />
My third video, production code 00003, was my original channel trailer/intro. It was called simply:<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlGCrPJscO8"><br /></a>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlGCrPJscO8">Intro Video</a>,<br />
<br />
but has since been renamed, now that I have done a new channel trailer/intro.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/WlGCrPJscO8/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WlGCrPJscO8?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Video production code 00004 is called<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOgwlPa6tTo">World Goth Day & Why Do I Call Myself "ProtoGoth"?</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gOgwlPa6tTo/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gOgwlPa6tTo?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Video 00005 is<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEBobDhCrsc">Comments About Gamergate</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/uEBobDhCrsc/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uEBobDhCrsc?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Video 00006 is<br />
<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/RKSQKQNHzm0">Laci Green & the 'Red Pill,' Evergreen State College, Dialectic vs Debate, & Progressives vs SJWs</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/RKSQKQNHzm0/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RKSQKQNHzm0?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Video 00007 is<br />
<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/9crxlsYuEAs">Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/9crxlsYuEAs/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9crxlsYuEAs?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Video 00008 is<br />
<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/PoZJI3VP7uc">My Thoughts on the So-Called "Gamergate 2.0"</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PoZJI3VP7uc/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PoZJI3VP7uc?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Video 00009 is<br />
<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/Zq6bC3C1tmk">Encounter with a Púca, Gamergate Factions</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Zq6bC3C1tmk/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Zq6bC3C1tmk?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Video 00010 is<br />
<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/31ncHwW8ZyI">#CNNBlackmail #GamerGate</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/31ncHwW8ZyI/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/31ncHwW8ZyI?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Video 00011 is<br />
<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/CeZUnwTmOKA">Gamergate Factions Revisited</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/CeZUnwTmOKA/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CeZUnwTmOKA?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Video 00012 is<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/1oYGJaNqUWg"><br /></a>
<a href="https://youtu.be/1oYGJaNqUWg">Partisanship, Rhetoric, & Bifurcation Fallacy</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/1oYGJaNqUWg/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1oYGJaNqUWg?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Video 00013 is<br />
<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/4BoxmeN79E4">Ideology & Ideologies</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4BoxmeN79E4/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4BoxmeN79E4?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Video 00014 is a mirror upload of the upload to my original channel, featuring Dr Margaret Flowers' response to Donald Trump on the question of Healthcare, wherein she discusses HR 676 in some detail (used with her permission):<br />
<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/DMSoPDKWzYY">Response to Donald Trump on Healthcare by Margaret Flowers, MD, 2017-02-28</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/DMSoPDKWzYY/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DMSoPDKWzYY?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Video 00015 is just a test video, wherein I was testing a livestream plug-in with the assistance of some friends (fellow players from Star Trek Online), and a few answers to questions they asked in the live chat:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/MsT5SjdM1wQ">Testing Livestream Plug-in + Chat with Friends</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/MsT5SjdM1wQ/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MsT5SjdM1wQ?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Video 00016 features me in a sleep-deprived, disjointed rant about semantics, semantic revisionism, political rhetoric, the history of political parties in the US, and assorted other matters, which was to some extent a response to the events in Charlottesville and subsequent bullshit both from political figures and in the mainstream media:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/LtYvJVcKI1Q">Sleep-Deprived, Disjointed Rant</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/LtYvJVcKI1Q/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LtYvJVcKI1Q?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Video 00017 is where things get really interesting. It was supposed to be an<br />
<br />
Interview with James Desborough, Author of "Inside Gamergate"<br />
<br />
... but something happened on YouTube's end, for which I have yet to receive any sort of explanation or apology. Four hours before the streamed interview was to start, I received a "Community Guidelines Strike" on my account, which would have prevented me from doing any livestreams for the ensuing three months, a message told me that YouTube had reviewed my video (which did not even exist yet!) and found it to be in violation of their Community Guidelines (which is awfully peculiar, since there are plenty of videos about Gamergate on YouTube and plenty of people livestreaming about Gamergate from various perspectives). This happened on a Saturday morning. I appealed, and by Monday evening the strike had been removed from my account and I was once again able to livestream, but YouTube has, to date, given me no explanation of this incident, nor any apology for it. I will include a link to a playlist about this at the end of this collection of my videos so far. In the playlist, you will see an interview with me by the YouTuber Netscape, another video by another YouTuber, the livestream interview which did eventually happen (which will also be linked in this collection), an ad for Jim's book, and his own videos which are an audiobook reading of the book itself. It is important to get more than one side of the story, and for too long, the anti-Gamergate crowd has dominated the narrative, especially in the video games media and the mainstream media. Jim's book is an insider account by someone who was involved in Gamergate from the earliest days, and does a great job of putting the whole thing into a wider historical context of other "moral panics," as well as going into detail about what happened when and why.<br />
<br />
You can see the link to the supposed interview on the page in my account which shows my videos. It has no video, no time, and no start date, because there never was a video made. The only thing there is a thumbnail (shown only on my account Videos page) and my original video description, which I was trying to edit when all of this went down, so I never got to finish even the video description. Here's the link for those interested: <a href="https://youtu.be/EXT8GulWJaM">Non-Existent Video</a>. And here's the embed, showing the thumbnail:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/EXT8GulWJaM/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EXT8GulWJaM?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Video 00018 was a livestream test to see if I really could livestream again after the incident just discussed, with some further discussion of the incident:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/Bys4Gj8cNOU">Liviana Live Stream</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Bys4Gj8cNOU/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Bys4Gj8cNOU?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Video 00019 is my new (current) channel trailer/intro, called<br />
<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/Tt3OY7_0Dws">Who Is Liviana and What's This About?</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Tt3OY7_0Dws/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Tt3OY7_0Dws?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Video 00020 is the interview with Jim about his book which was scheduled to take place earlier and was unceremoniously and rudely interrupted. This was hosted by the "Honey Badgers," a group of YouTubers with a much larger subscriber count than my own, and streamed live on various video platforms including YouTube, Twitch, and others. They contacted Jim and myself and asked if we would like to take advantage of their hosting, and I had had no dealings with them prior to that, apart from having watched a handful of their videos over the past several years. I have since had few dealings with them, apart from watching a couple more of their videos and some minor interactions via Twitter, yet I was condemned by another YouTuber for my "association" with them because of some past history between her and them ... ::shrugs:: Anyway, I mirrored the interview on my own channel, with the title<br />
<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/ZEDH5dWGZNI">00020 The Forbidden Interview, Mirror of HBR Fireside Chat 66 (2017-08-28)</a><br />
(HBR stands for "Honey Badger Radio")<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZEDH5dWGZNI/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZEDH5dWGZNI?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Video 00021 was my first actual livestream interview done on my own channel, an interview with Nicholas Goroff, actor, political organizer, journalist, and YouTuber, about his experiences in the Occupy movement, his view of the so-called "Antifa" movement, and his experiences with Gamergate (Nick is a very interesting guy, and I highly recommend that you check out his work on the Occupy.com website as well as his own YouTube channel):<br />
<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/XAC_ERbAQhM">Interview with Nicholas Goroff 2017-09-12</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/XAC_ERbAQhM/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XAC_ERbAQhM?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Video 00022 is largely a reading of an older post on this blog, with some additional comments and explanations:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/gMtdTXzUQCc">Ethics, Morals, Scruples, & Folkways</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gMtdTXzUQCc/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gMtdTXzUQCc?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Video 00023 deals with one of the compelling issues of our day ... sort of, and was my first video with some additional visual effects to make it less visually boring:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/fu0BYWb0XaA">My Answer to the Question 'Are Traps Gay?'</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/fu0BYWb0XaA/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fu0BYWb0XaA?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Video 00024 is a response to renewed calls for "Gun Control" following the mass shooting in Las Vegas, and what I believe would be an <b><i>actual</i></b> solution instead of a kneejerk reaction which would solve nothing:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/YJoxT9BNHgk">What Is the Answer to the Violence?</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/YJoxT9BNHgk/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YJoxT9BNHgk?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Video 00025-A is the first part in a new video series I am doing, dealing with Postmodernism, Outrage Mongers, Puritanism, Calvinism, Zoroastrianism, Existentialism, and so on. This first video in the series is primarily introductory, and over half of the video is taken up by a digression from the main topic, which digression deals with the differences between Progressives and Limousine Liberals, as well as debunking the idea that the Democratic Party is in any way Leftist. In this video, I used many more visual effects and images than in any previous video. This took me some time to do, and I hope my efforts are appreciated. This video is called:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/jy931CfMEb8">'Postmodernist Outrage Mongers - Historical Context, part A'</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/jy931CfMEb8/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jy931CfMEb8?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
As promised above, here is a playlist for the <i>Inside Gamergate</i> audiobook, with some introductory stuff from my own ordeal trying to get an interview with Jim Desborough to be allowed on YouTube, and the interview which did eventually finally happen:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfZhTJTjMVlKJcQkGRggMFbyKEMuENQQp">Inside Gamergate Audiobook Playlist</a><br />
<br />
Planned future videos will continue the series on Postmodernist Outrage Mongers, will include an interview with a somewhat well-known journalist and Second Wave Feminist, will also include an interview with a Professor-Emeritus of Theology, and interviews with assorted other persons and discussion of sundry other ideas.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: x-small;">Fair use notice</span></b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">For more information: <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="font-size: x-small;">Copyright notice</span></b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">All original content in this blog is © Copyright 2013-2017 & an. seqq. by "Liviana" (Giovanna Laine).</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Liviana (SuccubaSuprema)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07191032294285487395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1313226054990796678.post-61969542895899119172017-04-12T07:30:00.000-07:002017-04-12T07:50:58.652-07:00What Are Little Girls Made Of?<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8DWCo8gHEBA/Vmn31gxqJ1I/AAAAAAAAC2k/xVDCNL39WFIqqPfG9fZgYGDyziEyAP8TACPcB/s1600/TGWaveFlag02.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8DWCo8gHEBA/Vmn31gxqJ1I/AAAAAAAAC2k/xVDCNL39WFIqqPfG9fZgYGDyziEyAP8TACPcB/s1600/TGWaveFlag02.gif" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: x-large;">What Are Little Girls Made Of?</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">or,</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Stop Muddying the Waters,</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>by Liviana (Giovanna Laine)</b></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"This above all: to thine own self be true<br />
And it must follow, as the night the day<br />
Thou canst not then be false to any man."<br />
~ William Shakespeare, <i>The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark</i>, Act 1, Scene III</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mtHE3LHsxGQ/UhvIKlDn85I/AAAAAAAAAPc/kIAToJkVA_AL9cB2nwEAR3FxLNrmMltBACPcB/s1600/Gender-TG-TG_Flag_by_Jennifer_Pellinen---1280.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="177" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mtHE3LHsxGQ/UhvIKlDn85I/AAAAAAAAAPc/kIAToJkVA_AL9cB2nwEAR3FxLNrmMltBACPcB/s320/Gender-TG-TG_Flag_by_Jennifer_Pellinen---1280.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
Recently, a young Trans Woman by the name of Blaire White released a video with the title "Transgenderism Is A Mental Disorder." Now, Ms White has made this claim before, but this was the first time she devoted an entire video to the claim, and, as she expected, it received some backlash from various circles. The backlash occurred with good reason. But before I address what she said, I'll put her video here so those interested in her words can hear for themselves.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/wUOjuiAikrU/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wUOjuiAikrU?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
ACTUALLY:<br />
No. It's not. Now I will explain why it's not.<br />
<br />
The symptom is not the cause.<br />
<br />
"Gender Dyphoria," which is the name of <i><b>a symptom</b></i> and <b><i>not</i></b> the name of the condition itself, is not regarded as a "mental illness" in the medical community anymore (and hasn't been in several decades, although it took the APA a while to update the <i>DSM</i> and they still waffled a bit with <i>DSM V</i>), but even if it were, the symptom is not the cause. "Gender Identity Disorder" is no longer considered a legitimate diagnosis of anything; it's been removed from the <i>DSM</i> as of <i>DSM V</i>. "Gender Dysphoria" is a diagnosis of a symptom, and is usually required before a person is approved for the various meds to begin transition.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Gender Dysphoria is a symptom of Transsexuality, not the state of Transsexuality, nor the cause of Transsexuality.</i></b><br />
<br />
That's where people are missing the boat.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Zt1IqSVK64E/WO4i8dap4kI/AAAAAAAAHPA/H2rUr5pdYc4cYHjVHI_m9B1moWpYYlKEgCEw/s1600/TransTriCircleTripleTaiji.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Zt1IqSVK64E/WO4i8dap4kI/AAAAAAAAHPA/H2rUr5pdYc4cYHjVHI_m9B1moWpYYlKEgCEw/s1600/TransTriCircleTripleTaiji.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
(A note on language: A variety of words are in use, some not always used correctly, some preferred by one group, others preferred by other groups, but the general consensus, particularly among healthcare professionals, is that a "Transsexual" is a person with a particular condition, while "Transgender" is a larger umbrella term under which "Transsexual" falls. In her video, Ms White was discussing Transsexuals in particular, and so am I in this post. Some, even among healthcare professionals, use the terms "Transgenderism" and "Transsexualism," which I find, well, frankly, stupid, and prefer "Transsexuality" for the state of being which is the subject of both Ms White's video and this post, for purely linguistic reasons, and to be precise, for etymological and morphological reasons. <i><a href="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=-ism&allowed_in_frame=0">The Online Etymology Dictionary</a></i> explains:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>-ism</b>word-forming element making nouns implying a practice, system, doctrine, etc., from French -<i>isme</i> or directly from Latin -<i>isma</i>, -<i>ismus</i> (source also of Italian, Spanish -<i>ismo</i>, Dutch, German -<i>ismus</i>), from Greek -<i>ismos</i>, noun ending signifying the practice or teaching of a thing, from the stem of verbs in -<i>izein</i>, a verb-forming element denoting the doing of the noun or adjective to which it is attached. For distinction of use, see <b>-ity</b>. The related Greek suffix -<i>isma</i>(<i>t</i>)- affects some forms.</blockquote>
<br />
Again, <i><a href="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=-ity&allowed_in_frame=0">The Online Etymology Dictionary</a></i> explains:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>-ity</b><br />
word-forming element making abstract nouns from adjectives and meaning "condition or quality of being ______," from Middle English -<i>ite</i>, from Old French -<i>ete</i> (Modern French -<i>ité</i>) and directly from Latin -<i>itatem</i> (nominative -<i>itas</i>), suffix denoting state or condition, composed of -<i>i</i>- (from the stem or else a connective) + the common abstract suffix -<i>tas</i> (see <b>-ty</b> (2)).<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Roughly, the word in -<i>ity</i> usually means the quality of being what the adjective describes, or concretely an instance of the quality, or collectively all the instances; & the word in -<i>ism</i> means the disposition, or collectively all those who feel it. [Fowler]</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
In short, then, words ending in -ism generally refer to a doctrinal credence, as in a philosophy or religion, or a political or economic perspective, while words ending in -ity generally refer to a state of being. Being Transsexual is not some cult (more on this later), but a state of being. This is why I regard the terms "Transgenderism" and "Transsexualism" stupid, and use the term "Transsexuality" instead.)<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Zt1IqSVK64E/WO4i8dap4kI/AAAAAAAAHPA/H2rUr5pdYc4cYHjVHI_m9B1moWpYYlKEgCEw/s1600/TransTriCircleTripleTaiji.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Zt1IqSVK64E/WO4i8dap4kI/AAAAAAAAHPA/H2rUr5pdYc4cYHjVHI_m9B1moWpYYlKEgCEw/s1600/TransTriCircleTripleTaiji.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
Transsexuality is a condition with PHYSICAL causes (with physical manifestations which can be measured in clinical tests of stimulus-response and through clinical observation such as in autopsies), which has at least one psychological symptom ("Gender Dysphoria").<br />
<br />
And that symptom makes perfect sense:<br />
If your body is so incongruent with what you know to be your identity, usually from a rather early age, it would be remarkable if you <b><i>didn't</i></b> have any dysphoria.<br />
<br />
Here is the first response video from a Trans Woman which was shown to me:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/69-AIykzios/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/69-AIykzios?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
This Woman in the video says transitioning helped alleviate her dysphoria, which I've heard from other Trans Women, and which also makes sense. Indeed, some Trans Women have been encouraged by ideals such as the quote from <i>The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark</i> which I placed at the start of this post, to be true to themselves. Others might find the following biblical passage (from the New Revised Standard Version, which I find to be the translation most matching my own) to be convincing:<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven.<br />
<br />
"So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be praised by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be done in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.<br />
<br />
"And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you."<br />
<br />
~ Attributed to Jesus in <i>The Gospel According to Matthew</i>, Chapter VI, vv. 1-6</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
This biblical passage is a condemnation of hypocrisy, of pretending to be what you are not in order to gain public approval, of being, in the words which Shakespeare put into the mouth of Polonius, true to oneself; the passage also has relevance for the so-called "Transtrenders," whom I will discuss presently. For someone who is Transsexual, living a lie in order to be "accepted" by society eventually usually becomes unbearable, at which time they enter into a crisis and the outcome of that crisis can be tragic; some Trans folk at that time choose to simply end it. Others, however, find the will to be true to themselves, to be who they truly are and stop pretending, or, as some might call it, "playing a role." They choose, if you will, to remove "the mask of masculinity" (in the case of a Trans Woman) or "the false face of femininity," and expose their true face to the world. This can also have tragic results, the loss of friends and family, loss of job, social ostracization, religious condemnation and persecution, and so on. Many Trans persons in former times packed up and moved to a new location (when they could afford it), made their transition (there will be some debate about whether or not there can ever be an end to transitioning, but for the purposes of this discussion, I mean that they did the counseling, began the "Real Time Experience" of living as their true gender 24/7, did the medications necessary to affect some physical changes, and underwent other procedures including surgery/surgeries), and then moved to another location again and started an entirely new life where nobody knew them from before. Most who go through this process are considerably happier <i>with themselves</i> after the process is over (but then come other challenges, like dating, romance, sex, marriage, when to reveal if ever, and so on, which can cause some significant Angst), because most actual Transsexuals really just want the chance to live a normal life as their true gender, rather than to have any publicity over their state of being, who they seemed to be, and who they are, unless they earn that publicity for something unrelated; there are some exceptions to this, which may have to do with a generation gap, but may be due to other factors as well or instead.<br />
<br />
Before I proceed further with this discussion, I'll include another response video from another Trans Woman, and let her speak for herself:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nDcB0-Gj_L8/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nDcB0-Gj_L8?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
I made a claim earlier in this piece that Transsexuality is a physical condition with at least one psychological symptom, but physical causes. I stated that there are measurable physical manifestations which support this claim. Some of my readers may be reeling at that, but here's the evidence, a collection of links gathered by a Trans Woman who is herself a scientist (although not in a field related to these questions, but certainly trained in the Empirical method and critical thinking), mostly from peer-reviewed, scholarly medical and other scientific journals (and a legal case or two):<br />
<br />
<a href="http://aebrain.blogspot.com/p/transsexual-and-intersex-gender-identity.html">Transsexual and Intersex Gender Identity</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Zt1IqSVK64E/WO4i8dap4kI/AAAAAAAAHPA/r-ePRJn6MrM9wxsafckg_53dY4-brXqnwCLcB/s1600/TransTriCircleTripleTaiji.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Zt1IqSVK64E/WO4i8dap4kI/AAAAAAAAHPA/r-ePRJn6MrM9wxsafckg_53dY4-brXqnwCLcB/s1600/TransTriCircleTripleTaiji.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
As for "Gender Dysphoria" and "Mental Disorders" and "Mental Illness" and so on, Dysphoria is not a full-blown psychosis, so calling it "a mental illness" is pushing the envelope. Let's just have a look at what "Psychosis" means: <a href="http://www.nami.org/earlypsychosis">NAMI: National Alliance on Mental Illness | Early Psychosis and Psychosis</a>. Calling Transsexuality a "mental disorder" is denying that the reality is real. Psychosis is the term used for the most severe psychological dysfunctions, which involve a break with reality. Tell me what "crazy" means. Or "insane." Or "mentally ill." And I'll tell you that you're talking about full-blown psychosis. In ordinary parlance, "mental illness" (and even "mental disorder") means "wrong in the head," "crazy," "delusional," "insane." What professionals call "psychotic." Lots of people have minor character disorders or dysfunctions like OCD. Are they "mentally ill" (psychotic) or just have some "issues" which they need to work out (sometimes requiring medication)?<br />
<br />
Again, what is "Dysphoria" in a medical sense? Not "Gender Dysphoria" specifically, but "Dysphoria" in a general sense.<br />
<br />
"A mood of general dissatisfaction, unhappiness, restlessness, depression, and anxiety; a feeling of unpleasantness or discomfort. The opposite of euphoria."<br />
<br />
And then what is "Euphoria" in a medical sense?<br />
<br />
"1. A feeling of well-being, commonly exaggerated and not necessarily well founded.<br />
"2. The pleasure state induced by a drug or substance of abuse."<br />
<br />
Lots of people would be "mentally ill" if dysphoria (gender or otherwise) were a mental illness, then, yes? Lots of people are in fact dysphoric in the sense given above, in one way or another (although for most, the state of dysphoria is a transitory one, whereas for someone with Gender Dysphoria, it is persistent, at least until such time as that person transitions). Some might even need some treatment for it. But that doesn't mean they're psychotic.<br />
<br />
The difference is in how extreme the situation is. A minor psychological disorder/dysfunction is not a full-blown psychosis. Trans people are not disconnected from reality as a whole class (some certainly may be, but their being Trans is not the cause of that, any more than smoking a reefer will cause Schizophrenia; what I mean is that, if someone who is Trans happens to be disconnected from reality, then that disconnection is due to some other condition, and not being Trans, because being Trans in itself is in no way a disconnection from reality, nor does it in itself cause such).<br />
<br />
Here's the basic message. Ms White is wrong in generalizing from the symptom to the entire condition, whether the symptom can be called "a mental illness" or not. It's only a symptom of Transsexuality, not Transsexuality itself. Transsexuality itself has physical causes, and physical differences have been measured in clinical testing, autopsies, and so on.<br />
<br />
Before I go on to address some other, somewhat related topics, I suppose some may want further references. Alright.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/2012/12/apa-says-being-transgender-is-no-longer-a-mental-disorder">APA Says Being Transgender is No Longer a Mental Disorder | The Bottom Line</a><br />
<br />
<div>
<a href="http://fourtwonine.com/2013/05/06/2085-from-disorder-to-dysphoria-transgender-identity-and-the-dsm-v/">From disorder to dysphoria: transgender identity and the DSM-V | FourTwoNine</a></div>
<br />
<a href="https://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Psychiatrists/Practice/DSM/APA_DSM-5-Gender-Dysphoria.pdf">DSM-5 Fact Sheets | American Psychiatric Society</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Zt1IqSVK64E/WO4i8dap4kI/AAAAAAAAHPA/H2rUr5pdYc4cYHjVHI_m9B1moWpYYlKEgCEw/s1600/TransTriCircleTripleTaiji.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Zt1IqSVK64E/WO4i8dap4kI/AAAAAAAAHPA/H2rUr5pdYc4cYHjVHI_m9B1moWpYYlKEgCEw/s1600/TransTriCircleTripleTaiji.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
So, then. We come to the topic of people whom some call "Transtrenders." Like many other neologisms, this term can be misapplied, and until it finally makes it way into a dictionary (if it should ever do so), the term may have no clear, agreed-upon meaning. So, for some, going back some years, there were ... well, here, I'll just let yet another Trans Woman (who also has her own response to Ms White's video, but the video which follows is about something else) explain, in another video:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAgToB-cQS8/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kAgToB-cQS8?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
I'm not quite sure I agree with everything Ms Lee has to say in the video above, but I think she makes some good points. Now, to be sure, I agree with her that the older use of the term "Truscum" was catty and denied the reality of others simply because they had not yet transitioned. Transsexuality is about who you are, not about what you do (or have done to yourself) or how you look. A person is born Trans, and some would say that person remains Trans even after transitioning. Transitioning does not <i><b>make</b></i> someone Trans; it's just a process in their life. Indeed, for some older Trans Women, being "Trans" was something they regarded as their past once they <b><i>did</i></b> transition. Here's an example piece by Allison Washington where I have highlighted a portion of the text expressing this idea (the link should take you directly to the highlighted bit):<br />
<br />
<a href="https://medium.com/@allisawash/quora-asked-me-about-my-experience-during-the-trans-dark-ages-648f060fa458">My experience during the Trans Dark Ages – Medium</a><br />
<br />
She writes, in case the highlight doesn't show up for you and the link doesn't take you directly to the portion to which I wish to call your attention (but please read the entire piece; it's very interesting):<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I don’t think any of us ‘identified as trans’. We saw ourselves as women in deep trouble, working under the temporary label ‘transsexual’. Once we’d had surgery (and that was <i>the</i> goal) we considered ourselves ‘former transsexuals’; we disappeared into cis society and left ‘trans’ behind forever. The notion of retaining ‘trans’ as part of who we were would have shocked us. I still have trouble getting my head around this concept — I’ve lived decades thinking of myself as no different to any cis woman, and the idea of moving away from that, after having struggled to get there, feels strange.</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
What I'm not sure about in Ms Lee's video is the critique of "non-binary." A lot of people operate under the assumption that there are only two genders. I don't think that's accurate. I think gender is more complicated than that. At the same time, however, the phenomenon of "Facebook Genders" or "Tumblr Genders" is a concern, because, rather than helping to dispel misunderstandings about what it means to be Transsexual, it adds to those misunderstandings by spreading misinformation. There are not 37, 56, 58, or 71 genders. And there aren't more than 71 genders, either (one list gives a staggering 114 genders!). I've seen absolutely NO scientific evidence to support such a claim, and <i>I've actually looked</i>. Evidence that gender may be a spectrum? Sure, there is some such evidence, but 37 (or more) genders? No evidence.<br />
<br />
You're not a special snowflake, wholly unique from every other person who has ever existed, and you don't get to make up your gender as you go. Gender is. It's not something you choose. This isn't a creative writing class. This is life, and your claims and behavior, like Ms White's, have consequences for other people who are trying to dispel misconceptions and be accepted without the stigma of being associated with people who want to be "Trans-Racial" or "Trans-Species" or "My gender is Attack Helicopter" or "I'm Female on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, but Male on Sundays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays" or any of that "Oooo, look at me! I'm so special and you have to accept it, and if you say anything which 'triggers' my neurosis, I'm going to accuse you of 'violence,' because I have no idea what 'violence' actually means!" business. You are the people who are called "Transtrenders," and with good reason. It's just a fad with you, a trend, and eventually, you'll grow out of it (hopefully). This is not the case with actual Transsexuals. They don't grow out of it, because it's REAL and not merely some effort to out-weird someone else (and I have the greatest respect for weirdness, but please, stop muddying the waters for people who are only just beginning to be understood by the wider society; go find some other way to be weird).<br />
<br />
The facticity of our society at the current moment is that being Transsexual has become more well-known, and significant popularity has come to settle on a few Trans people. This situation has led to people exploring possibilities, and while there's nothing wrong with exploring possibilities, getting up in other people's faces and demanding that they embrace the idea that you are "Abimegender" or "Abamasgender" or "Juxera" or any of these other alleged genders, is not only immature, but presumptuous. You do not have to make up new categories for situations or states which already have names, like "Androgyne." That's a thing. It's been around for ages. I'm sorry if it's not "specific" enough for you. Communication is challenging enough already, and there's no scientific evidence of which I am aware which justifies these 37, 114, or 8 billion "genders."<br />
<br />
"I refuse to be categorized!" or "I'm a paradox!" or "I'm on a totally different plane from male and female" is not an adult response to the question of gender. It's just adolescent rebellion or New Age mumbo-jumbo (at <i>best</i>).<br />
<br />
<b><i>And it does significant harm to those who ARE Transsexual, by undermining the cause of educating others and winning acceptance.</i></b><br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
<b><i>But those who have embraced selfishness and youthful rebellion and New Age phantasies don't stop to consider the harm they cause; some just don't care, while others are too busy trying to be "unique" or to get attention or to impress others with how imaginative they are.</i></b><br />
<br />
That all having been said, limiting gender to two and only two is to ignore reality as well. The existence of Intersex individuals alone ought to suggest that a person can have no gender identity, or can have both (and yes, I am very much aware of the fact that "Intersex" refers to a group of physical conditions and people who have such a condition, and not to gender identity, but insisting that such people have to fit into gender categories which don't even match their physical nature is rather presumptuous and, frankly, asinine). As such, I would suggest that the number of genders is four: Female, Male, Agender, and Bigender. Anything which goes beyond those four should simply be regarded as being under those four "umbrellas," if you will. And no, I'm also not suggesting that people who are Agender or Bigender are Trans or that they require any kind of treatment in a medical sense (although <i>some</i> may need counseling).<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Zt1IqSVK64E/WO4i8dap4kI/AAAAAAAAHPE/cfe4CXiDGSkeUNA4Ig6U-NJBNpnmNxQVACEw/s1600/TransTriCircleTripleTaiji.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Zt1IqSVK64E/WO4i8dap4kI/AAAAAAAAHPE/cfe4CXiDGSkeUNA4Ig6U-NJBNpnmNxQVACEw/s1600/TransTriCircleTripleTaiji.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
In conclusion, Trans People with an audience, or with a particular ideology, may do significant harm to other Trans People, and to the cause of getting ACCURATE AND UP-TO-DATE information out to the rest of society and the intended greater acceptance of Trans People by the wider society as a result of giving them accurate and up-to-date information. And people who are claiming to be "Trans"-something which has no relationship whatsoever to Transsexuality may do harm to the same people and their cause. Which does the greater harm? I wouldn't presume to know, nor to be able to arrive at a conclusion without significant research and application of Inductive Logic (which isn't really my thing; I prefer Deductive Logic, because it suits my philosophical positions better), but harm has been being done, and it needs to stop.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">The title of the post comes from <i>Star Trek</i> (The Original Series), Season 1, episode 7; episode 7 overall; production code 10.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><b><span style="font-size: x-small;">Fair use notice</span></b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">For more information: <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><b><span style="font-size: x-small;">Copyright notice</span></b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: x-small;">All original content in this blog is © Copyright 2013-2017 & an. seqq. by "Liviana" (Giovanna Laine). </span><br />
<br />
<br />Liviana (SuccubaSuprema)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07191032294285487395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1313226054990796678.post-26266634666799748782017-04-05T16:15:00.001-07:002017-04-05T16:42:07.659-07:00Catspaw<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Catspaw,</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>or,</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Stop Letting Yourself Be Used,</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>by Liviana (Giovanna Laine)</b></div>
<br />
<br />
An Open Letter to Heidi Hess of CREDO Action,<br />
from Liviana (Giovanna Laine)<br />
<br />
Dear Heidi,<br />
<br />
I am very tired of hearing the buzzing of the drones of the Queen (Wanna)Bee. If your would-be queen were as competent, experienced, and intelligent as her drones have insisted, then she would have remembered that she had to campaign to the people across the country, and not just in those few high population areas where she did campaign. She did not, however, not that it would have helped her much; country folk have a way of seeing through such <i>obvious</i> fakeness and condescension as have marked her since she was the First Lady of Arkansas (if not before). Point being, she lost, fair and square, <b>within <i>our</i> system.</b><br />
<br />
You see, we don't have a pure democracy in which the mob rules and gives us a dictatorship of the majority or elevates one among them to lord it over the rest of us. No, Madison and the other Founders wisely gave us the Electoral College, a tripartite government, a separation of powers, and checks and balances, in order to prevent that kind of dystopia. Did you never take Civics or US History? The United States is not a democracy and was never intended to be. It's a democratic federal republic, a <i>representative</i> democracy and a rule of law, not a rule of whatever fad happens to be trending among the masses at the moment. The election of President is more than a mere popularity contest, <i>by design</i>. If we had remained true to the ideals of Madison and Washington, we would not now have these "factions" (political parties) within our republic, but that cat's out of the bag and isn't going back in.<br />
<br />
The Democratic Party shot itself in both feet and now blames "Russia" for its own stupidity. The Republican Party is by <b><i>no</i></b> means righteous, but this incessant Bifurcation Fallacy with its attendant <i>Argumentum ad Metum</i> produces increased polarization into two camps which have no substantial differences from one another and yet demonize each other (and anyone who, rightly seeing that there are more than two answers, refuses to join either of the two sides which falsely insist that they are the only game in town).<br />
<br />
TRUMP<br />
is a demagogic man-child.<br />
<br />
HILLARY<br />
is a pimp for Wall Street and the Neocons.<br />
<br />
Neither one of the two is worthy of the office of President of the United States. Of the two, however, I agree with Doctor Jill Stein's assessment that Hillary posed the greater danger, because she was already banging the drums of war for her masters on Wall Street and in the CNAS.<br />
<br />
You partisan Democrats should have given us Bernie. He was imperfect, but he was a better option than either of those two. There <i>was</i> election interference, alright, but it came, <b><i>not</i></b> from "the Russians" or Vladimir Putin, but from the Democratic National Committee and the corporate media. Read the emails and see. They have digital signatures which demonstrate their authenticity, and <b><i>nobody</i></b> is even trying to <i>pretend</i> anymore that they were not authentic. But somehow, we continue to hear nothing from the complicit main stream media but the idea that how those emails <i>allegedly</i> came to light is a worse crime than the blatant anti-democratic behavior of the DNC and the collusion of the fourth estate in favor of one rather miserable candidate who ran an incompetent campaign based on sunshine and lollipops for her Basket of Gullibles and the same condescending insults of anyone who refused to praise the Great Feminist Hope (as if she were <i>remotely</i> Feminist) which she used the last time she tried to contend for the office.<br />
<br />
Trump is bad, mkay?<br />
<br />
But Hillary would have been worse (on so many levels), and Pence would also be worse (I hope I don't have to explain why) if your lot somehow managed to get enough Congress critters to support articles of impeachment against Trump, because no, impeaching Trump would not mean that your Queen (Wanna)Bee would somehow be declared the winner. No, we'd have Pence. If you think Trump is bad, "you ain't seen nothin'."<br />
<br />
All I hear is "OMG, Trump!" and "RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA!" Your lot is now claiming (<i>again</i>) that Senator Sanders was an unwitting tool of the Russians. Grow up. Your lot told us that we were "being ridiculous." Your Queen (Wanna)Bee, however, declared that anyone who would refuse to accept the results of the general election would be a danger to "democracy." At least have the decency to be mature about the election results. Go look at the so-called "evidence" of Russian hacking and "interference" with some damned critical skills. Pay attention to elected officials from your own party admitting that they want to go to war with Russia. <i>WAR</i>. With the <b><i>NUCLEAR</i></b> power Russia! Are you that apathetic, that gullible, that dense, or just that insane?<br />
<br />
<b><i>The only "catspaw" in all of this is the group of partisan tools who keep pushing this nonsense about Russians.</i></b><br />
<br />
You and your people at <i>CREDO</i> do some good work, but stop sending me this hysteria based on a lack of critical evaluation of the claims of the USIC; this is nothing but childish dreck, and I'm excessively tired of it.<br />
<br />
And do <b><i>NOT</i></b> try to force any more Neoliberals or Neoconservatives (or anyone who, like Hillary, is both) on us, or we'll have another four years of Trump (or whichever other candidate the Republicans put forward, who is likely to be one of the anti-liberty, pro-establishment, reactionary, far Right Wing idiots more typical of their party, if they don't nominate Trump again [and the jury's still out on exactly how typical of Republicans Trump is, despite the farcical trial by media currently being attempted by the establishment Democrats and their toadies in the MSM, aided and abetted by the little delicate fragile neurotics who are triggered by Democratic partisan rhetoric and still refuse to recognize that Reagan, Bush the Elder, Bill Clinton, Bush the Lesser, and Obama were all already Fascists and that Trump's presidency is unlikely to be any kind of radical departure from that trend into some kind of Fascism beyond what we've already had in the USA since 1981]). I know this demand will fall on deaf ears. In 2020, the Democrats will again put forward someone who, like Hillary, is a Machiavellian opportunist caring nothing about anything but his or her own ambition, although the Democratic candidate in 2020 may actually have some charisma, unlike the Queen (Wanna)Bee. Hopefully, though, it will be a figure already known to the voters as an establishment Democrat. Maybe <i>then</i> the Progressive Leftists who are now stubbornly clinging to the pipe dream of reforming the Democratic Party will finally come to their senses and join the rest of us under the Green umbrella. Stop voting for the "lesser" evil. Choose the greater good instead. Go Green. It's in our hands.<br />
<br />
Sincerely,<br />
Giovanna Laine<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-q1NDGY0OYaY/WC9y2o-eAuI/AAAAAAAAFa0/fY_NvaksD9MeVq8GHfH8BVwyJNyFdG1XACPcB/s1600/Cw7YyuXWEAAu_NT.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-q1NDGY0OYaY/WC9y2o-eAuI/AAAAAAAAFa0/fY_NvaksD9MeVq8GHfH8BVwyJNyFdG1XACPcB/s400/Cw7YyuXWEAAu_NT.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">The title of the post comes from <i>Star Trek</i> (The Original Series), Season 2, episode 7; episode 36 overall; production code 30.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="font-size: x-small;">Fair use notice</span></b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">For more information: <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="font-size: x-small;">Copyright notice</span></b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">All original content in this blog is © Copyright 2013-2017 & an. seqq. by "Liviana" (Giovanna Laine). </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Liviana (SuccubaSuprema)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07191032294285487395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1313226054990796678.post-40028468005114485472017-01-31T12:17:00.001-08:002017-04-05T16:16:05.151-07:00The Menagerie, Part 2 (a), or, Dimensions of Perspective Revisited<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: x-large;">The Menagerie, Part 2 (a),</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">or,</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Dimensions of Perspective Revisited,</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;">by Liviana (Giovanna Laine)</span></div>
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,<br />Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.<br /><br />~ William Shakespeare, <i>The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark</i>, Act I, Scene 5</span></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<u><span style="font-size: large;">INTRODUCTION</span></u><br />
<br />
In <a href="http://random-musings-from-a-muse.blogspot.com/2016/08/dimensions-of-perspective.html">a previous post here</a>, I discussed seven dimensions of a given person's perspective, or seven axes on which such perspective could be plotted. In the end of the post, I presented a two-dimensional image of a three-dimensional object with what might be seen as an "allegorical" explanation of the image expanded into seven dimensions. I here reproduce the image from the previous post:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-a6Woe5goLPw/V7MCZrZCUiI/AAAAAAAAECA/arBN-gNWIVM-DhncNc1GKM0ztr5co50VQCPcB/s1600/7_Dimensions.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="356" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-a6Woe5goLPw/V7MCZrZCUiI/AAAAAAAAECA/arBN-gNWIVM-DhncNc1GKM0ztr5co50VQCPcB/s400/7_Dimensions.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
As I explained it in the previous post, I included seven dimensions or axes:<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We see the blue triple intersection as our traditional three-dimensional axes, with X representing depth, Y representing width, and Z representing height. The other letters here are shown at the corners of the cube. A line from A to H would symbolize a fourth axis, another line from B to E would symbolize a fifth dimension, another from C to F a sixth dimension, and one more from D to G a seventh dimension. We might then say that the the X axis represents Politics in the sense of Statism vs Anti-Statism, the Y axis represents Economics, and the the Z axis represents Civil Liberties, just as in Max Barry's ideocube. But then we have A-H, B-E, C-F, and D-G as well. I will arbitrarily assign these as follows: A-H = Centralization/Decentralization, B-E = Imperialism vs Non-Interventionism, C-F = Social Views, and D-G = Cultural Views.</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large; text-decoration: underline;">FURTHER</span><br />
<br />
The previous post takes account of the standard three dimensions and the four space diagonals of the cube. I would like to expand upon this, as the allegory can be extended to twelve more dimensions by adding the face diagonals of the cube. For the cube, a Platonic solid, there are six faces, eight vertices, twelve edges, and sixteen diagonals (four space diagonals and twelve space diagonals). The face diagonals would be represented by lines connecting A-C, A-E, A-G, B-D, B-F, B-H, C-E, C-G, D-F, D-H, E-G, and F-H.<br />
<br />
I have already assigned the previous seven to: Politics (Statism vs Anti-Statism), Economics, Civil Liberties, Politics (Centralization/Decentralization), Imperialism vs Non-Interventionism, Society, and Culture. In assigning the twelve additional dimensions, intersections with some of the others would be nice, but challenging by virtue of what I am suggesting as the twelve additional dimensions. However, I will assign the twelve as follows, and some intersections will be seen, but not in each case (for example, in the case of A-E, Globalism vs Localism, which intersects with concepts represented by both A-H, Politics (Centralization/Decentralization), and B-E, Imperialism vs Non-Interventionism, in that Globalism involves Centralization and Imperialism, while Localism involves Decentralization and Non-Interventionism):<br />
<br />
A-C = Epistemology<br />
A-E = Globalism vs Localism<br />
A-G = Aesthetics<br />
B-D = Ecology/Equality vs Exploitation<br />
B-F = Idealism vs Pessimism<br />
B-H = Ontology and Metaphysics<br />
C-E = Diversity vs Uniformity/Conformity<br />
C-G = Ethics<br />
D-F = Romance and Sexuality<br />
D-H = Politics (Democracy vs Autocracy)<br />
E-G = Religion and Sacred Tradition<br />
F-H = Mysticism<br />
<br />
This, then, gives us a total of nineteen dimensions of perspective, as follows:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>X = Politics (Statism vs Anti-Statism)</li>
<li>Y = Economics</li>
<li>Z = Civil Liberties and Civil Rights</li>
<li>A-H = Politics (Centralization vs Decentralization)</li>
<li>B-E = Imperialism vs Non-Interventionism</li>
<li>C-F = Social Attitudes</li>
<li>D-G = Cultural Attitudes</li>
<li>A-C = Epistemology</li>
<li>A-E = Globalism vs Localism</li>
<li>A-G = Aesthetics</li>
<li>B-D = Ecology vs Exploitation</li>
<li>B-F = Idealism vs Pessimism</li>
<li>B-H = Ontology and Metaphysics</li>
<li>C-E = Diversity vs Uniformity/Conformity</li>
<li>C-G = Ethics</li>
<li>D-F = Romance and Sexuality</li>
<li>D-H = Politics (Democracy vs Autocracy)</li>
<li>E-G = Religion and Sacred Tradition</li>
<li>F-H = Mysticism</li>
</ol>
<br />
Of these nineteen, numbers 1 to 7 were <a href="http://random-musings-from-a-muse.blogspot.com/2016/08/dimensions-of-perspective.html">explained in the previous post</a>. That means that I have to explain numbers 8 to 19 in this post. Without further ado, then, I shall do so. Please note that I will generally be referring to "one side" and "the other side," rather than "one end" and "the other end" or "one extreme" and "the other extreme." However, in some instances, I shall put names the extremes. I should also state from the outset that a full treatment of each of these dimensions is beyond the scope of this discussion (although I will say more about some than others), but I have discussed some of them in greater detail elsewhere in my writings, and am likely to discuss others in greater detail in future writings.<br />
<br />
<b><i>8. Epistemology</i></b><br />
Epistemology is the branch of Philosophy which deals with several related questions. One of those, the key question, is "What is knowledge?" (in the sense of <span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">ἐπιστήμη</span> or "epistêmê," which is to say "propositional or intellectual knowledge," as distinct from "relational knowledge," or "knowing about a thing" as distinct from "knowing a person;" epistêmê is also contrasted with δοξία or "doxia," which means "opinion"). The answer to this is, amazingly, something on which all philosophers agree: "Knowledge is justified true belief." What that means is that if a subject S know a proposition P, then S believes P, P is true, and S is justified in believing P. This is where the agreement ends. From this point, Epistemology proceeds to seek answers to the questions "What is truth?" and "What justifies a person in believing a proposition?" On these questions, philosophers disagree and diverge into four main schools of thought: Rationalism, Empiricism, Pragmatism, and Skepticism. These would be ranged with Rationalism on one side and Skepticism on the other side, with Pragmatism between Rationalism and Empiricism, and Empiricism between Pragmatism and Skepticism.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>9. Globalism vs Localism</i></b><br />
Globalism vs Localism seems to me to be self-explanatory, but in case my meaning in these terms is not entirely clear, Globalism would be at one end and Localism at the other. In between would be varying stages including Continentalism, Nationalism, Regionalism, and ... "Provincialism" (for want of a better term, and with a meaning distinct from the Fallacy of Provincialism).<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>10. Aesthetics</i></b><br />
Aesthetics is the branch of Philosophy which deals with the questions "What is beauty?" and "What is Art?" and in this context, I extend this to include personal preferences and styles, and not merely the dictates of the Academies. This also affects one's views on Social, Political, and Economic matters to some extent, as, for example, in the case of those Social Conservatives who oppose Homosexuality because they find it "gross" or "disgusting" not in an Ethical sense, but in a purely Aesthetic sense (which, however, Social Conservatives tend to associate with Ethics for reasons not immediately apparent). This has been demonstrated in psychological and neurological studies, such as Yoel Inbar, David A. Pizarro & Paul Bloom (2009), "<a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02699930802110007">Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals</a>," <i>Cognition & Emotion</i>, 23:4, 714-725; John A. Terrizzi Jr., Natalie J. Shook, and W. Larry Ventis (October 2010), "<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886910002710">Disgust: A predictor of social conservatism and prejudicial attitudes toward homosexuals</a>," <i>Personality and Individual Differences</i>, 49:6, 587–592; Jeanna Bryner (26 October 2011), "<a href="http://www.livescience.com/16746-conservatives-disgust-political-views.html">Conservatives Are More Squeamish than Liberals</a>," <i>Live Science</i>; and Jonah Queen (17 January 2012), "<a href="http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2012/01/disgust-and-new-political.html">Disgust and a New Political Neuropsychology</a>," <i>The Neuroethics Blog</i> (hosted by the Center for Ethics, Neuroethics Program at Emory University).<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>11. Ecology/Equality vs Exploitation</i></b><br />
Ecology/Equality vs Exploitation refers to an idea which I see as one, but which could be separated into two distinct dimensions. In each case, "Exploitation" is one side. The other side in one idea is "Ecology," and in the other is "Equality." What I mean here is (1) in terms of Nature and her resources (Ecology vs Exploitation, then, would refer to conservation of natural resources, sustainable and renewable approaches, and respect for Nature, as against Exploitation of Nature and her resources without concern for conservation, sustainability, renewability, and so on), or (2) in terms of People (as either Equal or as some lording over others, dehumanizing them, and treating them as mere exploitable "resources"). I personally include People within the category of Nature; we are as much a part of our Ecosystem as any other lifeform in it. Therefore, I see "both" of these as one, the exploitation of "Nature/Natural Resources" would include the exploitation of people, and the recognition of ecological concerns would also involve the recognition of equality of persons. There will be some who will get their panties in a bunch, or their knickers in a twist, over my choice of the word "equality," and will insist that we are not all equal, because some are more capable than others inherently, and not due to any unfair advantages of wealth or the like. I will suggest that they are committing the Fallacy of Equivocation, and attempting to use the term "Equality" in a sense other than what I intend. Of course each person has his or her own talents or "gifts," as well as inclinations or interests or predispositions, and thus some will be extremely proficient in a given thing while deficient in some other given thing, and people will be arranged in hierarchies due to experience, greater training, and so on, but I am speaking of social, cultural, and political equality, of being treated as Human Beings no matter what one's status in a profession or vocation may be, and no matter how much or how little wealth a person may have.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>12. Idealism vs Pessimism</i></b><br />
Idealism vs Pessimism is an axis which I think is best explained thusly:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">"People who are too optimistic seem annoying. This is an unfortunate misinterpretation of what an optimist really is.<br /><br />"An <i>optimist</i> is neither naive, nor blind to the facts, nor in denial of grim reality. An optimist believes in the <i>optimal</i> usage of all options available, no matter how limited. As such, an optimist always sees the big picture. How else to keep track of all that’s out there? An optimist is simply a proactive realist.<br /><br />"An idealist focuses only on the best aspects of all things (sometimes in detriment to reality); an optimist strives to find an effective solution. A pessimist sees limited or no choices in dark times; an optimist <i>makes</i> choices.<br /><br />"When bobbing for apples, an idealist endlessly reaches for the best apple, a pessimist settles for the first one within reach, while an optimist drains the barrel, fishes out all the apples and makes pie.<br /><br />"Annoying? Yes. But, oh-so tasty!"<br /><br />~ Vera Nazarian, <i>The Perpetual Calendar of Inspiration</i>(italics in original)</span></blockquote>
<br />
What we see here is that Idealism and Pessimism are the two extremes, while Optimism lies somewhere in between the two.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>13. Ontology and Metaphysics</i></b><br />
Ontology and Metaphysics are also branches of Philosophy which are intertwined. An ontological perspective will result in a certain metaphysical tendency. Attempting to formulate a metaphysic without first considering Ontology will result in a metaphysic based on assumed and unexamined ontological views, which, however, will usually become apparent as the metaphysic becomes more developed. Ontology deals with Essence and existence, with Being and is-ness. Metaphysics deals with Reality and actuality, questions of "One or Two or Three or Many," and what Plato called "Ideas" or "Forms," which later, Scholastic philosophers in the Mediaeval era would often refer to as "Universals," contrasted with "particulars."<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>14. Diversity vs Uniformity/Conformity</i></b><br />
Diversity vs Uniformity/Conformity has to do with one's place in society; namely, does one maintain diversity, or conform with society's predominant comportment? This also has to do with society's perspective on any given member thereof; namely, does society accept diversity, merely tolerate diversity, or attempt to impose uniformity?<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>15. Ethics</i></b><br />
Ethics is the branch of Philosophy which seeks to apply the concept of Justice to individual conduct. Ethics in the context of Philosophy as discipline is the systematic study of conduct with regard to the virtue of conduct on the individual level; it is concerned with "internal justice," by which is meant conformity of the individual's will to an external standard of conduct (see link below for differentiation between Ethics and Scruples). A variety of schools of thought exist within the field of Ethics: Situationism, Intentionalism, Consequentialism, and Legalism represent the most well-known.<br />
a. Legalism: affirms that acts in themselves are good or bad (or "evil").<br />
b. Consequentialism: affirms that acts are not good or bad in themselves, but rather, that consequences of acts are good or bad. A well-known type of Consequentialism is Utilitarianism, which affirms that "the greatest good for the greatest number" is the aim of an ethically praiseworthy person.<br />
c. Intentionalism: affirms that acts are not good or bad in themselves, and that consequences ignore motivations and so cannot be relied upon to determine good or bad, but that the intentions or motivations in which an act is done, or the attitudes behind the acts, are good or bad.<br />
d. Situationism: affirms that context must be taken into account when judging good or bad.<br />
<br />
Legalism insists on Laws (both positive injunctions as in "Do this," and negative prohibitions as in "Do not do this") as the standard of conduct, and tends to dualism of "good vs evil." Consequentialism, Intentionalism, and Situationism advocate Principles, rather than Laws, as the standard of conduct, and are less likely to accept a dualistic perspective, instead seeing "good and bad," or "good and an absence of good," or perhaps "Order and Chaos."<br />
<br />
All of these have flaws:<br />
<br />
Legalism is famous in the flaw of the Catch-22 situation, where one is in a situation in which no matter what choice he/she makes, she/he violates the ethical laws by which he/she seeks to live.<br />
<br />
Consequentialism is famous in the flaw of expressing the notion that "the end justifies the means" (and Utilitarianism would rationalize harm to a minority based on its aim being fulfilled for the majority). I will repeat another well-known critique of Consequentialism in two parts, which may perhaps help to convey more of the imperfection of Consequentialism:<br />
1. If person S pointed a pistol at person P and pulled the trigger with the intention of murder, but the shell were a "dud," the consequentialist would say that person S had done no wrong. This is patently absurd.<br />
2. If person S saw person P drowning and jumped into the water intending to save person P's life, but both drowned, the consequentialist would say that person S had done wrong. This is also patently absurd.<br />
Obviously, therefore, consequences alone cannot be used to judge the rightness of behavior.<br />
<br />
Intentionalism is flawed in that one may have entirely heroic motivations and still fail to accomplish good.<br />
<br />
Situationism's flaw is that it tends to relativism, with extremely vague principles which fail to provide sufficient guidance for conduct.<br />
<br />
I propose a fifth division, which should probably be called something like an "Holistic Ethic," which would not completely disregard the act itself, but which would subordinate the act to the consequences, and which would in turn subordinate the consequences to the motivation/intention/attitude and the context taken together, and which would advocate Principles as the standard of conduct. Some might be tempted, based on a similar impetus in Epistemology which yields an epistemological school of thought named "Pragmatism," to refer to this as a "Pragmatic Ethic." However, "pragmatic" is not a word that many would be comfortable using in the context of Ethics, as the very word in itself suggests ethical relativism (indeed, "Pragmatic Ethics" is a term already in use in the field of Ethics, and its use in the field is to name a particular type of relativistic ethic). To think in ethical questions "What is practical?" is to disregard "What is ideal?" and this turns Ethics in the sense of a standard on its head, for Ethics is concerned with the concept of "oughtness." Ethics asks "What ought to be?" and "What ought I to do?"<br />
<br />
For some additional considerations related to Ethics, see my earlier discussion "Ethics, Morals, Scruples, and Folkways," <a href="http://random-musings-from-a-muse.blogspot.com/2015/12/ethics-morals-scruples-and-folkways.html">here</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>16. Romance and Sexuality</i></b><br />
Romance and Sexuality (and no, I'm not going to separate this into two distinct dimensions, at least not here) both deal with intimacy, Romance dealing with emotional intimacy and Sexuality dealing with physical intimacy. Some overlap exists, at least occasionally and/or for some persons, but the two are not coterminous. Attitudes toward, and beliefs about, these types of intimacy have an effect on the individual's perspectives which may influence his or her views on social, political, and economic questions. For example, if someone believe that Homosexuality is somehow ethically wrong, aesthetically repellent, socially harmful, etc, then she or he may favor efforts to legislate against Homosexual acts, public display of same sex affection, the legal recognition of same sex marriages, and/or efforts to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation, etc. On the other hand, one whose beliefs include no ethical condemnation of Homosexuality, who recognizes same sex relations throughout nature, who understands that social harm often has more to do with ignorance and prejudice than any flaw inherent in those subjected to ignorant and prejudicial attitudes, etc, would tend to take the opposition positions on such legislative questions. Attitudes and beliefs pertaining to these types of intimacy may also influence a person's views on the legality of divorce, or the conditions under which it may occur, or the legal question of "fault" in a divorce, and so on.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>17. Politics (Democracy vs Autocracy)</i></b><br />
Politics (Democracy vs Autocracy) is here concerned with who has a voice in making decisions. I touched on this briefly in the previous post, but focused on Politics in two other dimensions, one pertaining to Centralization vs Decentralization, and the other pertaining to Statism vs Anti-Statism. Here, however, I will address Politics in the sense of voice in decision-making. Does one person dictate to the majority, or do all members of a society have an equal voice? Those would be the extreme positions. In between are various stages including Oligarchy and Polycracy. Here too could be included the question of just how decisions are reached. In the purest form of democracy, decisions would require either unanimity or consensus; unanimity would mean that all members of a society have to agree, while consensus would be a general agreement among all. In the latter case, the peril of mob rule or "tyranny of the majority" is a factor. Polycracy (also called Polyarchy), which means rule by many, is a form of government in which all members of a society vote to elect representatives, who then vote on decisions on behalf of their constituents, but here again, the question of how those representatives vote arises. Do they make up their own minds, do they consult their constituents before casting a vote, or do they employ some blend of the two methods? Also in a Polycracy, the question of eligibility for the position of representative must be considered. Are all members of the society eligible, or must they meet certain conditions in order to be eligible. An example would be the original conception of a Senate, that is, a council of <i>elders</i> (Latin "senatus," which means "senate," derives from "senex," which means "old," just as Old Irish "senad," which means "senate," derives from "sen," which means "old," both derived from Proto-Italo-Celtic *sen-, and ultimately from the Proto-Indo-European root *sén-; the concept of a council of "elders," therefore, is likely an ancient one, but is by no means restricted to Indo-European cultures; also worth noting in this context, however, is the related word "senile," which might suggest that elder status ought not to be considered alone and apart from the concept of competence), who would presumably have to be the older folk in the society. Oligarchy is rule by a few; an example of this sort of polity would be an Aristocracy (a government by nobles, who generally inherit their position from a family member, although this is typically not a completely closed system in that non-nobles may be elevated to the position of nobility). Again, the question of how these persons reach their decisions must be considered, as in Democracy or Polycracy. Typically, however, an Oligarchy does not take much thought of what the members of society may desire, and thus is a "top-down" government, while Democracy is a "grassroots" government, and Polycracy tends to be likewise (at least in its beginnings). Finally, Autocracy is rule by a single person, who makes all decisions for the entire society.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>18. Religion and Sacred Tradition</i></b><br />
Religion and Sacred Tradition may on the surface seem to be identical; they are not. "Religion" is purely religion, separated (allegedly) from its culture of origin, and typically imperialistic in the sense that its adherents seek to convert others. A "Sacred Tradition" is culturally specific, and while it includes elements which would be considered "religious" by Sociologists, Cultural Anthropologists, and Philosophers, is itself inseparable from the wider culture and cannot be reduced to its "religious" aspects alone; practioners of a Sacred Tradition do not typically seek to convert others, unless the culture itself be imperialistic in a wider sense (that is, if that culture be one which engages in other forms of imperialism, such as military and economic conquest, its Sacred Tradition will likely also be imposed on the conquered along with other aspects of culture such as language). However, this is not the extent of this dimension; it also reaches to Agnosticism and Atheism. Both Religions and Sacred Traditions include both doctrines and ethical teachings. Agnosticism and Atheism are not devoid of ethical concepts, contrary to the rhetoric of some ... religious imperialists. Discussion of this particular dimension could go on indefinitely, and so I will cut it short here and say simply that one side of this dimension would include religions and sacred traditions, and the other side would include Atheism, with Agnosticism somewhere in between, and various shades of each, the extreme end of one being "Militant Atheism" or "Anti-Religious Atheism" and the extreme at the other end being "One True and Only Way Intolerant and Imperialistic Religion."<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>19. Mysticism</i></b><br />
Mysticism is the belief that a deeper union is possible, and incorporates various techniques designed to facilitate such union. The union in question may be monistic or dualistic, which is to say, it may be akin to the idea of a drop of water falling into the ocean and thereby becoming one with the ocean, or it may be more like the union of two individuals in a dance, a romance, and/or a sexual encounter, where the two may at times mingle, but yet remain separate. The "object" (if you will) of the union may be the divine, nature, the universe, humanity, something more precise, or something more vague. On this axis will also be the opposite perspective, which is a denial that such a deeper union is possible, and/or a lack of interest in such a state; this may be due to non-belief, a materialistic metaphysic, <i>ennui</i>, <i>Angst</i>, and/or <i>Weltschmerz</i>, to name a few possibilities. Mysticism can also extend into the dimension of Romance and Sexuality, as well as other dimensions.<br />
<br />
<br />
(to be continued in a later post)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">The title of the post comes from </span><i style="font-size: small;">Star Trek</i><span style="font-size: x-small;"> (The Original Series), Season 1, episode 12; episode 12 overall; production code 16.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<b style="font-size: small;">Fair use notice</b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">For more information: <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Copyright notice</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">All original content in this blog is © Copyright 2013-2017 & an. seqq. by "Liviana" (Giovanna Laine). </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Liviana (SuccubaSuprema)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07191032294285487395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1313226054990796678.post-66553002024879443782017-01-30T01:01:00.003-08:002017-01-30T01:01:47.204-08:00Announcing "The Progressive Flame"<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ra2wVBjmwXw/WI79tvevsUI/AAAAAAAAGEc/V9KzGiPgznI0Lczyv3bCDnGFUfVkDELHACLcB/s1600/TPF-logo.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="47" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ra2wVBjmwXw/WI79tvevsUI/AAAAAAAAGEc/V9KzGiPgznI0Lczyv3bCDnGFUfVkDELHACLcB/s400/TPF-logo.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Announcing:</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i><b>The Progressive Flame</b></i></span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">by Liviana (Giovanna Laine)</span></b></div>
<br />
<br />
I have begun a new project at <i>Medium</i>: an "e-zine" which I have named "<i>The Progressive Flame</i>." I aim to provide news and articles from a Progressive, Leftist, and Green perspective at the e-zine, and the first articles to be featured there have come from this blog. I am the Owner and Editor-in-Chief of <i>The Progressive Flame</i>. Please, have a look and maybe subscribe:<br /><br /><i><a href="https://medium.com/the-progressive-flame">The Progressive Flame</a></i>, an e-zine publication at <i>Medium</i><br />
<br />
Thanks.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RHfflr44lpM/WI8AwRBC6dI/AAAAAAAAGEo/Jk1PNIS4bjAMBdJSBCXVRrBP0Ve_gubgQCLcB/s1600/TPF-avatar.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RHfflr44lpM/WI8AwRBC6dI/AAAAAAAAGEo/Jk1PNIS4bjAMBdJSBCXVRrBP0Ve_gubgQCLcB/s200/TPF-avatar.png" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Liviana (SuccubaSuprema)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07191032294285487395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1313226054990796678.post-25648327707560395922016-12-31T09:20:00.001-08:002017-01-30T00:41:06.142-08:00Dagger of the Mind<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OLmVmHJdkIs/WGf5c5xm3WI/AAAAAAAAF2U/soqOe1WiI6sB7HXmvQcr6-sPdcqsEL4CQCLcB/s1600/scapegoat-boogeyman.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="295" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OLmVmHJdkIs/WGf5c5xm3WI/AAAAAAAAF2U/soqOe1WiI6sB7HXmvQcr6-sPdcqsEL4CQCLcB/s320/scapegoat-boogeyman.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Scapegoat/Boogeyman</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: x-large;">Dagger of the Mind,</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">or,</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">"The Only Thing We Have to Fear</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Is Fear Itself,"</span></b></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>by Liviana</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; <b><i><span style="color: #cc0000;">never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.</span></i></b><br /><br />~ <i>A Psychological Analysis of Adolph Hitler: His Life and Legend</i>,<br />by Walter C. Langer,<br />Office of Strategic Services, Washington, D.C., 1943/1944<br />(emphasis added)</span></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
For some months now, the American people have been subjected to insinuations, implications, speculations, and even blatantly explicit declarations that Russia somehow "interfered" with the just-past election, most often involving claims of alleged "hacking" on the part of the Russian government or its assets or agents, sometimes accusing other Americans, especially those who run or work for independent media outlets, of having acted willfully or unwittingly as agents of this scheme. Despite no evidence being provided in support of this narrative, certain venues of the main stream media have repeated these speculations, insinuations, and explicit allegations <i>ad nauseam</i>. Worth remembering in considering these tales and whispers is <a href="http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34789-democracy-in-peril-twenty-years-of-media-consolidation-under-the-telecommunications-act">the history</a> of how a mere <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6">six corporations</a> came to dominate most of American media. Also extremely worthy of note is <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/30/the-cia-and-the-press-when-the-washington-post-ran-the-cias-propaganda-network/">the history</a> as well as <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views/2013/12/18/under-amazons-cia-cloud-washington-post">the current connections</a> of <i>The Washington Post</i>, which has been one of the main media outlets pushing this narrative.</div>
</div>
<br />
The narrative in question began following publication, by <i><a href="https://wikileaks.org/">WikiLeaks</a></i>, of various emails of the Democratic National Committee (nobody seems to be even trying to pretend anymore that these emails are not authentic, so let's admit that they are in fact the genuine article), which exposed widespread corruption in the form of the DNC colluding with the Hillary Clinton for President campaign to promote said campaign and attempt to undermine the campaign of Bernie Sanders for the same office, a fact which many of Senator Sanders' supporters already suspected. Whether the narrative originated with the Hillary campaign or the DNC, it was a transparent attempt at diversion and misdirection. As the revelations continued, the main stream media was also implicated. One of the main media outlets promoting Mrs Clinton's candidacy was, again, <i>The Washington Post</i>, but it was by no means acting alone in this. The narrative was spread in an effort to shift attention from the content of the emails to the alleged theft of the emails by agents or assets of the Russian government's intelligence services, and possibly with the intention of frightening or enraging the American people so that the <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/files.cnas.org/documents/CNASReport-EAP-FINAL-1.pdf">plans</a> of <a href="https://www.cnas.org/">certain geopolitical interests</a> could be actualized, since such actualization would require activities with a great probability of provoking Russia's government and could lead to war with Russian forces.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zOhXKt4wQoA/WGfrm_NEimI/AAAAAAAAF18/yknvUoubsT4NhWmlRSfsOs-hT49fMCo6QCLcB/s1600/16%2B-%2B1%2B%252891%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="217" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zOhXKt4wQoA/WGfrm_NEimI/AAAAAAAAF18/yknvUoubsT4NhWmlRSfsOs-hT49fMCo6QCLcB/s400/16%2B-%2B1%2B%252891%2529.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
To say that Russia alone was being scapegoated for the abysmal candidacy and pathetic strategies of the Hillary Clinton for President 2016 campaign, the corruption of the DNC, and the cooperation of much of the corporate media, however, would be to present only a part of the picture. Indeed, Senator Sanders himself, his supporters, Doctor Jill Stein, third party voters, Director James Comey of the FBI, the spectres of racism and sexism, and assorted other persons, groups, and ideas, were all subjects of the attempt to shift blame away from Hillary herself, her campaign, the DNC, the corporate media, and the Democratic Party establishment. Once the general election was over, though, the focus was quickly narrowed to "the Russian government." The Office of the Director of National Intelligence got involved in promoting the narrative. The FBI stated there was no evidence in support of this narrative. The Geheim Staats ... um ... the Department of Homeland Security got involved in promoting the narrative. CIA intel veterans scoffed. The CIA itself got involved in promoting the narrative. President Obama pushed the narrative. Even with the alphabet soup and the President joining in, however, only roughly half of Hillary's supporters were willing to buy into the narrative, far fewer of President-elect Trump's supporters thought it possible, and (although no data is available for the views of third party voters on the narrative) most Green Party US members and supporters of my acquaintance <i>seem to me</i> to be unimpressed with the narrative. Tied up in this mess is also a lot of hysteria over "Russian propaganda" and "fake news," which has prompted the critters in Congress, always eager to engage in kneejerk overreactions to hysteria, to pass a couple of laws which are, like the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act before them, attacks upon the Constitutional Rights of American citizens. This is where we are on the final day of the year 2016.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WK96_j-fkSs/WGfs67pT1pI/AAAAAAAAF2E/dt9Jq1ezFqE3VrRMU-VlLNNQhVLmOe7JACLcB/s1600/bcd20c79-3ad2-4221-824e-0ceea7b7d7f5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="387" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WK96_j-fkSs/WGfs67pT1pI/AAAAAAAAF2E/dt9Jq1ezFqE3VrRMU-VlLNNQhVLmOe7JACLcB/s400/bcd20c79-3ad2-4221-824e-0ceea7b7d7f5.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
I have been keeping up with this as it unfolded, and have collected a number of sources which cast significant doubt on the narrative that "the Russians" engaged in any "hacking" or other "interference" in the just-past election cycle. I present them here for the consideration of the American people, in the interests of our Republic and with the hope that the people will come to the correct conclusion and demand that our government avoid the utter insanity which war between the USA and the Russian Federation would be, regardless of what some billionaires and their stooges might like. Note that, rather than embed the videos as I generally do, I will be giving video sources as hyperlinks; I made this choice to keep the presentation looking cleaner and more organized, because I wanted to present these sources in a chronological order (due to other responsibilities, I have not completely accomplished this, but only a few are out of place in the desired order).<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hy4perdxGzo/WI6Hd0__gII/AAAAAAAAGEA/XDvSSQiKUlEGxinTQt4HxdjkenD6UOdLgCLcB/s1600/political-pictures-joe-mccarthy-wit.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hy4perdxGzo/WI6Hd0__gII/AAAAAAAAGEA/XDvSSQiKUlEGxinTQt4HxdjkenD6UOdLgCLcB/s1600/political-pictures-joe-mccarthy-wit.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/dnc-hacker-guccifer-20-denies-russian-link-says-attack-was-his-personal-project">DNC Hacker Denies Russian Link, Says Attack Was His ‘Personal Project' | Motherboard</a><br />
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/dnc-hacker-guccifer-20-denies-russian-link-says-attack-was-his-personal-project<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/against-neo-mccarthyism/">Against Neo-McCarthyism | The Nation</a><br />
https://www.thenation.com/article/against-neo-mccarthyism/<br />
<br />
<a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/08/08/dems-tactic-of-accusing-adversaries-of-kremlin-ties-and-russia-sympathies-has-long-history-in-us/">Democrats’ Tactic of Accusing Critics of Kremlin Allegiance Has Long, Ugly History in U.S. | The Intercept</a><br />
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/08/dems-tactic-of-accusing-adversaries-of-kremlin-ties-and-russia-sympathies-has-long-history-in-us/<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yy742HAovY">A New McCarthyism: Greenwald on Clinton Camp’s Attempts to Link Trump, Stein & WikiLeaks to Russia | Democracy Now! - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yy742HAovY<br />
<br />
<a href="http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/follow-money-trail-source-russian-threat-paranoia/ri16086">Follow the Money Trail For Source of 'Russian Threat' Paranoia | Russia Insider</a><br />
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/follow-money-trail-source-russian-threat-paranoia/ri16086<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/09/15/getting-fooled-iraq-libya-now-russia">Getting Fooled on Iraq, Libya, Now Russia | Common Dreams</a><br />
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/09/15/getting-fooled-iraq-libya-now-russia<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbBxrUJSItw">Corporate Media & Democrats Play Russia FEAR Card; Hide Hillary Clinton's Russian Record | Sane Progressive - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbBxrUJSItw<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-responds-to-us-hacking-allegations/">Russia responds to U.S. hacking allegations | CBS News</a><br />
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-responds-to-us-hacking-allegations/<br />
<br />
<a href="https://wikileaks.org/Background-and-Documents-on-Attempts-to-Frame-Assange-as-a-Pedophile-and.html">Background and Documents on Attempts to Frame Assange as a Pedophile and Russian spy | WikiLeaks</a><br />
https://wikileaks.org/Background-and-Documents-on-Attempts-to-Frame-Assange-as-a-Pedophile-and.html<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-JChl8w6oQ">Jordan's NOT HAVING Donna Brazile's Russia Dodge! | TYT Politics - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-JChl8w6oQ<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeEDHjxOK6g">Media Ignores Clinton's Wikileaks Emails, Focuses On Russian Hacks | The Young Turks - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeEDHjxOK6g<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.inquisitr.com/3614870/clinton-confirms-that-wikileaks-podesta-emails-are-true-still-blames-russia/">Clinton Confirms That WikiLeaks Podesta Emails Are True, Still Blames Russia | Inquisitr</a><br />
http://www.inquisitr.com/3614870/clinton-confirms-that-wikileaks-podesta-emails-are-true-still-blames-russia/<br />
<a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-20/fact-17-intelligence-agencies-confirmed-russia-behind-email-hacks-isn%E2%80%99t-actually%E2%80%A6a-f"><br /></a>
<a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-20/fact-17-intelligence-agencies-confirmed-russia-behind-email-hacks-isn%E2%80%99t-actually%E2%80%A6a-f">The "Fact" That 17 Intelligence Agencies Confirmed Russia is Behind the Email Hacks Isn’t Actually…A "Fact" | Zero Hedge</a><br />
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-20/fact-17-intelligence-agencies-confirmed-russia-behind-email-hacks-isn%E2%80%99t-actually%E2%80%A6a-f<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-22/nsa-whistleblower-us-intelligence-worker-likely-behind-dnc-leaks-not-russia">NSA Whistleblower: US Intelligence Worker Likely Behind DNC Leaks, Not Russia | Zero Hedge</a><br />
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-22/nsa-whistleblower-us-intelligence-worker-likely-behind-dnc-leaks-not-russia<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0oFRqnBhfQ">John Podesta Wasn't Hacked by Russians—He Fell For a Phishing Scam | The Humanist Report - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0oFRqnBhfQ<br />
<br />
<a href="http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2016/11/01/despite-clinton-conspiracy-theories-fbi-finds-no-clear-link-between-trump-and-russia/">Despite Clinton Conspiracy Theories, FBI Finds No Clear Link Between Trump And Russia | Liberal Values</a><br />
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2016/11/01/despite-clinton-conspiracy-theories-fbi-finds-no-clear-link-between-trump-and-russia/<br />
<br />
<a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/11/01/heres-the-problem-with-the-story-connecting-russia-to-donald-trumps-email-server/">Here’s the Problem With the Story Connecting Russia to Donald Trump’s Email Server | The Intercept</a><br />
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/01/heres-the-problem-with-the-story-connecting-russia-to-donald-trumps-email-server/<br />
<br />
<a href="http://thefreethoughtproject.com/establishment-guilty-espionage-russian/">If You Question the Establishment You Are Guilty of Espionage, Says Corporate Media -- Because Russia | The Free Thought Project</a><br />
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/establishment-guilty-espionage-russian/<br />
<br />
<a href="http://observer.com/2016/11/mainstream-media-recap-who-colluded-with-the-clinton-campaign/">Mainstream Media Recap: Who Colluded With the Clinton Campaign? | Observer</a><br />
http://observer.com/2016/11/mainstream-media-recap-who-colluded-with-the-clinton-campaign/<br />
<br />
<a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/">Washington Post Disgracefully Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist From a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group | The Intercept</a><br />
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/<br />
<br />
<a href="http://fortune.com/2016/11/25/russian-fake-news/">Russian Agents Are Not Behind Every Piece of Fake News You See | Fortune</a><br />
http://fortune.com/2016/11/25/russian-fake-news/<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/washington-post-blacklist-story-is-shameful-disgusting-w452543">'Washington Post' 'Blacklist' Story Is Shameful, Disgusting | Matt Taibbi - Rolling Stone</a><br />
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/washington-post-blacklist-story-is-shameful-disgusting-w452543<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/30/the-cia-and-the-press-when-the-washington-post-ran-the-cias-propaganda-network/">The CIA and the Press: When the Washington Post Ran the CIA’s Propaganda Network | CounterPunch</a><br />
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/30/the-cia-and-the-press-when-the-washington-post-ran-the-cias-propaganda-network/<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-propaganda-about-russian-propaganda">The Propaganda About Russian Propaganda | The New Yorker</a><br />
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-propaganda-about-russian-propaganda<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/02/counterpunch-as-russian-propagandists-the-washington-posts-shallow-smear/">CounterPunch as Russian Propagandists: the Washington Post’s Shallow Smear | CounterPunch</a><br />
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/02/counterpunch-as-russian-propagandists-the-washington-posts-shallow-smear/<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/neo-mccarthyism-and-the-new-cold-war/">Neo-McCarthyism and the New Cold War | The Nation</a><br />
https://www.thenation.com/article/neo-mccarthyism-and-the-new-cold-war/<br />
<br />
<a href="http://thedigitalfirehose.blogspot.com/2016/12/when-jig-is-up-mainstream-media-blames.html">When the jig is up, the mainstream media blames Russia | The Digital Firehose</a><br />
http://thedigitalfirehose.blogspot.com/2016/12/when-jig-is-up-mainstream-media-blames.html<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/12/07/washington-post-appends-editors-note-russian-propaganda-story/">Washington Post Appends Editor's Note to Russian Propaganda Story | Washingtonian</a><br />
https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/12/07/washington-post-appends-editors-note-russian-propaganda-story/<br />
<a href="http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2016/12/10/a-new-wave-of-anti-russia-hysteria-based-upon-questionable-information/"><br /></a>
<a href="http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2016/12/10/a-new-wave-of-anti-russia-hysteria-based-upon-questionable-information/">A New Wave Of Anti-Russia Hysteria Based Upon Questionable Information | Liberal Values</a><br />
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2016/12/10/a-new-wave-of-anti-russia-hysteria-based-upon-questionable-information/<br />
<a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/"><br /></a>
<a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/">Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA’s Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence | The Intercept</a><br />
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/<br />
<br />
<a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/">Here’s the Public Evidence Russia Hacked the DNC — It’s Not Enough | The Intercept</a><br />
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh0EAj9UUIY">CIA Intelligence Vets Dispute Russia Hack Claims, Look at the Wider Picture | Sane Progressive - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh0EAj9UUIY<br />
<br />
<a href="http://blackagendareport.com/dems_stir_war_to_turn_election">Corporate Democrats Stir Up War Fever Against Russia to Turn Election | Black Agenda Report</a><br />
http://blackagendareport.com/dems_stir_war_to_turn_election<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh4JbZktGnY">Hillary Clinton Using "Fake News" as Excuse to Wage War on 1st Amendment | The Humanist Report - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh4JbZktGnY<br />
<br />
<a href="https://medium.com/mtracey/supposedly-objective-reporters-not-so-objective-when-it-comes-to-the-scary-russian-menace-1c039d330196#.gur09xqw8">Supposedly “Objective Reporters” Not So “Objective” When It Comes To The Scary Russian Menace | mtracey – Medium</a><br />
https://medium.com/mtracey/supposedly-objective-reporters-not-so-objective-when-it-comes-to-the-scary-russian-menace-1c039d330196#.gur09xqw8<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JafSyi4ZZ7w"><br /></a>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JafSyi4ZZ7w">WikiLeaks Got Clinton Emails From Disgusted Insiders, Not Russia | The Jimmy Dore Show - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JafSyi4ZZ7w<br />
<br />
<a href="http://buzzfeedusa.com/wikileaks-seth-rich-leaked-clinton-emails-not-russia/">WikiLeaks: Seth Rich Leaked Clinton Emails, Not Russia | BuzzfeedUSA</a><br />
http://buzzfeedusa.com/wikileaks-seth-rich-leaked-clinton-emails-not-russia/<br />
<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html"><br /></a>
<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html">WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Hillary Clinton emails | Daily Mail Online</a><br />
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views/2013/12/18/under-amazons-cia-cloud-washington-post">Under Amazon’s CIA Cloud: The Washington Post | Common Dreams</a><br />
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2013/12/18/under-amazons-cia-cloud-washington-post<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE4TD2xugqA">Glenn Greenwald Sets The Record Straight On The CIA & Russian Hacking | Secular Talk - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE4TD2xugqA<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8K29tGuUpk">Obama Signs Ministry of Truth Into Law Two Days Before Christmas | Sane Progressive - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8K29tGuUpk<br />
<br />
<a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+GiovannaX/posts/g4cYCFSkPqD">WikiLeaks ✔@wikileaks Obama's Russia sanctions: Comment & Link | Giovanna X - Google+</a><br />
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+GiovannaX/posts/g4cYCFSkPqD<br />
<br />
What Assange <i>Actually</i> Said:<br />
<a href="http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2016/12/23/news/assange_wikileaks-154754000/">Julian Assange: "Donald? It's a change anyway" | Repubblica.it</a><br />
http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2016/12/23/news/assange_wikileaks-154754000/<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/12/russian-hacking-doesnt-say.html">What The Russian Hacking Report DOESN'T Say | Washington's Blog</a><br />
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/12/russian-hacking-doesnt-say.html<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRuFuueLi8s">Obama Sanctions Against Russia About War & Geopolitics NOT US Elections | Sane Progressive - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRuFuueLi8s<br />
<br />
<a href="https://medium.com/mtracey/the-american-public-should-be-thankful-for-russian-interference-6f2a4cc8d0ab#.84rg3l15w">The American Public Should Be Thankful For Russian “Interference” | mtracey — Medium</a><br />
https://medium.com/mtracey/the-american-public-should-be-thankful-for-russian-interference-6f2a4cc8d0ab#.84rg3l15w<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-about-this-russia-story-stinks-w458439">Something About This Russia Story Stinks | Matt Taibbi - Rolling Stone</a><br />
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-about-this-russia-story-stinks-w458439<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.newslogue.com/debate/244/CaitlinJohnstone">The Demand For Proof Of Russian Hacking Completely Misses The Point | Caitlin Johnstone - Newslogue Debate</a><br />
http://www.newslogue.com/debate/244/CaitlinJohnstone<br />
<br />
<a href="http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/did-russia-tamper-with-the-2016-election-bitter-debate-likely-to-rage-on/">White House fails to make case that Russian hackers tampered with election | Ars Technica</a><br />
http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/did-russia-tamper-with-the-2016-election-bitter-debate-likely-to-rage-on/<br />
<br />
Exhibit A: Narcissist, Megalomaniac, Pathological Liar, or Just Plain Batshit Crazy Warmonger? Hillary Clinton, ladies and gentlemen.<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/BCutIKaa2oQ">Hillary Clinton Calls Out Vladimir Putin in Most Hypocritical Rant Ever | The Humanist Report - YouTube</a><br />
https://youtu.be/BCutIKaa2oQ<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwlJHzOjRtE">Corporate Media Draws Opposite Conclusion from CIA Vets on Leaked Russia Document | Sane Progressive - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwlJHzOjRtE<br />
<br />
<a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/12/31/russia-hysteria-infects-washpost-again-false-story-about-hacking-u-s-electric-grid/">Russia Hysteria Infects WashPost Again: False Story About Hacking U.S. Electric Grid | The Intercept</a><br />
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/31/russia-hysteria-infects-washpost-again-false-story-about-hacking-u-s-electric-grid/<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9zwJO5DFy0">No, Russia Did Not Hack Grid. Republican/Democrats Reveal the GAME with Latest Lie | Sane Progressive - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9zwJO5DFy0<br />
<br />
<a href="http://thefreethoughtproject.com/information-destroyed-truth-propaganda/#LDB1IZ92sLRYV8sb.99">2016: How Truth was Destroyed So You'd Buy the Government's Propaganda | The Free Thought Project</a><br />
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/information-destroyed-truth-propaganda/#LDB1IZ92sLRYV8sb.99<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/">US Govt Data Shows Russia Used Outdated Ukrainian PHP Malware | WordFence</a><br />
https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/<br />
From the article just linked:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Overall Conclusion</b><br /><br />The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don’t appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.<br /><br />The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEXXIHlVnZY&feature=share">Republicans/Democrats Utilize Public Mistrust of Trump to Legitimize Russia Lies | Sane Progressive - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEXXIHlVnZY&feature=share<br />
<br />
<a href="https://medium.com/hansalexrazo/democrats-you-should-be-ashamed-of-fueling-a-cold-war-47d56155c747#.jkic2qssd">Democrats: You Should be Ashamed of Fueling a Cold War | Hans Alexander Razo – Medium</a><br />
https://medium.com/hansalexrazo/democrats-you-should-be-ashamed-of-fueling-a-cold-war-47d56155c747#.jkic2qssd<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.rt.com/usa/372194-wikileaks-russia-sanctions-violation-trump/">WikiLeaks: Obama kicking out diplomats breaches intl law, Moscow should wait till Trump in office | RT America</a><br />
https://www.rt.com/usa/372194-wikileaks-russia-sanctions-violation-trump/<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2017/01/01/fake-news-and-how-the-washington-post-rewrote-its-story-on-russian-hacking-of-the-power-grid/#476b66a291e5">'Fake News' And How The Washington Post Rewrote Its Story On Russian Hacking Of The Power Grid | Forbes</a><br />
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2017/01/01/fake-news-and-how-the-washington-post-rewrote-its-story-on-russian-hacking-of-the-power-grid/#476b66a291e5<br />
<br />
<a href="https://consortiumnews.com/2017/01/01/the-war-against-alternative-information/">The War Against Alternative Information | Consortiumnews</a><br />
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/01/01/the-war-against-alternative-information/<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaHlN6Jm8X4">HANNITY 1/3/2017 FOX NEWS JULIAN ASSANGE SEAN HANNITY DONALD TRUMP | YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaHlN6Jm8X4<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/breaking-obamas-sanctions-against-moscow-intended-to-box-in-donald-trump-evidence-that-hacking-of-dnc-accusations-are-fake/5565481">Obama’s Sanctions against Moscow “Intended to Box In Donald Trump”. Evidence that Hacking of DNC Accusations are Fake | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization</a><br />
http://www.globalresearch.ca/breaking-obamas-sanctions-against-moscow-intended-to-box-in-donald-trump-evidence-that-hacking-of-dnc-accusations-are-fake/5565481<br />
<br />
<a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04/washpost-is-richly-rewarded-for-false-news-about-russia-threat-while-public-is-deceived/">WashPost Is Richly Rewarded for False News About Russia Threat While Public Is Deceived | The Intercept</a><br />
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04/washpost-is-richly-rewarded-for-false-news-about-russia-threat-while-public-is-deceived/<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E8EBlx03mI">‘CNN covering its *ss with Assange 'pedophile' retraction’ - journalism prof - | RT America - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E8EBlx03mI<br />
<br />
<a href="http://columbusfreepress.com/article/bob-bites-back-russians-are-hacking-russians-are-hacking">Bob Bites Back: The Russians are hacking! The Russians are hacking! | Bob Fitrakis - ColumbusFreePress.com</a><br />
http://columbusfreepress.com/article/bob-bites-back-russians-are-hacking-russians-are-hacking<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/5/glenn_greenwald_mainstream_us_media_is">Glenn Greenwald: Mainstream U.S. Media is Culpable for Disseminating Fake & Deceitful News on Russia | Democracy Now!</a><br />
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/5/glenn_greenwald_mainstream_us_media_is<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEFZ47eoqls">Clapper has ‘outright lied to Congress’ – former FBI agent | RT America - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEFZ47eoqls<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf">Intelligence Community Assessment ICA 2017-01D 6 January 2017 “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” | ODNI</a><br />
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf<br />
Note: This contains no new evidence to corroborate the claims that Russia hacked diddly.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvj0v0W6yjk">John McAfee On The Russian Hacking Says It's NOT Russia! | Larry King - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvj0v0W6yjk<br />
<br />
<a href="https://off-guardian.org/2017/01/06/34553/">Russian Spies Behind Every Christmas Tree | OffGuardian</a><br />
https://off-guardian.org/2017/01/06/34553/<br />
<br />
<a href="https://medium.com/mtracey/there-is-still-no-hard-evidence-for-russian-hacking-d7e12b6429db#.1fpbcz8kv">There Is Still No Hard Evidence For “Russian Hacking” | mtracey – Medium</a><br />
https://medium.com/mtracey/there-is-still-no-hard-evidence-for-russian-hacking-d7e12b6429db#.1fpbcz8kv<br />
<br />
<a href="http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2017/01/07/evaluating-russian-actions-based-upon-facts-and-not-political-biases/">Evaluating Russian Actions Based Upon Facts And Not Political Biases | Liberal Values</a><br />
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2017/01/07/evaluating-russian-actions-based-upon-facts-and-not-political-biases/<br />
<br />
<a href="http://davidswanson.org/node/5403">Allegations Against Russia Less Credible Every Day | Let's Try Democracy</a><br />
http://davidswanson.org/node/5403<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/751337/CIA-analyst-hacking-claims-Hilary-Clinton-discredited-Putin-US-election-Donald-Trump">Ex-CIA analyst says Russian hacking claims a 'smear on Donald Trump' | Sunday Express</a><br />
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/751337/CIA-analyst-hacking-claims-Hilary-Clinton-discredited-Putin-US-election-Donald-Trump<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_real_purpose_of_the_us_governments_report_on_alleged_hacking_by_russi">Chris Hedges: The Real Purpose of the U.S. Government’s Report on Alleged Hacking by Russia | Truthdig</a><br />
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_real_purpose_of_the_us_governments_report_on_alleged_hacking_by_russi<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHhEJ6jjHCw">Glenn Greenwald Explains Why "We Don't Just Blindly Accept CLAIMS Of The Intelligence Community!" | CNN mirrored by wwwMOXIENEWScom - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHhEJ6jjHCw<br />
<br />
<a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the-deep-state-goes-to-war-with-president-elect-using-unverified-claims-as-dems-cheer/">The Deep State Goes to War With President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer | The Intercept</a><br />
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the-deep-state-goes-to-war-with-president-elect-using-unverified-claims-as-dems-cheer/<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Abby-Martin-Responds-to-New-York-Times-Allegations-20170108-0030.html">Abby Martin Responds to New York Times Allegations | teleSUR English</a><br />
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Abby-Martin-Responds-to-New-York-Times-Allegations-20170108-0030.html<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLMwN1S6D0M">‘They are the most scared of real reporting’: Abby Martin blasts US intel hacking report | RT - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLMwN1S6D0M<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qis8b5nwMc8">'Insane to say critical reporting on Clinton led to Trump's victory' – Abby Martin on ODNI report | RT America - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qis8b5nwMc8<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/live_at_truthdig_robert_scheer_and_william_binney_on_the_alleged_russian_ha">William Binney: Cybersecurity and the New Cold War Are ‘Big Swindles’ - Live at Truthdig | Truthdig</a><br />
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/live_at_truthdig_robert_scheer_and_william_binney_on_the_alleged_russian_ha<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v43GbZFa72A">Why Obama's Crackdown on "Fake News" is an Attack on the 1st Amendment | The Humanist Report - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v43GbZFa72A<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmpG97mGZhY">Russia Hacking Absolutely NOT Confirmed By Intelligence Agencies | The Jimmy Dore Show - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmpG97mGZhY<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e7geD-uSWM">Journo Asks Followers If They Trust Wikileaks Or CIA--Backfires! | The Jimmy Dore Show - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e7geD-uSWM<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKC9rW5pjEw">Democratic Progressives in Crises by Debbie of Sane Progressive January 2017 - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKC9rW5pjEw<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy5AezXWYao">More Proof CIA Has Always Been Full Of Sh*t-- Church Committee Hearings of 1975 | The Jimmy Dore Show - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy5AezXWYao<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj2Xsdk8rJ4&feature=push-u-sub&attr_tag=iZfz0l8kk9c-6">Cory Booker Hypocrisy, C-Span Russia Takeover Lie Goes Viral, Trump Cowed by Deep State | Sane Progressive - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj2Xsdk8rJ4&feature=push-u-sub&attr_tag=iZfz0l8kk9c-6<br />
<br />
<a href="http://yournewswire.com/cia-clinton-lost-defrauded-bernie-sanders/">CIA Officer: Clinton Lost Because She Defrauded Bernie Sanders | YourNewsWire</a><br />
http://yournewswire.com/cia-clinton-lost-defrauded-bernie-sanders/<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exposing-the-man-behind-the-curtain_us_5877887be4b05b7a465df6a4">Exposing The Man Behind The Curtain | The Huffington Post</a><br />
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exposing-the-man-behind-the-curtain_us_5877887be4b05b7a465df6a4<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-russia-story-reaches-a-crisis-point-w460806">The Russia Story Reaches a Crisis Point | Matt Taibbi - Rolling Stone</a><br />
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-russia-story-reaches-a-crisis-point-w460806<br />
<br />
<a href="http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/13/exclusive-intel-vets-say-trump-dossier-is-a-complete-fraud/">Intel Vets Say Trump 'Dossier' Is A 'Complete Fraud' | The Daily Caller</a><br />
http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/13/exclusive-intel-vets-say-trump-dossier-is-a-complete-fraud/<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/alleged_russian_hacking_cover_up_attacks_independent_journalism_20170114">Allegations of Russian Hacking Cover Up Larger Issue: Attacks on Independent Journalism | Truthdig</a><br />
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/alleged_russian_hacking_cover_up_attacks_independent_journalism_20170114<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqcINip57qc">On Contact: Real purpose of intel report on Russian hacking with Abby Martin & Ben Norton | RT America - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqcINip57qc<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWt27MEIuHo">Why Bernie Sanders Shouldn't Buy Into the Democratic Party's Hysteria Over Russia | The Humanist Report - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWt27MEIuHo<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/chris_hedges_the_deep_state_will_influence_the_trump_presidency_20170117">Chris Hedges on How the ‘Deep State’ Will Influence the Trump Presidency | Truthdig</a><br />
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/chris_hedges_the_deep_state_will_influence_the_trump_presidency_20170117<br />
<br />
<a href="http://theantimedia.org/obama-admission-press-conference/">Obama Makes Incredible Admission About WikiLeaks in Final Press Conference | Anti-Media</a><br />
http://theantimedia.org/obama-admission-press-conference/<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op6Qr7uuMy8">Empire Files: US-Russia Relations in "Most Dangerous Moment" | teleSUR English (Abby Martin) - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op6Qr7uuMy8<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd6PqvAQAfE">Protestors Hang "BETRAYAL" Banner At DNC Headquarters | The Jimmy Dore Show - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd6PqvAQAfE<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSuMBwZVPt8"><br /></a>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSuMBwZVPt8">CNN CAUGHT Reporting Fake News On Russian Hack | The Jimmy Dore Show - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSuMBwZVPt8<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE5LJSVkQcQ">WTF!? DNC DENIED FBI Access To Its Servers In Russia Investigation!? | The Jimmy Dore Show - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE5LJSVkQcQ<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7HwvFyMg7A">Empire Files: Post-Soviet Russia, Made in the U.S.A. | teleSUR English (Abby Martin) - YouTube</a><br />
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7HwvFyMg7A<br />
<br />
<br />
Remember, America, the United States Intelligence Community are the same incompetent twits (or lying jackasses) who brought us the "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and mobile weapons labs" narrative which was used to justify war in Iraq against the only national leader in the entire Middle East who was NOT a religious fanatic, and the results of that were al-Qaeda in Iraq and the rise of Daesh, not to mention the cost in human misery for both Americans (and allies) and Iraqis. And also remember:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Fear is the mind-killer.<br /><br />~ Frank Herbert</span></blockquote>
<br />
Believe what you want, but please investigate with critical thinking skills first, and without allowing incompetent twits and lying jackasses to terrorize you into swallowing claims which are, at best, dubious. War between the US and Russia would be devastation on a massive scale, and the goal of this would be, yet again, more profits for the already insanely and obscenely wealthy petroleum industry. Follow the money from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and you'll know who's behind this current narrative and why (if you aren't already familiar with the players in the CNAS and their paper linked above, and haven't already read the Project for the New American Century's paper, "<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130817122719/http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf">Rebuilding America's Defenses</a>" ...).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">I will continue to update these resources until shortly after Donald Trump has been inaugurated as President, after which time, the efforts of the establishment Democrats and their pals in the USIC to spin this "Russian interference in the election" narrative will become largely irrelevant. And again, for anyone who still doesn't get it: I'm not a supporter of Donald Trump (but do not mistake that disclaimer for any indication of support for Hillary Clinton; I am a member of the Green Party of the United States, and I voted for Doctor Jill Stein, who was the only person in the race worthy of the office after July of 2016), but more than enough TRUE things about him exist to criticize without having to make up unbelievable fairy tales.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">The title of the post</span><span style="font-size: x-small;"> comes from </span><i style="font-size: small;">Star Trek</i><span style="font-size: x-small;"> (The Original Series), Season 1, episode 9; episode 9 overall; production code 11.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b style="font-size: small;">Fair use notice</b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">For more information: <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Copyright notice</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">All original content in this blog is © Copyright 2013-2017 & an. seqq. by "Liviana" (Giovanna L.). </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Liviana (SuccubaSuprema)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07191032294285487395noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1313226054990796678.post-71976239828824650762016-12-13T05:44:00.000-08:002016-12-13T07:22:29.042-08:00The Omega Glory<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wWnO8MQol38/WE_s82NTwsI/AAAAAAAAFpg/ZsazxaZ2psQBsCqY7EriXSdG9IHrz_sfACLcB/s1600/ConstHead.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="217" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wWnO8MQol38/WE_s82NTwsI/AAAAAAAAFpg/ZsazxaZ2psQBsCqY7EriXSdG9IHrz_sfACLcB/s400/ConstHead.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: x-large;">The Omega Glory,</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">or,</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Down the Centuries,</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">You Have Slurred the Meaning of the Words,</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>by Liviana</b></div>
<br />
<br />
Oh, the bad, bad, wicked, evil, undemocratic, bad, evil, wicked, anti-democratic, <i>bad</i> Electoral College!<br />
<br />
Let's (again) look at why the Electoral College exists in the first damned place, and without the recent bullshit about how it was done for racist or pro-slavery reasons (it wasn't, and those who have said that it was are spinning a line because they want their damned queen to be installed in the White House). <b><i>I mean, after all, those who think they want to abolish the thing really ought to be aware of the reasons it exists in the first place.</i></b><br />
<br />
And too often, those who have been calling for the abolition of the Electoral College are <i>significantly less well-read in the fields of Political Philosophy and History than those who drafted the Constitution</i>. How many of you have read Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Cicero, Tacitus, Juvenal, Machiavelli, Genovesi, Voltaire, Hume, Hobbes, Bayle, Diderot, Kant, Seneca, and Plutarch? Plato? Aristotle? Zeno? How about Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton? Paine? Franklin? How much do you know about the way the government of the Roman Republic was set up, how it worked, how it changed over time to the beginning of the Empire? What do you know of the government of Classical Athens? I'll wager that most of you are not familiar with even half of these things. And you think you are better suited to decide on how our government should be set up than the Founders, who knew all of these authors and all of this history and political philosophy, rather thoroughly? They were concerned and serious about trying to establish something better than anything which had existed before, but you guys FEEL like it's "bad," because poor little Hillary didn't get to be "the First Woman President" and you FEEL afraid of da big bad Twump. Isn't thinking that you are better suited to do that than the Founders were (based on your FEELS instead of any actual STUDY of how governments have worked -- and failed -- in the past, how <i>this</i> government was set up and why, the thoughts of the Enlightenment thinkers and the Philosophers and Historians of the Classical World) a bit presumptuous? Just a <i>little</i> bit, maybe?<br />
<br />
Let's see here, then, ... Ah, here we go, a bit of a summary. Here's an excerpt:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”</blockquote>
You can read it all here: <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/">The Reason for the Electoral College</a><br />
<br />
What else do we have? Oh, right. Federalist Papers, Number 10, by James Madison, to which I have already referred some of you:<br />
<a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp">The Federalist Papers, No. 10</a><br />
<br />
I think some of you didn't read it. Perhaps you thought it too tedious, or maybe the language was too dated. So here's <a href="http://www.gradesaver.com/the-federalist-papers/study-guide/summary-essay-10">a summary and analysis</a>.<br />
<br />
If that's still "too long" for you, then you really shouldn't even be trying to tell anyone else a damned thing about the Electoral College, but here's <a href="https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/f/the-federalist/summary-and-analysis/section-ii-advantages-of-union-federalist-no-10-james-madison">a Cliffs Notes version</a>.<br />
<br />
We also have Federalist Papers, Number 68, in which Alexander Hamilton gives his reasons for wanting the Electoral College:<br />
<a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp">The Federalist Papers, No. 68</a><br />
<br />
Again, though, maybe you find that too tedious (it's considerably more brief than Number 10, however), or think the language is too dated, so here's another <a href="http://www.gradesaver.com/the-federalist-papers/study-guide/summary-essay-68">summary and analysis</a>, for Number 68.<br />
<br />
Cliffs Notes version? Got <a href="https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/f/the-federalist/summary-and-analysis/section-xi-need-for-a-strong-executive-federalist-no-68-hamilton">that</a>, too (although, really, wow).<br />
<br />
Here's something else:<br />
<a href="http://blogs.dickinson.edu/hist-404pinsker/2010/09/29/federalist-no-68-vs-antifederalist-no-72-the-debate-over-how-to-elect-the-president/">Federalist No.68 vs. Antifederalist No. 72: The Debate over How to Elect the President</a><br />
<br />
And another tasty morsel:<br />
<a href="http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/why-the-electoral-college-exists-and-not-going-anywhere">Why the Electoral College Exists (and Isn't Going Anywhere Soon)</a><br />
<br />
<div>
The abolition of the Electoral College would be disastrous; it would allow NYC, Houston, DFW, Chicago, LA, and San Francisco to elect the President of the US, without anyone else's votes counting for shit. Presidential candidates would no longer give a damn about campaigning in any other part of the country, and, once in office, would be free to totally ignore the majority of the nation and cater to those six high population centers. Democratic? Maybe. Good? Not even close.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
Some of you have attempted to frame the Electoral College in terms of a "tyranny of the minority" in response to our talk of a "tyranny of the majority" (which comes from de Tocqueville, for those who seem to have never heard the expression before -- and I have to ask, did y'all not take US History or Civics in school, have you forgotten all you learned in those classes, or did you just not pay any fucking attention?). You guys are falling into Bifurcation Fallacy again. It doesn't have to be a tyranny of anyone, so get your heads out of that box already. That's the point. In a democratic federal republic, the minority is protected from the whims of the majority. It's a rule of law, not a rule of the majority (nor of the minority).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Some of you have asserted that the Electoral College is "backwards." It's not backwards, and here's why. The ecosystem of each region is different from that of other regions, and that affects the economy of each region. That's even more true now than it was in 1787 when the final draft of the Constitution was finished, or 1789 when the Constitution was ratified. What is useful for the economy of the Great Plains of DFW may not be useful for the swamps ("Coastal Plains") of Houston, or the Great Lakes North of Chicago, or the temperate rain-forest of the PNW, ... much less the breadbaskets of the nation, which, Comrades, are obviously rural. The needs and concerns of the rural "minority" are no less important than the needs and concerns of the urban "majority." It's not about Democracy. It's about seeing that the minority are not disenfranchised by the majority. That's why we have (or used to have) a democratic federal republic and <b><i>not</i></b> a democracy.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It's not about tradition, either. Y'all have to come to terms with the reality that different regions have different economies due to their different ecosystems. Catering to nothing but the five or six highest population centers will deny any voice at all to the rest of the nation, and their needs and concerns will become irrelevant. You can call this "undemocratic." I don't care. It IS undemocratic. It denies the tyranny of the majority. Hillary knew how the elections work, and she had her chance to make her case to the rural voters, but she didn't give a shit about them, and she never has. She's an elitist. It's not hard to reach out to the people; you just have to show an authentic interest in their needs and concerns, but she has no interest in anything other than her own ambitions, and she's not particularly bright. So now we have her relative (by marriage) howling about the Electoral College, because Hillary didn't campaign in any sort of winning manner.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To win the presidency, a candidate must make his or her appeal to the people of the nation, and not merely to some areas in which they believe their support is strong. The Democratic Party establishment, being so out of touch as has been demonstrated often over the past few years, has even suggested that they could basically "write off" the South entirely, with the exception, perhaps, of two or three states. Here are a couple of several examples of such a call:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/08/dems-it-s-time-to-dump-dixie.html">Dems, It's Time to Dump Dixie</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/074329016X/?tag=thneyo0f-20"><i>Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South</i>, by Thomas F. Schaller</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The Democrats have been advised against this several times:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://smirkingchimp.com/news/13374">Why National Democrats Should Not Neglect the Deep South</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/democrats-give-south">Should the Democrats Give Up on the South?</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/120534/democrats-southern-strategy-should-focus-poor-non-voters">Democrats Can Win the South Again. Here's a Simple Strategy for Hillary 2016</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=123524&page=1">Democrats' Neglect Perplexes Southerners</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/democrats-are-not-speaking-loudly-enough-to-be-heard-in-rural-america/">Democrats Are Not Speaking Loudly Enough to Be Heard in Rural America</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In spite of this advice, however, the establishment Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, have stubbornly clung to this arrogant elitism (oh, and how they love to believe themselves to be elite, but they're NOT; they're fucking STUPID, or we would right now be looking forward to President Bernie Sanders), and, as anyone who WAS in touch could have told them, the result was that they got bitten in the ass after shooting themselves in both feet:</div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/rural-vote-helps-donald-trump-as-hillary-clinton-holds-cities-1478664251"><br /></a></div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/rural-vote-helps-donald-trump-as-hillary-clinton-holds-cities-1478664251">Rural Vote Fuels Trump; Clinton Loses Urban Grip</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/analysis-rural-america-silent-majority-powered-trump-win-n681221">Rural America and a Silent Majority Powered Trump to a Win</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-rural-voters-trump-231266">Revenge of the Rural Voter</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/11/15/collapse-democratic-insider-says-clinton-lost-white-rural-voters-by-a-threetoone-margin-n2246295">Collapse: Democratic Insider Says Clinton Lost White Rural Voters By A Three-to-One Margin</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Even had they undertaken a massive PR campaign in the South and other rural areas, however, it would not have helped Hillary, who is seen by a majority of such voters as inauthentic, untrustworthy, and corrupt, as well as elitist and condescending; in Arkansas especially, this reputation is predominant. Many Arkansas voters are much more familiar with Mrs Clinton than the rest of the nation.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Abolition of the Electoral College would solve nothing, and only make things worse. What we need is reform, not abolition. And the reform needed is more to do with the way the Electors are awarded, not in the Electoral College itself. Instead of First Past the Post and Winner Takes All, some kind of Proportional Representation and/or Ranked Choice Voting and/or Score Voting would resolve most of the issues, and I'm not presumptuous enough to say at this point in time that I know how to blend those types of elections to resolve most of the issues, but I am erudite enough to realize that it is by some combination of those ways of electing that the resolution will be found. You'll never make it perfect. That's not to say it can't be improved; it certainly <i>can</i>. But it's always going to be imperfect, no matter how much it is improved. The question to consider is whether allowing the majority of people in tiny territories to dominate the minority in vast territories, when all these territories have different needs and concerns, is an improvement, and the answer is no.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This push to abolish the Electoral College is as ridiculous as the bullshit the Federalists pulled with the Continental Convention; the Articles of Confederation did not need to be replaced, when they could as easily have been reformed, and in fact, under the Articles and even under the Constitution itself, the "ratification" of the Constitution did not follow the rules, but was pushed through as if it were a done deal in spite of that (but that's a story for another time).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To suggest that the needs and concerns of the very diverse ecosystems which make up this nation should be ignored in favor of urban interests, whims, and fads, is unsustainable, untenable, and indefensible. It is also even, dare I say it? Anti-democratic.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/--v6Hfqxrd2o/WFAKpA8sjTI/AAAAAAAAFpw/P1HxMI1oZtgOVmPzwe-hSegepe0s9fm5gCLcB/s1600/star-trek-tos-the-omega-glory.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="161" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/--v6Hfqxrd2o/WFAKpA8sjTI/AAAAAAAAFpw/P1HxMI1oZtgOVmPzwe-hSegepe0s9fm5gCLcB/s400/star-trek-tos-the-omega-glory.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">The title of the post (</span><i style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">and</span></i><span style="font-size: x-small;"> the subtitle, this time) comes from </span><i style="font-size: small;">Star Trek</i><span style="font-size: x-small;"> (The Original Series), Season 2, episode 23; episode 52 overall; production code 54.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<b style="font-size: small;">Fair use notice</b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">For more information: <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Copyright notice</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">All original content in this blog is © Copyright 2013-2016 & an. seqq. by "Liviana" (Giovanna L.). </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Liviana (SuccubaSuprema)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07191032294285487395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1313226054990796678.post-84100908888704713982016-11-28T16:14:00.001-08:002016-11-28T19:32:09.347-08:00Errand of Mercy<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uzUv1RqS5wI/WDzKYv6r1kI/AAAAAAAAFj4/DTmI1ad67aYpmbJS0cgQB_O9WjeAhpU9ACLcB/s1600/Krishna%2BDas%2Bon%2BCompassion.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uzUv1RqS5wI/WDzKYv6r1kI/AAAAAAAAFj4/DTmI1ad67aYpmbJS0cgQB_O9WjeAhpU9ACLcB/s320/Krishna%2BDas%2Bon%2BCompassion.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: x-large;">Errand of Mercy,</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">or,</span></b><br />
<b><b><span style="font-size: large;">Tomorrow Is "Giving Tuesday,"</span></b></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>by Liviana (Giovanna L.)</b></div>
<br />
<br />
Tomorrow is "<a href="http://www.givingtuesday.org/">Giving Tuesday</a>," a global day dedicated to giving back. For those who can and would like to give to a charity on this Giving Tuesday, many worthy causes exist. You may of course select one or more of your own ways of being charitable and compassionate on Giving Tuesday, but I would like to recommend the following (to my knowledge, none of these have ever endorsed any political candidate, unlike some in my list last year):<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_q3PdEKY-Io/Vl3aqeObv4I/AAAAAAAAC0A/yPJQCr8KaggmShMRFZuXUP6RZy6pYd-2gCPcB/s1600/donate-banner-desktop.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="132" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_q3PdEKY-Io/Vl3aqeObv4I/AAAAAAAAC0A/yPJQCr8KaggmShMRFZuXUP6RZy6pYd-2gCPcB/s320/donate-banner-desktop.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.copdfoundation.org/Take-Action/Help-Find-a-Cure/Donate.aspx">The COPD Foundation</a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
in memory of Leonard Nimoy (if you like, or in memory of someone in your life)</div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YwRuLjt5vXs/Vl3bJbUidXI/AAAAAAAAC0U/Pkd09BsAhMMSQ1SXe37Eiwh9teu0c2rgACPcB/s1600/header_logo.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="118" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YwRuLjt5vXs/Vl3bJbUidXI/AAAAAAAAC0U/Pkd09BsAhMMSQ1SXe37Eiwh9teu0c2rgACPcB/s320/header_logo.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.nycharities.org/give/donate.aspx?cc=1991">The Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund</a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-G5i7pL7VgHw/Vl3cJXNAQEI/AAAAAAAAC0k/rjqdtPkUQ_0BPPErCbfiGn_rZ3lp9NehACPcB/s1600/Thunderclap_TITLE.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="167" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-G5i7pL7VgHw/Vl3cJXNAQEI/AAAAAAAAC0k/rjqdtPkUQ_0BPPErCbfiGn_rZ3lp9NehACPcB/s320/Thunderclap_TITLE.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.autismspeaks.org/">Autism Speaks</a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CuGMUpRS8_U/WDzFVKJsQPI/AAAAAAAAFjY/NjIpcPcqA3QkuBod2eIS1pq6IMjmGDnogCLcB/s1600/LymphomaFoundation.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="82" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CuGMUpRS8_U/WDzFVKJsQPI/AAAAAAAAFjY/NjIpcPcqA3QkuBod2eIS1pq6IMjmGDnogCLcB/s400/LymphomaFoundation.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.lymphomahelp.org/">The Lymphoma Foundation of America</a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hiqCuGOMFc8/WDzF8Gin-sI/AAAAAAAAFjk/N9xSpbYSolsa4h07hltNrCcciyGsulvcACLcB/s1600/BCRF.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="144" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hiqCuGOMFc8/WDzF8Gin-sI/AAAAAAAAFjk/N9xSpbYSolsa4h07hltNrCcciyGsulvcACLcB/s320/BCRF.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://give.bcrfcure.org/checkout/donation?eid=31404&gclid=CJmh9v_UzNACFcMjgQodf3UESw">Breast Cancer Research Foundation</a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Sx1dyXfaVu4/WDzGyP_f2iI/AAAAAAAAFjo/4LSL4G98_csUWzzo5CIEsL4Co1SW6G36wCLcB/s1600/NKF.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="60" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Sx1dyXfaVu4/WDzGyP_f2iI/AAAAAAAAFjo/4LSL4G98_csUWzzo5CIEsL4Co1SW6G36wCLcB/s320/NKF.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.kidney.org/thanksgiving?promo=MTL000022">National Kidney Foundation</a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LWuWbh5cY_g/WDzEtbjNVmI/AAAAAAAAFjU/tyEnhAIY31kZppyFzdr7lP5BQz-mUCp8gCLcB/s1600/ccfa-logo-312x46.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="47" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LWuWbh5cY_g/WDzEtbjNVmI/AAAAAAAAFjU/tyEnhAIY31kZppyFzdr7lP5BQz-mUCp8gCLcB/s320/ccfa-logo-312x46.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://secure3.convio.net/ccfa/site/Donation2?17861.donation=form1&amp;df_id=17861">The Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America</a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
Thanks for giving, you who are willing and able to do so.<br />
<br />
If you are not able to give, that's alright, too. I've been there myself, and I understand.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">The title of the post comes from <i>Star Trek</i> (The Original Series), Season 1, episode 26; episode 26 overall; production code 27.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<b style="font-size: small;">Fair use notice</b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">For more information: <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Liviana (SuccubaSuprema)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07191032294285487395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1313226054990796678.post-32195099842380289442016-11-17T14:26:00.001-08:002016-11-19T15:27:45.017-08:00This Side of Paradise<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-59CO6_uP-Vs/WC4tLgZhc-I/AAAAAAAAFZg/NidUbvXi8Xg5umN6j_SEitT9d96COh-kQCEw/s1600/New_%2528Transitional%2529_Avatar_Version_1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-59CO6_uP-Vs/WC4tLgZhc-I/AAAAAAAAFZg/NidUbvXi8Xg5umN6j_SEitT9d96COh-kQCEw/s400/New_%2528Transitional%2529_Avatar_Version_1.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Berning Green</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: x-large;">This Side of Paradise,</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">or,</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">The Way Forward,</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>by Liviana (Giovanna L.)</b></div>
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">"People who are too optimistic seem annoying. This is an unfortunate misinterpretation of what an optimist really is.<br /><br />"An <i>optimist</i> is neither naive, nor blind to the facts, nor in denial of grim reality. An optimist believes in the <i>optimal</i> usage of all options available, no matter how limited. As such, an optimist always sees the big picture. How else to keep track of all that’s out there? An optimist is simply a proactive realist.<br /><br />"An idealist focuses only on the best aspects of all things (sometimes in detriment to reality); an optimist strives to find an effective solution. A pessimist sees limited or no choices in dark times; an optimist <i>makes</i> choices.<br /><br />"When bobbing for apples, an idealist endlessly reaches for the best apple, a pessimist settles for the first one within reach, while an optimist drains the barrel, fishes out all the apples and makes pie.<br /><br />"Annoying? Yes. But, oh-so tasty!"<br /><br />~ Vera Nazarian, <i>The Perpetual Calendar of Inspiration</i> (italics in original)</span></blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<i><b>The Past</b></i><br />
<br />
We could have had President Bernard Sanders, a Progressive Leftist in the White House. Had Bernie been the nominee of the Democratic Party, he would have inspired people to get out and vote, and the Republicans would not now be dominant in both Houses of Congress. Some establishment Democrats have mocked this claim, insisting that if Bernie could not even defeat Hillary Rodham Clinton in the primary, he could not possibly have defeated Trump in the general election. Leaving aside for the moment the reality of the voter suppression and assorted other shenanigans engaged in by the Democratic establishment, the DNC, the Hillary campaign, and the main stream media to promote Hillary and undermine Bernie, these establishment Democrats are either stupid or attempting to bamboozle the voters, for Bernie Sanders had immense support among "No Party Preference," independent, and "third" party voters, many of whom could not vote in the primaries, due to partisan "closed primaries." Their numbers are greater than the number of voters registered as Republican or the number of voters registered as Democrat. Their votes could, nay, <i>would</i>, have easily put Bernie in the White House.<br />
<br />
Instead, we were subjected to the worst Democratic nominee for President in my memory. On top of her abysmal record and stances, to say nothing of the vast number of scandals associated with her, Hillary's campaign and her supporters attempted to guilt trip Berners into voting for her, tried to scare Berners into voting for her, endeavored to insult Berners into voting for her, sought to intimidate Berners into voting for her, exhibited massive condescension in the hope that Berners would vote for her. They called us sexists, chauvinists, and misogynists. They called us naïve. They called us ridiculous. They said we did not understand politics. Hillary's campaign hired online trolls to harass Berners during the primary campaign and third party supporters during the lead-up to the general election. Why they thought that these would be effective tactics remains a mystery.<br />
<br />
Many of us stayed home, didn't vote for any presidential candidate, or voted for Doctor Jill Ellen Stein, the nominee of the Green Party of the United States (GPUS). A few even voted for Donald John Trump, the Republican nominee or Gary Earl Johnson, the "Libertarian" nominee. I myself voted for Doctor Stein.<br />
<br />
Donald Trump won the election.<br />
<br />
The blame game started immediately, with establishment Democrats and their partisan followers, and the drones of Hillary, pointing their fingers at Bernie, at Berners, at Jill, at GPUS voters, at Johnson and those who voted for him, at Russia, at Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, and even at Director James Comey of the FBI. Some blamed racism, some blamed sexism. One moronic spoiled brat blamed white women and said that they were guilty of internalized misogyny. I have not seen or heard a single one of them express any acceptance of responsibility on their own part. Most have not seemed to believe any of the information revealed by WikiLeaks, including the collusion of the Democratic National Committee with the Hillary for President campaign and the main stream media to promote Hillary and undermine Bernie. They have continued to believe their own rhetoric to the point that one cultist even had the hubris to compare Hillary to the Goddess Athena. I have seen videos of many of Hillary's supporters crying and expressing dismay and fear. That was, of course, when they were not rioting in the streets, although there has been some suggestion that many of the rioters were bused in by George Soros and/or MoveOn.org, to which Soros is a major contributor, and are therefore examples of "astroturfing." Whether such suggestion be true or no, I do not know. I have seen video of many buses parked on both sides of a street, but no verification of when and where the video was made, nor any evidence of connection to the rioters or any individual or organization.<br />
<br />
Some have so bought into the <i>Argumentum ad Hominem</i> which the Democratic Party establishment, the DNC, and the Hillary for President campaign used throughout the election cycle that they sincerely believe that Trump is a Fascist. If he be a Fascist, then so is Hillary, and demonstrably so, but these people have been unwilling to listen to any criticism of Hillary. Instead, they have simply continued the name-calling which they embraced during the campaign. They have refused to listen to the historical evidence that Trump is no more of a Fascist than any other Republican President since 1981, and they have refused to consider that their "Saint" Hillary is not a Leftist, not a Progressive, not even a Liberal. No, they have insisted, Hillary is flawless and has never done anything remotely wrong. The cult of personality surrounding Hillary has prevented any penetration of their delusion by logic.<br />
<br />
Doctor Stein, whom I supported and for whom (as noted above) I voted, who was the only Progressive Leftist candidate for President who was on sufficient state ballots to have a chance to win the general election, received only 1% of the popular vote (as of the time of this writing, according to <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/2016_general/president/">RealClearPolitics</a>).<br />
<br />
<br />
<i><b>The Present</b></i><br />
<br />
So here we are, a week and two days after the election. The Liberals and pseudo-Liberals have continued to behave hysterically. Some partisan Democrats, members of the Democratic establishment, and Hillary supporters have called for the Electoral College to ignore the way their states voted and instead install Hillary as the President. The level of political immaturity necessary for such a petition is rather stunning. The hypocrisy is even more stunning, in light of the use of "Super Delegates" by the Democratic Party, whose pledged votes were constantly reported during the primary campaign season (even though those votes would not be cast until the Democratic National Convention), in a bid by the main stream media to promote Hillary and undermine Bernie.<br />
<br />
Hillary supporters, the rank and file supporters, are angry, sad, afraid. They seem to honestly believe that Trump's presidency will be a disaster. I have no doubt that it will not be remotely like what I would prefer, but I also recognize rhetoric and propaganda for what they are. We survived eight years of George Walker Bush and Richard "Dick" Bruce (Darth) Cheney. We will survive four years of Trump and Pence, and so will the democratic federal republic which is the United States of America.<br />
<br />
In a little more than a month, the Electoral College will vote to confirm Trump as President-elect. To do otherwise would be to invite chaos on a level which would far surpass the recent rioting by Hillary supporters. Trump's supporters have firearms and assorted other ways to make the pro-Hillary/anti-Trump protests look like nothing more than a high school dance.<br />
<br />
Some Berners who went Green for the general election have been considering returning to the Democratic Party, while others have expressed their intention to remain affiliated with the GPUS, and a few have spoken of leaving the country.<br />
<br />
The Democrats, for their part, have named Charles "Chuck" Ellis Schumer as their Senate Minority Leader, seem to favor Howard Brush Dean III for the Chair of the Democratic National Committee (although both Bernie and Schumer have supported Keith Maurice Ellison, who is widely believed to be Progressive, but supports the "No Fly Zone" over Syria which was favored by Mrs Clinton and opposed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and which would inevitably lead to provocation of, and likely war with, Russia, which is something no sane person wants), and have floated the idea of Timothy "Tim" Michael Kaine being their preferred candidate for President in 2020. Schumer is a Neoliberal, Dean would be a continuation of the same failed policies which characterized the position when Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Donna Brazile held it, and Kaine is a man who loves deregulation and describes himself as "conservative." If that were not bad enough, Schumer also named Joseph "Joe" Manchin III to be "Vice Chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee." Manchin has been described as "moderate to conservative," and his record is anything but Progressive. Schumer also named Elizabeth Ann Warren as Co Vice Chair of the Conference. Warren was widely regarded as a Progressive champion before she endorsed Hillary Clinton for President earlier this year, apparently lured by the notion that Hillary would name her as running mate, which did not happen. Further research into Warren's history reveals that she voted Republican until 1995, at age 46. The other Vice Chair of the Conference named by Schumer is Mark Robert Warner, who is said to be a "moderate" Democrat, who voted for the extension of the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act in 2011, was a member of the "Gang of Six," has been hesitant regarding minimum wage increase, and whose campaign contributors include JP Morgan Chase. None of these things support any idea that the Democrats have learned anything from this election cycle. Schumer did name Bernie Sanders to be "Chair of Outreach," which is, according to The Washington Post, "a junior role in his [Schumer's] expanded leadership team." As Chair of Outreach, Bernie will be in charge of public relations for the Democrats. Schumer's choice of Senator Sanders for this position is itself an attempt at public relations, but a junior leadership role is less than Bernie deserves, and I am concerned with what sort of "outreach" the Democrats will expect him to do.<br />
<br />
We are still on <i>this</i> side of Paradise, and perhaps further from that ideal than we have been before, although that is a matter of debate.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i><b>The Future</b></i><br />
<br />
Where do we go from here, then? What is the way forward? For Progressive Left-libertarians, several options have been being discussed. Some believe that we should join with or go back into the Democratic Party and attempt to reform it and steer it toward Progressive Left-libertarian ideals. Others have argued instead that we should start a wholly new political party. A few have suggested that we should go into one of the smaller Progressive Leftist political parties, and a few others have spoken of a desire to leave the USA and move to Canada or Europe. Still others have proposed that we establish a coalition of Progressive Leftist political parties to work together. And yet others have argued that we should remain with the GPUS.<br />
<br />
From my perspective as one who recognized, in early 1994, the trend which has come to dominate the Democratic Party since 1993, and based on the just past election cycle and the post-election behavior of the establishment Democrats, I cannot see any value in going into the Democratic Party, nor any hope of it ever being reformed. Although even the International Monetary Fund has declared that Neoliberalism is a failure, the Democratic Party establishment seems to be intent on continuing to push policies based on that dystopian economic philosophy. Indeed, the establishment Democrats are now more like the Republicans of the 1980s than the Democrats of that decade. Some of them have even embraced Neoconservative foreign policy (interventionism/imperialism) and unconditional support of the nation of Israel, which were prominent among Republicans in the 1980s. They have learned nothing from the failed Clinton-Kaine campaign, and they therefore see no need to reform. They remain in control of the party and its apparatus, which would make any effort to reform the party a steep uphill battle.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mAMyEuULe6U/WC4rZEgt15I/AAAAAAAAFZU/SStGY6HVEjc7kuoAdJBFXt3nK9DiYWyBQCLcB/s1600/Need3rdParty.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mAMyEuULe6U/WC4rZEgt15I/AAAAAAAAFZU/SStGY6HVEjc7kuoAdJBFXt3nK9DiYWyBQCLcB/s320/Need3rdParty.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
I do not agree with the idea of starting an entirely new political party, either. That would take, at minimum, 20 years to grow to a point at which it might be able to put forth candidates for US Senate, US House of Representatives, and US President who might have a chance of winning office. The amount of time, effort, and money necessary to accomplish such a thing would be enormous, and having to wait that long would be a setback which none of us actually wants.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-q1NDGY0OYaY/WC9y2o-eAuI/AAAAAAAAFao/Y5QEEhZaz9cls2A6lI_RlG-DCOiRLXGRACLcB/s1600/Cw7YyuXWEAAu_NT.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-q1NDGY0OYaY/WC9y2o-eAuI/AAAAAAAAFao/Y5QEEhZaz9cls2A6lI_RlG-DCOiRLXGRACLcB/s400/Cw7YyuXWEAAu_NT.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
While there are a number of small Progressive Leftist political parties in the USA, none of them has the membership numbers or sufficient organization to be a contender without time, effort, and money comparable to what would be required to build a totally new political party. Again, such a setback would be extremely undesirable.<br />
<br />
Leaving the country would accomplish nothing; the USA would likely continue down the path to dystopia, and eventually become a menace to any nation to which we might emigrate.<br />
<br />
Working to build a coalition of Progressive Left-libertarian political parties sounds good, but partisan politics is as much a quagmire as religious sectarianism. Each group believes its way is "the" way, or they would have already merged together. Still, this has promise, if we could successfully overcome the sectarian separatism of the distinct parties. In order to accomplish this, however, we would need to have a strong presence in at least one such party.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_-YzUjTYHEU/V_PwqGF73TI/AAAAAAAAEdY/0sDmIWrKIco9BF5E2f5L84q6MLn0TWe8wCPcB/s1600/GPUS_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="183" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_-YzUjTYHEU/V_PwqGF73TI/AAAAAAAAEdY/0sDmIWrKIco9BF5E2f5L84q6MLn0TWe8wCPcB/s320/GPUS_.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
I believe that our best option is to remain with the Green Party of the United States, and work to build it up, to get the message of the GPUS out, to inform the citizens of the actual numbers of the independent/NPP/"third" party voters, to register the unregistered eligible voters, to educate and promote the GPUS platform. The GPUS presidential candidate in this past election was on the ballot in 44 states and the District of Columbia, and eligible as a write-in in three more states, for a total of 48, which is more than enough electoral votes to have won, had Jill won in enough states to get those electoral votes. While she only got 1% of the popular vote this time around, that is a significant improvement on the 0.36% which she received in the 2012 election. If we start <b><i>NOW</i></b>, instead of waiting till 2019, we can increase that percentage even more. The Greens are found in several nations, and so have international recognition. The GPUS has organization and apparatus which we would not have to build from scratch. They are the largest Progressive Leftist party in the United States. They have name recognition. Many Berners went into the GPUS after the Democratic National Convention this year. Progressive Left-libertarians thus have a decent presence in the party already. We can ensure that the GPUS continues to stand for our ideals and selects candidates whom we prefer.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/JjI7VeIA7ZI/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JjI7VeIA7ZI?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
You may say I'm a dreamer of an impossible dream, but I'm not the only one. Someday we'll find the end of the rainbow, the lovers, the dreamers, and me, all of us under its spell.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RHABSH37A8M/WC9zFXUreHI/AAAAAAAAFas/yLRDf3gYA7IOOlDpKluPi230se-rTXY_ACLcB/s1600/Cw6zS-GUoAAV9ym.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="253" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RHABSH37A8M/WC9zFXUreHI/AAAAAAAAFas/yLRDf3gYA7IOOlDpKluPi230se-rTXY_ACLcB/s400/Cw6zS-GUoAAV9ym.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Even if the Democratic Party <i>were</i> receptive to being reformed and to Progressive Left-libertarian ideals, that would not resolve the challenges which we face. The entire electoral system must be reformed. The Democratic Party must dispense with "Super Delegates." We need to eradicate the "two" party system itself, which has brought us to the point at which two widely disliked and distrusted candidates were put forward as the two major parties' offerings for the office of President of the United States of America, and that will only be possible if we are in a "third" party. We must get rid of "First Past the Post" elections and replace them with "Ranked Choice Voting" and Proportional Representation. We need to take control of the debates away from the <b><i>bi</i></b>partisan Committee on Presidential Debates, and put it in the hands of an authentically <b><i>non</i></b>-partisan body. We must reform campaign finance and restore the Fairness Doctrine, making it stronger than it was before. We need to amend the Constitution to declare once and for all that corporations are not people, and to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Citizens United vs the Federal Election Commission. We cannot accomplish these things from within the Democratic Party, for the establishment of the party would never allow us to do so, and they have no intention of empowering the members of the party, for doing so would remove their power. They are elitists who believe that they know what is best for us, when they are not merely Machiavellians intent on getting and keeping power and wealth, or pimps for the corporatist oligarchy. #DemExit must be permanent for all those Berners who left the Democratic Party, for the establishment of that party has no intention of allowing the party to be reformed; they have a vested interest in maintaining the <i>status quo</i>. Those Berners who took part in #DemExit must go Green and stay Green, if they hope to ever see the future which all of us who are Progressive Left-libertarians long for.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DZC4535NWGQ/WC4rqV9zycI/AAAAAAAAFZk/4-9DD5oMLpkhNC8Ka7fmSoWhDFqFfWo0QCEw/s1600/GPUS_sunflower_logo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="131" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DZC4535NWGQ/WC4rqV9zycI/AAAAAAAAFZk/4-9DD5oMLpkhNC8Ka7fmSoWhDFqFfWo0QCEw/s320/GPUS_sunflower_logo.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
We are still on <i>this</i> side of Paradise. If we wish to draw nearer to that destination, the path toward it is clear, and that path is through the Green Party of the United States. It's in our hands.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jSfqeoL8070/WC4r3teYm9I/AAAAAAAAFZc/7qqBCnpEg44yMTkzQHV-mslAdbcvJVV1gCEw/s1600/GPHeader.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="112" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jSfqeoL8070/WC4r3teYm9I/AAAAAAAAFZc/7qqBCnpEg44yMTkzQHV-mslAdbcvJVV1gCEw/s400/GPHeader.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">The title of the post comes from <i>Star Trek</i> (The Original Series), Season 1, episode 24; episode 24 overall; production code 25.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<b style="font-size: small;">Fair use notice</b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">For more information: <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Liviana (SuccubaSuprema)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07191032294285487395noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1313226054990796678.post-87360723427503325532016-11-14T20:32:00.002-08:002016-11-16T23:17:41.198-08:00The City on the Edge of Forever<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: x-large;">The City on the Edge of Forever,</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">or,</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Post-Election Musings,</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>by Liviana (Giovanna L.)</b></div>
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">"For when the One Great Scorer comes<br />To mark against your name,<br />He writes – not that you won or lost –<br />But HOW you played the Game."<br />~ Grantland Rice, "Alumnus Football"</span></blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
The quote above, from a poem by famed sportswriter Grantland Rice, is often paraphrased as "It's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game." We, who supported Doctor Jill Stein of the Green Party of the United States, did not win the election a few days ago. Doctor Stein will not take the office of President of the United States of America in January. This turn of events was not unexpected. Going into the voting booths, we knew that Jill had very little chance of actually winning the election, but we voted for her anyway. We could not support the corruption of Hillary Clinton, the bigotry and chauvinism of Donald Trump, or the "Objectivist" nonsense of Gary Johnson. We voted our consciences. Some would say that we lost. I would say that we didn't win the election, but we also didn't lose, because we held fast to our principles, even though the outcome of the election is not what we would have preferred.<br />
<br />
There has been a lot of speculation about "What if" since the results came in. What if Bernie Sanders had accepted Jill Stein's offer to become her running mate? What if Hillary and her drones had not rigged the primary to favor Hillary and undermine Bernie? What if this? What if that? We cannot know with certainty the answers to those speculative questions. If Bernie had become Jill's VP running mate, I am certain that the Greens would have gotten <i>far</i> more than 5% of the vote, but as it happened, he did not, and the Greens got less than 5%. I believe that if Bernie had accepted Jill's offer, the Greens would have had a very good chance of actually winning, but without some means of travel to, or at least viewing of, an alternate timeline in which he did accept her offer, the ultimate outcome of such a situation will never be known, at least to us who have no such means at our disposal.<br />
<br />
As usual, and as we expected, Hillary and her drones have attempted to put the blame for Hillary's loss on everyone but themselves. It is a symptom of psychopathology to be unwilling to admit fault, and Mrs Clinton has evinced this symptom for years. They have attempted to blame Russia, FBI Director James Comey, disgruntled Berners, and supporters of both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. The number tally demonstrates quite clearly that third party voters did not cost Hillary the election, but this is a mythology which the Democrats have credulously embraced whole-heartedly ever since 2000 when they claimed (falsely) that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the election. Reams of paper have been printed on which this blame of anyone and everyone other than Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazile, John Podesta, and all their cohorts and trolls has been published. Fortunately, considerably more reams of paper have been printed on which the blame has been appropriately and correctly aimed at those who are actually responsible: Hillary and her pals in the corrupt DNC and the corporate-owned, establishment, main stream media, and her condescending, insulting, and obnoxious disciples.<br />
<br />
Not content with promoting what they referred to as "pied piper" candidates in the Republican primary, not content with anti-democratic collusion to promote Hillary and marginalize Bernie, these fools heaped insult upon injury by castigating, shaming, and mocking the Progressive Leftist base of the Democratic Party, attempting to bully them into supporting Hillary's bid for the presidency. A certain narrative was repeated from her previous attempt, namely, that anyone who did not support Hillary was a sexist and a chauvinist and a misogynist. That didn't work too well when many of us were supporting another woman instead of Hillary, and so they decided to attempt to besmirch Doctor Stein's reputation by making all manner of baseless claims about her supposed "anti-scientific" beliefs. If this had happened in any sphere other than politics, they would rightly have been sued for slander and libel, and they would have lost that suit. Doctor Jill Stein is a <i>magna cum laude</i> graduate of Harvard University, who studied Psychology, Sociology, and Anthropology, a graduate of Harvard Medical School, who even served as an instructor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. The claims made about her by the pro-Hillary crowd are nothing short of libel and slander (and Harvard should sue for slander and libel, too), but they have been debunked repeatedly. Still, some of the gullibles continued parroting those claims up to and after the election.<br />
<br />
Even after the election, however, Hillary's cultists continue to claim that Hillary lost because of sexism, but at the same time, they claim it was the fault of Jill Stein supporters. The self-referential incoherence is astounding.<br />
<br />
We did not support Mrs Clinton for many, many reasons, but sexism was <b><i>not</i></b> one of those, at least not sexism on <b><i>our</i></b> part.<br />
<br />
While we mocked her and at times insulted her and her supporters, anything we said about them pales in comparison to the vitriol which they directed at us. <i>Tu Quoque</i> is still a fallacy, I admit. I will not attempt to justify our insults of them by pointing to their insults of us. Our insults of them, however, were based on firmer foundation than anything they said about us, and so evade the charge of <i>Argumentum ad Hominem</i>. Not every insult is fallacious. On the field of politics, moreover, the game is one of rhetoric and not Logic, and so insults are all too common, and even expected. It is of course preferable when they are based on some reality, rather than manufactured out of thin air. No, <b><i>our</i></b> insults were true; the supporters of Hillary really ARE a gaggle of gullibles. Anyone who believes that Hillary Clinton is or ever was a champion of women, the LGBTI community, Liberalism, Progressive ideals, or Leftism is <i>excruciatingly</i> gullible, for she was and is none of those things.<br />
<br />
They tried to scare us into voting for Hillary, too, but after having heard this bullshit over and over again from the Democrats every time they put forth a deeply flawed candidate, we didn't buy it:<br />
<br />
"If you don't vote for Hillary, you'll get the big bad wolf!"<br />
:: yawn ::<br />
"But, but, but ... TRUMP!"<br />
Okay?<br />
"He's a fascist!"<br />
So is Hillary.<br />
"How can you say that? You've been reading Right Wing propaganda!"<br />
No, toots, I've been reading WikiLeaks, but I also lived in Arkansas for all but about a year of the time her husband was Governor of the state, and I do my own research. I might accidentally know a little more about her than your twenty-something-year-old Yankee ass which only listens to partisan Democrat and condescending pseudo-Liberal propaganda does.<br />
<br />
Now after the election, they try to blame us. Evidently, they are mathematically incompetent, because even if every third party voter had not voted for Jill or Johnson, it doesn't mean we would have voted for Hillary, and she would still have lost. "You're responsible for this!" No, <i>you</i> are. I voted for an ethical candidate. You voted for a candidate who wouldn't know the truth if it bit her on the ass, a candidate who apparently engaged in pay for play schemes, a candidate whose lust for war contributed to deaths of millions around the world, a candidate who admitted to her wealthy corporate donors that she had both a public and a private position, a candidate who advocated for toppling the Syrian government because Zionism, a candidate whose ambition and lust for wealth and power and position and prestige dominated her psyche to such an extent that she would not do what was right for the Republic and instead clung to her stolen nomination when she should have stepped down in favor of the candidate who could have won, in the midst of not one but two criminal investigations of her activities, a woman who derided and smeared other women who were victims of, or collaborators in, Bill's philandering, because she wouldn't admit the truth that she is not enough for Bill, and not enough for America.<br />
<br />
No, we didn't win. But we didn't lose, either, because Hillary did not win. And at the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether we won or lost; it matters that we were true to our principles. I daresay few Hillary supporters can honestly make the same claim. Suck it up, buttercup, you lost the election for your Queen (Wanna)Bee. I'm not happy that Donald Trump won, but I am <b><i>utterly delighted</i></b> that Hillary Clinton lost. I just hope Trump follows through on his declared intention to have a REAL investigation of Hillary, because the pimpette of Wall Street belongs in prison, for so, <b><i>so</i></b> many reasons. Do you need a "safe space"? Tough shit. Go to Canada if you have the spine to do so. We'll still be here, fighting for Progressive Left-libertarian ideals and goals, while you delicate little neurotics run away from an imaginary boogeyman.<br />
<br />
And we'll sleep soundly at night, knowing that we were true to our values. We may not have won, but we played the Game ethically, with honor and integrity, which is far more than I can say for Hillary and her drones.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GwWa2sVXw2k/WCqQZ3rnyMI/AAAAAAAAFW4/za0SLedfJP8PIncXUYz8h42ObLv3qjzIQCLcB/s1600/astraea.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GwWa2sVXw2k/WCqQZ3rnyMI/AAAAAAAAFW4/za0SLedfJP8PIncXUYz8h42ObLv3qjzIQCLcB/s1600/astraea.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ἀστραῖα</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">The title of the post comes from <i>Star Trek</i> (The Original Series), Season 1, episode 28; episode 28 overall; production code 28.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<b style="font-size: small;">Fair use notice</b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">For more information: <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Liviana (SuccubaSuprema)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07191032294285487395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1313226054990796678.post-36702158633610674472016-10-31T21:45:00.001-07:002018-11-02T22:14:20.654-07:00The Enemy Within<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: x-large;">The Enemy Within,</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">or,</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Another Symptom</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">of Monopolistic Dualism,</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>by Liviana (Giovanna L.)</b></div>
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">"Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein."<br />~ Friedrich Nietzsche, <i>Jenseits von Gut und Böse</i>, Aphorismus 146<br /><br />"Who with monsters fights, should see that he in the process not become a monster. And when you long into an abyss gaze, then gazes the abyss also into you."<br />~ Friedrich Nietzsche, <i>Beyond Good and Evil</i>, Aphorism 146<br />(my translation)</span></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">"In Italia, i fascisti si dividono in due categorie: i fascisti e gli antifascisti."<br />~ Ennio Flaiano<br /><br />"In Italy, the fascists divide themselves into two categories: the fascists and the antifascists."<br />~ Ennio Flaiano<br />(my translation)</span></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<b>Preface</b><br />
<br />
"Monopolistic Dualism" is a term whose origin is rightly attributed to one who used to go by the "tribal name" Crommán mac Nessa, one of the founders and leaders of a movement which has at times been called "an Rian Sinnsearach" or "in Róen Sinserda" (the first is Gaelic and the second is Old Irish, and both mean "the Ancestral Way"), among other names, mac Nessa's own expression of which has sometimes been called "Ivernian Heathen Revivalism." His work now survives only in privately-held copies and in earlier versions preserved at the Internet Archive.<br />
<br />
Writing in the late 1990s and early 2000s, mac Nessa used the term to refer to a "religious tradition" which in its main expressions teaches dualism, both metaphysically and ethically (although its theologians often deny the dualism, realizing that dualism is metaphysically unsatisfactory and ethically depressing; nevertheless, the "sacred" texts of the religions which derive from this tradition do express rather obvious dualistic ideas, and the laypeople of the religions think in dualistic terms, even if this dualism be "merely" a form of what has sometimes been called "External Dualism" or a form of what might be called "Actual Dualism" [as distinct from "Real Dualism"] or "Temporary Dualism" or "Finite Dualism"), and which insists, in each of the main religions which are its expressions, that that particular religion is "the one true and only way," regarding other religions of the same tradition as wrong, and consequently advocates for what mac Nessa pointed out was "religious imperialism," that is, efforts to convert others, whether by attempted persuasion or by force. To regard these as somehow unique or original is to overlook the influences upon them, which included Parthian Zoroastrianism and various dualistic perspectives (whether philosophical or mystical, or both) in the territories around the northeast and central east Mediterranean Sea, especially in imperial Roman and imperial Hellenistic societies.<br />
<br />
An extended examination of these various religions of the same religious tradition, and the influences upon them, is beyond the scope of this present writing, but the successor of mac Nessa, who goes by the "tribal name" Dianim ingen Nessa or Dianaimh nic Nise (and who has been entrusted with legal custodianship, editorial authority, and continuation of the works of Crommán mac Nessa), may eventually produce some discussion thereof, here or elsewhere. Suffice it to say for the purposes of this present composition that "Monopolistic Dualism" as used by mac Nessa refers primarily to certain underlying metaphysical and ethical concepts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (the Abrahamic Tradition of Religions), and, more relevantly for this present discussion, ~ <i>the influences of those concepts upon societies in which those religions have been more or less dominant</i>. ~<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Introduction</b><br />
<br />
So strong has been the influence of these religions upon certain societies that the majority of persons within those societies have a preconscious assumption of the truth of whichever of these religions is more or less dominant within the society in which they have been raised, even if they themselves have never read the "sacred" texts of that religion, attended any sort of doctrinal presentations of the religion, or done anything worthy of the name "study" of the said religion. In consequence of this preconscious assumption, such persons when and if they take a greater interest in the religion are required to unlearn a number of erroneous concepts about the religion (and usually to be indoctrinated in a specific sect's interpretation of said religion, which may involve more "unlearning" of "erroneous" concepts and replacement with the sect's particular dogmatic positions). As this influence is so strong upon the wider society, even of those who are, at most, merely <i>nominal</i> followers of the religion, the culture or cultures associated with the society tend over time to take on more and more influences from the religion. Examples of such influence may be relatively mild or even innocuous, or they may be rather pervasive. Such examples may be found in poetry and other literature, music, visual art and architecture, figures of speech, political discourse and rhetoric, and assorted other expressions of culture.<br />
<br />
As the concepts involved in this influence are metaphysical dualism and ethical dualism, some explanation of Systematic Philosophy and its branches or stages is probably in order. Philosophy, the Queen and Mother of the Sciences, from at least the mediaeval era till around the time of the <i>fin de siècle XIX</i> and the <i>dèbut de siècle XX</i>, has been characterized in retrospect (by some Logical Atomists and Logical Postivists) as "speculative," and subsequent Philosophy has been portrayed as "analytic." Such painting of the discipline is, however, generalization, for analytic philosophy existed long before Gottlob Frege, and so-called "speculative" philosophy has continued well beyond Wittgenstein, Russell, and Quine. The author sees the alleged distinctions between "analytic" and "speculative" Philosophy as artificial and of little to no benefit, However, for the purposes of this explanation, when performed as a "systematic" discipline, Philosophy has traditionally begun with Metaphysics (or more accurately, Ontology and Metaphysics), built Epistemology upon that foundation, decorated it with Aesthetics, erected the pillars of Ethics to support the roof, and then constructed the roof of Politics (including usually Law and Economics) atop those pillars.<br />
<br />
Without going into too much detail, Ontology is concerned with Being (or "Essence") and Existence, the Real and the Actual, and Metaphysics applies these concerns to questions of "What is the nature of Reality?" and "What is the One or the Many Constituent(s) of Reality?" and consequent elaborations of answers proposed to these questions. Very briefly, Ethics deals with Justice in an internal sense (as Politics expands upon this and takes the ideal of Justice to external applications).<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<b>Dysfunctions Derived from Monopolistic Dualism</b><br />
<br />
If Monopolistic Dualism be the cause, then it results in assorted dysfunctions of a philosophical, psychological, and/or sociological nature. Having the same cause, these dysfunctions are naturally similar, at times even blurring into one another and interacting in complex ways. Indeed, sometimes they are virtually indistinguishable. For the purposes of this present discussion, only three will be addressed: Bifurcation Fallacy, Double Standard, and Dichotomy, each of which is a type of Polarization.<br />
<br />
Bifurcation Fallacy, which has a variety of names, is more commonly known as "False Dilemma" (or more precisely is a type of False Dilemma, in that False Dilemma may involve more than two options, but never all possible options, whereas Bifurcation Fallacy reduces all choices to a mere two and pretends that those are the only choices which exist), and is generally referred to by laypersons as "Black-and-White Thinking" or "Black-or-White Thinking," is a Logical Fallacy, that is, an incorrect inference form, or a type of faulty reasoning. Bifurcation Fallacy is limited and limiting; where multiple answers to a given question exist, only two are presented, while all others are either ignored or left unmentioned, or their existence may even be denied explicitly.<br />
<br />
Double Standard is defined by <i><a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/double%20standard">Merriam-Webster</a></i> as:<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
a set of principles that applies differently and usually more rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another; especially : a code of morals that applies more severe standards of sexual behavior to women than to men</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
In unequal or undemocratic societies, a double standard may exist in the application of law to the wealthy and the middle class and poor, with the wealthy receiving privileged or preferential clemency or treatment, while the poor and the middle class are dealt with more strictly and more severely. In the example given by the dictionary, what is intended is that the notion that a man who is sexually promiscuous is merely "sowing his wild oats" is contrasted with the characterization of a promiscuous woman as "a slut," but likewise the view of a celibate or sexually faithful man as somehow lacking in masculinity contrasted with the celibate or sexually faithful woman as a "virtuous" virgin or wife. Exceptions to both of these exist: a celibate woman may also be disparaged as a "spinster" or an "old maid," and a sexually promiscuous man might occasionally be labelled a "scoundrel" or a "roué," but these are exceptions to the general custom.<br />
<br />
Dichotomy is defined by <i><a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dichotomy">Merriam-Webster</a></i> as:<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
a difference between two opposite things : a division into two opposite groups : a division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities; also : the process or practice of making such a division </blockquote>
<br />
<br />
A dichotomy presupposes the actuality or reality (or both) of "polar opposition," and more often than not misrepresents complementary opposites as "polar opposites," the dichotomy being expressed by persons who conceive of opposition only in terms of Polarization, and furthermore see no shades of grey between the extreme poles of black and white.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Symptoms of Dysfunctions Caused by Monopolistic Dualism</b><br />
<br />
Symptoms of these dysfunctions include: Puritanism vs Hedonism, Fundamentalism, Racism, Fascism (and "Antifa"), Reactionary vs Radical, the "Two" Party System, Paranoia, and "the Enemy Within."<br />
<br />
The influential American thinker H.L. Mencken once wrote, "Puritanism. The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." While this was satire, it was not an inaccurate description from some perspectives. Puritanism was (and is) a form of self-righteous busybodyism. Puritans assume they know the will of their god, and employ haste in their judgements of others, looking at superficial actions and appearances, rather than essential motivations and attitudes. Puritanism is an extremist movement devoted to "purifying," initially the Church of England, and later the wider society (especially members of adjacent communities who disagreed with the views of the Puritans). Puritans have also been characterized as killjoys or dour prudes, in polar opposition to Hedonists; some scholars (notably, Peter Gay) have contested this view, albeit with somewhat unconvincing counterexamples. The reputation of the Puritans for religious intolerance, however, is well deserved.<br />
<br />
A related phenomenon is Fundamentalism, which exists in most religions (and other forms of worldview). Fundamentalism is usually, but by no means always, a religious phenomenon, and, like Puritanism, involves an attempt to maintain "purity of doctrine, and is intolerant of dissent or diverse viewpoints. Fundamentalism also promotes a rigid literalism and socially reactionary perspectives, as well as a sort of exclusivist elitism among its adherents (whence the term "Holier than thou"). Fundamentalism may be "separatist" (withdrawn from the wider society and unconcerned with what the fundamentalist regards as "worldly" concerns) or "open" (engaging in socio-political and economic activism intended to impose the views of the particular manifestation of Fundamentalism on the wider society). In religious contexts, Fundamentalism is sometimes set in polar opposition to what religious Fundamentalists refer to as "Modernism" or "(religious) Liberalism," by virtue of the religious Fundamentalist rejecting the application of scholarship and critical tools and techniques to learn more about the sources of their dogma (for the acceptance of such might result in the need to amend one's interpretations). Sometimes "Credalists" are distinguished from "Fundamentalists" on the grounds that the former embrace Creeds and the Traditional Teaching Authority attributed to the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, while the latter claim to embrace the Protestant rallying cry "Sola scriptura." For any practical purposes, however, they are the same in terms of how they approach belief and scholarship, and how they view dissent and dissenters.<br />
<br />
Racism is a symptom of the belief in "good and evil," and the wish on the part of a person that he or she is "good," and by extension, that people who are like her or him are also "good," and therefore, anyone who is not like them is "evil." This is usually born of ignorance and fear, which mutates into hate. When it is writ more largely, it often results in Fascism.<br />
<br />
Fascism is a socio-political and economic viewpoint, which has certain salient characteristics, chief among which are intense nationalism, intense pro-Capitalism, intense anti-Communism, rhetorical appeals to traditional values and patriotism and the middle class, strong "law and order" policies of an authoritarian nature, glorification of war, and scapegoating (often in the form of racist hatred). "Antifa" was, once upon a time, a legitimate resistance movement against Fascism, but has long since devolved into the mirror image of Fascism, utilizing many of the same tactics and espousing ideas which tolerate no dissent.<br />
<br />
"Reactionary vs Radical" refers to two polarized perspectives on society and social questions. The Reactionary is one who is so resistant to change that he or she would attempt to undo changes and revert society back to a previous condition, and often expresses an intention to use violence in order to effect this reversion (sometimes following through with the violence). The Radical is one who espouses change without much regard for whether or not such change will be beneficial, and generally advocates for accomplishing such change by means of violence (again, sometimes following through with violent acts). In between these are various shades ranging from "Conservative" to "Moderate" to "Liberal" or "Progressive" (while "Liberal" and "Progressive" are not synonymous or coterminous, they do share occasional goals and sometimes their ideals even overlap, while at other times, they will be at loggerheads, because even though they both advocate for beneficial change, they come at it from different angles, the Liberal being in favor of top-down imposition and the Progressive being in favor of grass roots activism; other distinctions between these two perspectives exist as well, but for the moment, this will suffice).<br />
<br />
The "Two" Party System should require no explanation to regular readers of this blog. If, however, someone would like a refresher in the subject, then "<a href="http://random-musings-from-a-muse.blogspot.com/2016/09/for-world-is-hollow-and-i-have-touched.html">For the World Is Hollow, and I Have Touched the Sky</a>" should serve well enough.<br />
<br />
Paranoia refers to an irrational fear that "the other" is not only "evil," but also actively working to do harm to the subject, often by means of some type of conspiracy.<br />
<br />
"The Enemy Within" deserves its own separate discussion, for it is to some extent a result of one or more than one of the other symptoms listed.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>The Enemy Within</b><br />
<br />
The quote from Nietzsche which opens this present discussion says: "Who with monsters fights, should see that he in the process not become a monster. And when you long into an abyss gaze, then gazes the abyss also into you."<br />
<br />
Nathaniel Hawthorne, in his short story "Young Goodman Brown," provides an illustration of this "aphorism," in that Young Goodman Brown begins the story as one of "the elect," those who in Puritan society viewed themselves as having been predestinated (<i>Sic; haec orthographia recta est.</i>) to salvation in spite of the total depravity which Puritans (and Calvinists in general) believe to be the state of humanity, goes out from the authoritarian order of his society into the untamed wilderness, where he started at every woodland sound and shadow, had some sort of revelation or vision, and returned to his home as depraved as he thereafter believed everyone else to be.<br />
<br />
Fundamentalists in their zeal to be "Holier than thou" see "the other" as heretical, deceived, oppressed by demons, and so on, and consequently attempt to outdo one another in external signs of piety, much as the Pharisees who were condemned in the sixth chapter of Matthew, living not due to honest belief or desire to be good, nor from love of the divine and his or her fellow humans and other animals, but out of fear of punishment and a desire to be viewed as "orthodox" by the community. They become what they claim to not be.<br />
<br />
The racist or Fascist projects all of his or her vices upon "the other" who is the subject of scapegoating, and by persecuting this "other," the acting subject, in what Freud would have described as "an unholy marriage of the Id and the Superego," becomes all that he or she hates, while generally not realizing it. When such a person <i>does</i> realize the truth, his or her hatred is likely to become even more intense, as blame for such "transformation" is also projected onto "the other." She or he becomes all that he or she hates.<br />
<br />
Reactionaries and Radicals will likewise view any variation from their particular perspective among their fellows to be a clue that these fellows are not only not "pure," but may indeed be an agent of the polar opposite perspective who has somehow infiltrated the security of their organization, and will then perform the work of the adherents of the polar opposite perspective by persecuting their own for minor deviation from orthodoxy. They become their own oppressors.<br />
<br />
Party members in a "Two" Party System are notorious for viewing any criticism of their party and its candidates and elected/appointed officials as evidence that the critic is a member of "the other" party (as if there were only two parties, and as if the "two" were not identical in essence). The author's father was a lifelong partisan Republican, and he would listen to the author criticize Democrats and the Democratic Party with what might be considered to be contentment, but when she went on to criticize Republicans and the Republican Party, her father would become hostile and accuse her of being "a damned Democrat," in spite of her having just spent thirty minutes or more in critique of the Democrats and their party. An unfortunate consequence of the "Two" Party System is that many of its captives cannot conceive of any criticism of their party coming from anyone other than a member of "the other" party. They behave in exactly the same manner towards critics as members of "the other" party, and so have become identical to them in all but name.<br />
<br />
When coupled with Paranoia, any of these, or some combination thereof, may lead a person thus afflicted to distrust others and to allege that such distrusted others are infiltrators from a polar opposite perspective, and/or agents of a conspiratorial operation devised by representatives of such. When the acting subject has set himself or herself up as some sort of "crusader" against a given polar opposite perspective, convinced that the said perspective and its adherents are "evil," he or she may over time adopt the tactics attributed to that other perspective, becoming, in Nietzsche's phrase, the monster which she or he fights, having studied those tactics and the ideology of the polar opposite perspective long enough that, again in Nietzsche's expression, the abyss has gazed back into him or her.<br />
<br />
In short, she or he <i>becomes</i> "the enemy within."<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>The Cure</b><br />
<br />
In order for this symptom to be eradicated, one must not merely address <i>the symptom</i>. Such a "treatment" would be ineffective, since the <i>cause</i> of the dysfunction behind the symptom would remain unaddressed. Attempting to treat the dysfunction itself would likewise be less than satisfactory, because, again, the cause would still not be addressed. The cause of these dysfunctions and their attendant symptoms must be cured. Dualism alone is undesirable, but Monopolistic Dualism is dangerous to society. It poisons intellects, holds people captive in the Cave of Ignorance, easily manipulated by unscrupulous demagogues and Machiavellian connivers. Thus, what must be cured is Monopolistic Dualism itself. To effect this cure, Monopolistic Dualism must be replaced with a more suitable worldview, of which there are several, including both Monism and Triplism, as well as various other options (even Pluralistic Dualism would be preferable to Monopolistic Dualism). The author herself espouses Triplism, but she is not imperialistic, and leaves the choice of the replacement up to the individual healer. For her own part, she will attempt to heal by means of Triplism, as it is her own perspective, and she will hope that it will effect the necessary cure.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dMmrQnDI_VA/WBgyKptPlwI/AAAAAAAAEw0/oi185XKGVSEPkYMxRELIV3NHdVrCiwL1ACLcB/s1600/Triskellion_on_LadyLibertyGreen.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dMmrQnDI_VA/WBgyKptPlwI/AAAAAAAAEw0/oi185XKGVSEPkYMxRELIV3NHdVrCiwL1ACLcB/s1600/Triskellion_on_LadyLibertyGreen.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<b>Supplemental</b><br />
<br />
Some readers have expressed confusion over this piece, and therefore, presented below are some comments by the author, which she hopes will clarify the import and intent of the above writing. These comments taken together may be seen as a sort of "Abstract" of the piece, although written in a more "conversational" style than an Abstract would be.<br />
<br />
1. The post is ultimately about how the assumption of the existence of a flesh vs spirit dualism, and/or a good vs "evil" dualism, when those are coupled with monopolistic views, result in people hurting other people, and becoming all the bad things which they thought those other people were. It also includes a proposal for subverting the dominant paradigm which leads to this situation of "The Enemy Within."<br />
<br />
<br />
2. I myself have a tripartite anthropology: We <i>are</i> Body, Soul, and Spirit.<br />
<br />
I believe that Ethics is a complicated business, and the ethicality of conduct is found in Motivation/Attitude, Context/Situation, and Consequence.<br />
<br />
<br />
3. Imagine that Philosophy is like a temple.<br />
<br />
The foundation of the temple has to do with Being/Essence and Existence (Ontology), and the pavement on that is an application of it to more specific ideas about Reality/Being/Essence and Actuality/Existence (Metaphysics).<br />
<br />
Then you need walls, so you build those out of ideas about Truth and Knowledge (Epistemology).<br />
<br />
Then you want some decoration, so you bring in ideas of Art and Beauty (Aesthetics).<br />
<br />
You'll need columns to support the roof, and those are made of ideas about Justice in Personal Conduct (Ethics).<br />
<br />
And then you put the roof on, which is made of ideas about Justice in Society (Politics, including Law and Economics).<br />
<br />
<br />
4. Okay, now, along come worldviews which have as part of their underlying Philosophy the belief in a Dualistic Metaphysic which says that Good and Evil are Metaphysical Realities, that they are Essences (no matter Augustine's attempt to spin this into a conception of "Evil" as "privatio boni" or "absence of Good"), Eternal and Forever in Conflict. This Metaphysic moreover asserts that Spirit is "Good" and is somehow imprisoned in Flesh, which is "Evil" (or at least has somehow become "Corrupted"). This may not be officially accepted as "orthodox," but is nevertheless subliminally inculcated by the guardians of "orthodoxy." Nature is consequently seen as likewise "Evil" (or "Corrupted") and so on.<br />
<br />
Arising out of this Metaphysic comes an Ethic which affirms that Actions in themselves are "Good" or "Evil." As time goes on, this evolves through the work of Reformers like Y'shua` (Jesus) into a focus on the Motivation/Attitude (and sometimes the Context/Situation), rather than the Act In Itself. However, the old Legalism remains under the surface and generally bubbles up among the laypeople, who are not usually taught that Y'shua` gave a new Ethic to replace the old Legalism. While they are given the texts, the import thereof is not explained to them, and so they still cling to the Literalism and Legalism of the older perspective. Further contributing to this complication is the fact that early teachers of the new reform also perpetuate the Legalism to a greater or lesser extent. Other expressions of this perspective survive as well, or later develop, which perpetuate the old focus on Action In Itself as "Good" or "Evil." The Reform is therefore not very successful, like a revolution which merely replaces "Tsar" with "Chairman," or "Congreditor princeps novus, idem princeps vetus" (Meet the new boss, same as the old boss).<br />
<br />
Because these worldviews are religious, and not simply philosophical, they also include additional notions beyond the confines of Philosophy, including the idea of "Original Sin" and a "Sin Nature" somehow deriving from "Original Sin." Rather than teaching the disciple to amend his or her own conduct by intellectual meditation, mystical contemplation, and the cultivation of virtue, these worldviews develop a concept of "salvation" or "deliverance," which requires a "savior" or "deliverer." Such a person must of course be somehow free of the "Sin Nature" and therefore must be somehow divine or specially blessed by the divine, or some such device.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, the claim is put forward that ONLY this belief system and its "savior" figure can effect this deliverance.<br />
<br />
Taken in combination with the Metaphysical and Ethical Dualism, this Soteriological Exclusivity (see note below) implies, or even explicitly demands, that the disciple should spread this belief system to others, allegedly out of compassion, but more because 1. the disciple fears that infidels will perpetuate "Evil" in the world and possibly visit evil in the sense of pain and suffering upon the disciple, AND 2. because the disciple may be led into doubt when confronted by an infidel who seems virtuous and is willing to rationally discuss such concepts, and doubt challenges the unquestioning credulity upon which the priesthoods of these belief systems depend for wealth and power.<br />
<br />
Thus arises "Monopolistic Dualism."<br />
<br />
(Soteriology = from Sôtêria, Classical [Attikê] and Hellenistic [Koinê] Greek for "Salvation" + -logia, Attic and Koinê Greek for "study, science, discipline").<br />
<br />
<br />
5. Monopolistic Dualism leads to a number of intellectual dysfunctions, among which are Bifurcation Fallacy, Double Standards, and Dichotomies. Symptoms of these dysfunctions as experienced in society are also discussed (including the one which is the main focus of the post, and which I have called "The Enemy Within"), and then a "cure" is proposed.<br />
<br />
<div class="graf graf--p" name="8d1d">
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</div>
<br />
The quote from Ennio Flaiano (a member of the Italian literati, and also part of the Italian cinematic scene, who lived through Mussolini's régime) is given in <i>La solitudine del satiro</i> as "In Italia, i fascisti si dividono in due categorie: i fascisti e gli antifascisti." I have translated this as: "In Italy, the fascists divide themselves into two categories: the fascists and the antifascists." Flaiano gives this as a paraphrase of a statement he attributes to Mino Maccari (another member of the Italian literati who also lived through Mussolini's régime), the original statement being: "Il fascismo si divide in due parti: il fascismo propriamente detto e l'antifascismo." For the Italian-deprived, that means (also my translation): "Fascism divides itself in two parts: fascism properly called and antifascism."<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">The title of the post comes from <i>Star Trek</i> (The Original Series), Season 1, episode 5; episode 5 overall; production code 05.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<b style="font-size: small;">Fair use notice</b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">For more information: <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Liviana (SuccubaSuprema)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07191032294285487395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1313226054990796678.post-87675672767320752392016-10-27T08:12:00.000-07:002017-02-07T04:57:43.129-08:00Plato's Stepchildren<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: x-large;">Plato's Stepchildren,</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">or,</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">The Unexamined (Political) Life</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Is Not Worth Living,</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>by Liviana (Giovanna L.)</b></div>
<br />
<br />
In the dialogue which he named Πολιτεία (Politeia, rendered into English as "The Republic"), the Athenian philosopher named Ἀριστοκλῆς (Aristoklês, usually given in English as "Aristocles"), better known by his nickname, Πλάτων (Platôn, rendered into English as "Plato"), wrote what has sometimes been referred to as his "Allegory of the Cave," or his "Cave Metaphor." Plato was a student of Σωκράτης (Sôkratês, given in English as "Socrates"), to whom is attributed the saying "The unexamined life is not worth living."<br />
<br />
Plato's Cave Metaphor tells of people in a cave, chained so that they are facing the wall, and who can only see shadows cast on the wall by figures moving behind them, between themselves and a fire further behind. A wall directly behind the captives prevents their own shadows from being cast onto the wall. To these imprisoned cave-dwellers, the shadows cast on the wall <b><i>seem</i></b> to be reality, and are indeed the nearest thing to reality which they can ordinarily apprehend, and so they give names to the shadows, believing that the shadows <b><i>are</i></b> reality. In this Allegory of the Cave, Plato also places the philosopher, whom he describes as one of the prisoners who somehow becomes freed from the chains and begins to explore, finding the fire, traveling on out of the cave itself and seeing the still greater light of the sun, and who then returns to his fellows in the cave and attempts to encourage them to cast off their shackles and emerge into the sunlight of truth, but is upon reentering the cave blind in the relative darkness. This blindness would be taken by the captives as harm done to him by his journey out of the cave and into the sunlight, and they would be likely then to try to kill anyone who attempted to take them out of the cave.<br />
<br />
The above brief summary of Plato's Cave Metaphor does not do the actual writing justice, but it does give the basic idea. Evidence in support of Plato's contention that the deceived prisoners would tend to attempt to kill one who might attempt to liberate and enlighten them can be found in many cultures across vast spans of time, including Socrates himself, who was murdered by the Athenians for "corrupting the youth," and arguably including such figures (whether they be literal or mythical persons) as Y'shua` (Jesus), Krishna, the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr, and many others.<br />
<br />
Yet, as one <i>occasionally</i> lucid thinker once wrote: "He must teach, though he may make severe the ordeals." The liberated enlightened have an obligation to their fellow creatures, an ethical imperative, to attempt to likewise liberate and enlighten them. Indeed, some might contend that the very state of liberation and enlightenment ignites this ethical sense of compassion. Be that as it may, one who has been freed from the fetters and come to see the shadows for the deceptive diversion which they are is compelled to attempt to do the same for those who remain bound in "the Cave of Ignorance," to liberate them from their bondage and to drag them, kicking and screaming if need be, out of the deception and into reality.<br />
<br />
Before proceeding further, an explanation of the term "ignorance" is perhaps in order. An unfortunate actuality is the fact that "ignorant" is so often used in English-speaking societies as an insult. The word "ignorance," however, in its etymology and literal meaning, signifies nothing other than a lack of knowledge. Such a state, while undesirable, is not something to be seen as warranting mockery for those in the state. <i>Willful</i> ignorance is another matter. The <i>willfully</i> ignorant deserve derision, but only after earnest attempts to liberate them from their ignorance.<br />
<br />
In this blog, the author has attempted frequently to lay bare the deceptions, the distractions, the misdirection and diversion which the establishment has used to keep the people ignorant of the truth, and the chains which have been used to keep the people from considering the fact of the deception and ignorance. A few recent examples include "<a href="http://random-musings-from-a-muse.blogspot.com/2016/08/dimensions-of-perspective.html">Dimensions of Perspective</a>," "<a href="http://random-musings-from-a-muse.blogspot.com/2016/09/remember-what-we-fight-against-and-what.html">Remember What We Fight Against, and What We Fight For</a>," "<a href="http://random-musings-from-a-muse.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-alternative-factor.html">The Alternative Factor</a>," "<a href="http://random-musings-from-a-muse.blogspot.com/2016/09/bread-and-circuses.html">Bread and Circuses</a>," "<a href="http://random-musings-from-a-muse.blogspot.com/2016/09/for-world-is-hollow-and-i-have-touched.html">For the World Is Hollow, and I Have Touched the Sky</a>," "<a href="http://random-musings-from-a-muse.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-enterprise-incidents.html">The Enterprise Incident(s)</a>," "<a href="http://random-musings-from-a-muse.blogspot.com/2016/10/is-there-in-truth-no-beauty.html">Is There in Truth No Beauty?</a>" and "<a href="http://random-musings-from-a-muse.blogspot.com/2016/10/obsession.html">Obsession</a>." More will follow, if the gods be willing; some are already in production, but not yet ready for publication. This present post is another example of such attempts.<br />
<br />
The author hopes that she will be spared from assassination attempts by the fearful against those who engage in such gadfly activity. She is armed, however, and knows a <i>few</i> things about how to defend herself, being a Texas girl and one who has had a <i>small</i> amount of military and martial arts training, nor does she have a naïve perspective of absolute pacifism or a desire for martyrdom. She is a Heathen who holds to an Heroic Ethic, and is not a follower of any Slave Morality. In short, she is not a messiah, and will not allow herself to be treated as such by opponents -- or, for that matter, by would-be disciples. She is but a woman and not a goddess, but she is not a woman who would submit to terror or allow herself to be hindered by fear, of any sort.<br />
<br />
Indeed, one of the distractions which have been used to keep the people bound and ignorant is what is known by philosophers as <i>Argumentum ad Metum</i>, which is to say, Appeal to Fear. The people are presented first with a Bifurcation Fallacy, a faulty argument which attempts to reduce all the myriad choices available to a mere two, and, lest they dare to object to this limitation and consider one of the other options, they are then presented with a tale in which they are told that they must choose "this one," because "the other one" is dangerous, is fanatical, is hateful, is, in short, a big bad wolf, who must at all costs be stopped and that "this one" is the only one who can stop that "other one."<br />
<br />
Yet, upon further examination, the alleged "differences" between "this one" and "the other one" melt away like shadows of deception in the light of truth. This unrelenting light lays bare the reality of the situation, that "this one" and "the other one" are both representatives of the same establishment, and will both serve that establishment if given an office in which to do so. This bright sunlight shines upon the history which demonstrates this to be verity. The two major political parties are only different in appearance, but not in substance. When in office, their candidates do make a bit of noise to perpetuate the illusion that they are opponents, but their actions, for the most part, are too remarkably similar to be taken as indicating any meaningful difference. One will go to war and the other will complain about it, but when the other holds the office, that other will also go to war (or perpetuate war), with what are, essentially if not literally, the same enemies, and the same excuses and justifications will be used, perhaps with slightly different phrasing. One will deregulate corporations and the banking industry, and the other will profess opposition, but when the other is in the office, that other will likewise deregulate the same corporate entities. One will bail out the corporate entities who have brought the nation to the brink of economic disaster after being trusted to self-regulate and the other will howl and moan, but as soon as the same situation arises and the other sits in the office, that other will do exactly the same thing (if perhaps by different means). Those few mavericks who dare to diverge from the standard operating procedure, who dare to challenge the <i>status quo</i>, who even go so far as to openly oppose the will of their establishment-controlled party, are marginalized, disenfranchised, denied funding or fundraising assistance, and ignored by the party, and by the corporate media which also serves the same establishment.<br />
<br />
Smoke and mirrors, or shadows cast on the wall of a cave, it matters not the metaphor which is used. The reality of the situation is quite simply, as <a href="http://random-musings-from-a-muse.blogspot.com/2016/09/bread-and-circuses.html">has</a> been <a href="http://random-musings-from-a-muse.blogspot.com/2016/09/for-world-is-hollow-and-i-have-touched.html">shown</a> in other posts here, that all the apparent differences between the two establishment parties are only superficial, and that they are so nearly alike as to be identical in a substantial sense.<br />
<br />
More than those two establishment parties exist. More ways of running elections exist than the sterility and vapidity of "First Past the Post." The archaic model of the Electoral College, which served some useful purpose in the late 1700s, is now in need of reform, and more, in its current state, it is a hindrance to progress beyond the limitations which the people have accepted as "reality."<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/oOSdwDX60hA/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oOSdwDX60hA?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
A sun does exist. An entire world outside the cave lies waiting to be explored and understood. The people who are even now bound, deceived, misdirected and distracted and diverted from the truth can shake off their shackles and walk out of the cave. The key is here, and a rudimentary map. They have but to accept the offer and act upon it. As <a href="http://www.jill2016.com/about">a certain doctor</a> would advise the people to affirm, "It's in our hands." It is indeed; the key to remove the chains, the map out of the cave, both are in the hands of the people, if they will but pay attention and use those tools.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XtWW_tRCCT4/WBE--RL3BbI/AAAAAAAAEtc/a8zA1hqAMBAyEJeVhV_HdoCAM9TVl6LTACPcB/s1600/2016-10-26-1415_My-Vote-for-Jill-Stein.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="345" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XtWW_tRCCT4/WBE--RL3BbI/AAAAAAAAEtc/a8zA1hqAMBAyEJeVhV_HdoCAM9TVl6LTACPcB/s400/2016-10-26-1415_My-Vote-for-Jill-Stein.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The time is now. Every vote counts. The people must go Green in 2016, for the republic, for themselves, for their children, for their children's children, for freedom and truth, honoring the past, respecting the present, and building a worthy legacy for the future.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_-YzUjTYHEU/V_PwqGF73TI/AAAAAAAAEdY/0sDmIWrKIco9BF5E2f5L84q6MLn0TWe8wCPcB/s1600/GPUS_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="183" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_-YzUjTYHEU/V_PwqGF73TI/AAAAAAAAEdY/0sDmIWrKIco9BF5E2f5L84q6MLn0TWe8wCPcB/s320/GPUS_.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">The title of the post comes from <i>Star Trek</i> (The Original Series), Season 3, episode 10; episode 65 overall; production code 67.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<b style="font-size: small;">Fair use notice</b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">For more information: <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>Liviana (SuccubaSuprema)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07191032294285487395noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1313226054990796678.post-86067741561087040602016-10-23T21:47:00.004-07:002016-11-16T23:19:08.431-08:00Obsession<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: x-large;">Obsession,</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">or, Misdirection and Diversion,</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>by Liviana (Giovanna L.)</b></div>
<br />
<br />
On Friday, the 7th of October, in the Common Era year 2016, a video from 2005 was <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/07/media/access-hollywood-donald-trump-tape/">released</a> by <i>NBC</i> and <i>The Washington Post</i>, featuring Donald Trump and Billy Bush with a hot mic recording their conversation. To say that their chat was "Not Safe For Work" would be an understatement, as the reader will note from the link just provided. Earlier in the week, Julian Assange of WikiLeaks held a press conference in which he promised that the first batch of leaks in his "October Surprise" would be released that week. <a href="https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails">That release</a> also came on the 7th of October. Included in the leak were excerpts from the long-withheld paid speeches which were given by Hillary Clinton to various big banks and Wall Street firms. Included in those excerpts were some statements by Mrs Clinton which demonstrated that she is, as progressives have long held, a two-faced person who says one thing in public and another in private, that her public statements cannot be trusted, that her publicly stated positions on issues cannot be viewed as an accurate presentation of her actual views.<br />
<br />
Most of the main stream media obsessed over Mr Trump's comments, and said nothing about the revelations from the excerpts of Hillary's paid speeches, for over 24 hours. One of the few exceptions, surprisingly, was <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-coordinated-on-clinton-email-issues-new-documents-show-1475798310"><i>The Wall Street Journal</i></a>. Another was <i><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/wikileaks-exposes-some-of-clintons-wall-street-speeches/">CBS</a></i>, perhaps recalling fondly the days when Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, and Dan Rather were among the most trusted people in America. The author still recalls Mister Rather ending broadcasts with the word "Courage" in September of 1986 and catching flak for it, but the author loved it. He was right to say it; the American people needed to hear it at the time.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dE0nN_Xoc9w/WA2W0dLSTSI/AAAAAAAAEr8/tEtmuhVQotQo0b6reCUrlwS7ifPAx-jaACLcB/s1600/Dan_Rather_on_Courage.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="187" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dE0nN_Xoc9w/WA2W0dLSTSI/AAAAAAAAEr8/tEtmuhVQotQo0b6reCUrlwS7ifPAx-jaACLcB/s400/Dan_Rather_on_Courage.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The recent narrative over which the main stream media obsessed was essentially "Trump is a bad man, he's a misogynist, he said all these deplorable things, Republicans are deserting him."<br />
<br />
The author has said it before since these two releases, and she will now say it again.<br />
<br />
Men may not want to admit this, but they <b><i>do</i></b> talk among themselves in exactly the same way in which Donald Trump and Billy Bush were speaking on the tape. Such speech is not particularly uncommon among men. It is also a form of male posturing, and should be taken as such (in other words, it amounts to more hot air, trying to impress one another with how sexually active and "Alpha" they are; i.e., the same blowhard routine which has already been seen from Trump throughout the primary season and continuing into the lead-up to the general election). The author has herself heard much worse talk from guys when they did not realize a woman was within earshot. Why anyone is surprised at the comments of Mr Trump is a bit mysterious; the public already knows that Trump is a chauvinist, after all. Yes, the comments which Trump made were lewd, but they pale in comparison to Hillary being a condescending, two-faced, corrupt criminal. Progressives have been saying all along that Trump's <i>words</i> cannot compare to Hillary's <i>actions</i>.<br />
<br />
In addition, every woman with a story about "Slick Willy" misbehaving which came to Mrs Clinton's knowledge was apparently <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvR62T1gO0w">mocked and insulted</a> by Mrs Clinton, who tried to silence them and furthermore <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10811894/Monica-Lewinsky-Hillary-Clinton-blamed-the-woman-for-Bill-Clintons-affair.html">attempted to discredit them and besmirch their reputations</a>. The obvious example is <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/timeline.htm">Monica Lewinsky</a>. whom Mrs Clinton <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-monica-lewinsky-a-narcissistic-loony-toon/">referred to</a> at the time the story was breaking as "a narcissistic loony toon." Paula Jones <a href="http://www.insideedition.com/headlines/14423-paula-jones-i-cant-believe-bill-clinton-has-the-nerve-to-campaign-for-hillary">accused</a> Mr Clinton of exposing himself and sexually harassing her. In January 1998, as part of Paula Jones' case, Mr Clinton <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/14/us/testing-president-accuser-jones-lawyers-issue-files-alleging-clinton-pattern.html?pagewanted=all">testified under oath</a> that he had sexual relations with Gennifer Flowers. In 2016, Ms Flowers <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3268814/Hillary-enabler-Bill-s-mistress-Gennifer-Flowers-speaks-former-Couple-s-40th-anniversary-says-secret-tapes.html">stated</a> that Hillary is an enabler of Bill Clinton's affairs. <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/juanita-broaddrick-wants-to-be-believed?utm_term=.mvdQKJzb#.lv4ZYPwE">Juanita</a> Broaddrick <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgFha2zOsJk">accused Bill Clinton of rape</a>. <b><i><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2587613/Aide-accused-Bill-Clinton-groping-says-Americans-deserve-better-Clintons.html">Kathleen Willey has accused Bill Clinton of groping her without consent</a>.</i></b> And all of this is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/opinion/sunday/when-hillary-clinton-killed-feminism.html">still with</a> Mrs Clinton.<br />
<br />
But wait, there's <a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/hillary-shocked-trumps-sex-talk-heres-video-hillary-threatening-sex-assault-victims-1995/">more</a>! Ms Clinton herself, who has more recently <a href="https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/643475466490388480?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">parroted</a> the demands of certain so-called "Third Wave Feminists" that a woman who says she has been raped should be believed (perhaps the example of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley_rape_allegations">Tawana Brawley</a> has been forgotten, but that said, not every woman who says she was raped is Ms Brawley, and while automatic belief would be an example of inappropriate credulity on the part of investigators, those taking her testimony should absolutely <b><i>not</i></b> interact with the woman making the claim in the same way they would deal with a suspect in a crime), has a history of denigrating, mocking, attempting to silence and smear, and defiantly refusing to believe women who made such claims about Mr Clinton.<br />
<br />
Trump <i>did</i> at least offer <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/07/politics/donald-trump-women-vulgar/index.html?adkey=bn">something</a> which some are taking as <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-apology-statement.html">an apology</a> for the remarks, and some have doubts about it being an actual apology due to the wording. The author will say that it was <i>more</i> of an apology than any she has heard from Hillary Clinton; indeed, Ms Clinton never admits fault, but says "I misspoke" or "I made a mistake," or blatantly denies anything was wrong with what she said or did, or denies it ever even <i>happened</i>.<br />
<br />
So once <a href="http://wonkette.com/605513/lets-talk-about-juanita-broaddrick">again</a>, people are afraid of or upset by some <b><i>words</i></b> used by Trump, but willing to <a href="http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/feminists-want-to-protect-hillary-clinton-do-they-realise-they-are-doing-her-dirty-work/">overlook</a> the <b><i>actions</i></b> of Hillary Clinton, exactly as Trump stated in his apology. And exactly as progressives have been pointing out for over two months now, they're <b><i>obsessing</i></b> over Trump's <i>speech</i>, while giving a pass to Hillary's <i>behavior</i>. Why, exactly?<br />
<br />
The answer is simple: misdirection and diversion. Indeed, the very timing of the released tape of what Trump has <b><i>accurately</i></b> (as unpleasant as that reality may be for some women to hear) referred to as "locker-room banter" seems to be rather convenient, since the main stream media folk were aware that Assange's first batch of leaks would happen some time in that week, and the main stream media outlets have largely promoted Hillary's candidacy since the two conventions ended.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the Democrats, for their part, do not explicitly deny the truth of what has been revealed in the leaked emails and speeches. Some have danced around the question, alluding to "<a href="http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/21/heres-cryptographic-proof-that-donna-brazile-is-wrong-wikileaks-emails-are-real/">doctored</a>" emails, without ever explicitly claiming that the leaked emails themselves have been altered, but for the most part, they attempt to portray themselves as "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-JChl8w6oQ">victims</a>" and point their fingers at <a href="http://m.democracynow.org/stories/16576">Russia</a>, as if the source of the leaks would somehow absolve them, and Mrs Clinton, of responsibility for the contents of the emails and speeches. Thanks to WikiLeaks, the public has seen evidence of <a href="http://thefreethoughtproject.com/wikileaks-10-most-damning-clinton-emails-media/">collusion between the DNC and the main stream media</a>, the public has seen <a href="https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11011">excerpts from Mrs Clinton's paid speeches</a> (which reveal, among other things, what progressives already knew, that she changes her message depending on her audience, or, in other words, that she is two-faced), the public has seen that Mrs Clinton's economic views are (as progressives already knew) <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upowUjdaiN0">Right Wing</a>, the public has seen evidence that <a href="http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/">the DNC colluded</a> with the Hillary for President campaign during the primary (in violation of the DNC's own charter) and <a href="http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/wikileaks-emails-clinton-bernie-list-directory-photos-most-damaging-worst-rhode-island-delegate-fec-jvf/">attempted to undermine</a> Senator Sanders' campaign (in defiance of the democratic principle of fair and honest elections) -- and these leaks led to the Chair of the DNC stepping down (how's that for evidence of the authenticity of the leaked emails?), the public now knows that Hillary at least gave some thought to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcxAGLDMA8c">naming a billionaire as her running mate</a> but already planned to name Tim Kaine as her running mate <a href="https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2986">over a year prior</a> to the Democratic National Convention, the public now knows that <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/10/18/hillary-superpac-coordination/">Hillary colluded illegally with Super Pacs</a>, the people <a href="https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3609">know</a> that the DNC <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiQsczhqr6c">punished Tulsi Gabbard for endorsing Senator Sanders</a>, hints have been revealed that <a href="https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4178">Hillary's campaign was in contact with the Department of Justice</a> while she was under investigation by the FBI, the public has seen confirmation that Hillary as Secretary of State <a href="http://www.press24.us/breaking-wikileaks-confirms-hillary-sold-weapons-to-isis/">approved the sale of weapons</a> to Daesh (also known as "ISIL" and "ISIS"), the people have seen that <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/hillary-clinton-expresses-support-fracking-wikileaks-document-2428659">Hillary still supports fracking</a>, the public has seen that <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4apv82DFYHM">Hillary will sell out American workers</a>, the people have seen that Hillary <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM92UbRR6Ho">believes</a> that <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/10/07/wikileaks_releases_excerpts_of_hillary_clinton_s_wall_street_speeches.html">the very people who caused the economic recession should be trusted to resolve the situation and suggest regulations on themselves</a> (Cenk of TYT calls her on this, but fails to realize that his previous talk of electing Hillary and then getting money out of politics is the same fallacy, as the author pointed out in <a href="https://plus.google.com/+GiovannaX/posts/JeUwrNdMEG8">a post on Google Plus</a>: "Hillary isn't going to cooperate with you or us to get the money out of politics for the same reason the bankers aren't going to help the government successfully regulate the banks: she has benefitted from money in politics!"), and the list goes on. What Julian Assange has done in releasing this information is what journalists are <i>supposed</i> to do, and what they <i>did</i> do once upon a time.<br />
<br />
But Trump said bad things, and <a href="http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2016/10/15/news-medias-unbalanced-look-at-trump-vs-clinton-revelations/">that</a>, and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeEDHjxOK6g"><i>alleged</i> Russian hacks</a>, became the focus of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmGsAMZ405c">the main stream media</a> in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XIcMz_2JbI">an effort to bury the revelations</a> of WikiLeaks.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-a43bJa1ymuQ/WBH1DDUAH-I/AAAAAAAAEtw/N5xqP_La75MjoIKBb1BnZCNfcLbKUqdoQCLcB/s1600/WALTER-CRONKITE-EARLY-CBS-1-2jajet8.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-a43bJa1ymuQ/WBH1DDUAH-I/AAAAAAAAEtw/N5xqP_La75MjoIKBb1BnZCNfcLbKUqdoQCLcB/s320/WALTER-CRONKITE-EARLY-CBS-1-2jajet8.jpg" width="253" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Walter Cronkite</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
Once upon a time, the news media did journalism.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-E4ZfLlNI0OQ/WA2TaRRXIdI/AAAAAAAAErw/RGxXmAjMM-kLfQ4SvD9UTRAIG_UfsahDwCLcB/s1600/Edward%2BR%2BMurrow.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-E4ZfLlNI0OQ/WA2TaRRXIdI/AAAAAAAAErw/RGxXmAjMM-kLfQ4SvD9UTRAIG_UfsahDwCLcB/s320/Edward%2BR%2BMurrow.jpg" width="259" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Edward R. Murrow</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
But now, they are another of the circuses in the <a href="http://random-musings-from-a-muse.blogspot.com/2016/09/bread-and-circuses.html">bread and circuses</a> which the establishment uses to distract the voters.<br />
<br />
When the people have revelations of actual wrongdoing, of subversion of democracy, of criminal collusion, of the deception perpetrated by Hillary Clinton on the voters, of Hillary's real viewpoints, that should be news.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
But no, Trump said bad things, and that has been used to distract from the dystopia which <a href="http://www.lesserevil2016.com/index.shtml">Hillary Clinton</a> has planned.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/mHQM49njiHM/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mHQM49njiHM?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Here's an idea: don't vote for either of those two rich assholes who care nothing for America or the American people. <a href="http://www.inquisitr.com/3568763/vote-for-jill-because-she-can-win/">Go Green in 2016</a> and tell <a href="http://random-musings-from-a-muse.blogspot.com/2016/09/for-world-is-hollow-and-i-have-touched.html">the "two" party system</a> to get stuffed.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4uiCQ6iaqPE/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4uiCQ6iaqPE?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
The author has shown in this blog already that the Democrats who blame Ralph Nader for Al Gore's defeat in 2000 are <a href="http://random-musings-from-a-muse.blogspot.com/2016/09/remember-what-we-fight-against-and-what.html">in denial of the facts</a>. More than that, however, anyone who votes for <i>anyone</i> is "spoiling" the election for another candidate. This horseshit about "spoilers" is so illogical as to merit only disdain.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
But but but ... Trump! Yeah? Progressives have the numbers to defeat both of the rich assholes and put <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp7uaRNP9bI">a progressive</a> in office. The American people should <a href="http://www.salon.com/2016/10/02/watch-jill-stein-comes-on-salon-talks-stand-up-and-fight-for-the-greater-good/">listen</a> to that progressive and give <a href="http://www.gp.org/platform">her platform</a> the consideration it deserves.</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/TWnX-sVdego/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TWnX-sVdego?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_GTPfEsxEGc/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_GTPfEsxEGc?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">The title of the post comes from <i>Star Trek</i> (The Original Series), Season 2, episode 13; episode 42 overall; production code 47.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<b style="font-size: small;">Fair use notice</b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">For more information: <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. </span><br />
<br />
<br />Liviana (SuccubaSuprema)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07191032294285487395noreply@blogger.com0