Sunday, November 18, 2018

The Greater Battle Behind The Persecution Of Julian Assange


Can someone remind me of the reason we are supposed to be against Julian Assange? I’ve not been following the matter too closely so I wouldn’t know. Not being an expert on the subject I would not bother to write about it were it not for the fact that the hatred expressed towards Assange, and the trouble he is in, seem at odds with everything I was taught about who we are as a society. I believe it had something to do with him reporting unpleasant facts about Hillary Clinton. Are facts bad because they are unpleasant?

Have we really gotten to the point where we feel we can punish people for reporting truths we don’t like? Oh, I’ve heard it said the real problem is that he doesn’t give a fair and balanced picture of what’s going on. If that were a real journalistic concern, Woodward and Bernstein should have said “Yeah, Richard Nixon was involved in a cover-up of the Watergate break-in, but let us also tell you about some bad things Democrats do.” Journalism doesn’t work that way. You dig into a story and you follow it to the end. It is your job to report news/truth as best you can and tell the story as you come across it. A clue brings you to more information, which starts to reveal a narrative which you then report. In the case of Julian Assange, I believe he released information that was given to him.

When a journalist or editor is given timely information, he does not sit on it until an equal amount of information is found that gives counter-balance to it. But the fact that Assange is tied to inconvenient truths about Hillary Clinton and the DNC is enough to cause liberals looking for anybody to blame for their candidate’s loss other than their candidate to irrationally hate and blame him. It is enough for liberals to betray their basic notions of freedom of the press and demand imprisonment for someone who did nothing more than release truthful information about a candidate running for the highest office in the United States. I cannot escape the feeling that it is at its core an assault on our appreciation for truth.

Of course, the fact that said information (allegedly) influenced the outcome of the election, giving us Donald Trump, leads many to believe Assange had some ulterior motive in releasing the information he did. Many believe he was working with the Russians, although no evidence is provided for this belief. This theory (accepted as gospel fact by many) has some very important questions to be answered, which our own media might be interested in working on were they not so busy condemning an honest journalist for showing them how to do their job. The first and foremost question to ask is, did the Wikileaks information actually even have any impact on the election?

But let us assume for a moment the unproven, that Russia was really the source for Assange’s information: so what? Yes, so what? If we had this sort of information on Vladimir Putin, would we not be just in sharing it with the world? Would we be wrong to do so? Moreover, Julian Assange is not an American but an Australian. His duty lies not in loyalty to the United States and the secrets of its political parties but to truth. There is no reason other than the wrath of an imperial nation that he should not release it. A very powerful reason, no doubt, one which silences the overwhelming majority of newspersons all over the world. It is to Assange’s greater credit that he did not let this very real threat dissuade him.

Is it wrong of Julian Assange to report information even if he did so with a personal agenda? Would he be the first to do so? I think we can state with confidence that American journalists do so all the time. Do you honestly believe that Assange’s truth swayed the voting public more than Rush Limbaugh’s lies and half-truths? Should Assange, in reporting truth, be punished rather than merely de-platformed, as was the punishment received by hate-monger Alex Jones?

We speak of election interference as the ultimate crime, and it is indeed something that should not be done. But when it comes to sharing truths, embarrassing as they may be, I believe it is better to know than not know. And election interference needs to be proven before we can mete out punishments for it. In the case of Russia in the 90’s it was not merely undeniable but openly discussed. It was not merely the U.S. telling some unpleasant truth about Russian officials but blatant manipulation of the political process. Similarly, nothing Assange could ever do could come close to what the CIA did to his own government. If our interest was one of law and fairness, should we not first jail those responsible for the ouster of prime minister Gough Whitlam before going after Julian Assange?

As I have said, the case of Julian Assange is one I have not been following closely. But the precedence that would be set—has been set—by punishing a journalist for releasing embarrassing but true information is a very dangerous one. It changes who we are as a nation, or at least changes who we have pretended to be. It changes each and every one of us in that it places our personal narratives above the search for truth. It weakens our arguments when we talk about censorship, renders laughable the call to defend Jim Acosta. Indeed, it is a very potent weapon in the war between truth and political expediency. Such a war has been waged for quite a while now, with the truth in constant retreat. But there are moments in retreat when one has to rally the army to defend certain key positions in order to prevent the retreat from becoming a rout. I believe the case of Julian Assange to be one of those vital points around which we must rally.

We are at a crucial juncture at this time in this nation, even globally. There is an undeniable resurgence of fascistic practices and ideology. Fascism as an ideology which promotes narrative over truth. Those on the (alleged) left are trying to combat a rise in fascistic ideologies with a counter-narrative, but it too is at war with the truth. Abandoning the search for truths, pleasant or otherwise, is not an effective means of combatting fascism. It in fact gives power to the notion that narrative supersedes truth. Democrats are at a point where they are willing to compromise principles in order to win the larger battle, but it is the very abandoning of principles that has gotten us to the point we are now. Abandoning truth for narrative is a cowardly action. There is no action the fascist would rather see us take, no response he would more greatly relish. Narrative is the battlefield of his choosing. Truth should be ours.

Friday, November 16, 2018

News Items From Time Magazine In 1923

A collection of items from Time Magazine from 1923. These are real.

March 3:
Kansas: A bill is before the Legislature to make the possession of cigarettes an offence punishable by imprisonment. Kansas already has a law against selling or giving away cigarettes, but none against smoking them.

March 24:
Connecticut: The lower house of the Legislature defeated a bill to legalize Sunday football and baseball by 139 to 86.

Florida: The system whereby convicts are delivered under contract to turpentine camps at $20 a head profit to the sheriff sending them there has been abolished by the Florida legislature 31-1. State Senator Wicker, who voted against the measure, said: "There are two things I know about--mules and Niggers. Corporal punishment is the only way a convict Nigger can be controlled.


May 28
Washington: By decision of the Attorney General it is legal for women to wear trousers where and when they please.

April 14
Director Lord of the Budget Bureau announced three weeks ago an expected deficit for the Treasury of $180,000,000 ($180 million). With income taxes yielding an unexpected $63,000,000 and the tariff another $100,000,000 over expectations, the deficit is in a fair way of being wiped out.

Nov. 3
One day of the Texas State Fair at Dallas was devoted to the Ku Klux Klan. From 75,000 to 200,000 (according to the persuasion of the estimator) assembled wearing "100% American" buttons, Dragons, Klabees, and Cyplopses were present in robes of gold, purple, scarlet.

Dec. 24
The Supreme Court has declared the Minimum Wage Law in the District of Columbia unconstitutional by a vote of 5 to 3. This sweeping decision threatens the minimum wage laws already established or about to be enacted in several states, including New York, California, Kansas, Oregon, Wisconsin, Washington. The decision of the court held that the District's law was a price fixing act and as such an abridgment of the right of contract...Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor, has already issued a vigorous statement in which he asserted taht a tendency of the court was "to decide against humanity in favor of property".

Oct. 15
Some of the more important resolutions proposed by the American Federation of Labor.
--For a Constitutional Amendment prohibitng child labor.
--For investigation of the American Bell Telephone Co. as a monopoly, taking monopoly profits.
--For giving Porto Rico (sic) the status of a state.
--For the abolition of motion picture censorship as a danger to free speech.
--For condemnation of Fascisti organizations.
--For a separate political party for labor.

March 3
The military expenditures of the United States, England, France, Italy will be well over a billion dollars this year (the U.S. military spending was $251,250,231).

April 7
Germany: Ten thousand undaunted warriors followed their beloved leader, Adolph Hitler, into battle. The occasion was the first military maneuvers held by the Bavarian Fascista Army, wholehearted supporters of the monarchy.

Oct. 22
The animals in the Berlin Zoo were stated to be so hungry that they keep Berlin awake at night.

Nov. 12 Senator La Follette of Wisconsin arrived in the U.S. fresh from a European tour. He was principally impressed by what he had seen in Germany: "The Germans are suffering for want of food, fuel, and clothing. Young children and old people are dying daily from hunger and disease. Emaciated, despairing, they are waiting the end. Food riots are common. The crisis which is at hand involves possibilities too awful to contemplate. It menaces more than Germany. There is no time for debate."

Aug. 3
William Randolph Hearst, largest individual landowner in Mexico, has filed a formal protest against the threatened seizure of his Barbicora ranch of  acres by the state of Chihuahua.

Oct. 27
Challenged by charges of cowardice and indifference, the Church issued a manifesto on the subject of "Industrial Relations and the Churches." All American churches of any considerable membership took part and the manifesto...was edited by a Catholic and a Protestant to explain Catholic, Jewish, and Protestant teachings on the subject.
   The Catholics emphasize: "Industrial relations are human relations, and therefore subject to the moral law." Wages must be sufficient to suppor the wage earners in reasonable and frugal comfort. Labor organizations are permitted.
    Judaism points out that the primary purpose of industry is to free men and equip them for the "larger life."
    The Protestant position: the intrinsic worth of personality makes "even the least" to be of greatest importance to God and society; the motive of service makes property subordinate to spiritual needs.

Dec. 17
The U.S. is now the only civilized country, with the possible exception of Japan, which places absolute legal restrictions on the dissemination of information on methods of preventing conception.



Tuesday, November 13, 2018

The Option Of Two Disturbed Children: A Political Parable

I’m worried about my kids Donny and Rachel. They’re not right in the head, they argue all the time. Oh, I know siblings argue when they’re young, but the kind of behavior they’re exhibiting may require serious medication. Possibly, if it's still an option, lobotomies.


Rachel is the older one. She’s supposed to be the more mature of the two, and she can at least act it when she’s not around her brother. Don’t get me wrong, she’s got other issues, but at least she knows how to behave in public. But get her around Donny and she loses her shit. Completely. She’s the one that gets good grades in school, and all the teachers tell me what a joy she is to have in class, but get her around her brother and she behaves in ways that makes me wonder if she’s got any brains at all.

Little Donny, on the other hand, well… when God was handing out brains, Donny thought He said blame, and Donny said he would never take any of that. Nevertheless, despite his modest IQ and limited self-awareness, he knows how to play his little sister like a violin. A very highly-strung violin. How shall I put this? Let’s just say she’s brittle. You have to mind your words around her and if things aren’t done the way she expects them to go, well, imagine the sound of a violin being played by a badger. God, the shrieking can be unbearable. But that shrill sound is music to Donny’s ears. He lives to get a rise out of her, and she never fails to take the bait. It seems there’s nothing Donny would rather do than make his sister cry. The kid has empathy issues.

Of course, Rachel’s not innocent either. As much as she says she hates Donny, she always seems to be needling him as well. And as much as she says she’s polite and sensitive to the feelings of others, she’s always making fun of his hair and his hands and his weight. And she’s always saying he likes to kiss other boys. I tried to teach her better, I don’t know where she got that from.

And there’s nothing she likes better than to be able to snitch on Donny. Rachel has a thing for authority figures and is always trying to get either my wife or me, or a teacher, to punish Donny. Because even though Rachel is older and smarter and stronger, she’ll never stand up to Donny. Whenever push comes to shove, she caves to him.

But as much as she loves to rat out her little brother, as much as she wants to see him get in trouble, she only seems to care when it’s about her. Here’s a little story that I’m reluctant to share, but it gets the point across.

The other day I had to take the cat to the vet, and the kids came along for the ride. On the way home, the two of them were unusually quiet, which worried me. Then I get a whiff of something and after a moment I realize it’s the smell of burning hair. I turn around and there’s little Donny with a lighter, holding it to the cat kennel. I yell “What the hell are you doing?” And then I realize Rachel’s in the back seat and hasn’t said a thing. She must have seen what he was doing, must have smelled the burning hair smell, but she didn’t make a peep. She lives to draw attention to Donny’s misdeeds, and yet whenever he does something really horrible, she’s more worried about him being on her side of the seat or something. It seems she'd rather point out his use of bad Grammar than the fact that he's trying to torch a cat.

So I ask her why she didn’t say anything about her brother holding a lighter to the fucking cat and she just curls up into a fetal position and starts muttering “Russ, Russ, Russ,” over and over again. This is something she does every time she thinks she’s about to be blamed for something. (Russ is a kid at her school she blames for her not getting the role of the faerie princess in the school play. Why she blames him, she has never made clear, but she’s been freaking out about it for like two years now. When I talked to her teacher on parent/teacher night, she said Russ is one of the few kids who doesn’t do whatever Rachel asks of him on the playground. Now Rachel has it in her head that Russ is helping Donny steal her stuff around the house. She’s really obsessing about it, it scares me almost as much as the cat-burning incident. Hell, they’re both so creepy.)

I know they’re the only two kids I have and I should try to think more kindly of them. But here’s the thing: my wife and I aren’t getting any younger and we’re starting to think about getting our affairs in order both for when we won’t be able to take care of ourselves and for after we’re gone. We had a will made up and my wife said we would need an executor to take care of our business and assets once we couldn’t. She asked me which kid we should put in charge and I couldn’t even consider such an idea. “Come on,” she said, “which child do you trust to take care of us?”

“Neither,” I said. “All politeness aside, one’s a moron who likes to torch felines, and the other has a paranoid obsession about a boy at her school. Neither one is qualified for such an important task.”

“You have to decide,” she said. “You only have two choices, so just choose one.”

As succinctly as I could, I said, “No. Fucking. Way.”


Like my writing? Please follow me on Twitter, sign up for my newsletter, or check me out on Amazon.

Wednesday, November 7, 2018

Voting Is A Cheap, Tawdry Affair


A great blue wave crashed upon the shores of America last night, leaving in its wake nothing but the tired and lusterless pearl that is Nancy Pelosi. Like a bad penny, you just can’t seem to get away from it.

So this is what it has come to, this is the sum total of all the last two years’ violent passion. All the Sturm Und Drang, the loud wailing and pussy hat wearing has resulted in this. Pay Go and a promise to investigate Donald Trump’s taxes. A bit of an anti-climax.

Was it good for you, too? Have we saved the environment yet? What is our next step in preventing climate catastrophe, nuclear war, and authoritarian government? Like you, I’m too spent from the moment to contemplate right now. How about a cigarette and a long sleep. When we’ve awoken in the morning, we can start contemplating choosing electable candidates for the 2020 election.

The problem with the kind of lifestyle we’ve chosen is we wake up to find Dianne Feinstein in bed next to us. My God, what were we thinking? How lonely and insecure must we have been, how intoxicated with rage at the other party to engage in such sleezy behavior? But as they say, politics makes for strange (and regrettable) bedfellows.

Let me ask you a question, and be honest with me. Does it leave you feeling cheap and empty inside? Was the whole elaborate dance with the strumpet we call the Democratic Party worth this? Do you really feel loved? Was there any genuine connection between the two of you or was it all about the voting? Because you know deep in your heart that that was all that mattered to her. Last night she was willing to say anything to get you to vote, but when you wake up in the morning, she’ll be gone, without so much as a note on the pillow.

And you know where she’s gone, don’t you? She’s already whoring around with her oily sugar daddies, taking money for tricks. Engaging in the most debased of behavior, all for the money they toss her way. Oh sure, she always acts like they are worst of enemies, but they play footsies under the table as they make faces at each other above it. Most likely, they’re laughing at what a sucker you are at this moment. And you won’t see her again until the next time she needs you. 
But you’ll take her back again, won’t you? You’ve really got to work on your self-esteem issues.

But at some point, don’t you want someone who really cares for you? Don’t you want someone who will tell you the truth even when seductive lies are a lot sexier? Wouldn’t it feel good to have someone who has proven themselves true to you time and again? Someone who doesn’t try to manipulate you? Don’t say you’re not good enough, don’t ever say that about yourself. That’s her speaking, she’s taken all the fight out of you, reduced your ego to a shriveled pea. That’s what a bad woman will do to you.

It’s time you settled down and left your indiscreet and immature ways behind you, you’re too old for that sort of nonsense. As one who’s never walked very far down the road of meaningless hookups, let me tell you how good it feels to have self-respect. Even being alone is better than meaningless voting with a lying harlot. You're going to get some incurable disease if you keep that up, and you will have to explain it to your children. And there is someone better for you out there, you have to believe it. You just have to start working on building healthy relationships if you're ever going to get what you deserve.

You don’t love her, you can’t love her. And if you don’t love her, it’s time to walk away. Admit it, when you were doing the nasty, marking your ballot, you had your eyes closed and were thinking of Bernie, weren’t you?


Monday, November 5, 2018

Tomorrow's Election Winners: Corporations


There’s money to be made for those who can predict the future. If you can pick the right stocks they call you a market guru. Pick the right teams to win and you are an oddsmaker. If you’re sharp enough to see where a society without morals is going to fail, they’ll call you a prophet. But point out the painfully obvious results of elections and they call you a useful idiot and a Kremlin puppet.

Nevertheless, I am willing to prognosticate on your behalf. Allow me to save you the bother of staying up late tomorrow in order to hear the results. The business you work for will appreciate having you well-rested and able to turn a profit for them.

The winners of tomorrow night’s elections will be corporations. I can’t tell you if it is the Republicans or the Democrats who will have a greater opportunity to serve them, but they shall be served regardless. That’s because, blue wave or crimson tide, nobody is going to come gunning for those corporate conglomerates that run every aspect of our lives.

Once upon a time, Social Security was the third-rail of politics, meaning that nobody dared even think about attacking or even questioning that beloved social contract. But today the corporate entity, the corporate way of structuring our society, the necessity for pooled money to make profit über alles, is a principle so ingrained in our thinking that to merely utter objections out loud would be blasphemy. This goes far beyond politics into the realm of religion. Commandment number one being: God has given corporations unto you as the source of all life. Though shalt not question their need for profit nor put any stumbling block before them.

When was the last time you heard either a Republican or Democrat say anything disparaging about the sacred institution that is the corporation? When the economy was falling apart because of the actions of the corporate banks, not a word was whispered about how someone within said banks should be held responsible. Instead, there was a great reaching across aisles in order to come together to save those banks that were too big to fail. Individuals were left to fend for themselves. Victims of unwise/greedy corporate policies found themselves crushed in the gears of the economy by the millions, but not a thought was given to them. Instead, Democrats and Republicans showered failed banks with money the way a horny sheik would an attractive belly dancer.

Likewise, the automotive industry was bailed out by the government, which used the taxpayers’ own money as incentive for them to buy new cars they didn’t need and throw away cars that were still serviceable. Democrats had no problem with it, and the same Republicans who make sure poor people aren’t spending their food stamps on potato chips were okie dokie with it too. Why? Because it benefited corporations.

Corporate media isn’t going to tell you the real winners are corporations. Corporations are going to have half the country hating the other half. They’ll break all of society down into different interest groups but they won’t even mention, in regards to the election corporations, the biggest and boldest special interest group of all.

The corporations are now completely in charge of our foreign policy. This used to be a bit of a secret, but it has become such a fait accompli that nobody bothers to hide it anymore. Given the fact that our country’s number one export is weaponry, this is a truly scary thought. Our President has pointed out that it would be inconvenient to hold our allies responsible for their actions when they are buying so many of our arms. Even our religious leaders are now worshiping at the altar of corporate profit.

So when you go to vote tomorrow, keep in mind that whatever you are voting for, it is not going to matter to the true power structures in this country, and indeed, around the world. The people of New Zealand did not want the TPP. 94% of New Zealanders did not want it. And so they voted out their conservative government that was pushing it and elected a more liberal government. The result was a new trade deal, basically the TPP with a couple added letters to it (the CPTPP). It passed 110-8, with only members of the Green Party voting against it.

I do not tell you not to vote tomorrow, nor do I tell you who not to vote for. I only suggest that you do not invest yourself too fully in the results. Do not stay up too late wondering who will win the Senate or the House, because that has already been determined. Instead, calm your emotions, and try to get a good night’s sleep. Because real change will not occur in the sand box the corporate system has relegated for you to play in. Real change will occur when we realize we have to fight the system outside of the parameters they have set for us, outside the game that they have rigged.

Wednesday, October 24, 2018

Erich Fromm And The Rise Of Fascism (Part 1)


There are a lot of people warning about Donald Trump’s presidency as mirroring Hitler’s rise to power. They point to the next elections as do or die for defeating this new Nazi scourge: if we don’t roll with the blue wave, all hope is lost.
 

Accompanying such talk are loose references to the Weimar Republic and hyper-inflation, but I haven’t heard anything that sounded like it came from an in-depth understanding of why the fascists came to power when and where they did. In the interest of better understanding what actually brought the Nazis to power and how to avoid such a thing in the present, I thought it a good idea to re-read Escape From Freedom by Erich Fromm.

I do believe Erich Fromm had a unique position from which to comment on the rise of the Nazis in Germany. Born in Frankfurt Germany in 1900, he was young enough to witness the effects of the First World War to his country, although too young to serve. He was there to experience post-war Germany and the slow rise of the Nazi party until, as a Jew, he found it prudent to take a position in the United States in 1933. As someone who earned his doctorate in sociology and later became a practicing psychologist, I can think of nobody more qualified to diagnose the disease that is fascism and warn us of how we might prevent its occurrence elsewhere and in the future.

This is precisely what he did in 1941, when he wrote Escape From Freedom. He writes from the position of not only a sociologist, but as a psychologist, a German, and a member of the group most hated by the Nazis. This is why I strongly recommend reading this book if you are truly concerned about fascism rising here and now in our country. The most important thing you can do is educate yourself on the past if you do not wish to see its atrocities duplicated in the past.

But hey, I know a lot of you are really that interested in stopping a fascist takeover our country. I mean, you’ll get off your couch and go to vote. Which is better than what half of us will do. You’ll get on social media and express your opinions, of which you are quite certain. More importantly, you’ll call out anyone who disagrees with you as either active participants in or useful idiots for fascism. But when it comes to reading an old book that’s over 300 pages long of in-depth analysis of socio-economic trends and the psychological underpinnings of the appeal of authoritarian governments, well…you’ll let the people you vote for take care of that sort of thing. That’s what they’re paid for, right? You have a daytime job, and yoga classes, and luncheon appointments…

No worries, I’ve got you covered. I’ve read the whole book and highlighted the parts that appear to be relevant to the present time. While cliff notes are not the same as reading the actual text of Hamlet, there is yet something to be gained by them. Similarly, reading segments from Erich Fromm's book isn't going to be as good as immersing yourself in it, nonetheless, I feel it has value. Below I present you with excerpts from Escape From Freedom.

--At this crucial moment, however, a modicum of increased insight—objectivity—can make the difference between life and death for the human race. For this reason the development of a scientific and dynamic social psychology is of vital importance. Progress in social psychology is necessary to counteract the dangers which arise from the progress in physics and medicine.

--If we want to fight Fascism we must understand it. Wishful thinking will not help us. And reciting optimistic formulae will prove to be as inadequate and useless as the ritual of an Indian rain dance.”

--(Quote from John Dewey) “The serious threat to our democracy is not the existence of foreign totalitarian states. It is the existence within our own personal attitudes and within our own institutions of conditions which have given a victory to external authority. Discipline, uniformity, and dependence upon The Leader in foreign countries. The battlefield is also accordingly here—within ourselves and our institutions.”

--’Freedom from’ is not identical with positive freedom, with ‘freedom to’. The emergence of man from nature is a long-drawn-out process: to a large extent he remains tied to the world from which he emerged; he remains part of nature—the soil he lives on, the sun and moon and stars, the trees and flowers, the animals, and the group of people with whom he is connected by the ties of blood.

--…if the economic, social and political conditions on which the whole process of human individuation depends, do not offer a basis for the realization of individuality …while at the same time people have lost those ties which gave them security, this lag makes freedom an unbearable burden. It then becomes identical with doubt, with a kind of life which lacks meaning and direction. Powerful tendencies arise to escape from this kind of freedom into submission or some kind of relationship to man and the world which promises relief from uncertainty, even if it deprives the individual of his freedom.”

--…the negative side of freedom, the burden which it puts upon man, is difficult to realize, especially for those whose heart is with the cause of freedom. Because in the fight for freedom in modern history the attention was focused upon combating old forms of authority and restraint, it was natural that one should feel that the more these traditional restraints were eliminated, the more freedom one had gained. We fail sufficiently to recognize, however, that although man has rid himself from old enemies of freedom, new enemies of a different nature have arisen: enemies which are not essentially external. We believe…that freedom of speech is the last step in the march of victory of freedom. We forget that, although freedom of speech constitutes and important victory in the battle against old restraints, modern man is in a position where much of what ‘he’ thinks and says are the things that everybody else thinks and says; that he has not acquired the ability to think originally—that is, for himself—which alone gives meaning to his claim that nobody can interfere with the expression of his thoughts. Again, we are proud that in his conduct of life man has become free from external authorities, which tell him what to do and what not to do. We neglect the role of the anonymous authorities like public opinion and ‘common sense’, which are so powerful because of our profound readiness to conform to the expectations everybody has about ourselves and our equally profound fear of being different.

--We therefore are prone to think that the problem of freedom is exclusively that of gaining still more freedom of the kind we have gained in the course of modern history, and to believe that the defense of freedom against such powers that deny such freedom is all that is necessary. We forget that, although each of the liberties which have been won must be defended with utmost vigor, the problem of freedom is not only a quantitative one, but a qualitative one; that we do not only have to preserve and increase the traditional freedoms, but that we have to gain a new kind of freedom, one which enables us to realize our own individual self, to have faith in this self and in life.

--Once man was ready to become nothing but the means for the glory of a God who represented neither justice nor love, he was sufficiently prepared to accept the role of a servant to the economic machine—and eventually a “Fuhrer”.

--In any society the spirit of the whole culture is determined by the spirit of those groups that are most powerful in that society. This is so partly because these groups have the power to control the educational system, schools, church, press, theater, and thereby to imbue the whole population with their own ideas; furthermore, these powerful groups carry so much prestige that the lower classes are more than ready to accept and imitate their values and to identify themselves psychologically.

--While modern man seems to be characterized by utmost assertion of the self, actually his self has been weakened and reduced to a segment of the total self—intellect and will—to the exclusion of all other parts of the total personality.

--But although man has reached a remarkable degree of mastery of nature, society is not in control of the very forces it has created. The rationality of the system of production, in its technical aspects, is accompanied by the irrationality of our system of production in its social aspects. Economic crises, unemployment war, govern man’s fate. Man has built his world; he has built factories and houses, he produces cars and clothes, he grows grain and fruit. But he has become estranged from the product of his own hands, he is not really the master any more of the world he has built; on the contrary, this man-made world has become his master, before whom he bows down whom he tries to placate or to manipulate as best he can. The work of his own hands has become his God. He seems to be driven by self-interest, but in reality his total self with all its concrete potentialities has become an instrument for the purposes of the very machine his hands have built. He keeps up the illusion of being the center of the world, and yet he is pervaded by an intense sense of insignificance and powerlessness which his ancestors once consciously felt toward God.

--The concrete relationship of one individual to another has lost its direct and human character and has assumed a spirit of manipulation and instrumentality. In all social and personal relations the laws of the market are the rule.

--The word “employer” contains the whole story: the owner of capital employs another human being as he “employs” a machine. They both use each other for the pursuit of their economic interests. It is not a relationship of two human beings who have any interest in the other outside of this mutual usefulness.

--For those who struggle on, especially for a large part of the middle class, the fight assumes the character of a battle against such odds that the feeling of confidence in personal initiative and courage is replaced by a feeling of powerlessness and hopelessness. An enormous though secret power over the whole of society is exercise by a small group, on the decisions of which depends the fate of a large part of society. The inflation in Germany in 1923, or the American crash, increased the feeling of insecurity and shattered for many the hope of getting ahead by one’s own efforts and the traditional belief in the unlimited possibilities of success.

--The insignificance of the individual in our era concerns not only his role as a businessman, employee, or manual laborer, but also his role as a customer…As an abstract customer he is important, as a concrete customer he is utterly unimportant. There is nobody who is glad about his coming, nobody who is particularly concerned about his wishes. The act of buying has become similar to going to the post office and buying stamps.

--(regarding advertising) it does not appeal to reason but to emotion; like any other kind of hypnoid suggestion, it tries to impress its objects emotionally and then make them submit intellectually. This type of advertising impresses the customer by all sorts of means: by repetition of the same formula again and again; by the influence of an authoritative image, like that of a society lady or a famous boxer, who smokes a certain brand of cigarette; by attracting the customer and at the same time weakening his critical abilities by the sex appeal of a pretty girl; by terrorizing him with the threat of “b.o.” or “halitosis; or yet again by stimulating daydreams about a sudden change in one’s whole course of life brought about by buying a certain shirt or soap. All these methods are essentially irrational; they have nothing to do with the qualities of the merchandise, and they smother and kill the critical capacities of the customer like an opiate or outright hypnosis. They give him a certain satisfaction by their daydreaming qualities just as the movies do, but at the same time they increase his feeling of smallness and powerlessness.
--As a matter of fact, these methods of dulling the capacity for critical thinking are more dangerous to our democracy than many of the open attacks against it, and more immoral—in terms of human integrity—than the indecent literature, publication of which we punish.

Like the effect of advertising upon the customer, the methods of political propaganda tend to increase the feeling of insignificance of the individual voter. Repetition of slogans and emphasis on factors which have nothing to do with the issue at stake numb his critical capacities. The clear and rational appeal to his thinking are rather the exception than the rule in political propaganda—even in democratic countries. Confronted with the power and size of the parties as demonstrated in their propaganda, the individual voter cannot help feeling small and of little significance.
All this does not mean that advertising and political propaganda overtly stress the individual’s insignificance. Quite the contrary; they flatter the individual by making him appear important, and by pretending that they appeal to his critical judgment, to his sense of discrimination, But these pretenses are essentially a method to dull the individual’s suspicions and to help him fool himself as to the individual character of his decision. I need scarcely point out that the propaganda of which I have been speaking is not wholly irrational, and that there are differences in the weight of rational factors in the propaganda of different parties and candidates respectively.

--…in our effort to escape from aloneness and powerlessness, we are ready to get rid of our individual self either by submission to new forms of authority or by a compulsive conforming to accepted patterns.

--Once the primary bonds which gave security to the individual are severed, once the individual faces the world outside of himself as a completely separate entity, two courses are open to him since he has to overcome the unbearable state of powerlessness and aloneness. By one course he can progress to “positive freedom”; he can relate himself spontaneously to the world in love and work, in the genuine expression of his emotional, sensuous, and intellectual capacities; he can thus become one again with man, nature, and himself, without give up the independence and integrity of his individual self. The other course open to him is to fall back to give up his freedom and to try to overcome his aloneness by eliminating the gap that has arisen between his individual self and the world. The second course never reunites him with the world in the way he was related to it before he emerged as an “individual”, for the fact of his separateness cannot be reversed; it is an escape from an unbearable situation which would make life impossible if it were prolonged. This course of escape, therefore, is characterized by its compulsive character, like every escape from threatening panic; it is also characterized by the more or less complete surrender of individuality and the integrity of the self. Thus it is not a solution which leads to happiness and positive freedom; it is, in principle, a solution which is to be found in all neurotic phenomena. It assuages an unbearable anxiety and makes life possible by avoiding panic; yet it does not solve the underlying problem and is paid for by a kind of life that often consists only of automatic or compulsive activities.

Part 2 to follow soon…



Sunday, October 21, 2018

Mitch Mcconnell? Seriously, Kentucky, WTF?


Is Kentucky a breeding den of mutant man-goats? I don’t want to pick on a state full of people I hardly know, but it has some explaining to do. Seriously, there must be something fucking wrong with a state that elects Mitch McConnell to the United States Senate. If you could not find a better candidate, then why was The Hills Have Eyes not filmed in your state? Or was it?

I really want to know from someone who lives in the state of Kentucky: does anybody really like this guy? Why? What positive qualities does the man possess? If you’re going to vote in an evil politician—and here I have to admit that every state is guilty of this—couldn’t you at least elect one that doesn’t look like a boiling frog? Couldn’t you choose someone like Nikki Haley, an evil person, sure, but relatively normal to look at, at least?

What’s the matter with you? Do you think the rest of the country likes to see his face pop up on their news feed or TV every fucking day when we wake up? Gollum has a much better profile than Mitch McConnell. Don’t you know that every person who does not live in Kentucky hates you and judges you for this boiling pot of pea soup you call a congressman? We’re talking about kicking you out of the union, maybe selling you off to Mexico or Saudi Arabia.

Please, for fuck’s sake, just get rid of him. It’s common courtesy. It’s like flushing after you take a big dump. Nobody wants to deal with it.


Fuck. It’s like having an asshole roommate. Everyday we wake up and just want to go about our business. We want to take a shower to start the day, but you’ve already been there and clogged the toilet with your stinky McConnell. It’s not a good way for America to begin its workday.

And so far I’ve only pointed out the physical repulsiveness of Mitch McConnell. Because for God’s sake, that should be enough for you Kentuckians to get him out of the public eye. That alone should make you want to not be judged by the man. But as vomit-inducing as MM is in appearance, his inner self is even more vile. He’s like Dorian Grey, you don’t see all the truly nasty parts of him. The man has nothing to offer to anyone except those who are wealthy. He has done nothing but dismantle the social safety net. He is ruining our country. Morally he is toxic. Intellectually he is toxic. Please, in the name of all that is holy, please tell me why you keep sending him back to congress. Please tell me why you are willing to give this guy a paycheck when all he’s doing is enriching himself at your expense.

As much as I have opposed the idea of collective guilt in the past, you leave me no option but to hold every man woman and child of Kentucky responsible until you have removed that toilet-clogger from our sight. Go ahead, elect him to a state position, I don’t give a fuck, just keep him out of the federal government. I wouldn’t do that to you. I wouldn’t do that to my worst enemy.
I mean, seriously, look at him. I’m not one to pick on a person’s personal appearance, but LOOK AT HIM!!! Is that a face you want framed and hanging on you living room wall? You want a statue with that face standing in your downtown? You want his face on your currency someday? No? Then why do you subject us to that?

Let’s work something out, Kentucky. We’ll talk to Europe and have them end the tariffs on Kentucky bourbon if you ditch Mr. Turkeyneck. They sure the hell would take that trade in a heartbeat. France might be able to stomach Jerry Lewis but even they have their limits. We’ll even talk to California and get them to do an even up ejection of Nancy Pelosi. Who says we can’t find a win-win solution on this? Just no more unholy goat/man nominations, okay? Because if the Saudis buy you up, they're not going to be as subtle in their reactions as I've been.