Simple–Tons – and inexhaustible cleavage
Say what you like about 'representative' creeps - tribes are not for hating
Hi folks
I’ve got a number of big theme pieces underway, but spending the last few weeks rebuilding (and enhancing) my last eight years of online writing work, has also given me a chance to think again about several broader, more embracing ideas – some philosophical, and some more technical.
First, I find I am most lastingly pleased with the pieces where I tried hard to say something I have not seen clearly said (or at least bring a message from one sphere where it is known, to an audience which has not yet heard it, but should). I don’t just mean politics, history, pacifism and philosophy, but also under-seen or freshly considered art and music.
I will keep trying to work on that – essentially, quality over quantity. I don’t want you to read my stuff because I need applause, but because I work hard to bring a lot of unusual ideas together in a tasty way that stimulates new ideas, which can help cut through gordian knots and escape dead ends.
Sometimes that will mean delighting and amusing you, and sometimes it will feel vexing (if I’m challenging a paradigm you’re rather fond of). Rest assured, the vexation isn’t ever the point – and the purpose for which I ask you to work past it with me (with reason and fairness), is not ever trivial.
Today I want to talk about something very broad indeed – because it almost always feels like an idea when we encounter (or indeed embrace) it, but it is more properly seen as a destroyer of ideas (and debate, and compassion, and understanding, and knowledge, and compromise – phew). Not good.
The really screwy part of this trick, where we so easily substitute active stupidity for learning and honesty, is that we feel sure we have an idea, precisely because what we actually have, IS a feeling.
I’ve talked a lot about the difference between a romantic and a super practical mindset. I’ve got both (intense versions of both, in fact) which is a bit crazy making, but helps me see a lot of clues to the chosen-blindness problems, of those who try to put all their weight on just one foot or the other.
This split has been discussed for as long as we have recorded discussions (Platonic versus Aristotelian is just one very rich and ancient version). I’ve mentioned my own experiences in art and electronic repair, as being especially good first-hand teachers in the two realms, but I’ve found other versions of that mindset split, all over the place. Even in entrepreneurship (last place I expected to see wild creativity) sure enough, you need a completely wild dreamer for step one – someone who can seriously believe in something which does not yet exist. But if that dreamer doesn’t get a numbers-head involved as they grow, their dream will never cross the line between two hundred employees and a thousand or more.
Dreams simply don’t scale – you need thoughtful practical plans.
Growing up in a commune/cult full of psychological ideas (some sound but mis-used, some pure madness), and simultaneously experiencing an education so experimental, it still looks weird a half a century later (part genius, part depraved, ratios varied by day/week/year – usually downward), I have a strangely detached position, on a lot of subjects where specialists love to get emotional and totalist.
Psychology and education are really interesting and important studies. Both aspire to do great and lasting benefit to many, to outright improve lives, by very deliberately changing their trajectory.
But OMG do most people ever want a simplified ‘easy way out’ instead of the best approach possible.
Always makes me think of the story of Euclid trying to teach the great king geometry. His regent-pupil was okay with the first couple of propositions, but by the time they got to proposition three he was getting impatient, and asked Euclid if there wasn’t some way to get straight to the really good stuff, thus setting-up one of the all time great education quotes,
“I’m sorry your majesty, but there is no royal road to geometry.”
(and also marking Euclid’s proposition three as “The Bridge of Fools” for all time).
It is a rebuke on the surface, sure, but also an extremely encouraging truth, one layer down. Not just a demand – you have to do the work – but also – if you do, do the work – then rich or poor, no one can possibly keep the beauty wonder and power of geometry away from you – a fundamental assurance and empowerment which our young people don’t encounter anywhere near enough. (Yes, it is hard work, but it’s waiting there for you, kid, any time you’re ready – and it’s GREAT).
A couple of the education-writers I read, are themselves theorists, so they spend a lot of time explaining, defending, or (where most healthy) steadily developing and improving their ideas.
The funny thing about that is, the most practical ideas they have, are usually attacked on romantic grounds. Someone has a feeling, that something means something. I don’t care how or if it works.
Now – going all the way back to the tale of Innana, in Sumerian writings (the earliest rich literature we have – and it is a WONDER), the process of “enlightenment” has always come in stages. Take away a falsehood, adjust, then take away another. (Disillusionment IS the opposite face of the same coin).
We use one paradigm for awhile, because it gives us more perception and options, and then we run into another paradigm which completely contradicts the one we were using – but along with requiring much new work of us, also promises growth, which our present, more limited view, prohibits.
Watching friends grow over time, we can see this work in all kinds of ways, some breakthroughs from which they never go back, and also ‘epiphanies’ which present over and over again, but never quite stick.
One of the really fun ones to watch, is when something which once seemed simple but impossible, suddenly gets frightfully complex, boggling, subtle, and outright enchanting (yes, they all go together).
WONDER is something we don’t talk about anymore. We like “Content” customized to flatter our already pre-existing taste (extend our ignorance), not a regular dose of “Wow, what is that?”
This may sound a bit mischievous, but I swear the easiest way to make this idea stick is to recognize that the world in our heads needs way more cleavage! (so the world outside, can divide much less).
When we use big sweeping categories to think about ANYTHING, we get stupider every time, by pretending that such crude and unsuited tools are adequate (that is, our greater duty and greater beauty does not exist).
Educational theories are especially weird, here (and I speak having worked in both straight and ‘alternative’ institutions, so, with some small degree of comparative witness to work from).
I’m honestly not sure if I’ve ever met a romantic type, who didn’t want to believe that deep-down, all students were basically the same, and therefore, their one optimal philosophy, designed to most perfectly address that imagined inner same-ness, MUST BE best for all.
The funny thing about that is, even while they will continue to say that, and clearly believe it emotionally, years of teaching will eventually teach them, to make constant exceptions to that grand universal idea they started with, just because – well, you can’t actually even try to teach everyone, unless you do.
Combining that fine-feeling but false (romantic) universalism, with the idea of stages of enlightenment, we might easily see an educator friend go through one stage where they are all about maximum information, then change everything suddenly, and pivot to an emphasis on compassion, above all else.
Thanks to my strange timing, I even got to see those standards change in a major art institution over the years I worked there. Old teachers, who used to send illustration and design students into a rich and highly demanding (and also high-paying) industry, had to be rebuked by senior management, to recalibrate their critiques, so as to put the student’s feelings (rather than their fitness for work) first.
We must here note – there is so much less money in that industry now as to be heartbreaking – so the old standards of punitive self-shaping, to suit the once-rich industry, no longer match the rewards provided by the external world. At the same time, a tool only gets as sharp as we believe it must.
Anyhow - what could be a more sympathetic evolution? I’ll connect with all those hearts much better this way, and then let that current of emotional sympathy, power their interest in my lessons.
This actually does work for some students – but that’s the problem, only for some (like all of these false universal-human based theories). Weirder still, the students least served by the ‘most compassionate’ approach, are the same ones our advanced institutions were originally designed to foster develop and polish.
Essentially, the sort of people who would end up being a scholar, a scientist, or an artist anyhow, just because of their own internal drive – which makes them not need that emotional relationship in the teaching at all – just as much empowerment as possible, for their already developing skill-set.
The pithy way I remember this, is from a rant an especially dedicated student shared with me, after an in-class critique. He was outright angry because all the comments made, were about finding something positive to say – and what he wanted was for the teacher’s keen eyes to tell him what was weakest in his piece – by far the best in the entire class – so that he’d know where to work next.
The universal kindness priority, robbed him of effective enablement, which was all he was there for.
I gave the kid a sigh and a smile and said, “I really get you, man, I do, and that teacher is capable of being much more critical, I’ve seen it, just not this decade. Problem is, these days, if he was to critique sharply, the way he used to, the next day, five parents would show up with lawyers.”
Of course, I also told him to approach the teacher when he was alone sometime (so the universal thing need not be invoked) and outright ask him for the exacting crit he wanted. I knew the teacher saw the kid’s talent, so I knew he would respond well to that request for teaching – just not in class!
So, is it as simple as some people thrive with more structure, and some do better with less? Kind of, but stopping there would be foolish – forgoing all of that plentiful and easily available cleavage!
We do have much in common, but we are all different. I recently heard another brilliant rant (exerpted in the simplicius link, below), from a well established genius in math and physics, who, being dyslexic, found his school years an absolute prolonged torture. Their model of universality simply did not ever include or address his mind!
Mind you, we really can’t ask our institutions to do everything (the costs of expanding administration are already doing huge damage to academics, all over the place). A thoughtfully limited range of things done extremely well, is better (because then we are training for doing things well). Seems to me that school is best for mind - heart and soul are about Friday night (having a social life) and Sunday morning (community).
Another strange observation, having been the only man in a couple of educational situations (not a full teacher, but a regular male presence as librarian, computer and special ed, guy), I have encountered a lot of kids who are scorned (bullied) by teachers, for “Romantic” (feel only) reasons.
Not just boys (though some female teachers really are not sympathetic to physiological things which boys can not help, like much greater fidgeting, for a petty-sounding but still highly consequence filled example – I was consoling escort to the principal’s office, many times, just for that). I guess misfits in general, have always correctly seen me as having at least one foot outside of, the dominating mindset of whatever institution they encountered me in.
What do I mean by this misunderstanding “romantic” scorn? Shutting down curiosity, by invoking a negative emotional feeling, instead of respectfully refuting a bad idea, with a sound and principled idea. Pretending that fidgeting is a moral failing is obviously crazy and cruel. But so is calling someone who questions the current prevailing orthodoxy sexist, or racist, right away, to brand the person asking as essentially bad, just for asking, instead of simply discussing how that idea leads toward an unfairness, a subject everyone in class could learn from. (Yes, childhood has sweet memories – but we all experience aching injustice in abundance too)
Of course, the key trick is that what we really have is an adult bullying a child, and manipulating the emotions of the entire class, to make it hurt more and last longer. Hard to imagine anything less fair to the kid (even if they are kind of a stinker). ;o)
What romanic people far too easily PRETEND we have instead, is a matter of content only. They said a bad thing, or disobeyed me when I asked them to stop having a twelve year old metabolism, therefore, their transgression proven, they must be punished! (And since flogging has been banned).
Which leaves us with the exact faction proclaiming the cause of anti-bullying, as some of the most shameless (and unreflective narcissist) bullies operating in the entire society. Mass unkindness for the sake of dogma and doctrine, rather than acting always for each individual student and their growth, is NOT FAIR.
Fairness (though always an imperfectly realized aspiration) isn’t an idealism, or a mere feeling, either, the way the dark-side romantic stuff I’ve mentioned is – that assertion is not just wrong, but corrosive to foundations. Fairness is practical as can be. Nothing is more fundamental to making a society work grow and thrive. THE KEY LESSON AND PRINCIPLE (and yes, finally a valid universal, also).
Always assuming that what we’re aiming for is healthy, vibrant, capable and compassionate humans, living together in a peaceful hopeful and forward looking way, successfully, into the indefinite future.
If we wanted to tear the whole thing down, on the other hand, burn everything good that we’ve inherited, to the ground, it would be hard to think of a better way than believing that our ignorant assumptions (hateful feelings) about the ignorance of others, justify our romantic (categorical, uncleaved, and therefore in fact unfounded) contempt for them. (contempt is just poison, folks)
Using our infantile enjoyment of sport-hatred, to displace our respect for and duty to society itself.
And no, I’m not saying we should be practical only, no more art, just tools and Morlocks, from here on out – I am saying – we aren’t going to get very far if we insist on putting business school graduates in charge of the plumbing (or art school graduates in charge of the economy, for that matter).
The seriously creepy thing, just one layer down, under the shiny surface of so many presumably well intentioned ideas about the universal newer better gee-whiz model of humanity, which proves it isn’t part of the long historical line of popular aspirations, the way it pretends, but comes from the opposing and oppressing team instead, is that it’s all the wrong way ‘round. Top to bottom force – kicking down. The state guiding (cattle-prodding) society to be ‘better’ even while refusing all efforts by the citizens, to exert even the slightest principled influence on policy, foreign or domestic. (Populations around the world think less killing is better – their leaders, not so much)
Democracy (some are now demented enough to say outright) is a threat to democracy.
What they really mean is that the questions of the people we pretend to represent, are becoming a serious threat to our scams, and we like our scams way better.
They don’t actually like us to have so much choice. Not about working, speaking, trading or assembling. They assume anything they don’t mediate (skim), is suspect.
Now look again, at any one of the great new universal compassion models, which feels appealing to you.
Is this model based upon people being free to choose how they want to live? Are they allowed to be comparative slackers who favour relationships, or industrious workers? Can they choose to be computer based people, or still live as dignified workers with tools in hand? (as millions used to – unwittingly building the middle class which now utterly despises them)
Are we doing both, caring for both? Or are we shifting from one model that left a lot of people out, to a brave new model which also leaves a lot of people out, and then pretending that our cruelty to them, is somehow fundamentally different from the legacy ignorance we are so determined to overcome, from our history?
Spoiler alert – no it isn’t.
False equivalence? (do you actually work for CIA, or volunteer, like a fan-boy deputy?)
NO IT IS NOT. Romantic lens here – feelings. We love our hate, and will always find someone to hate, so that we can keep on celebrating the very worst spirits in our hearts. This is perhaps the one essential transaction in modern nationalism. We give up a lot of community to the big machine, but it directs our fury outside, so we don’t just lose-it and burn down the neighbour’s house, (very often).
If we still had slaves, we would all go to hangings and celebrate the grotesque spectacle, gleefully. The hate crowd is one of humanity’s oldest tricks (and, sadly, parties). Instead we have and cheer foreign wars and exploitation. That is, we keep our slaves overseas, use money and debt first, instead of whips or guns, and when those don’t work, we label all resistors evil, bring out the guns, and gleefully and viciously destroy good things they spent entire generations, carefully building.
Whether or not we are good people, isn’t about feelings (and shocking lack of mirror-checks). It is a matter of practical reality, plans and tools. Not who we can be made to think is scary or evil (anyone the corruptors of our great institutions think they can make money, mass-murdering) but how many body-bags our “Idealisms” keep resulting in. How often and easily we mass-murder, for ‘good’ and worse yet, feel proud of this. (There really should be a special fifty-pound version of ironic quotes, for such cases)
Why do we so casually assume the murder of a foreigner need never be punished? We might even say that in this brave new century, armed robbery on a mind-numbing scale, works every single time, as long as you use an actual army, as the gang for your robbery. No justice needed for those people.
Again and again our nations do actual mass murder for the direct profit of our corporations and oligarchs, and no one is ever punished for any of it at all. More often, they get repeatedly promoted (and obscenely rich).
This is the big reason we’re still looking at delusional bullshit, instead of any serious climate plan – total fixation on the wrong lens – everyone wants to make it a moral emotional romantic ‘feel’ thing. Something we could solve at last, if only we got adequately upset about it.
It isn’t.
Needs a real plan, not a completely inadequate scam-plan for romantically minded science illiterates, which was self-evidently designed from the start, to make those “concerned” (feeling) populations go back to sleep long enough that the frog can reach full boil (and profits, peak). This is not an assertion or conspiracy theory – the west has invested in endless war on credit this whole century, INSTEAD of climate.
Using the romantic lens where we should be planning, we also get ideas like making fuel from corn, because wouldn’t it be great to jack-up global food prices, and throw millions more of the poorest people into crisis, just to save a bit at the pump? (Tell me again how our wallets aren’t bayonets).
Absurdity isn’t that rare, but I think the all time funniest worker demand I ever heard, was this:
“I want to work five days a week, have no more than three days in a row, and all weekends off.”
And boy was she ever mad, that her requests for this fine (impossible) lifestyle kept being denied!
I put it to you – whatever you think of natural gas (no, definitely NOT worse than coal, as some complete psychopaths have been saying lately, online) the European economy was set up to use a lot of it, and the Americans have gone to extreme extremes, to divorce them from Russian supply.
AT THE SAME TIME AS OPPOSING MAKING UP THE DIFFERENCE, WITH THEIR OWN DOMESTIC PRODUCTION. Not being responsible, and offering the stabilizing transitional step their long term allies need (like all of us) to work out a non-insane (survivable) economic and industrial future,
They say they’re saying “You were dangerously dependant on Russian Gas, for your prosperity and the social programs it pays for” but what they’re actually saying is “Sorry, you Europeans don’t actually get to have prosperity, social programs or advanced industrial economies at all anymore. Re-shoring, don’t you know – Uncle Sam needs a new pair of shoes – smell you later!”
Biden didn’t retreat from Trump’s trade war on the whole world stance – the way he expressly promised to, during his campaign. He doubled-down on using xenophobia, squandering diplomatic gains which took generations, for even the pettiest and most transitory political advantage. Creepy.
Kamala may make the creepy orders she gets from the inter-agency sound more humane (as Obama did, for awhile, riding entirely on romantic projection and expectations), and she is at least, finally “Unburdened by that has-been” (which I’m sure feels absolutely great, if you’re her).
But there is nothing, I mean zero zip null and void, in her record, which says she will do anything to jeopardize her own advantage, in order to resist state evil, or stand up for democratic rights.
“Most lethal army in the world,” she promises, smiling, eyes shining inspiringly, scanning the crowd.
Rest of the world says, “Believe me, we know that. The real question is, when are you going to break your addiction to endless mass murder for corporate profit?” And the answer to that – which is in fact the most important question anyone with a soul should ask of those who purport to represent them, is that it simply is not one of her goals, and she won’t even seriously try to restrain, let alone stop, the spree of national mass murder. Truly does not care, so long as she gets the good job (and benefits).
Romantically, if you’re really creative and imaginative, you can love the socks off of her, I’m sure, but on a practical level, she is merely performative, and she was selected for that exact reason. No demonstrated will or principle on the record – not even outright evil racist killer will and principles, like Hillary. She dodged a primary, where she would have been forced to define herself, and now still avoids media scrutiny (and gets soft treatment anyhow, because orange man bad, of course).
SHE WANTS TO BE YOUR SCREEN – SHE WANTS YOU TO PROJECT, INSTEAD OF THINK.
I am not saying Trump is a stable genius or a principled intellectual, I’m just saying she ain’t either. Both sides are voting for crazy this time - get over yourself (hate first).
Having left tribalism behind (but not my leftist principles) I see it far more easily now, than I used to.
When a person from the right makes a feeling-only attack on a practical plan from the centre-right (the left has not EVER been in power in the US, folks – please stop talking like that), the media mocking is everywhere and amplified. Look how groundless, how irrational, how emotional, hysterical, even dangerous. (an assertion about disagreeable speech which is itself, BEYOND dangerous to our future).
But the centre-right which pretends to be left, but demands control no less than the right they accuse of unhinged madness, does exactly the same thing to any practical plans, or even rational skepticism, from the right. They don’t go after the facts of the case, they go after the person making it, using their own favourite recipe of absolute (ignorant narcissist) bullshit and emotional certainty – grotesque.
False equivalence? ARE YOU DUMB, OR CRAZY? NO EQUIVALENCE AT ALL – we’re doing some reality here, ‘kay? When you feel your heart thumping hard, and you want to yell at the thing you’re reading, that’s the struggle to keep using romantic framing, in order to dismiss SERIOUS INFORMATION (shirk your adult responsibility as a citizen, and not a mere petulant consumer).
And we need serious information, for the most practical thing of all – having a freakin’ society in the first place, instead of an endless brawl between spoiled ignorant romantics and VERY bitter workers.
This one may make your teeth ache (as it does mine). Obama ran in 2008 on codifying Roe into federal law, then didn’t even bother to advance a bill to the house for a vote, when Democrats had majorities in both chambers. Trump responded to the way that threat of codification panicked the conservative right, and then DID THE THING.
To be clear, I absolutely hate what has resulted for women’s health and rights, but to say it is merely a matter of good versus evil, is to stay in the completely romantic realm, without ever recognizing - “our guy gave us lots of slick and empty words, their guy actually gave them the thing they wanted.” The fact is, the democrats DO NOT WANT TO SOLVE IT – because if they do, they can’t run on it anymore. (and you can plug-in a whole lot of things for “IT” that they pretend to care about, but make worse).
The Democrats could have ended the war in Gaza in a matter of days, by simply cutting off all arms supplies and funding, until Israel restored full and adequate shipments of food and water to the entire civilian population, then demonstrated that they had a strategy which was concentrated directly on Hamas, instead of attacking the Palestinian people as a whole. This would have made Netanyahu furious, but it would have been by far the best thing for Israel.
Instead of starting from a consideration of the practical real world realities, which include long term economics and diplomacy (both now so badly damaged, they may never recover), the supporters and apologists for that bloody and reckless madness are staying entirely in the romantic realm – mind you, way far into the lethally deep end, of that pool. Strident anti-bullies who bully stuff, once again.
If you read Ha’aretz, you noticed the astonishing article just weeks after the shocking events, written by a young female member of the IDF who was part of a tank crew, which received orders to fire on civilians and Hamas alike, in a border area kibbutz. The Hannibal doctrine was in effect – anything, to avoid allowing Hamas to take hostages again – up to and including killing those potential hostages. (And the fact that so many of the hostages were intelligence people, carefully chosen for what they could reveal, makes the panic at the military level comprehensible, even if the costs are truly tragic).
If you have some friends in the military, or even listen to geopolitical analysis from experienced ex military and intelligence people, you will also have encountered this most useful quotation.
“Small arms do small arms damage. All Hamas had with them, were small arms.”
This is in no way about excusing violence, only understanding who did how much of it, and why. You saw the photos. Guns make bullet holes. Big explosions are from from tanks and helicopters.
If the Democratic party were a person, it would most certainly be found guilty under US law, of hundreds of thousands of counts of conspiracy to commit murder, and assisting, after the fact – not just for supplying weapons which they know are being used against civilians, but continuing to supply them, over and over and over again, as obvious undisguisable mass murders of children and other civilians, skyrocket. All this while food and water are denied to millions, and schools and hospitals are being systematically levelled.
On a romantic level, Israel is insisting “The taking of hostages is proof that a whole people are evil” and then right away taking two million people hostage (not even counting the west bank, which is also now getting murderous and insane on an unprecedented and frighteningly under-reported scale).
People. Children need food and water, every single day. Those who deny that are insane.
The glorious new Democratic candidate, who, as prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence from black suspects repeatedly, and sought maximum sentences for pot possession – IN SAN FRANCISCO – has literally nothing but romantic feelings to run on. Problem is, she’s working in the evil deep end of that pool.
I’m not saying she is evil, she is almost nothing at all – an empty vessel. The exact sort of integrity-free figurehead the inter-agency likes best. Obama, who seemed much more, turned out to be their kind of guy too – not only calling corrupt bankers before he even took office, to ask who they most wanted him to appoint to govern them (and then appointing exactly those they asked for), that great towering constitutional scholar and hero of women’s rights, who couldn’t be bothered to lift a finger for Roe, also enshrined EVERY SINGLE ONE of W’s disgusting anti-constitutional trespasses against the guaranteed and ‘inalienable’ individual rights of citizens.
Not to mention the greatest-ever confiscation of black American wealth – millions lost their homes, even while he did act to save the multi-million dollar bonus packages of the white bankers whose reckless gambling had caused the crisis. Barrack and Hillary both made major speeches while in power AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE. This is your hero team? The unique and essential, stalwart defenders of rights and minorities? What year do you think this is? Not this CENTURY, not once.
Words. EMPTY FREAKIN’ WORDS. The same thing as lies, but with sugar, so they go down easier.
Does anyone think the people of Libya, who used to have the highest standard of living in Africa (and, intolerably, also the greatest level of screw-you independence from the manipulative west) feel consoled by the fact that their nation was destroyed and culture set back a century, by a black man?
Vice president Biden did the talk show circuit at the time, gleefully enthusing about how Libya was “Great value for money” and “the way we should do this sort of thing in the future.”
And of course “the most qualified candidate in history” – heroine of the Albright doctrine, Hillary Clinton herself remains openly (in fact, laughingly) proud of her “Work” in Libya to this day.
But the other guys feels evil and scary, so we have to be careful not to hold our own team to account for, well, anything, ever again. (do you see the clue as to why the military industrial congressional complex really does now GREATLY favour the Democratic party? Proof need never be supplied – only feelings – and even then, they never demand a positive feeling, only fear on anger on fear).
And of course, I have to stop here, because a whole bunch of my romantic minded friends will be going apoplectic about now, thinking I am saying something nice about Republicans. No I’m not.
I’m just saying that by the time your side is against free speech, is for actively jailing whistleblowers and political dissidents (Obama prosecuted whistleblowers under the espionage act, twice as much as all other presidents in history combined – and America is holding twice as many people in jail for January sixth alone, as Russia holds political prisoners in total, for all causes) and so “Romantic” as to not just excuse, but actively support fund and supply literal mass murder, decade after decade, you really need something stronger than “Orange man bad” to make a sane case on the basis of morality.
I get it, he sucks.
Show me how you actually don’t, not by “feel” but real world action, then we’ll be talking.
Believe it or not, if we could only learn that much (minimal) respect and integrity, the workers would start listening to us again, too – because we would finally have something to say, that everyone could see and test and agree on. Something we didn’t just pull out of our ass, to self-flatter.
Yes, of course I know that mirrors are forbidden for the duration of the perpetual emergency, but we still need to check the mirror every damn time, before we wave an accusatory finger out the window!
Fury isn’t going to do it. “Romantic” indignation and outrage, power violence and abuse, not justice.
A pithier, more practical and portable tool? Sure, I can do that.
Next time you feel “Something must be done about THEM” and your (always toxic) anger feels heroic and urgent to you, just remember your crazy writer friend Paul, and consider instead a new and different approach to that one giant emotional block of impossible, and your frustration about it.
Set that one (delusional) block aside and go for learning instead – with infinitely inspiring cleavage.*
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
*No, not sexist – checked with the Mrs. Girls like cleavage too (kinda goes way back, that one) ;o)
Patrick Lawrence is a true stalwart of classic anti-war, leftist journalism (in Pilger’s cohort, for sure).
He quotes Steven Cohen (one of the only sane Russia experts in Washington and most balanced minds on the CFR, now sadly deceased, just when his steadying wisdom is needed).
“Stephen Cohen used to joke, except that he wasn’t joking, that there is one party in Washington and it is rightly called the War Party. We have just had a reminder of the late and eminent Russianist’s prescience. There is no intent among the people telling Kamala Harris what to profess, to question this nation’s numerous aggressions and illegalities, or even to reconsider the Biden regime’s disastrously miscalculated foreign policies, which are indistinguishable from the neoconservative agenda Democrats, once upon a time, pretended to oppose. (my italics)
Read A New Way Forward, a 13–page document. The one and a half pages given to national security and foreign affairs amount to a screed dedicated to Russophobia, Sinophobia, NATOphilia and “the most lethal fighting force in the world,” which seems to be Harris’s idea of a diplomatic corps. This is how Steve Cohen’s War Party thinks and what it sounds like. As a statement of intent, the Harris–Walz platform is entirely accommodating of the Biden White House’s very likely decision to escalate the Ukraine conflict to the point of risking the World War III Biden pretends not to want.”
Patrick Lawrence - The War Party Makes Its Plans -on- Scheerpost (superb, look often)
This sharp recent piece by Simplicius, from his Dark Futura series, in which he quotes the even more arcane power-figure of Carol Quigley (either the worst or best long term philosophical influence on CIA, depending on who you read) goes straight to the question of the long and deep corruption of our state and our principles, in the name of kayfabe “morality” (expedience or profit). Deep smart and wide-ranging (Simplicius showed considerable nerve, dubbing himself a thinker - but he really does bring it)
BTW – you know the old joke “I surmised a new word a school today, see if you can surmise what it is, I’ll give you three surmises?” My new word is kayfabe. Heard it a few times, before I dug.
Comes from professional (fake/theatrical) wrestling. Kayfabe rivalries are those created to provide an engaging narrative for the audience, and are played straight-face, as real – but are always fictional.
I read a lot of smart curmudgeons with whom I frequently disagree, because now and then, for stories no one wants to be honest about (plenty, lately), you need a dedicated sour-puss, to get the job done properly, high elbows required! Eugyppius has been documenting the increasing alienation between the state and society in Germany brilliantly (cynically) for years now. When he’s on, he’s really on.
Here’s what he came up with on the latest, genuinely demented, would-be assassin
(a whole lot more than the evening news ever gives us). Read the texts, especially.
“Do less, please.” and “If you did nothing at all, I’d be grateful.” Just wow.
And in case you think I’m making up the thing about Israeli weapons killing Israeli citizens, no, I don’t do that. Here’s the soldier herself, talking about it (and others, digging into the story further).
Late addition - two more pieces of important and disturbing perspective and history.
First - the extraordinary Kitt Klarenburg, on what really happened in Kosovo (in case you think I'm exaggerating, blaming the dems for being scumbag racist war pushers - nope, Clinton was the BETRAYAL of the left, not the saviour)
And here are three brilliant gentlemen discussing the subject which our glorious leaders would rather destroy all speech and media, than allow us to discuss.
We aren't the good guys anymore - haven't been for awhile - time to give up on our glorious hyper-violent supremacist reich and make room for the rest of humanity.
(they don't say it as clearly as that, but I'm sick of flattering murderous dummies)
And here’s another extraordinary after the fact addition - two of the most courageous and principled journalists alive - absolutely great to hear truth and heart like this!
Chris Hedges and Glenn Greenwald on Media Terror, Gaza, and More