Many people, both self-professed conservatives and liberals, won’t like what I’m about to say, but I’m not interested in mincing words. In fact, being delicate in describing our system has only helped its very worst features advance. Passive acceptance and soft, normal language about the system is pathetic. It is just one of several reasons that America has been so eager to spread its cancer, its Imperialism, around the globe. I’m supposed to look at its constant warfare and say “Thank you!,” presumably while wearing a big, stupid grin. It doesn’t matter how many people it kills, how many lies it tells, or how it insists I deny my own feelings.
Sometimes, it’s all that it seems to be about. Deny, deflect, pretend the very worst is over and that, through continued invasions and corporate welfare, everything will work out in the end.
I know that all of the above is an indictment of the US system and thus of the humanity of the average American.
I understand that we live in a world of cold-hearted money, a world where the value of money is measured only by its purchasing power, where there is no need for even strong wills, all you have to do is have corporations take over, and then they can run a country or a continent for the rich. It’s sort of a perversion of the quote by Malcolm Gladwell: “Success is not a random act. It arises out of a predictable and powerful set of circumstances and opportunities.”
In this context, their success depends on our failure. We’re supposed to be like obedient dogs, groveling for scraps or crumbs from the table, as the ultra-rich get ultra-richer, and often directly from the taxpayer trough.
It may, in fact, seem that the ultimate goal is for people to end up like insects to get things done.
Can’t you just hear the little ants down below? They’re always rolling with the punches, trying their damnedest to keep up that plucky optimism, at least until that well runs dry. I can practically hear their inner monologue: “Yes, I know that it is such a burden for me to continue, but since I can, I’m going to go on, because if I don’t, I’ll be allowed no retirement time, and since I don’t want to end up an alcoholic wreck, if I do one thing, I’ll go on, and I can tell you that that is what I’m planning on doing…Just don’t worry, it’ll all work out.”
In some cases, it actually will work out okay, and the system will love to point out such examples. There will even be the occasional (albeit increasingly rare) genuine rags-to-riches story. However, as such tales are told, never forget to ask, “Hmm, why was this person in ‘rags’ to begin with?”
There will also be plenty of fear-mongering about words like what I’m laying down here. However, don’t pretend observations of reality like this must create or stem from some Soviet Union-style boogeyman. I’m not typing all this because I stumbled upon some Marxist tome and brainwashed myself, or was brainwashed by socialism in a collegiate setting. Nope. It has more to do with observing everyday reality, regardless of any hypothetical Marxist remedies to the situation.
In fact, let’s pretend I’m not even particularly aggrieved by anything. I still think I painted a fairly accurate picture of what our system looks like, and what it will continue to look like unless people start creating bigger, better alternatives to its worst features. I won’t say that’s impossible, but it’s going to take a significant effort, and it’ll also require people to be non-ideological, to the extent possible, and to not depend entirely on official authorities and proper channels.
Also remember: Anything corporations and governments can give you, they can also take away, and very well may.
I’ll start off at a fairly obvious place: Cancel culture. What’s the relevance? Well, lots and lots of liberals/Democrats/leftists have hopped on this shortsighted bandwagon without even really thinking it through. They have also exploited it for political capital, finding it a convenient and safe way to appear moralistic with minimal effort. However, these types have seemingly hit a snag with a certain old codger named Joe Biden. He might be the Dem’s 2020 candidate, but he’s become the main reason I won’t vote in this election. Now, before you get fuming mad, let me explain why I’m not voting for him, and why I’m not voting for Democrats (and all of this will tie together, I hope).
By now, more people have heard reports regarding Biden’s past behavior, suggesting he may have sexually harassed or even sexually assaulted women. In a bit of blatant hypocrisy, Biden’s defenders have basically reversed the MeToo standards — you know, the ones they so heavily applauded when applied to Republicans, or certain male celebrities they felt needed to be taken down a peg. The idea was, of course, that these people needed to be “canceled,” in addition to whatever legal punishments might await them. Also, we weren’t even supposed to seriously examine the evidence. Not only wasn’t the slogan “Believe all evidence,” but it wasn’t even “Believe all victims.” It was “Believe all women.” In other words, believe the gender, as well as these people’s supposedly “liberal” predilections. That is what determined legitimacy and truth. Also, you were an absolute sexist scumbag reprobate if you questioned this unscientific process in the slightest.
The phenomenon still hasn’t died out, though. It was just too juicy tactically. You can still see these attitudes on Twitter today, even during this pandemic. People are still acting as if these cancel cultural antics should matter. We are literally on the brink of great depression level unemployment, yet some people prioritize trying to cancel celebrities over something they have said or done in the past. The premise looks even sillier now than it was before, due to the bigger issues we now see. Of course, it’s still silly even if you put COVID-19 and that Trump fucker aside.
In addition to people getting “canceled” who arguably don’t deserve it, what are we supposed to believe here? That going tippety-tap, tippety-tap on a keyboard is supposed to stop all misbehavior now? That no one ever levies false accusations? How dumb do these people think we are? Meanwhile, we’ve already seen other MeToo hypocrisy, such as Asia Argento (who, oddly enough, I don’t advocate “canceling,” either, being able to separate the artist from the art) and statistics suggesting female sex offenders are more common than we’re led to believe. Also, more broadly, is it really plausible that none of these hyper-feminist keyboard warriors have no skeletons in their own closets? They’ve never said or done anything offensive? I call bullshit on that when it comes to virtually everyone. Why? Because, frankly, people are trash. They’re stupid, hypocritical trash, pretty much throughout the entire human spectrum.
So why is this keyboard warrior stuff still so prevalent? Why haven’t priorities shifted ever further away from this blatant level of bullshit into, you know, emphasizing what matters more for the common man?
I think it has a lot to do with media saturation with celebrity gossip bullshit, honestly, and this does tie into my critique of Democrats. Even looking at the Biden thing, his getting grope-y is not the primary scandal on his résumé (though it’s not a good look). Biden, and Democrats in general, have a fairly long history of backing corporate and militarist agendas, which is why I am not a Democrat. In fact, for all their whining about Trump, isn’t it a bit disconcerting that they’ve kept giving him what he wants when it comes to the military budget and spy powers? It’s almost as if they don’t truly care about him, but are just using him as a way to get more donations to the Democratic Party.
I speculate much the same about MeToo, and this is even more plausible after the double standard they’ve applied regarding Tara Reade’s accusations against the man. This isn’t really about standards. It’s about appearing more virtuous than the other person — or virtue-signaling, as the internet so often calls it. I feel weird using that expression, too, because it has become overused. Still, it fits.
The more people focus on these relatively minor scandals (and I’m sorry, but they are), the less they’ll focus on people being bombed by Democrat-and-Republican-launched wars overseas. People will be less likely to expect politicians to help them afford their basic living expenses, which they actually might have the power to effect, though things like a minimum wage increase or (especially now during the shutdown) a temporary or permanent universal basic income (UBI).
There are some pretty drastic examples of how these distractions work. For example, how many people even mention the war effort by President Bill Clinton, including the Kosovo War? Or how about the sanctions against Iraq which killed half a million children, which Clinton’s Secretary of State famously dismissed because the price was worth it?
That aside, the Democrats have lagged behind even on social issues that, really, would have been a slam dunk for them to support. Take, for example, same-sex marriage. People seem to forget that, for the longest time, Dems were not really on the ball with that. In fact, it took a somewhat conservative-leaning Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage, and few if any Dems really took charge on the issue until they were certain it was popular enough. In other words, they were spineless. Don’t believe me? Here’s a Snopes article verifying that Hillary Clinton didn’t endorse same-sex marriage until 2013.
They also believed in locking up Cheech and Chong because…you know, weed kills, man.
I look back on Hillary Clinton on that one issue and know it was calculated. She likely didn’t care either way. She was a cold, calculating tactician. This is the same Hillary Clinton I’m supposed to think is a stalwart progressive leader. Well, she isn’t. In fact, her increased rhetoric about identity politics and MeToo-style references are all cynical calculation, and we all know she’s a pro-war, pro-corporate candidate, In fact, here’s a nice article titled “Nearly All Of Silicon Valley’s Political Dollars Are Going To Hillary Clinton.”
That’s just a minor example, but what do you think it means? Obviously, some key people with money would like an establishment Dem (like her) to become the next president of the United States. But Democrats aren’t greedy, are they? Aren’t the Republicans the greedy and evil ones? Nope. In fact, there’s a drastic amount of policy crossover between Republicans and Dems, and I don’t think that’ll change. When you hear the establishment Dems mention “bringing the fight against inequality to a broader audience,” you should throw up in your mouth a little.
I know some people will say, in so many words, “But Hillary is more than an idea—she’s a person. This is what she says in the documentary.” Well, you are free to think that, but I happen to think she’s a paid spokesperson, in a corporate-crazy cult called the United States, who serves its interests above nearly all others (other than probably herself). She’s not unique in this regard, unfortunately, so don’t worry. I am not exclusively picking on Hillary here.
These politicians succeed for the same reason that cancel culture succeeds: You can appear moralistic without really having to do anything. Just point to your opponent’s flaws while practically never putting yourself to that level of scrutiny. Voilà! Instant credibility somehow!
Why Are Dems Such Sellouts?
Are all sellout politicians filthy rich? Perhaps not. However, it helps if you’ve never navigated the obstacle of not having much money. You can just see poverty as a side issue. Similarly, who cares about war, so long as it’s not a bomb falling on your house? Hillary, who’d been profiting from her husband’s presidency and from corporate advocacy work, probably never thought for a moment about how she’d deal with such a problem. She is too busy being a servant of the wealthy and plotting American military domination.
So, what’s the main thing to set Democrats apart from Republicans? It’s that, yes, they are a little more likely to give people things like welfare and unemployment benefits. Does this mean the Democrats care about someone who’s been on the dole for much of their adult life? I doubt it. I suspect it’s because their party is supposed to care about such things a little — with a strong emphasis on the “little” part.
The Democrats are at least smart enough to recognize welfare as a sort of revolution insurance, and it’s the closest I’ll get to being on the same page with them. Because, at the end of the day, I am not much of a revolutionary anarchist advocate myself. Other countries may be able to pull it off, but America just isn’t that intelligent yet. Maybe that’s my elitism showing, but I don’t care. America is just behind in being able to intelligently take care of its population. Until that changes, I don’t see any revolutionary potential that isn’t outrightly nightmarish.
So, what’s the big lesson here? Well, it’s that some politicians pretend to care about progressive issues but they care most of all about themselves and their corporate backers. It is time for people to seek answers outside of this political party system, and preferably through quiet, non-blatantly rebellious means. I’m calling for sweeping-yet-subtle change. Self-change. I think that’s the only thing that will work. The Democrats suck, and they’ll keep sucking, and not in a good way for most of us.
Why I Never Was a Democrat Anyway
I’ve never been a Democrat, but it’s not because I want to appear radical. I am not that rebellious as a person. In fact, I’m also not one of these people who pretend to be so pure and wholesome, who wants to con you into thinking I could never say or do something offensive. My main crime is that I always have these nagging questions, and the answer always seems to be something the status quo wouldn’t like. Hell, even I might not like the truth sometimes, but it’s there.
For example, I’ve been consistently employed most of my life, but when someone says something like: “You just have to get up off the floor and try to get a job,” I wonder why my well-being and very survival should depend on possibly sitting in a cubicle, pushing a mop, flipping a burger, staring at a laptop, etc. Something about that entire situation seems weird to me. It is obviously not an entirely natural scenario. It is manmade, almost unseemly. Why should my ability to eat food hinge on showing up to a specific building for X number of hours a week? It is cultural, predicated upon ideas from humans whose brains and views are fallible and malleable.
On that note, if you’ve ever struggled in life, what are you actually struggling for? Better yet, what are you struggling against? If you had to fight for a couple of years to get where you are now, why? What were your main obstacles? Who put them there? Why? These are the kinds of questions I cannot help but ask, and the answer tends to make me sound like a rebel. It’s the system, man. The truth makes me sound like a rebel, maybe even a hippie. I think you also know what some of these obstacles are, dear readers, and they are systemic in nature. They are cultural, quite often rooted in the deepest depths of human folly.
The questions run deep.
If you’ve ever needed loans—why? If you owed almost nothing before but now are in severe debt—why? We are not supposed to question these common, everyday realities. Still, I think we should question things precisely because they are common. To not question these things can function as a serious illness, and it just might be that we are owed some serious answers. For me, one answer is to not vote Democrat or Republican. They suck.
Anarchism is in the news once again. As usual, it is being drastically misrepresented.
A good example is an article by The American Conservative, which actually compares historical anarchists with ISIS. Predictably, it starts by claiming that, “Today, revolutionary anarchists seem archaic, almost quaint. But for around 50 years, from the 1880s to the 1930s, anarchists carried out terror …”
Well, you can surely see where they are going, or attempting to go. One could simply note that ISIS are very much in favor of authority, and that this instantly makes comparisons somewhat shaky. Add in just how terrible ISIS is and, well, there is now even less of a comparison. Unfortunately, despite the powerful research capabilities of the internet, few will study the issue any further than what’s said in their article. But what does it say? One implication is that all anarchists were terrorists, and that…
In my last article I discussed the Paleo diet, why I am considering it, assessed a few pros and cons (overwhelmingly pros), and I even linked to Paleo cookbooks. Now, just a few minutes ago, I saw an article on my Facebook wall about how aluminum foil might be able to leech into your food if you use it in the oven. The article says low level exposure is not a problem, but exposing it to heat for extended periods of time while wrapping your food might be.
Frankly, this is a bit of a bummer for me. It seems damn near every cooking technique — if not every food — potentially poses some sort of health risk . This is yet another example. At the same time, I’m not exactly shaking in my boots, just like I’m not going to sing high praises about the aforementioned Paleo diet — even if I try it and like it. In fact, I might only dabble in this diet or that.
Still, I wonder how this news might impact outdoor barbecues which, at least from what I’ve seen, very often make use of aluminum foil. I was originally mystified by the apparent anti-bread movement when going gluten free became a big thing, and now I wonder how far this particular ball will roll. I’ve also read that any food that is partly burnt can increase one’s cancer risk. This means not only meats (which vegans would stress) but also vegetables (and potato chips).
There’s also a longstanding theory that boiled food loses some potency of its vitamins. That may not be entirely true, but it sounds good, right? Or should I say it sounds bad? Either way, I do suggest looking into all of these issues, finding out what sounds the most plausible and behaving in whatever way you feel comfortable. It’s your body. You can throw caution to the wind, exercise caution occasionally, or just freak out about every little possible health risk you read about. Me, I’m probably somewhere in the middle, and you’re welcome to join me.
If you’re anything like me, you eat all kinds of foods, for better or worse. Still, as I am in my mid-30s, I’ve reached that point where the “for worse” part is felt a little easier. I have a gut (or a “paunch,” to use a slightly classier term). Increasingly, I don’t have nearly the energy level I would like. This is all despite the fact that I get exercise fairly often. I don’t even have a vehicle and rarely take cabs or public transportation, so I walk pretty often.
So what’s the problem? According to advocates of the paleolithic or “paleo” diet, the problem isn’t just that I’m naturally getting old, fat, lazy, etc. No, the problem is that I’m too centered on a modern diet. The specific culprits they cite? Dairy products, grain-based foods, legumes, extra sugar, and processed foods in general. In their place, paleo diet advocates stress the importance of vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds, eggs, and lean meats. The kicker is, I like all of those things they emphasize already! Why don’t I emphasize them more in my diet?
Like anything, the paleo diet has its critics. For example, it’s debated whether the food intake of cavemen is relevant to the modern world, and it’s argued that their digestive systems had to have been different. But I wonder more if the diet of the modern world is relevant to me. I hardly think eating those things would have me literally revert to some caveman self. In fact, I assume I’d end up feeling more modern in some aspects, because I’d probably have more energy to possibly go out and see the world rather than sit around eating potato chips and watching it on a screen.
Now, I don’t want to sound like an utter Ted Kaczynski-style primitivist (I am using a laptop right now, after all), but modern technology and corporate food practices probably haven’t been 100% good for our food. And if it’s not 100% good for our food, it’s not 100% good for us, obviously. As the saying goes, we are what we eat. If we want to improve ourselves it only makes sense to consider possible improvements to our diets.
Given how decent the paleolithic food selections sound, I pretty much don’t even care if it’s a “fad diet,” or whatever dismissive language one might use for it. I would consider just about any corporate food to be more fad diet than that. I mean, what is the average candy bar? The cappuccino that I bought yesterday? A frozen pizza? A can of pop (or “soda” if you’re not from the Midwest)? These all might taste good at times, but they sound more fad-like than vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds, etc. In short, I truly and honestly can’t find that much wrong with this diet suggestion. I’ve even tried to. In fact, even if I were a vegetarian, I could certainly modify my diet to still reflect key aspects of the paleo thing. And maybe it needn’t be an all or nothing thing, you know? Maybe I could eat well 27 days of the month and dabble in junk food on the rest.
More generally, I find the idea of any diet solution to be interesting. Is my problem really junk food or the fact that I eat too much of it? Metabolism is surely another aspect. If I had a different metabolic rate, I would have a different girth. If I’d cut down on the sweets even marginally I might feel the difference. If I pursued this paleo dieting thing, maybe I’d finally lose that flab that’s been annoying me for years. And, of course, this isn’t just about looks, but about health. Long story short, I eat too much nonsense right now.
Culture is undeniably shaped by events,
and culture undeniably shapes events.
The idea that there is a “right way” or “wrong way” to act
certainly impacts our personal decisions.
Be aware of this phenomenon in your everyday dealings.
We all slip up and do things we regret. Be aware of that, too.
Bwa ha ha ha!
Check out the “Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System,”
which is “a system of two aerostats, or tethered airships, that float 10,000 feet in the air. The helium filled aerostats, each nearly as long as a football field, carry powerful radars that can protect a territory roughly the size of Texas from airborne threats.”
Thank you, Raytheon! People weren’t scared of constant government surveillance enough, so now we get to fear it Hindenburg-style.
I also love how its listed in their “products” section.
Bwa ha ha ha! http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/jlens/
Irony time: The Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven.
But wait! Don’t some religious folks deny the Big Bang because they consider it anti-God? Also, don’t some atheists claim that religious people are almost inherently against scientific advancement?
The lesson to me is simple: Stop trying to impose agendas so much on history just to simplify things so you can cram them into some convenient narrative. Look at the facts, don’t lose sight of them, and draw conclusions from there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
You can’t stop reading this trash,
or looking at the various cameras Click!
Everything rushes by, only faster now,
and people keep wanting what they are not allowed,
just to make the sewer and the fire blend.
Keep on clicking.
Wadewainio's Blog 