Archive for the ‘History’ Category

Moving Past the Democrats

May 17, 2020

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?

Too far back in time for you?  Okay.  What about all the civilians killed in Obama’s drone strikes?

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.

A bit of historical trivia on the Big Bang

April 29, 2015

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.