9/5/2019 Democracy Now
Typically, I describe the portion of the video that relates to the comment in summary before the comments. This day there were a number disagreements deemed of worthy of my attention. I’m going to reference the video and then list the comment and exchange.
@2:30 Bernie Sanders is quoted in a comment that implies he would divert military spending to address climate change. I responded to someone elses comment.
Orion Simerl5 days ago@Jane Doe My comment means these people are political performers, who enjoy the opportunity to perform the same as a musician, comedian, or some other entertainer, as well as the 6 figure income and perks the come with the position. Not only do they know they cannot accomplish the promises they make, and when their plans are subjected to objective scrutiny the deficiencies become apparent. (http://orioncs.net/bernie-sanders-green-new-deal/). What I meant is Bernie or Warren’s rhetoric and pandering to a climate concerned public, will not save the species from extinction.
James Carrington5 days ago@Orion Simerl because only those 2 have plans to adequately address climate change Only Bernie has history we can trust to carry through with those plans, and take money out of politics and force the wealthiest to begin paying their FAIR share in taxes instead of paying lobbyists to screw the people. Bernie Sanders 2020
Orion Simerl5 days ago (edited)@James Carrington You can trust Bernie. LOL. Did you trust him in 2016 when he said he would continue targeted assisnation in the middle east? Did you trust him when he voted for Iraq sanctions under the Clinton adminstration when congress knew it was killing thousands of children under the age of 5 every month? Did you trust him when he voted to make regime change in Iraq the policy of the United States, and then credits himself for voting against the invasion because why? Either because it wasn’t the right tactic but he still supported US back regime change, or because he saw the invasion as something that could be political advantageous to him in the future. Did you trust him when he voted for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which dergulated credit default swaps, and directly led to the 2008 recession? The same way you look at Trump supporters and cannot believe how his supporter trust him, an objective person looks at a Bernie Sanders supporter and asks the same question. Almost forgot my favorite Bernie Sanders quote “white people don’t know what it’s like to be poor”.
farziran87 m5 days ago Lol this is the same Bernie who voted AGAINST the war one of a handful to do so This is the only candidate to condemn bombings in Yemen condemn regime change in Venezuela voted against the bailout against corporate nafta against glass stegal wrote the universal Medicare bill has supported for 4 decades. While Liz Warren as flipping houses Bernie was voting against the war you are a troll your trying to be the truth teller but your dead wrong you refer to a vaugue statement when Bernie voted against the war. CDs didn’t cause 2008 that’s the dumbest thing I heard. Removing glass stegal did stop trying to be the smartest guy in the room and stick to facts
Orion Simerl5 days ago@farziran87 m Dead wrong? Here is the source for continued use of drones in 2016 and voting to make regime change law of the land in the United States. The Sanders own words video, from NBC, when asked about drones and speacial forces in counter terrorism he said all that and more. It is a clip within a democacy now video featuring Jeremy Scahill who also recalls Sanders vote in a resolution to make regime change the policy of the United States. Here is a source of his vote for sanctions in Iraq https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/16/blood-traces-bernies-iraq-war-hypocrisy/ the accounts can be verfied by searching the voting record for these bills, it is the congressional record. Here is the source he voted for the commodity futures moderization act and what it did, and it can also be verified by searching the votes on the bill. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-wall-street_n_5617f634e4b0dbb8000e5a58 Finally here is the link to when he said white people don’t know what its like to be poor in an effort to pander to black people at a black event. https://theweek.com/speedreads/610905/bernie-sanders-criticized-saying-white-people-dont-know-what-like-poor Stick to the facts. You’re a meat puppet, your mind has been made up for you. A credit default swap is insurance on risk, and the recession was precipitated by credit default swaps involving mortgage backed securities. Banks made money on adjustable rate mortgages and dubious lending practices, then packaged the loans, had them rated by the ratings agencies, who gave them high rating, then they were sold and then they were insured, and then maybe repackaged and sold again, and insuranced again. When enough of the loans were defaulted on, the insurance couldn’t be repaid, which led to the closure of insurance companies and banks, and other related businesses, and the federal government was encouraged to provide funding to support the banks, and other sectors of the economy which could fail due to the economic impact. You people are nuts.
The Big Picture5 days agoI’d rather trust Bernie than anyone else running. Is Bernie perfect? Of course not! But he is way better than the other candidates and far superior to the current grifter in charge.
Orion Simerl5 days ago@The Big Picture Or he’s worse because he panders to the struggle and hopes of circumstantially trapped people for the joy of performing and a six figure salary, knowing his election will not substantially improve the lives or opportunities of these people. I hope he is elected, so in 4 or 8 years when everything is about the same as it was now, and today things are about the same as they were 4 or 8 years ago, people see the strength of the points I am making today. You think people would learn a lesson, but by then there will another person who they will ignorantly place their faith in who again, won’t accomplish anything. Anyone remember a fella named Barrack Obama?
sikavik6 days agoOrion Simerl I see that you are opposed to supporting Bernie based on a leftist anti-imperialist perspective (& not from a corporate neoliberal perspective). What do you suggest we productively do? Are you an advocate the Green Party? Or do you believe in a socialist workers’ party? Or a type of anarcho-socialist politics? I’m wondering what you suggest we do?
Orion Simerl55 seconds ago (edited)@sikavik I am primarily opposed to Bernie because he is not authentic, he plays a role as a character with social justice fervor. He lacks a principle basis for his positions which reflects in the general inconsistencies of those positions, most notably, in the overemphasis of race, gender, and sexuality discrimination, which not only divides the underclasses and their percieved interests, but is done in an effort to pander to organized voters. If he was genuinely concerned with objectively understanding the issues in this country and creating soultions to these problems he would recognize the priority of issues, as well as the impact of strategies built along those lines.
He has attempted to captialize on the popularity of the term Green New Deal, incorporating his GND into his platform which contains redudant spending, empty promises, and poor priorities, among one good and well priortized idea. 2 Trillion dollars to maximize the energy efficiency of homes, when energy efficiency becomes irrelevant if all your energy is derrived from renewable sources. And if we cannot transition to renewable energy which costs an estimated 2.3 trillion dollars, it won’t matter if energy efficiency is increased. He is promising to buy 20 million people modular homes, claiming he will replace all mobile homes with modular homes. This appropreation is included in the 2 trillion in grants to mandate energy efficiency in homes, but replacing all 20 million mobile homes will cost 4.5 trillion dollars. (For more on his GND http://orioncs.net/bernie-sanders-green-new-deal/)
Bernie Sanders will take positions (as I mentioned in previous comments within these replies) and make promises that he feels will be advantageious to his election, that grow out of the presumed advantage not principle.
Climate change poses an existential threat to human beings, most relevantly, decreasing habitable surface area, increasing competition for habitable surface area resulting in conflict which will eventually involve nuclear weapons. While Sander’s GND is a piece of shit, his plan to spend 2.3 trillion dollars to generate 100% of electricity through renewable energy is good. His plan calls for spending the money to build the infrastructure, including transmission and storage to generate 100% of electricity from renewables. He plans to put the assets under the authority of Power Marketing Adminstrations, which currently manage and sell power from federally owned hydroelectric generators. Then regulate fossil fuel power plants out of the market.
The price of power becomes low and consistent. Because the power generated is owned by the government, the cost of power is a product of the cost to maintain the infrastructure, expansion to meet demand, and the mark up of the utility company. Of course it may make sense to attached profit to the sale of energy to the utility company, which can then be used to subsidize the cost to lower income people, without having to spend tax dollars. My addition to his idea, but with or without it, it not only makes sense for climate change, but makes sense for the future of energy, even absent the urgent need to.
Another reason I don’t like progressives like Bernie, which again speaks to their inauthenticity, is their ideas even if they were achieved, will not significantly improve the quality of life and opportunities available to disadvantaged people. Consider the allocation of 2 trillion dollars in Bernies Green New Deal to improve energy efficiency in buildings which is redundant in the sceneario where there is renewable energy, and not significant in a scenario where there is not.
50% of people in the United States can be considered poor based on the fact that their individual income is not sufficient for the average annual cost of living in the lowest cost of living state. The median individual income is $31,099, meaning half the people in the United States have an annual income of $31,099, and the lowest average annual cost of living state is New Mexico, costing an average of 41,300 annually to live there. Additional evidence rests in the wealth distribution, where the bottom 40% have no, and negative wealth. Meaning their income is not sufficient to meet their expenses, and the 40 to 50% the next 10% up has only 1.2% of wealth. Which means their income is barely sufficient to meet their expenses, evident by the small amount of wealth held, which is probably represented in the difference between what this quintile owes on their home, verses the value of the home, and other debts. The definition of the word poor (Oxford Dictionary) is: “lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in society.” If you do not have enough money to meet your expenses, evident by the fact you have no or negative wealth, you are lacking money sufficient to live at a standard considered comfortable, as who can be comfortable when they don’t have enough money to meet their expenses? and B: individually, most people in this country do not have enough money to live at a standard considered comfortable and normal on their own, as their income is more than 25% below the average cost of living in the state with the lowest cost of living.
What I propose is an allocation of 1.5 trillion dollars to be distributed to the bottom 50% of the country which has a number of benefits and potentials to reduce spending. Ill discuss the funding aspect of it once I describe a possible distribution mechanism and explain the benefit and effects. I would create three tiers from the bottom 50% of income earners. The bottom 20% the middle 10%, and the top 20% of the bottom 50. The purpose is to ensure a distribution that maximizes the servicing of need. The bottom 20% 800 billion, the middle 10% 300 billion, and the top 20% 400 billion. Per head the bottom 20% will receive $16,000 each, the middle 10% $12,000 each, and the top 20% $8,000. A lump sum exempt from inclusion into the individual’s taxable income. When we think about government spending on a per heard basis, think about the bank bail out under Obama, 700 billion dollars. Even 700 billion is enough to provide the bottom 50% of income earners with roughly half of what is listed above.
Again, Sander’s GND calls for 2 trillion on increasing the energy efficiency of buildings, which has zero impact on climate change in a country where energy is produced from renewable sources, and a very limited impact on the lives of most who could benefit from such spending.
Before I get into the economic implications and the funding, the benefits of a lump sum verses an installment begins with relief of stress from economic obligations. For people who are in the bottom 50% of the income distribution, financial stress is nearly ever present. People are constantly concerned about having the funds to meet obligations, current, future, and possible. The amount of money being provided is enough to relieve the concern of having money to meet expenses for a person who has been living on a qualifying income. In the absence of that stress people are in a position to think about their interests, and are also possessed of the means to create their own opportunity; reflective of an Adam Smith quote I read years ago “Money, says the proverb, makes money. When you have a little, it is often easier to get more. The great difficulty is to get that little.”(9) Some will start businesses, some will pay off creditors, some will take a vacation, purchase transportation, pay off fines to get their license, make some purchase they wouldn’t otherwise have been able to make, and some will save it for the peace of mind it provides. Whatever is done with the money, it improves the quality of life of disadvantaged people, and provides them an opportunity to improve their circumstances.
Regardless of whether or not these two ideas could be realized in congress, people still need Centers for Economic Planning, and it may be the only way these ideas can be realized. A Center for Economic Planning is basically a company that owns businesses, owned by the people in the city, county, or metropolitan jurisdiction it is created for. Funded by a small tax the company purchases and creates businesses at the direction of the public. The public elects management, and also has direct input and oversight into the investment strategy. It allows people to participate in major decisions of production, increases the amount of opportunities that exist, as well as the quality of opportunities. The profits from the owned businesses aside from being reinvested can be applied to any purpose the public chooses, which includes influencing politics. This creates democracy in a system where the representation of interest requires money to be represented, and where an ample supply of money is required when an interest is adverse to the interest of an industry. Wealth is generally determined by ownership of capital assets, meaning in order for popular interests to be represented, the population must popularly own capital assets roughly equal to what is owned privately in any one economic sector. Although popular ownership through a Center for Economic Planning is private ownership, since the CEP is a private company, owned and directed by the residents within the jurisdiction it is created.(http://orioncs.net/centers-for-economic-planning/)
We can reduce the major problems of the United States to climate change, economic inequality, and representation in government, which includes foreign policy as well as domestic programs and legislation. Instead of focusing on these problems which contribute to the cause of other symptomatic issues, attention is directed to inflate the significance of minor problems, either to ensure the interests politicians do represent are maintained, or because they are incompetent. I copied this from an article I submitted to the Atlantic which will probably be rejected without explanation.
NOTE: the 6 days ago comment was not actually the first comment. That comment was posted a day after the comment exchanges but says 6 days ago because it was retrieved more than a day later. The rest of the exchanges I retrieved yesterday and only noticed this comment when I was retrieving the others. I was busy with other things and returned to it today. Posted the comment and posted it here.
@4:23 Amy reports Trump using the picture of a forecast of one hurricane Dorian’s projected trajectories, where he emphasises his interpretation of the hurricane’s momentum based on the forcast, by drawing an extension on the map.
My Comment: Orion Simerl5 days agoTrump isn’t smart enough to properly articulate his position on the hurricane. His extension of the map was simply to say this is where it was originally projected to go, and you can see how one might think it would pass through Florida, move through the gulf and hit Alabama.
Orion Simerl5 days agoSo? What is the purpose of the law? I presume the purpose is to ensure no one is injured by extreme weather due to someone falsifying a weather report. I haven’t read the statute but I’m sure there are other qualifiers to the statute and drawing a presumable path for a retrospective explanation does not qualify as falsifying a weather forcast even if Trump admitted to drawing the line himself. Emphasizing these points is more of an asset to Trumps campaign than it is a detriment, as people who support him or even those who are on the fence point to examples like this to confirm the allegations by the left lack substance, recognizing his intent was to show why he thought the hurricane could have hit Alabama. Shit is UHF the fish show every day. People keep taking what’s in the box. Hope someone gets that reference, it’s a great reference. Shit, now I sound like Trump.
Orion Simerl5 days ago@RB That has nothing to do with my point, I’m not arguing against the law which should be reflected in my explanation in the last point presuming the purposes of the law. What I was saying is the law is written intent on achieving these purposes and what Trump or his adminstration did, probably does not constitute a crime in the broader context of the statute. The reasoning is it isn’t the falsification of a forecast when it is being presented retrospectively, as to not be indicative of the present weather or future weather, but used as an aid in explaining why the president, tweeted something that was incorrect abou the weather. I don’t have time to look up the wording right now, I’m finishing a theory of the mind paper while I go back and forth with people in this channel from comments I posted earlier. The other point I made was these attacks are more beneficial for Trumps campagin then they are a detriment. Trump will be the victim candidate in the minds of many people, in a nation where everyone is a victims advocate. I said Trump isn’t smart enough to properly articulate his position, but maybe Trump is smart enough not to, and his campaign recognize opportunities like these to employ the aid of their adversaries to promote his reelection, through assertions like these.
James Carrington5 days ago@Orion Simerl read the law before trying to teach anyone Trump broke the law, just to cover his earlier mistake. I’d bet 10 to 1, trump got Alabama and Georgia mixed up originally. We have a functionally illiterate president.
Orion Simerl5 days ago@James Carrington What is the wording of the law, let that serve as the basis of disagreement rather than a comment suggesting a deficiency in a an arguement you clearly don’t understand or are unable to make a point against. Maybe the advice is more applicable to the one giving it than the one it is being given to. I didn’t say he didn’t break the law but in the absence of more evidence, and absent enough interest to investigate the matter further, my understanding of law generally, leaves me doubtful that what he did actually constitutes a violation of the law. It’s possible he mixed up the states, which would make him geographically ignorant not illiterate. I also believe it is unlikely he mixxed up the states due to the frequency with which he travels the states, he has too much exposure to places not to know where they are. My final point was that emphasis on this event is beneficial for his campaign, and don’t preclude the possibility that portions of these incidents are planned intent on producing just this kind effect. Nothing in your comment was substanative or relevant to my comment.
Orion Simerl5 days ago@James Carrington LOL. Yeah, but whether or not you read the law is irrelevant, because you clearly you don’t understand it, or how to apply it, otherwise your response would have consisted of the law and how Trumps action qualify as a violation of the law. Which was the first line of my last comment. It isn’t an insult to say a person is failing to comprehend when their comments reveal the fact that they fail to comprehend. LOL
James Carrington5 days ago@Orion Simerl still can’t read, yet lots of nonsense to type Typical trumptard. PS. I never stated i had proof of who altered the map, as trump has refused to say. (enough said)
Orion Simerl5 days ago@James Carrington You haven’t made a single point relevant to any point I made, that I restated twice, which is why your comments are non-sense, and why it is likely you fail to comprehend the points I’ve made, otherwise you would either acknowledge that the points are correct, or you would present an arguement that refutes the merits of the points. I’m also not a Trump supporter, nothing from my comments can be construed as support for Trump: I questioned his ability to articulate his thoughts, I commented on how these kind of incidents are beneficial to his campaign, and then I reconsidered the motive for the incident based on the benefit to his campaign. Maybe this is strike 2 on comprehension. The third strike on comprehension was your statement that you read the law but haven’t demonstrated an understanding of that law in marrying the language to the facts of the incident. I never implied that you had or should produce proof Trump altered the map. This shit is hilarious, and you are a horrible ambassador of the leftist brand. LOL
James Carrington5 days ago@Orion Simerl kk 😊 typical right-wing nutjob Better? lol Eventually, somebody else will come along that understands the law as well as I do, as mainstream media has posted right here on YouTube. The law is very clear. The US Constitution is also very clear, these red team, blue team interpretations of the modern SCOTUS, are just plain wrong, & are driven by money & greed. (which includes power & control)
After Thought: What I should have explained is how my points are relative to the legal arguement having not read the law. Intent and context is relevant to the law which was the basis for one of my arguements as to why what he did probably did not break the law “What I was saying is the law is written intent on achieving these purposes and what Trump or his adminstration did, probably does not constitute a crime in the broader context of the statute. The reasoning is it isn’t the falsification of a forecast when it is being presented retrospectively, as to not be indicative of the present weather or future weather, but used as an aid in explaining why the president, tweeted something that was incorrect abou the weather.”.
@3:28 DN reports a member of Parliament told the Prime Minister to apologize for being racist, evidence cited is a comment he made stating women in hijab look like bank robbers and letter boxes.
My Comment: LOL “Women who wear hijabs look like letter boxes and bank robbers”, it’s good to see the UK has there own exagerations of friviolous racism accusations. How is that racist? It’s funny, I’m just not sure how it’s racist, or even bigoted since comparing the likeness of a woman in a costume to a mail box or bank robber isn’t encouraging prejudice treatment of the people, or claiming superiority over the people. Funny though.
My Response: Orion Simerl5 days ago@Stephen Arling Which is more a testament to Dave Chappelle’s comedic integrity and the truth of his observations, than it is my ability to be funny. Although there is a great deal of things that I find humor in.
After Thought: The purpose of my reply was to state I don’t try to be funny, I just share things with people that are funny to me, and there are a lot of things I find humor in. I am a fan of a lot of standup comics, and Chapelle is very high up on that list, so I also wanted to show my respect for his ability to articulate truth and be funny at the same time. After returning to this exchange to post it here, I noticed an influence based on my exposure to Chapelle’s material, as I think Chapelle has a joke which follows the same construction with different content. Explaining that something isn’t racist but it is funny. It speaks to the effectiveness of the mechanism, where truth is artculated, but hilarity is preserved, in reasoning that shows something isn’t what is is popularly believed to be, but it is funny. Which is why it became incorporated into the structure of my comment, and represents the thought I had after laughing at the Prime Minister’s comment.
The next question should be why I find humor so many places, obviously, this is because I have a high value of comedy based on the inherent value of the feelings associated with it. Value directs attentions and so my attention is directed to interpretations that contain hilarity. I also value comedy for its ability to reduce subjects to their proper context, especailly when social norms are manufactured that tend to inflate issues and cause people to lose perspective. In consideration of my own circumstances, and the general circumstances that exist in this world, a keen ability to sense and interpret the world through humor is necessary to maintain happiness and maintain integrity. You can maintain an honest view of the world and of your own circumstances, while not allowing the sober analysis of it to swallow you, whereas most people sacrfice the integrity of their outlook, for a philosophy that provides them with illusion of happiness despite the deficiency of their understanding or circumstanes.
6:55 Democracy Now reports US attempts to bribe a captain of an Iranian oil tanker so it could be seized by the United States. The report goes on to report increased sanctions on Iran by the United States.
My Comment: Orion Simerl5 days agoThe United States effort to sanction Iran and other countries may harm US interests in the long run, spurring the creation of alternate banking systems and encouraging nations to begin conducting trade in units other than dollars which would undermine the ever increasing demand for US dollars that facilitates deficit spending as the world reserve currency.
After Thoughts: That’s a long ass sentence.
9:09 DN reports how the Trump Adminstration has canceled a regulation that prevents the sale of incandesent light bulbs.
My Comment: Orion Simerl5 days agoThe energy saved through lightbulb regulations is not a signfiicant step in reducing carbon emissions. Not significant in that the emissions saved will not position human beings to avoid global average temperatures that will reduce habitability. This requires changing our source of energy to renewables and if accomplished energy conservation becomes irrelevant because the source is emissions free, and if not accomplished, energy conservation becomes irrelevant because you cannot conserve away emissions if your source of energy is fossil fuel based. Additionally, it imposes on consumers, even if money saved over the course of a year is $100, the person may have $1 for a lightbulb today, and not 8 for an LED, and also have 100 over the course of year that they don’t have that day. Aside from that is consumer preference, as I’m yet to find an energy efficient bulb that provides the same luminosity and spectrum of light that is provided by an incandescent bulb.
9:43 DN reports on a vaping related casualty in Oregon. The report goes on to mention Michigan’s ban on the sale of flavored nicotine.
My Comment: Orion Simerl5 days agoReally with the vaping? Vaping is a safer alternative to smoking cigarettes for people who like the effects of nicotine, and there are study confirmed benefits of nicotine including improved focus and mood enhancing properties. People have died from infections from vaping, meaning the pathogen was either present in the juice or on the device itself, which requires either stricter regulations from the FDA on the juice, or more careful habits by users to ensure the cleanliness of their devices. Instead this dumbed down species takes these reports and thinks the risk is inherent to the activity. Oh look at Michigan taking a stand, they’re using flavors to target children. GTFOH. These are the kind of arguements and actions people take who have no substantive solutions for real problems, in an effort to maintain jobs they are ill qualified to have.
11:05 DN reports rape victim whose attacker received a light sentence has written a book and revealed her identity.
My Comment: Orion Simerl5 days ago (edited)Rape is a horrible crime without justification, but for the victims I believe the impact is made worse by the emphasis of how a victim is told to feel about the imposition. These thoughts and feelings regarding the violation is also amplified by notions pertaining to the purity of sex and its association with love. At least this particular victim is benefiting from exposure and interest which should translate into a financial benefit through her book sales and related exposure. Which isn’t to say that the rape is good a thing as many would prefer to interpret my words, only that the tramatic event will be of some benefit to her. My main point is this trauma of event is prolonged and the obstruction to life for rape vicitms is increased by ideas concerning sex, and victims being told how they should feel about being victims of rape.
I had to return to this after hearing the rest of the headline. This circumstances of this rape reduce the degree of the act, maybe not legally but interpretatively. He didn’t forcefully rape her, the act wasn’t non-consensual it was sex without consent. Different in the sense that if I stole your car from your drive way and didn’t know you, or if we knew one another and I borrowed your car after you fell asleep. Of course Democracy Now wants to make it about white privelege. LOL, which is why the demographic that should be the most interested in social justice issues, the same demographic that is required to achieve social justice change (26%, which represents 26+% of poor white people, or white people in the bottom 40% of the wealth distribution) supports Trump and cannot stand the left who divide the underclasses by overemphasizing race, gender, and sexuality discrimination.
Geeks and Gamers: AOC vs Dave Chapelle Fact Don’t Care About Your Feelings
I saw the headline and thought it was a comment by AOC about the Chapelle “Sticks and Stones” controversy. The video attempts to demonstrate the bias of the Rotten Tomatoes reviewers by showing the discrepancy between the critics and the audience rating, where Chapelle’s speacial received 0 from the reviewers and 99 from the audience, and then he shows AOCs doccumentary which recieved a high review from the critics and a low rating from the audience.
My Comment: 2:23 in, and I’m in agreement with your arguement, but you know what the politically correct left will say, or probably what AOC would say, is a group of organized and dedicated bigots who are trying to undermine progress (aka censorship through social enforcement), by providing good reviews for biggoted material, and bad reviews for progressive material. Of course the flaw in their position is referring to the truth in sterotypes is not the same as the promotion of treating people different based on those sterotypes, or being intolerant of differences. The problem lies in their definition of what a biggot is. For someone like AOC whose career relies on the promotion of what she is against, and the millions who subscribe to the cause, biggotry has to be identified as many places as possible, because if it isnt a problem, then people like her and others cannot make careers based on opposing the problem.
3:08 Capitalism is a reflection of human behavior. Human beings are completely self interested. The nature of human interaction is the exchange of value for value, and in this, everything is a market. Altruistic behavior is the same thing, as the feeling experienced by the idea and act of the sacrifice is greater than the feeling that can be achieved by the substance sacrificed. To go one further, even doing for your children is a product of innate biological processes where the value of the feeling of providing for the child’s need, is much greater than the value of the feeling of allowing the child to go without. The childs need is met in exchange for the feeling the parent gets for providing for that need. The problem with captialism is the enviornment that it exists in, where people with money decide not only the economic opportunity for the masses, but also direct legislative policy. There are market based solutions to enable the large swathes of economically disadvantaged people, who are circumstantially trapped, to participate in these decisions, but they have been ignored by the left who claims they are interested in correcting these problems. ( http://orioncs.net/centers-for-economic-planning/) Aside from that, you provide an entertaining and informative service via youtube, you should make money for it.
I don’t think the Shaft review is a great example, largely because you have an audience who is weighing the film on entertainment value, and you have critics who may not be judging the movie based on political correctness, but based on how it compares to the original and what was expected from a remake. Of course the best example for your comparison is Peter Travers whose review definitely reflects a judgement of the movie based on the political incorrectness of it.
8/15/2019 Democracy Now
My Comment: 6:29 It’s aggravating and saddening that drug laws exist that do not represent the will or interest of the people. We agree to laws because we are freer with laws than we are without them, meaning any law that exists should prevent a greater imposition than it imposes. Most drug laws impose without preventing imposition and therefore should not exist. And how would gun laws prevent a person from amassing unlimited amounts of ammunition?
Laura Lafauve2 weeks agoPart of the problem is that the minority are ruling the majority. The puppet masters behind the Republican party have untold ways of skewing votes toward their purpose. How many times has a Democrat been winning an election and at the last minute a Republican will suddenly be ahead? There’s something up with that.
@Laura Lafauve Another part of the problem is people think there is a meaningful difference between the democrats and republicans.
@Orion Simerl well, there wasn’t but there is now. Notice I said puppet masters? I think of them as Ersatz Republicans. The Republican party has been infiltrated by big business. You see, one of the main things the Republican party touts is to have fewer laws. And sometimes laws do become outdated or unnecessary. But big business has been using the Republican party to get rid of laws that help regular people, but which to them are inconvenient. Best example is deregulation of the banking system. Those laws were made to protect Americans. But big business didn’t like them so they used the Republican party and its “fewer laws are better” philosophy to rescind those laws. And that didn’t work out very well for us. If you mean both parties are open to corruption, I agree. But just now big business has found Americas Achilles heel through the Republican Party.
@Laura Lafauve The bulk of recent banking deregulation ocurred under the Clinton Administration, your best example occured under a democrat. There is no time in US history when the government wasn’t the facilitator of wealth to power, neither party represents popular interest in this country despite those who make a living in rhetoric pandering to the poor and struggling, and people like yourself who buy into it.
Laura Lafauve2 weeks agoA Democrat was president doesn’t mean much over all. If I’d known a bookie I would have made a bet that the Republican party would win the next round of elections after Clinton was elected. Everyone expected health care for all and the Democratic Party dropped the ball. Regardless of party if Congress decides to drag their feet, they can gum up the works for any president. Just look at Mitch McConnell in the Senate. Nothing gets past him.
Orion Simerl2 weeks ago (edited)@Laura Lafauve WTF are you talking about “a democrat president doesn’t mean much”? He signed legislation to deregulate that banks which is your prime example of how the republicans are more beholden to business than the democrats. If democrats were concerned with regulating the banks, Clinton, a democrat, would have vetoed the legislation. Bernie Sanders voted for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which deregulated credit default swaps, and played a big part in the 2008 crash, which was caused by mortgaged back securities, where piles of loans were given false ratings, then insured, then sold, then repackaged insured and sold again, and then when they were defaulted on, there wasn’t enough money to pay the insurance, which required the bail out which was administered by another democrat Barrak Obama. This isn’t a pro republican arguement, this is a pull your head out of your ass the democrats are a business party the same as the republicans arguement. Holly Shit. SMH LOL
8/15/2019 Alan Watts: Conquering Fear
This comment must be read as the video is watched as it is a point by point analysis of the video.
This is where the religion is wrong, in that the problem of pain is not the fundemental problem of life, the fundemental problem of life is imposition, direct and more commonly circumstantial imposition. Because if the fundemental problem is pain, than the fundemental purpose of an individual’s existence is to feel good. Feeling good is not a state but a consequence of experience. Good feelings are the result of value associations with the association eventually reducing down to the sensations something produces, food, drugs, exercise, touch, thought, social interaction, learning, among other things. At any given time the one thing that is certain about all individual’s in all settings, every one wants to do what they want to do, even if what they want to do is do nothing. Anyone is able to do as they want to do is in a state of joy and contentment, whereas anyone who cannot is experience some discontent which fundementally is a degree of pain.
Liberty requires for a creature not to be imposed on and the means to do. However, we recognize that the circumstances that exist that determine individual means are a product of systems of collective consent, therefore the fundemental problem in life is imposition, direct, and collective or circumstantial.
If you are in a fire in a furnace that is sound advice, but the general principle is not widely applicable. Indulging in suffering for future suffering to be mild by comparison in many instances is a useless sacrafice. If we take a broader more figurative interpretation of the answer, meaning confronting something head on, this too is advice that proves wrong nearly as often as it proves right.
I would agree life is generally Duhkha, but it is a product of human creation, not a fact of the human condition.
Simply because something has an opposite does not mean you cannot experience it without experiencing the opposite of it. If an individual’s life consisted of nothing but joy, he would still expereince joy without having known contrary sensations.
Acceptance of pain is the interpretation of his answer, which is a stretch because increasing the intensity of pain by moving closer to it’s source to feel it no further, has nothing to do with acceptance. Acceptance of pain has no benefit, the acceptance of circumstances beyond your control is neccesary to avoid the pain of worry, and worry is a useless sacrafice because it generally does not contribute to a desired outcome beyond considerations of how to confront the sitution should one expereince the undesired outcome. Fear itself is the feelings associated with uncertainty, with the degree being proportionate to the amount of imposition associated with the most negative outcome.
Fear does not have to be a chronic form of suffering. The more an individual understands with certainty the less the individual has to fear.
You can focus your attention on what fear feels like but whether you are conscious of the emotional components of it or not, it still does not feell good. As I mentioned, you accept the possibility of the outcome, consider what you will do if you are confronted by the outcome, and then your mind is free to find a new subject of attention, which eliminates the worry. It is an a true observation however, that what you are thinking about, or how you perceive something, determines how you feel. The point is, knowledge of the sensation of fear to build a resistance to being fearful, is of much less value than liberating yourself from the fear by accepting the possiblity of the outcome and directing your attention to a subject of immediate value.
The slap is not the source the feeling, the feeling is associated with the idea of pleasing or displeasing someone who the boy values, and seeks to increase his value to, to maintain a relationshilp that provides valued sensations.
Tears of joy, and tears of sadness, are not tears of the same sensation. Why are you using a mythical example as if it is something that is actually experienced?
Experiencing ecstasy from the love that is her union with the godhead. It is the creation of value for an idea that has no practical or inherent value beyond what an individual associates with it.
It is very true that peoples fear of death has a great deal to do with social conditioning, which includes religion and philosophies that consider it in an illogical context, but the natural fear of death is the uncertainty of the outcome, which can be reduced and eliminated by logical consideration of expereince and existence, and applying it to the possiblity of the survivial of consciousness after death. No vommit is actually disgusting. It has inherent properties of odor, it can be sticky, it has a consistency the is revolting to our taste buds, it is actually disgusting.
In the absence of imposition it is absurd to think you would crave death due to monotony with life.
Individual’s attitudes towards death vary greatly, but it doesn’t have to be the subject of fear because it is recognized as a definite outcome, and acceptance of it, frees one’s mind to focus on the subject of immediate value. In the understanding of other things, cheifly liberty, as the essence of existence evident by the fact that all the results on this planet are caused by the free will of the creatures on this planent, and supported by the fact that everyone wants to do what they want to do, an individual can have certainty is his undestanding and application of liberty, that he will be free to the degree of his application and understanding should consciousness survive death. In that even the uncertainty of death loses the sting of fear in the certainty of liberty.
8/13/2019 Late Show Stephen Colbert
The show was making fun of Trumps tweet calling the drills in North Korea rediculous. I didn’t realize it at the time I wrote it, but the analogy in my comment is a reproduction originally stated in something I heard or read from Noam Chomsky awhile back. There were a few respondants who replied as one would expect from people who frequent iths show.
Orion Simerl2 weeks agoThe exercises are actually an act of aggression. The exercises consist not only of how to defend but how to invade North Korea if the circumstances became advantageous to do so. It would be like if China and Mexico held joint exercises in the Gulf of Mexico in what they would do if there was an opportunity to invade the United States. Of course the United States would not allow such exercises to take place.
Orion Simerl2 weeks ago@Indiana1616 The United States is far more murderous, imposing, and threatening than North Korea. Regardless of whether a nation is a threatening murderous dictatorship, drills preparing for the invasion of a country is aggression and provocation, and these exercises are one of the reason’s why North Korea tests missles and makes threats usually around the time of these exercises. It is not justifable to prepare for an invaison simply because you don’t agree with how a country operates. All US foreign policy boils down to ensuring US corporations have access to the markets of foreign countries for the exploitation of labor and resources.
chipishor2 weeks ago@Orion Simerl So, after the complaints from a murderous dictator, who threatened USA many times, the chief of the most powerful army in the world is calling it’s own army’s actions ridiculous??? Really ??? Really??!!!
Orion Simerl2 weeks ago@chipishor The United States murder a million people in North Korea, destroyed 85% of their buildings, and then isolated the country from world markets for 70 years, preventing economic development causing the dictatorship, and the poverty that has existed in the country since the Korean War. It isn’t rediculous, it is malicious, and naked aggression.
8/13/2013 Democracy Now Give Us Your Rich
The report is about the Trump Adminstration policy to take financial means into consideration when making a determination for immigration or assylum. I wrote about immigration and it is overstated and uncorrectable. I limped into this comment section more intent on antagonziing than on making a point related to my position. A woman caught me slipping in the comments section and deserve what I got. The woman in the interview made the statement “Immigrants who come here legally are no more likely to be on welfare than people born in this country”. I quoted her and said what’s the problem which I meant in the context of if they immigrants are coming self sufficient than what is the problem with the qualification which she claims wouldn’t exclude them? I feel like its an overstated cause which is the reason I entered the conversation and probably shouldn’t have. I added the first response when I came back to the conversation, which is evident by the content of the comment.
Heidenspross2 weeks agothe problem is that muslims don’t work as scapegoats and boogiemen anymore so they need some other minority to harass and abuse… the most cynical thing is that the tax cuts for the rich will cost more money in three years then a decade worth of wellfare payments…
@Heidenspross I returned to this conversation because I post youtube comment exchanges on my website, and I am just adding after rereading your comment that your statement isn’t true. Welfare payments cost 1 trillion dollars per year. Raising the top marginal tax rate as AOC wants to do to 70%, would only generate 250 billion dollars per year, and the top marginal tax rate under Trump is 37% which is only 2.6 percent less than under Obama when it was 39.6%. Meaning 2.6% tax break for “the rich” does not represent more in even one year than a trillion dollars. (https://www.lexingtonlaw.com/blog/finance/welfare-statistics.html)http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
Orion Simerl2 weeks ago@Heidenspross I’m not denying that immigration is primarily used as justification for why the poor and struggling middle class in this country are poor and struggling. The point I was making, is if immigrants are no more likely to be on welfare than people born in this country, then using one’s ability to be self sufficient to determine who is awarded asylum should not be a problem. There is a limited number of people who are awarded asylum each year. If two people have the same claim and one is better positioned to take advantage of the opportunity, why shouldn’t that factor into who gets asylum since the number is limited?
@Orion Simerl because asylum is not a question of economics… you are conflating asylum with immigration… asylum is granted to people who are being persecuted in their home coutries, and sending them back is a crime
@Heidenspross You are correct, but the arguement is equally applicable to immigration, where the number of immigrants accepted is about 140,000 per year. While it may be a crime to send them back to their home countries, it is not a crime to send them back to the country they came from prior to entering a country where asylum has been denied? If there is a limited number applicants accepted, why is wrong to use self sufficiency as part of the criteria to determine who is accepted and who is not accepted since all cannot be accepted?
@Orion Simerl The only moral criteria for ASYLUM is the severity & immediacy of the threat in the home country to the asylum-seeker. Their socio-economic status is irrelevant. The issue is whether immigrants coming to the US for OTHER reasons than threats of violence should be sorted & prioritized based on wealth. They should be… anyone with NO economic NEED because of conditions in their home country should be the LOWEST on the list, NOT the highest. If people are doing well in their home country & that state is a functioning democracy, they shouldn’t be allowed to enter the US. Save the quota for people in need who genuinely need the opportunity America can offer them. On the other hand, open borders globally is the ideal, IMO.
@Julie Ann Myers I don’t disagree with your points, with the exception of open borders which I won’t go into because it isn’t the original subject of controversy. I probably should have shut the fuck up today and not limped into the game with the poor hand that I did.
Explanation: She is correct. The reason I didn’t comment on open borders is I didn’t want it to appear I was trying to change the subject to open borders in an effort to overshadow her victory in the general subject of debate. My position on opern borders is the following excerpted from my article Immigration: Overstated and Uncorrectable:
There are roughly 15,000 people in CBP custody on any given night. Presumably some are on their second attempt or more, meaning there is probably substantial portion who are not new migrants. (1) The average stay of a migrant in CBP custody is about a month.(2) Meaning if CBP did nothing, the United States would gain only (15,000 per month x 12 months) 180,000 illegal immigrants per year, which isn’t likely to have a perceivable impact on the lives of citizens.
180,000 people, joining a population of 330 million, is the equivalent of having $1833 and adding $1 or losing 1$. That is the extent to which illegal immigration is a problem.
The people of the United States are responsible through indifference to the policy that has produced the poverty, insecurity, and otherwise unlivable conditions that cause people to migrate. Given the fact that the absorption of Latin American migrants requires no sacrifice from the American people, I think not being opposed to illegal immigration is the minimum in regard to justice, for their government whose policies not only produced the conditions that exist, but continue to impose such policy produced conditions.
In anticipation of the previous paragraph being misinterpreted, I am not for open borders. The figures provided for illegal immigrants is based on a policy where entering the country intent on residency without going through the proper procedures is illegal. Presumably there are people who do not migrate because they know it is illegal and may result in them being returned to their countries having gained nothing for their effort. If the United States had an open border policy where citizenship was granted by crossing the border it could create an immigration problem. It is for that reason that I am for illegal immigration.
7/5/2019 Democracy Now Noam Chomsky Speech
My Comment: Progressive internationalist Bernie Sanders. What’s interesting is Bernie Sanders who Chomsky describes at the counter to ultra nationalism is a key driver of ultra nationalism. The over emphasis of race, gender, and sexual inequality is largely responsible for the growing popularity of ultranationalist parties and candidates. Sander’s recently commented that “white peope don’t know what it’s like to be poor”, which is intersteing since most people who are poor in the United States are white. If you’re white and you’re poor, do you support the guy and the party who doesn’t acknolwedge your existence, or do you vote for the other guy who tells you he’s going to make things better for you based on an ultra-nationalist line of reasoning? Does the poor white man vote for the candidate or party that has made race inequality a dominant point of the platform, where everything that can be interpreted as racism is defined as such, and race is pandered to at the neglect of more relevant class based interests. What are you going to legislate to address the issue, it is already illegal to discriminate based on race and it is socially unacceptable. Yet race is probably more talked about today than it was during civil rights, even though a black person born to money is born to advantage whereas a white person born without money is born to disadvantage. To remind you, this comment is arguing that so called progressives like Bernie Sanders mentioned by Chomky are a driving force behind ultra nationalist popularity.
Today on my way home from a job NPR was reporting on the women’s soccer, stating the woman’s championship team is paid about 25% less than a men’s championship team and implying from what I heard that this is a gender issue. I surmise the the difference in revenue between what men’s soccer generates and what woman’s soccer generates is probably greater than 25%, meaning despite the woman’s team being paid less than the mens team in overall dollars, the men are probably underpaid in proportion to overall revenue. It is these kind of issues, the senseless accusations of sexual harassment over comments that used to be called compliments, that reduces the credibility of progressives. Credibility that should be reduced because these candidates motivation is a great distance away from their rhetoric.
The third aspect of the progressive wedge is the over emphasis of LGBT discrimination, which is less about equality and tolerance and more about promotion. You have children thinking about their gender identity, and certainly some weighing the value of gay based on the attention they will receive and the protection it may provide. I have no issue with what people choose to do that doesn’t impact the general liberty of others, and no one should, but when a great amount of attention is directed at a problem (intolerance to sexual preference), and the prevelence of true incidents is not great, people recognize the dispairity and it compromises the credibility of the candidate and party.
I’m 11 minutes in and this is the first interesting point raised. Interesting that the counter to ultranationalism is the perceived driving force which goes beyond the issues I’ve raised, and race being much more substantial than the second two. What is interesting about it is typically, you would increase promotion of the counter, but the problem is the counter promotes the thing it is promoted to counter. And whether it’s ultranationalism or ultra-progressivism, neither addresses the general social, economic, or political issues that exists, although some distinction do lead to improvement or detriment for some people.
He mentions the democrats may have given Trump the 2020 election with their focus on Russian collusion allegations, something I agree with and wrote a few months, which is to point out an area of concurrence and for whatever benefit may be derrived by reaching the same conclusion as someone who regarded as a guru by the left. I don’t understand the point of comparing the rise of fascism to the rise of ultranationalism while emphasizing the idelogies are mildly similar but far from the same. I guess it is a good way to waste 10 minutes in an hour long presentation.
What are the functioning democracies? Which states function as democracies?
Very good point in regard to the CEO of JP Morgan, he can take an ethical stance on investment in fossil fuel which will lead to his replacement, or he can continue JP Morgan’s investment in fossil fuels. Either way, JP Morgan is going to continue investing in fossil fuels.
I think Chomsky overestimates the significance of ABM treaty. The only explanation I read I’m almost embarassed to express because of how obviously incorrect it is. The reasoning stated if one power was close to a 100% efficient anti ballistic missle system the other side may launch a premptive strike, rather than lose their deterent capacity. I’m sure Chomsky probably has another reason, but this reason for an ABM treaty is wrong because technological advances could render the systems useless, meaning the loss of the deterent capacity due to a break through in ABM, is at worst a technological problem which will be overcome. And they did. The US has ABM systems but they are useless because of the cost of defense verses the cost of attacking. It’s a hat on a hat, and the attacking side can deploy more warheads, some of which can be conventional warheads not nuclear as decoys, and enough nuclear warheads will get through. Whlie I don’t think a first strike caused by developing an ABM system is realistic and neither did the Soviet Union, the idea was proposed by McNamara. If he proposed the idea, he proposed it because in considering ABM systems, it is something he would at least consider discussing with a president if recomending it.
In what way is the Green New Deal a remarkable accompishment? I was already critical of chomskys support for the GND where is vaguely mentions it is doable based on no sources, and the sources I’ve read being little more than measuring energy demand and comparing the cost of energy production from renewable sources which says nothing to most challenging aspect of it which is implementation. Once we’re past this the problem of the GND is there is no GND. I’m so tired of wriitng this but the GND is a list of problems, goals, and the creation of a select comittee to work on achieving those goals along very inspecific guidelines. I seen a headline from the intercept that said “We need to fund the green new deal”. There is no GND to fund, the only appropreation is to fund the research of the select committee. These are indisputable facts that somehow the people of this country fail to acknowledge. Republicans don’t mention it because it makes more sense to perpetuate the myth and equate the GND with socialism, the GND with progressives, and the socialism with totalitarianism and the failed attempts at socialism undermined by US and other western interference.
Chomsky continues to reinforce the unimpactful efforts of activists who comprise most of his acolytes by stating climate change being at the forefront of discussion is a tremendous change. Climate change has been at the forefront of discussion. Obama campaigned on climate change and won twice. It is the proliferation of information relatedt to climate change and the impact of climate change which has it at the forefront of discussion which takes place well outside of activist circles. He makes this point to stroke his base probably knowing full well he’s full of shit. Funny part about that was I paused the video just prior to the applause after he said that shows you the type of things that can be done. Which is to say the applause reinforced my conclusion that “he makes this point to stroke his base”. You don’t know it happend like that but I do so I thought I would share my personal affirmation.
Stopped at 24:22, in case you sorry dick riding, commenters of no value wanted to respond. It is amazing that most of these comments you could copy and paste to any Chomsky lecture. You would think such an inspiring lecture would inspire some comments reflecting on the substance that was so inspiring.LOL.
7/1/2019: Carl Jung and the Psychology of the Man-Child
My Comment: The major issue with psychology is it attempts to define mental complexes through behaviors and tendencies that naturally overlap with behaviors and tendencies of other complexes or normalacy. The motivation of individuals to engage in behaviors is inferred and implied due to a lack of awareness by the subject. This inferred motivation is presented to the subject as a cause for the behavior and becomes true to the subject based on the percieved authority and knowledge of the therapist. There are people whose behavior could be considered consistent with puer aeternus but absent any attachment or dependency on the mother. Their behavior and outlook is relatively the same as it was during adolesence, but I don’t think it has anything to do with dependency on their mother. Their value of the mode of operation within their environment is what produces what may be considered a lack of development or immaturity. Immaturity is a largely subjective term, but my point is, the motivation for continuing adolesent behavior into adulthood is less a product of fear of new expereinces, and more a product of preference or value of their behavior in interaction with their enviornment. This is also a product of general value and circumstances, where the value of new experiences available to them, is less than the value of maintaining their present situation, in their present mode of operation.
This is understood as a stasis of values. All subjects have an attached value to them, and naturally, the value of subjects determines the focus of attention. Values are associative, meaning the value of new subjects is determined by other values. Stasis of value occurrs when one’s values rarely create value in new subjects, and this is a cause of someone maintaining behaviors which are perceived by some as being immature or age inappropreate.
For those who have a dependency on their mothers, it is another question of value. You mention people living with their parents when most people their age would have moved out and taken on adult responsibilities. Again the value of the lifestyle exceeds the value of the options. If an indivdual has food, water, and shelter, and is able to participate in stimulating activities, this individual may be satisfied with that situation. Happiness can be measured in liberty, as in a person is happy when they are able to do what they want to do and they are unhappy when they are doing things they don’t want to do or they are without the means to do what they want to do. For some the alternative is finding a job where they will spend most of their lives at unhappy that barely provides compensation to meet their natural needs.
It isn’t some deep symbolic cause, it is as all decision making the value of subjects verses the value of subjects. Psychology should hardly be considered a science. It is built on subjective ideas related to the production of behavior, absent the foundation of thought, which is cause and effect and priority of value. Psychology fails to recognize liberty as the fundemental motivating factor, and motivation being the product of desire in relation to circumstances. It is the creation of faulty sequencing in regard to cause and effect where explanations are provided for behavior and sets of behavior define profiles.
6/29/2019: CNN Interveiw of presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg
I’m not going to summarize the video but it would make sense to watch the video as you read the comment after the first paragraph, as the comments were written as I watched the video and in resposne to the answers.
My Comment: The fact remains that black people who come from money benefit from all the same advantages of wealth that white people benefit from, while white people born poor face the same disadvantages. Racism exists, as much as if not more from black people towards white people, but also from white people towards black people.
What are you going to do about it legeslatively? It is already illegal to discriminate based on race. It is socially unacceptable to be overtly racist, except of course if you are black or brown or white and you are racist against white people, that is acceptable and promoted in the United States.
Race is a great tool to perpetuate the myth of American goodness, the myth that states America is a land of opportunity, the systems are generally correct, and the intentions with which the country was founded on as well as in matters abroad are good. Race is used to divide the underclasses along superficial lines to ensure class interest is not at the forefront of discussion. Even the likes of Warren and Sanders who campaign on class are pandering to the middle class, with no substance for the poor which constitutes at least the bottom 40% of the wealth distribution who have negative wealth or have more debt than assets. Sanders made the false and audacious statement while pandering to black people that “white people don’t know what it’s like to be poor”.
That was my reaction to the headline. Buttigieg mentions systemic racism but provides no example of systemic racism.
He also mentions that Trump campaigned on white identity politics, but it is important to recognize that white identity politics is a product of democrats neglecting in rhetoric and policy the needs of poor white people in this country. Alienating poor and struggling white people with statements like Sanders that white people don’t know what it’s like to be poor.
How are trans-women of color under attack? Democracy Now has been emphasizing trans women of color being the victims of homicide airing and reairing the stories in an effort to make it seems as if they are dispropotionately the victims of murder. Of course when you look at the numbers trans people represent .6 percent of the population. There are 17,000 homicides annually in the US. Which means a proportionate amount of trans people being victims of homice would be 102 per year. There were 24 trans homicides last year. Now if there are 35 this year they will say the murder of trans people is on the rise and imply they are being murdered because they are trans, despite the fact the number will be much lower than proportionate.
“A world where a black person and white person pulled over by police feel the exact same thing.” That is not realistic, but not because of race. A black person who doesn’t have warrants, has a license, insurance, and is generally in good standing is not going to feel the same as a white person who is poor and lacking any of those things. The issues we have our class based. Race, gender, and sexual orientation discrimination are only issues because they are emphasized by incompetent political leaders and the media, and the US population is without critical thinking skills, or better said the US population allows other people to think for them as a product of their training.
Your solution to policing is to insert more people of color into the police force, meaning you are wholly invested in the idea that the problem with the poilice force is racism? How about the fact that you have an incentivzed system where an officers career depends on their ability to find crime, make arrests, and get convictions? The use of deadly force by lawenforcement officers unnecessarily which prompted you to return to South Bend, what are you doing about this? For anyone interested see http://orioncs.net/poor-lives-matter/
Black people have been excluded from justice, enterprenuership, and home ownership. Okay, and so have poor white people, poor brown people, red people, yellow, and any people whose opportunities are inadequate to meet their needs and allow them to accumulate wealth. 60 to 70% of the country has negative, little, or no wealth. Black people represent 13% of the population. Most people who are poor, without justice, the ability to finance a business, or without the means to purchase a home are not black.
The issue of democracy is there is no democracy. When you have a choice to vote for one of two candidates who represent the interest of industry in government at the exclusion of the interests of the poor there is no democracy. These are the principles this country was founded on and the power as adaptted to maintain a plutocracy.
6/28/2019 CBS Megan Rapinoe Stands By Comments About White House Visit
My Comment: If you feel strongly enough about something with Trump or his adiminstration to cause you to not want to go to the white house, you should feel strong enough to want to go and voice your critism. Fake stand taking people. LOL
6/28/2019 Facebook Post After a Moving Gig Demonstration of Short Cause and Effect and Ingratitude
I was extremely tired after this job. I intended on meeting this trashy chic off a dating app, because I had the house to myself, but the combination of being tired and being not fully confident that it was cool with my baby mama who I was staying with, I decided not proceed. It was a labor to write this and writing is rarely a chore for me when it doesn’t include research and footnotes.
I wake up to discover there is a nearby gig for moving help on craigslist. Its downtown and I have to park a few blocks away from the address. My motive for writing this relates to being upset about something I shouldn’t be upset about, and an example of short sequencing cause and effect.
I met the truck driver at about noon who told me it would be a few minutes until we get started. I began taking loads of boxes and furniture to the elevator. Probably about an hour later there is a man standing at the rear of the trailer who is another person they hired to unload the job.
He didn’t last very long, faking an injury and saying he had to leave once he accumulated 20 to 30 dollars worth of pay. The funny thing was he claimed he dropped this large concrete base that houses this tree of sorts, but the item was stood up on the dolly. I did drop the same item (there were two) and it was difficult for me to lift it back up. I think he seen me drop it and then used it to find his out. When he left I said “got to go get that bag”? Looked and moved like a sick heroin addict.
Later on the president of the home owners association, or whatever the equalivlent is in these condos (amazing on the inside off of Water St and Pittsburg) told us we needed to move the truck. I was about to say something to him but acknowledged that it wasn’t my place. At the truck the driver who speaks about enough english to order a hotdog tells him the homeowners unit number.
He met us with the woman whose items we were moving on the second floor. They’re english isn’t great so I decided to handle the situation. He says the rule is no one can block the parking enterence. I explain to him that cars have been entering in and out all day and he admitted that he was able to get through to the parking structure. I asked him where we are supposed to park, and what the policy is for tractor trailers delivering goods to the residents? He said he didn’t know he didn’t drive a tractor trailer, and because he didn’t know I accused him of lying about being the president of the condo association, reasoning that a competent president would either know the policy or have a policy in place. He said it didn’t matter what you drive nothing could come past some area he mentioned.
El Presedente, knows what the rule is, but fails to objectively consider the purpose of the rule. Why do you have the rule? To ensure people have access to the parking structure. Because people have access to the parking structure, it should make no difference whether or the vehicle comes past the stipulated point, because the existence of that point is to ensure people have access to the parking structure.
I didn’t explain that point to him, because it wasn’t about the truck it was about him wanting to impose his authority on behalf of the association. It would have served me perfectly however, as his entire position is exposed with the question what is the purpose of the rule.
He also mentioned that he was the one who was receiving complaints, which seems unlikely because he didn’t say anything to us until he pulled into the structure, meaning it is much more likely him seeing us caused him to say something and not a condo owner calling him and him rushing home to confront us.
I told the woman whose items we were moving if the city was conducting a project that obstructed the garaage to the same extent and someone called, he would tell them sorry about the inconveinence, we appreciate your paitence, but the work has to be done and will conclude in a few hours.
I ended my exchange with him by explaining the only other option was to rent a smaller truck, which the customer would be charged for, and being that she has 1000cf at 2$ a cf for the shuttle it would cost at least $2000. We left on we wern’t moving shit, and the customer walked off and talked to him.
I made their lives very easy in the effort I put forward but even more with my customer service. Having done their jobs, last year I was working interstate moving first as a foreman and then as a partner, meaning I know all phases of a delivery including fees like a shuttle as mentioned in the previous paragraph. The woman gave them a $200 tip. Initially she asked her husband if he had $150 on him, which suggests 50/50/50, but then she came back with $200.
This MF pays me for my time and an additionally 10$. That shit was disgusting, but it wasn’t included in the ad so I didn’t have a legitimate complaint about the compensation. I should have seen at least $60 of that tip. When I was on the road I always shared the tip with the people who I hired. If the ad said the rate plus tips I would have had a basis to extract more. As soon as he handed me the money I walked the fuck off in dissapointment.
After working and sweating my ass off, knee hurting and fucked up, I forget where I parked my car. I walked like 6 blocks down water street. Then I walk back up thinking I parked it on a different street. I wasn’t sure so I walked back down water again for about 7 blocks. Finally I realize I’m parked off of Barclay. I finished this long ass job, get fucked on the tip, me and some dude in Yemen are the thristiest people on the planet and I do about a mile and a half in about 25 minutes looking for my car.
6/25/2019 Late Show Colbert
Colbert interviews not serious presidental contender Anderew Yang who proposes that all Americans should have a minimum income of $1000 per month that Yang intends to provide if elected president.
I commented: That’s a good idea, except that it costs 3 trillion dollar per year to provide every US adult with $1000 a month. That’s nearly the entire federal budget. That’s roughly a 6th of GDP. LOL I don’t think it’s going to work.
Point of contention: It’s a good idea but it isn’t feasible because of the cost.
6/24?2019 Democracy Now Headlines
There was a clip of Bernie “white people don’t know what it’s like to be poor” Sanders making an empty promise based faulty accounting principles. He was making a campaign speech and promised to forgive 1.6 trillion dollars of student debt funded by a tax that will require 7 to 20 years to generate 1.6 trillion.
My Comment: Sanders knows A: He cannot pass the bill to forgive student debt. B: His tax which I presume would be rolled into the bill he cannot pass will generate between 77 billion and 240 billion dollars annually. Not 1.6 Trillion LOL Maybe he can pass it because it is subsidy to private lenders who are owed 1.6 trillion dollars. Of course the effect is inconsequential to the 40 to 50% of poor people in this country who are not struggle with student debt, but with paying rent, transporation, utilities, and other expenses their income opportunities are inadequate to meet. And no the fight for 15 is not a solution.
Orion Simerl3 days ago (edited)@Nancy Mesek LOL. Wait and see what? He’s been in Washington for 30 years what legislation has he authored that has become law? The renaming of 2 post offices, and a bill to increase veteran benefits. I hope he gets elected. In 2024 or 2028 for most people things will be about the same, same as with Obama. Someone else will take advantage of American ignorance and get that promotion to president. He may pass it because it is subsidy to private lenders who are owed 1.6 trillion dollars. Of course the effect is inconsequential to the 40 to 50% of the population who is poor, who are not struggling with student debt, but with paying rent, transporation, utilities, and other expenses their income opportunities are inadequate to meet. And no the fight for 15 is not a solution. orioncs.net
Point of Contention: Bernie’s plan to forgive student debt costs much more than his tax he intends to use to pay for student debt forgiveness. If it is incremental, the cost will increase due to interest on student debt and additional lending. Despite my initially skeptisim regarding feasibility, it does seem like something that could be passed which was a point of editing in my comments because it is using public funds to enrich a private interest. Banks would be for it. The second point of contention is spending 1.6 trillion dollars to forgive student debt, does nothing for the bottom 50% of the population who is poor or struggling without student debt.
Substantiation: Student is 1.6 Trillion Dollars. The proposed tax to pay for student debt and free college tuition not included in the cost of student debt is 77 billion to 240 billion dollars per year.
6/21/2019 Facebook Video Post of Son Knocking Out His Step Dad for Saying Nigger.
My comment: Orion Simerl Which is wrong because people should be free to say what they want to say. The way a person feels based on what is said is subjective. The physical imposition is not equal to the subjective verbal imposition. Additionally, I would rather have some one reveal the basis of their bias in feeling free to express it, than to not know why a person treats me a certain way because their bias goes unexpressed.
My Response: Orion Simerl KendraBell ShaKur Racism is illogical because there is always an exception to every stereo type. But tell me. Would you rather have people smile in your face and do shit to you because of your race and not know why? Or would you rather know they are treating you the way they are treating based on their illogical ideas of superiority? At the same time, as someone who has spent most of his life ensuring the appearance of respect through the threat of violence, people should be free to express whatever view or feeling they want to express without fear of retribution that is disproportionate to how they have imposed. Meaning verbal imposition is warrented and physical imposition is disproportionate. Is it okay if the police beat a man for expressing his disapproval of the governement? The same applies for anyone saying anything around anyone. At the same time, how about if he’d have swung off and got his ass beat? I mention this because he is advantaged physically. If his dad were 6’3 225 with a fighting background he doesn’t take the same course of action. I don’t respect it and objectively it is wrong.
Her Response: KendraBell ShaKurOrion Simerl All I know it’s high time we serve them back what they been serving us for 400 years or more..The System is fucked there’s nothing like justice…C’mon get out of your feelings💯✊🏿✊🏿
My Response: Orion Simerl KendraBell ShaKur I have very few feelings to get into. The fact of the matter is that race is the greatest tool of oppression to keep underclass people divided along superficial lines. In line with liberty, truth, objectivity, where my loyalty rests it is wrong even if it seems as if it is appropreate because the individual’s view is wrong. There is nothing left to legislate in regard to racial discimination, in the US it is illegal. It is also socially unacceptable as is evident by the response to this post. The truth is today a black person in the state born into money benefits from all same advantages as white people born into money. The same as white people born into desperation face all the same disadvantages that people of color face. If we want to go back 400 years we can go back to indentured servants. Only 40% of which lived out the duration of their contracts. Meaning most died as slaves. This was due to indentured servants being contracted for a fintie period of time and were thus subjected to the worst conditions. If we go back 50 years ago there is no doubt black people in the US were denied access to education and income opportuities which is responsible for poor black people today. At the same time, it requires money to make money and white people without money, incapable of determining their own opporutnity are not much better off. Where you from?
New Commenter: Charles Richard Cummins Your right people are free to say whatever they want. That does not free them from the consequences however.
The “n” word is one of the most horrible words when used by the wrong people in the wrong way. It can be a hate filled word that literally defies the dignity of humanity and harkens to dark delusions of revisionist history where somehow Southern white folk still hold power and dominance over the descendants of slaves. Let the step dad use that language all he wants. Maybe he’ll think twice about it or wear a football helmet next time.
My Response: Orion Simerl Charles Richard Cummins Or maybe he’ll get a gun and shoot the kid and be justified in doing so to prevent an unjustifable physical imposition. And what purpose does it serve to attempt to supress free speech? It is much better to know who is racist by allowing them to freely express it than for them to conceal it and now no one knows who is racist and cannot confront them, or stay the fuck away from them, or at least know the basis for their treatment of you. The only proven way to change the mind of a racist is welcomed and repeated exposure to an exception to their prejudices. I forgot the guy’s name but he is reported to have changed the minds of 200 Klan members. You being white and being against racism means your job isn’t to change the minds of white people who are racist because you cannot show them an exception to their prejudice being white. Your mission is to find black racists and show them the exception to their prejudice, which you probably cannot do because you are most likely an example of their prejudice.
Points of contention and substantiation is contained within the comments. One point that escaped my attention was she said bullies need to stay in their lane, implying the man was a bully for calling his step sons freinds niggers. However, she failed to understand how beating someone up for something they said is bullying.
6/21/2019 Joe Rogan with Andrew Schulz and Charlamaigne the God
There were a few comments I made on this video. 1 was pertaining to intelligent life in the universe, one was related Joe claiming the universe was so big that every possibility has occured, and the last was related the Charlamaigne’s assertion that “the hood” needs better options for nutrition and more access to mental health.
1st Comment: Joe that’s a theory, not the universe. There is roughly 2 trillion galaxies, the universe is finite.
2nd Comment: The problem isn’t that intelligent life doesn’t exist elsewhere in the universe, the problem is traversing the universe and timing. There is no technology to store enough energy to sustain life over the great lengths of time (wrote comment before Andrew responded as much) required for interstellar travel. There is also no technology to approach speeds that could reduce the time it takes to travel interstellarly. Warp drives are purely theoretical. There is a good possiblity that interstellar travel is not possible. Second, we have to consider timing. Yes, given the number of galaxies, the number of stars, the number of planets, the number of planets with earth like conditions, and the propensity of life to develop anywhere these conditions exist, it is probable that there is other life and intelligent life. But consider the likely brevity of intelligent life’s existence. Human beings have been technologically sophisticated for a period of time in cosmic terms that is too small to be measurable by comparison. Human beings having established a tyranical mode of thought and operation. Human beings will likely not exist on this planet two centuries from now; due to climate change, or probably sooner because of the increased probability of conflict caused by population increases, increasing competition for resources on a planet decreasing in habitable surface area. The point is, if it takes 4 billion years to produce intelligent life and intelligent life only exists for 50,000 years, and posesses sophisticated technology for a few centuries at most, it is unlikely two species would ever be sophisticated enough to detect one another. I’m sure there is a mathmatical equation consisting of those variables that expresses as much.
3rd Comment: If you put juice bars, mental health spas, and welness centers you’re going to have a bunch of shit no one can afford and no one is going to use. Hmmm I can fuck this 100 dollars off at the bar and maybe get some pussy and have a good time, or I can spend an hour at a mental health spa whatever the fuck that is, but it includes brain washing. Creates opportunity to pull a white bitch to support you who finds herself in one of those places based on a good Yelp review. You know what the hood needs? Same shit everybody else needs: Money. If you’re not talking about putting money in peoples pockets, your help and ideas are for entertainment purposes only.
Points of Contention: Joe Rogan was refering to an infinite multi-verse theory, where if there were infinite universes every possibility would play out an infinite number of times. This is not the universe. Multi-verse is a theory, and an infinite multi-verse is a theory within the theory. It is not observable an the existence of it is unknown.
Second point of contention: They were discussing intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, if I remember correctly they were entertaining ideas of visitation and interstellar travel. It is a moot subject for the reasons I outlined in my comment, and the discussion of it promotes alien conspiracy theories that distract from important matters of human civilization.
Third point of contention: Mental health in general is brainwashing. It is the insertion of cause and effect sequencing and the manipulation of value, or otherwise creation of a mode of thought. Charlamaigne implies that the type of merchants in “the hood” will allow people to have better outcomes. He said instead of popeyes chicken and liquor stores you have juice bars, mental health spas, and wellness centers. It doesn’t make sense to me to take away things that people use and can afford and replace them with things people cannot afford and cannot use. Poor people need the same thing they have always needed and will always need: money and meaningful opportunities to make money.
6/20/2019 Democracy Now Headlines
The headlines report Trump making the claim that the air is the cleanest it has ever been. Amy cites statistics from the American Lung Association, 1 in 4 Americans live in areas with poor air quality which she asserts refutes the claim.
My Comment: 8:15 Unfortunately Trump’s lie is correct. Air quality has been improving for decades and is better than it has been in the last 40 years. ( https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901117312352 ) Amy cites American Lung Association statistics claiming the fact that 40% of Americans live in areas with poor air quality REFUTES Trumps assertion that the air is the cleanest it has ever been. Of course the proportion of American’s living in areas with poor air quality says nothing about whether the air is the cleanest it has ever been. Air pollution has decreased in every measure since 1990 and the reduction has been steady over that span. Meaning the air quality is as Trump said the cleanest it has been in the modern industrial era. It’s funnier because Amy says TRUMP LIES real hard, and this is one of the few times he didn’t. The correct position isn’t that Trump is lying because he isn’t, but showing how Trump administration policies will reduce ari quality. Time magazine made the claim that air quality had regressed but this isn’t based on the composition of the air, rather how many days were considered as unhealthy air quality days. Air quality is impacted by temperature, meaning global warming is a driver of poor air quality days. You can have an increase in the amount of days where air quality is considered unhealthy due to weather variations without the average composition of the air quality being compromised. Amy was wrong and Trump told the truth. When are you people going to learn your intelligence is compromised by your bias and your biases are better served through objectivity? I guess when my paper on human thought is published.
Point of contention: The number of people living in areas with poor air quality does not refute the claim that the air quality is as clean as it has ever been.
Substantiation: source is within the comment.
6/19/2019 Democracy Now Headlines
Headline discussed the problems with the acting secretary of defense’s family.
My comment: I’m not saying the acting secretary of defense doesn’t contribute to policy that is murderious and imposing, but he should not be resigning because of the problems in his family life. It would be better to my point if he were terminated or solicited to resign, but what does this say about his ability to perform his duties? Do you know why you have a scandel every other day? Because people in this country have been trained to try and convict people on irrelvant, backwards, and unrealistic standards. Obviously the man has problems in his family, and this is irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with the apptitude of the individual to perform the job he has been assigned. Which is why it is both irrelvant and backwards. I’m not arguing he is good at the job, he probably isn’t, I’m arguing that this should be the basis of his resignation, not being tried in the court of public opinion based on reports containing very few details. He is probably a piece of shit, but the same as all of you, he is a piece of shit and doesn’t even know it.
His family is probably fucked up because he spends an amount of time focused on his job that most people cannot even relate to. He allow his family to suffer based on his belief that he is serving his country and protecting the people in it. Obviously, the same as all of you, his family doesn’t understand their values and consequently, don’t understand themselves.
Another recent headline not on DN was Lamar Ball, the father of Lonzo Ball telling an ESPN comentator after she said “let me shift gears with you”, and he replied “you can shift gears with me anytime”. That used to be called a compliment, now it’s called inappropreate. The standard of what is appropreate is arbitary, and she knows how long it takes her to get ready in the morning. And no, I’m not saying it is okay to sexually assault women because of the style of their hair and make up or their manner of dress.
Sexual harassment requires the establishment of a boundary, otherwise the individual involved in the interaction doesn’t know his advances are unwanted. Setting is irrelvant, and you’ll have a case against that when human beings evolve to no longer be attracted to one another. Or when women are more upfront and honest about their interest in men. Look at Joe Biden. If what he did made the woman feel uncomfortable tell him so he can change the way he intereacts with you. Vox published a piece recently calling attention to Biden calling a 10 year old girl good looking. Uh oh the girl might feel good because the former vice president of her country said she was good looking. Again, when you recognize a positive quality about a person you can tell them to affirm the quality, you don’t always have to wait until they do or say something that is inappropreate based on a standard that unecessarily constrains natural and positive human behavior. The other incident they implied Joe Biden was inappropreate because he told two brothers to keep the boys away from their 13 year old sister. How about if he said at least you don’t have to keep the boys away from your sister? (That would be a hilarious headline). You’re implying the man is a pedophile because he compliments people.
I don’t like two of these people and the other one I respect. I don’t like the secretary of defense because I understand the imposing motivation of US foreign policy and he is a contributor of that. I don’t know anything specific about his role or what policies he’s influenced but his association with that agency and that agencies association with using the resources of this country, the resources of these people to impose on the life, liberty, and prosperity of people around the world causes me to have a negative view of him. My ethical standard, liberty, as measured by imposition, is the reason I don’t like him.
With Joe Biden it is essentially the same thing with his career in politics including his affiliation with the Obama adminstration, which certainly wasn’t the worst overall, but foreign policy, and domestically, allowing industry to drive legislation, including appropreation, and conceding to industry on issues of popular interest and importance are general direct reasons why I don’t like him.
Since I’m mentioning Obama, he is one of the best of a bad position, like being one of the best Nazi executionors. Yes I’m comparing the office of the US president to Nazis, and I do understand there are differences. Like the number of people killed by, or even the harm done pales in comparison to US presidents. 2.5 million in Vietnam to deny a sovreign nation’s people their right to self determiantion. 2 million in Iraq over two decades, a million in santions, and a million through an unjustifable invaison to limit and then eliminate a nation’s regional influence in their own region. 600,000 in Syria, arming, training, and offering diplomatic support to an extremist faction, and denying Syria an opportunity to implement the constitution they voted for, with a greater percentage of participation than the average US presidential election. 600,000 in Cambodia and the undermining of leadership in the nation that led to the rise of Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot which claimed somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 million lives. It would have been more, if not for the brave and resilent people of VIetnam, after decades of French colonial rule, DEFEATED the greatest military force the world had ever known, and then removed the Khmer Rouge from power. In some ways Vietnams defense against the US is as great of a feat as when the Russians sacraficed 25 million people to defeat the Nazis, because of the limited amount of resources and military technology the Vietnamese had at their disposal. And after these US caused catstrophes, both these nations were denied aid. How about the Phillipines, where the filapeno people were courted by the US with implications of independence to overthrow the spanish with US naval support, and then were denied that independence. Areas were quarentined, villages were burned, orders were given to kill anything over the age of 10, 200,000 people were killed by conservative estimates, and dutys were charged to small hemp farmers to bring their product to foreign markets and dutys paid by US companies were returned which provided the US a great advantage in the market place. We know the examples are near endless. How about the US using international banking institutions to 1: ensure private lenders are paid on loans. and 2: to decide the economic policies and direction of nations. How about imposing a world order that promotes instability, impoverishment, and 25,000 children dying poverty related deaths everyday? These are all decisions that require the approval of US presidents. I’m sorry if I’ve offended the decendants of Nazi’s by comparing them to US presidents. I don’t like the Nazis either, but it isn’t a reason to not be proportionately fair. I don’t look at a person I don’t like (like the secretary of defense) and use a family struggle to make a case against his boss because I don’t like him either.
I guess we’re back to my respect for Lamar Ball. Initially I didn’t like him because the only thing I knew about him is he makes outlandish comments about how good his son is when is son is nowhere near what he sells him to be. Sports are a subjective subject, my lens is more associated with the quality of content and how it relates to my values within the sport. For this reason I didn’t like his contribution to the sports world and it was my only basis for an opinion on him. Regardless of his son’s talent or lack thereof (relative to NBA players), he’s promoting his son, selling his son, and drawing attention to his son. The more absurd the claim the more likely it is to make headlines, this benefits his son’s career. I know a purpose of his efforts whether intended or not, and I respect that, admiring both the assumed intelligence of the tactic as well as his willingness to increase his son’s liberty by drawing attention to him. While this constitutes a basis for bias, my analysys is unbiased as it is consistent with my interpretation of similar events of other people (Biden) whom I have a negative view of.
I seen a good piece of news from a reuters report. An area of permafrost is melting that isn’t supposed to melt for 70 years. (I’m only 1:57 into headlines when I’m writing this I presume this made DN headlines). We get methane from the decomposition of previously frozen plant and animal material. Can’t wait to see this new discovery in our climate models. I am for liberty, meaning the earth evicting a tyrannical species is the righting of a wrong, or justice, if nothing else mercy for those who suffer under the order and have been instilled with the same values as their masters. I am for truth, and while there are other factors concerning human intelligence (short sequencing of cause and effect, missequencing of cause and effect, ignorance of values, conflicts of values.) it begins with objectivity or acknowledgement of the truth. I am for the cessation of a species which despite having all the tools to create liberty and prosperity, the preservation of the species, as well as a reasonable basis for social judgement, chooses the contrary. It’s hard to not like seeing people get the effects they cause. I was going to keep on, but I’m tired from working all day shoveling lead dusted rubber out of a gun range.
6/17/2019 Democracy Now Headlines
For what was no less than the third day in a row Democracy Now mentioned the death of a black trans gender person. The agenda seemed intent on demonstrating that trans people are killed disproportionate to their numbers which I originally believed as will be evident by comment.
My comment: I understand Democracy Now is a pro-LGBT broadcast, but showing the death of a transgender person everyday, which implies that the death is motivated by discrimination or intolerance is very dishonest. Undoubtedly DN’s base viewers consist of people who have LGBT causes and showing, and reshowing as they have done, the murders of transgender people attracts their base.
It is dishonest because the lifestyles of many trans-people tend to involve more risk than the general population. Slate reported that 19% of trans-gender people have accepted money for sex, and 47% of black trans-gender people have accepted money for sex. American Progress reproted 20 to 30% of the LGBT community abuses drugs which is 2 to 3 times higher than the general population. These statistics are intent on establishing risks associated with their lifestyle that increase the liklihood of trans-people being the victems of homicide. This is the result of my first thoughts on this issue where exposure to DN’s focus caused me to believe that trans-people were killed disproportate to their numbers, so I considered the cause based on what I understand about many transgender lifestyles.
I discovered that transgender people are actually killed less proportionate than their numbers despite many having lifestyles that expose them to risk. There are 1.4 million people in the United States who identify as trans gender which represents .6 percent of the population. There were over 17,000 homicides in the US in 2017. If trans-people were killed proporationate to their numbers to the overall population you would have 104 murders of trans-gender people. There were 26 homicides of trans-people in 2017. Meaning despite their risky lifestyles, trans people are killed at a rate that is 75% less proportionate than their numbers.
More relevant to proportion is the fact that the area referenced for these transgender murders has the highest concentration of trans people in the nation. While the national makeup of trans people represents .6% of the population, in D.C. trans people represent over 2 percent of the population.
In DN catering to their base, they lead the viewer to conclusions that a group of people is being victimized because of their gender identity when this is not the case. Focusing attention on the victimization of a group that is not being victimized distracts from the victemization of groups who are being victimized.
This analysis is the product of 10 minutes of research based on one hypothesis and one question. The hypothesis being that transpeople generally have lifestyles that increase the risk of violence against them which is based on interaction with transpeople as well as people who interact with transpeople.
The question being the proportion of transpeople relative to the general population and the proportion of trans people who are the victims of homicide. I see a report of a transperson being murdered on DN and then reshown on succeeding broadcasts and I quesiton the bias based on what I already know.
An LGBT activist sees these same reports and incorporates them into a presentation or comment for their activist meeting. They begin with in the last week alone 3 black transgender people have been murdered and the MSM isn’t reporting it, but DN is.
Some may ask the question why do you watch DN on a daily basis if as can be demonstrated by your comment history you disagree with so much of what they report or how they report it? Because DN is still the best source for facts related to current events of popular interest. Their bias influences the presentation and organization of facts but very rarely does it compromise the facts themself. They are one of the few news organizations that host quality journalists and academics and report on studies that pertain to my areas of interest. Which isn’t to say I have a quality opinion of all their guests or even the interpretations of their guests who I have a positive opinion of. Despite DN’s short comings compared to other broadcast news DN is still in a league of their own. They are the best of a bad situation.
Point of contention: Democracy Now is attempting to present trans people as being victimized for being trans, but the emphasis on the murder of trans people is not evidence of victimization or disproportion in regard to homicide.
Substantiation: I didn’t write or book mark the sources for the statistics cited. Google the stats they come back.
6/15/2019 RT America Sleeping with the Television on Makes You Fat
RT which I view very sparingly, reports a study that found a correlation between people who are exposed to artificial light when they’re sleeping and being over weight.
My comment: These studies are so fucking stupid I’d like to know the methodology. Presumably they monitored the weight of people who slept in a room with artfiical light which in most cases is the TV and those who did not and they arrive at these conclusions. At the same time, people who sleep with the TV on may have other common habits that contribute to weight gain. Meaning the TV is evidence of other lifestyle habits that contribute with an increased likelihood of obesity or being overweight.
Point of contention: I’m not necessarily contending the findings of the study, I’m contending that studies of this variety make conclussions that don’t appear to be based on definitive evidence. Correlation is not the same as causation. Simply because people who sleep with the tv on or with an artificial light source tend be overweight does not mean sleeping with the tv or a light on causes you to be overweight. It may, but to make that conclussion you need to know what the light exposure does to a person while they are sleeping and how this affects their metabolism or behavior. Otherwise as I mentioned, people with lifestyles that cause them to be overweight may be more inclined to fall asleep with the tv on.
6/14/2019 Joe Rogan Is there such thing as Alpha men.
Joe Rogan debated with Adam Conover whether or not there was alpha and beta males, Conover arguing the word alpha has a meaning that applies to animals that does not appear in humans. The debate spilled into whether or not woman are attracted to men who appear to be a certain way.
My comment: Joe’s first point was excellent in establishing it doesn’t matter whether or not the word alpha applies in the human context the same as the word is applied in thetechnical sense, there are still categories of characteristics: the ones joe described that he associates with alpha and the one’s he associates with beta. If people refer to these categories as alpha and beta there is alpha and beta males. This is true regardless of the association with the word alpha in animals as a a distinguishing trait in the social hiearchy. The point against joes evolutionary biology assertion that men are attracted to a body type for reasons related to the suitability of procreation is valid by the contender. You cannot make the case unless all men are attracted to an hourglass figure and not all men are. This means it cannot be some evolutionary mechanism meant to ensure mates are selected because their features are conducive to child rearing. If it is innately human all men prefer this body type, and not some, half, or even most men. orioncs.net
Points of contention: That alpha males and beta males do exist because people have defined these characteristics as representing these words. There is nothing biologically innate that causes human beings to be attracted to women because their bodies are suitable for child rearing. If there was it that body type would be the desire of all males.
Substantiation: The points are self substantiating based on reasoning and observable truth. It is observable that not all men are attracted to women with hour glass shapes. It is observable that human beings have assigned charteristics to categories and define them as alpha and beta. Another good point I almost forgot by Conover, he mentions that people will not always display these attributes that it depends on setting which is true. Someone who is confident in one setting can be anxious in another setting depending on a variety of factors. For example, if a person is new to an enviornment and it seems to behoove him to fulfil his or her purpose to be less of what they usually are, then they will at times exibit the reverse of their usual behavior. Simply because a person accentuates one way or the other depending on teh setting does not mean these the categories and attributes are inapplicable because it is still a descriptive used to represent multiple characteristics. Still a good point in the context of the discussion.
6/13/2019 Democracy Now: 6/13/2019 Headlines
Bernie Sanders quoted MLK “This country has socialism for the rich, and individualism for the poor”.
I commented: The MLK quote is exactly true but it is important to make the distinction between the kind of socialism that exists for rich and the kind of socialism Sanders and other popular democrats are offering the poor. The socialism of the rich is principly market socialism where those with wealth conglomerate through money into corporate entities and reap the benefits of their investment through this collective entity. On the state side of it, you have a system designed to limit popular rule or democracy where powers are seperated in two chambers of congress and executive branch with staggard term limits. The representation of an interest in government is determined by the amount of money behind the interest (http://orioncs.net/bywforwatm/), meaning there is state socialism for the rich as well in government contracts, subsidies, tax policy, and other federal business support but it is only possible through the market socialism.
The likes of Sanders and Warren are not really offering socialism, although the word socialism has morphed into a word that represents any idea intent on wealth redistribution of wealth in any form. The proposals offered by these so called progressive candidates provide mild relief from the circumstances of being poor or struggling middle class, but do nothing to change the circumstances of being poor or struggling.
What I am offering thorough CEP (http://orioncs.net/centers-for-economic-planning/) is market based socialism which is principally a accurate as a description as well as inaccurate. Correct in the sense that you have production taking place through a collectively organized and funded entity, the same as a corporation, but incorrect because the entity is not a government institution. Socialism is state control of production or state owned entities participating in the market which is something that no one is proposing and with good reason. Imagine if every city owned a Berkshire Hathaway and many people within the cities worked for a business owned by their Berkshire Hathaway? If every person had a vote and investment and allocation of profits associated with this company were decided exclusively through popular will? This is what a CEP is. It increases the amount of opportunities available, the quality of opprortunities, allows people to participate in decisions of production, and empowers them to direct sums of money to compete for representation in their government.
Point of contention: What Sanders is offering is not going significantly empower or improve the lives of most people in this country even if he can accomplish what he wants to do, which is unlikely even if elected.
Substantiation: Less of a substantiation than it is the qualification of the term market socialism which has the undertones of incompatibility. Fundementally socialism is collective or democratic control of production, but through a truely socialist system these decisions are determined by the state. When people pool their resources for the purpose of business as is the case of a corporation, you have a collective entity exercising control not only over production, but also in government in a nation designed to allow money to determine representation of an interest. I’m saying first you have factional market socialism, which produces class socialism through the representation of monied interests. This is why I added the Center for Economic Planning at the end, because a Center for Economic Planning allows for people who do not begin with money, to be part of a collective decider of production, and through ownership profit, and through profit a participant in the formation of legislation and public policy.
6/12/2019 Colbert: These Democrats Beat Trump According to Polls
Colbert says “what has two thumbs and is ruining our democracy”, and then he points his thumbs at the camera implying Trump is ruining democracy in the United States.
I commented “The difference between Trump and other people involved in public service is his service to industry and even his deception is so overt. The charge he is destroying democracy isn’t true based on the reality that the United States has never been a democracy, at least not in the sense where government represents popular interests. Which isn’t to say values are not created within individual’s which are sometimes represented and often campaigned on, but no interest is represented that serves a good or meaningful popular purpose.”
Point of contention: The United States is not a democracy, and the unfortunate aspect of Trumps ability to inspire an interest in politics among the population, is he is seen as the source of the problem instead the systems themselves.
Substantiations: http://orioncs.net/byfor/ , http://orioncs.net/bywforwatm/
Boxing Interview: “I Know I can Beat His ass (Fury) Too”…
Andy Ruiz won multiple heavy weight boxing championships by upsetting Anthony Joshua. He claims he would knock out the lineal champion Tyson Fury and the WBC champion Deontay Wilder.
I commented: He aint fucking with Fury.
Point of contention: He is not knocking out Tyson Fury. Fury is a very balanced fighter, generally being able to land more and more significantly than his opponent, it is difficult to catch him clean. Even when he makes a mistake and he’s knocked down, he gets back up. Against Deonte Wilder who is one of the best power punchers boxing has ever seen, Wilder hit him with a right hand that probably knocked him out and then hit him with a left hook that landed flush as he was going down. More impressive than Fury seemingly waking up on the canvas at about a 4 count and rising to his feet to beat the count, was that the knock out didn’t seem to have much of an affect on him. He didn’t appear to be daze or lacking much in the way of function. Fury will out box him for him 12 rounds.
Although Wilder basically lost the fight against Fury which was ruled a draw, Wilder can knock an opponent out any point in a fight, having scored two knock downs against Fury and the one that should have ended the fight in the 12th round. Ruiz looks scrappy, where he doesn’t mind exchanging blows in range with his opponents which he usually gets the better of because of his speed and instincts with head movement. In his fight with Joshua he was knocked down by Joshua before scoring 4 knocked downs and winning by TKO. The difference is, if he makes that same mistake with Wilder that he did with Joshua or any other opponent is you don’t get back up.
Substantiation: It is an arbitrary contention there is no way to substantiate the point without the fights occurring.
6/11/2019 Democracy Now Rev. William Barber: Racist Gerrymandering Created a GOP Stronghold in the South.
William Barber was being interviewed by Amy Goodman concerning the details of his arrest and court proceedings for protesting against gerrymandering.
I commented: Why is gerrymandering relevant when neither party contributes to the quality of life of black, poor, people, or any other people not represented by an industrial interest and responsible for policy creation? Everywhere you look people’s priority of value does not reflect a basic understanding of cause and effect. “Many protests since”, that have accomplished what? lol.
phiyaboi3 days ago (edited)
True “Progressives” are completely different from the more centrist corporate “democrats” that have primarily occupied higher positions of the party thus far. Precisely why there is a clear divide in said party since “Bernie spawns” like AOC have come into play.
Orion Simerl3 days ago
@phiyaboi The difference between progressives and establishment democrats is the same as the difference between establishment democrats and repbublicans, which is rhetorical. Bernie has been in Washington for 30 years and has accomplished what? He has passed three bills. Two were the renaming of post offices, and one was a veterans benefit increase. I suppose some will argue that his votes are relevant, like his vote to for regime change in Iraq in the late 90s, or his vote to increase sanctions in Iraq that were killing thousands of children a day. Up until 2006 Bernie voted with democrats more than any other public official voted with democrats. These are career polticians, bags of air, who cannot deliver on anything they promise in the case of Warren and Sanders. AOC has done nothing but make a list of goals and calls it the Green New Deal.
phiyaboi3 days ago
@Orion Simerl I simply made a distinction I’m not about to go through and cite all the progressive value politicians who have passed actual legislation over the decades with the poor and/or disenfranchised in mind…& if you think AOC hasn’t been voting for and against pieces of legislation (in her 6 “whole months”..) you haven’t been paying attention. If your argument is “politics is crooked, everyone doesn’t do what they say” I mean..welcome to Life? But implying there are no real progressives is factual nonsense and you need to pay more attention to history. Fixing the gerrymandering problems allows the people to vote out those who are not actively working in their interests period.
Orion Simerl3 days ago
@phiyaboi I explained the distinction you are talking about it rhetorical. Your response if filled will assertions without a single example, which is about the extent of your understanding. Not only are you not going to cite all the progressive value politicians who have passed legislation, you cannot even name a single progressive piece of legislation passed. Meanwhile I provided each piece of legislation passed by your progressive champion Bernie Sanders, as well as some of his votes while in office for 30YEARS. You brought him up. I didn’t say anything about AOC’s voting, you brought that up and haven’t mentioned a single thing she voted for. I merely brought up the fact that she drafted a resolution which is a list of goals with no substance. Now you bring up that she has voted for or against things but again cannot cite a single of example of anything. go google something and get back to me. Fixing gerrymandering is irrelevant, because you are voting out one person that doesn’t serve your interest for another person who doesn’t serve your interest. If you’re going to respond with something of substance. Meaning if you say something is factual non-sense provide a supporting piece of evidence for that assertion. The stupidity of the so called progressives is just as responsible for the state of humanity as the stupidity of the conservatives. Give me the last piece of progressive legsilation that had an impact on people’s lives? Has MSNBC or DN told you what that is yet or do you need some time?
Tee2 days ago
Because Gerrymandering is another important tool used to dis empower people. Politicians choose voters instead of we choosing the politicians. You ask,”why does it matter”. Some slaves probably asked the same question while being abused. God has put within each human being a sense of dignity. When our human rights are violated the essence of God within us feel violated. Some ignore this feeling from God and plunge deeper into the he’ll of humiliation. Others fight to regain their dignity even at the threat of death and are rewarded with peace even in death.
Orion Simerl2 days ago (edited)
@Tee ” neither party contributes to the quality of life of black, poor, people, or any other people not represented by an industrial interest and responsible for policy creation?” Again dodging the point. Gerrymander is only relevant if it creates an advantage for one party and the other party represents or is able to improve people’s lives. The only thing you have to show is a piece of legislation passed by a progressive candidate in the last 30 years that has meaningfully contributed to the lives of poor people. If the legislation significantly improved the lives of poor people there wouldn’t be so many not just poor, but struggling people. This consists of about the bottom 70% of the wealth distribution being that the bottom 40% has negative wealth and the next 40% have none or very little, meaning their income is roughly the same as their expenses.
The progressive best case scenario provides people with programs and assistance dealing with the circumstances of being poor, but it does nothing to lift them out of the condition. Republicans redrawing lines to ensure people who vote for them are within the right districts to get them elected is irrelevant, because no matter who is elected the resulting legislation does not help poor or struggling people.
WTF do slaves have to do with gerrymandering?
Point of contention: The difference between the democrats and republicans for the poor and struggling which comprises most of the American population is zero to minimal. Meaning no matter which party is elected the lives of most people will not change much in either direction (good or bad). This is why it doesn’t make sense to invest energy in protesting gerrymandering, which by the way is hardly effective anymore as a tool for change, when even if you are successful, a changing in the partisan make up of congress, does not produce significant changes for the people.
Substantiation: Those asserted there is a difference not only wouldn’t go into all the pieces of legislation he wouldn’t even name one to accredit his position. The wealth distribution also attests to the ineffectiveness of progressive candidates to pass legislation that benefits the poor and struggling, because if progressives in congress were creating and passing legislation that benefits the people, there would be a greater percentage of wealth and especially financial wealth held by the bottom 70%. (Financial wealth less than 1% held by bottom 50%, and only 5% by bottom 80%. Wolf and Picketty 2012)
6/10/2019 Joe Rogan and Gad Saad Explain Why Modern Feminism is Bullshit.
Gad Saad is explaining I think a book he wrote called All Paths Lead to Bigotry, where he uses the falsification principle to explain how every one is a biggot. The falsification principle states that something cannot be true unless it can shown to also be false. Saad explained if a person is not attracted to fat women he is considered a biggot for shaming fat women, and if a person is attracted to fat women he’s a biggot for objectifying fat women. Another example he provided was of a woman investigating rapes of Palestinians by the Israeli Defense Forces. He explained the woman began from a biased position where she intended to find rape and did not. After she was unable to find any incidents she claimed the IDF thought so poorly of Palestinian women that they wouldn’t even rape them. If the IDF raped they’re wrong, and if they didn’t rape they are wrong meaning there is no action that can remove them from being wrong.
My comment: The problem with Saad using the IDF’s lack of raping Palestinain women as evidence of a violation of the falsification principle, as they are wrong for raping and wrong for not raping is that the IDF has rapes within the IDF. Which means the IDF isn’t raping Palestinian women because rape is ethically or morally wrong otherwise they wouldn’t rape each other. ( https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/40-cases-of-rape-reported-in-the-IDF-signifying-rise-in-complaints-561765 ) I’m not of the opinion that it is ethic hatred, I believe there are other circumstances that prevent the occurances. On the subject of whether or not there has been IDF rapes of Palestinians this is not entirely true. There were numerous rapes according to IDF doccuments in the 1948 expulsion (https://www.haaretz.com/1.5262454) . An IDF solider was also charged and convicted of sexual assault among other charges against Palestinians in 2017, although the details have never been made public. ( https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-officer-receives-11-year-prison-term-for-various-offenses/ )
Point of contention: The IDF has raped Palestinian women. The lack of rapes isn’t evidence of the absence of rape proclivity because members of the IDF have raped other IDF members. Although I don’t think ethic hatred causes the IDF not to rape Palestinians, there are other circumstances that contribute to the lack of rapes because IDF members rape, and the circumstances of being an occupying force produce rapes where this is that power dynamic. US forces who are not even occupiers have a history or raping Japanesse woman and they’re not even in an occupier capacity.
Substantiations: IDF annual rape statistics https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/40-cases-of-rape-reported-in-the-IDF-signifying-rise-in-complaints-561765
IDF rapes of women during 1948 expulsion: https://www.haaretz.com/1.5262454
IDF solider sentence for sexual assault: https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-officer-receives-11-year-prison-term-for-various-offenses/
US solider rapes of Japanesse women: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2019/04/15/okinawa-has-been-eager-expel-us-troops-murder-suicide-is-pouring-fuel-those-flames/?utm_term=.0c457fcc8d95
6/09/2019 BlueBloodSport Andy Ruiz Disrespected by ESPN
This guy starts talking about ESPN commentators disrespecting Any Ruiz because of his weight. 15 minute video fo trying to make points concerning how they commentators are ignorant about boxing, that looking the part doesn’t matter but the only points he makes in regard to what they said was about his weight and shape. I think the video may have been a marketing push by this guy because of the comments, the poor quality of the analysis, and the fact it had an insane amount of plays. Seemed like it was a paid promotion and was a good headline because it grabbed my attention.
My comment: LOL. “Andy Ruiz is the guy that say’s he’s going to work out but instead cracks a beer and doesn’t work out”. That isn’t disrespctful that’s accurate based on his body type and it’s funny. Yes physiques don’t win boxing matches, but when has there ever been champions who look as out of shape as Ruiz? He looks like he doesn’t train. He looks like a professional pie eater not a professional boxer. Usually the act of training in boxing contributes to your physiqe which is why it looks like he doesn’t take his craft seriously, because typically when you train, you don’t look like you just came from a sporting event where you had a team’s letter painted across your belly. It isn’t disrespectful to say he looks like a soccer dad, and has a dad body when that’s what he looks like. Anthony Joshua was exposed and he’s been ducking Fury and Wilder. Ruiz aint fucking Fury or Wilder. He said it’s disgusting they are pointing out he’s fat. You don’t need to be educated to see he has a dad body. Who is tuning into this? 31 thousand people. lol He’s unified? I thought Fury was the lineal champion and Wilder was the WBC. Guess I need to educate myself. I don’t mean to hate on your video, but based on the headline I thought there was going to be something more substanative than they called a fat guy fat.
Point of contention: It is not disrespectful to point out things that are true about an athlete. They said he’s fat and he is fat. LOL: funny I thought Ruiz would have to have the WBC belt as well to be considered the unified champion. Turns out I looked it up and the WBA calls the unified champion a boxer who holds two or more belts in one weight class as the unified champion. LOL That shit was funny to me because I was talking shit in the comment “He’s unified”? “Guess I need to educate myself”. I did and I did, but the rest of this guy’s monologue is trash.
Substantiation: See video.
5/29/2019 Joe Rogan and Bill Corgen Why Florida is Crazy
Bill Corgen mentions Florida during the height of oxy contin oxy codone prescribing. He confirms the demand originating from the public driving the distribution from doctors. He explains people with prescriptions in Florida would drive to Georgia to distibute them. He goes on to explain how the trend changed and eventually there were people from other states driving to Florida and then bringing them back.
My comment: I wrote about the opioid epidemic in an article called the crisis of demand. ( http://orioncs.net/a-crisis-of-demand/ ). In Milwaukee we had plenty of pill mills. It’s funny that those not familar with the fact that public demand and profit driven doctors created the shift to opioids, not a pharmacutical company misleading doctors who then unknowingly prescribed dangerous and addictive medication to an unsuspecting population. But you have to keep the American myth going so blaming Purdue Pharmacuticals becomes the narrative.
Point of contention: There is no contention with the assertion made in the video, it is a substantiating piece of evidence for an article I wrote a few prior which provides 1st hand details that speak to the assertion in the comment.
5/28/2019 Democracy Now Headlines
I don’t remember this broadcast, I’m not rewatching, but it clearly mentioned “the opioid crisis”, however, I don’t think this is the broadcast that inspired the “a Crisis of Demand”, which was the broadcast that reported the 270 million dollar setllement against Purdue Pharma by the state of Oklahoma.
My Comment: People actually believe this shit? The opioid epidemic as it is called, is hardly the responsibility of drug companies targeting an unsuspecting public. It was profit motivated private practice doctors prescribing medication demanded by a public who understood both the euphoria the drugs provided and the addictive properties. Drugs serve two main purposes, 1: to allow people relief or the ability to cope with their lack of meaningful opportunity or general situation in life, and 2: as an opportunity to make money. As long as systems and the organization of society trap people in these circumstances you will have both users and sellers of drugs. Full story at http://orioncs.net/a-crisis-of-demand/
5/13/2019 Democracy Now Arundhati Roy: Capitialism is a form of religion.
Arundhati mentions a mountain where industrial interests are trying to displace people, I think she said that some people see the mountain where people are living as a collection of minerals, which is funny to me because geologically a mountain is exactly a collection of minerals. She may have also mention people living in a forrest that is supposed to be preserved for historical and environmental reasons. The details were not of great interest to me, I just remember her seeming to be against people wanting to extract minerals from a mountain which displaced people, but seeing in terms of one side being bad and the other good while failing to recognize how both interests could be advanced by abandoning the sentimental attachment to the mountain.
My comment: LOL A mountain is a collection of minerals that have value. She mentions that the value of the mountain is it sustains people who live there. Is the value of the minerals sufficient to relocate and meet the needs of the people? If it does it’s mineral value is greater than it’s value as a place to live. The problem then is ensuring that the people who are being displaced are compensated for the mountain or have a stake in the prosperity generated from it’s value.
The people who are being displaced to preserve the forest, if it is climate change related we recognize the forrest has collective value, existential value, and everyone who can afford to pay has to pay to preserve those forrests and that money can be used to compensate the people who are displaced.
Inequality in India is worse not only because of captialism, but because of religion. A Caste system that teaches you to accept your place in life, a religion that teaches you to be indifferent to injustice, to sit and think about nothing, to bathe in a disgusting river, and to generally be unproductive reciting garbage while you burn incense to a statue.
Captialism is not a religion, captialism is closer to human nature. Before I explain the previous assertion, the fundamental problem with captialism is very few people are able to participate because it requires money, and requires money to make money. This is compounded by the fact that captialism is not only an economic system but the basis for all political mechanics. Human beings see everything through value. Even the self sacraficing purest altruist interprets the world through value. The value of whatever sacrafice one makes to assist another is less than the value of what is being sacraficed. The feelings associated with the idea is greater than the feelings associated with what is being sacraficed. Any philosophy can be reduced down to value. Meaning human beings are completely self interested. The problem is they don’t understand it and don’t understand the value of principles and institutions based on those principles that allow people to be free and self interested without affecting the ability of others to do the same.
5/10/2019 Democracy Now NRA Scandel video
The report is intent on celbrating some dysfunction with the organization of the NRA. I don’t remember the details because I wasn’t concerned with the details, I was more annoyed by the anti gun enthusism evident in the reporting.
My comment: So what? If the NRA disappears tomorrow you’re still not closer to strict gun control measures. Second, even if you get gun control, you’re still not going to prevent people who want to kill groups of people from killing groups of people. Sri Lanka people who wanted to kill people killed over 100 in a day without a gun. It’s such an illogical position, which I guess is expected given the history of people associated with gun control. That is what this is about, Amy is enthusiastic about the NRA being weakend because she thinks it’s a step towards gun control, and she has a misunderstanding of cause and effect. The cause of mass murder is not guns, the cause of mass murder is disatisfaction likely steming from a lack of opportunity and alienation, and guns are one means among many used to kill people. Limiting the impliments of mass murder does not prevent mass murder. http://orioncs.net/gun-control/
Point of contention: The only justification provided for efforts to restrict access to guns is that they are impliments of mass murder. Recently there was a mass murder where a man went to work with two standard hand guns and a clip of a politican was shown on DN of talk of gun control. The incident he is responding to wouldn’t have been prevented through the measure he is proposing. Can no one from among these people imagine any other way to kill people other than a gun? If guns were the only way to kill large numbers of people then ridding the world of guns would prevent mass murder. Like I mentioned, Sri Lanka they used bombs, in Canada a man used a rented Ryder truck, the trend in Austraila, where gun control failed to decrease the incidents of mass murder as well as the number of people killed, they used arson, and if you have training with a samurai sword you could probably do as well as a person with a gun in a crowded unarmed setting.
I am for gun ownership principlely and practically. Principlely a gun provides an individual a supreme advantage over a person who is unarmed, and thus the armed person can impose at will against the unarmed person in most cases. The only way I am for limiting guns is no guns, but, you cannot have a world without guns since the knowledge of guns exist.
Practically I am for gun ownership included conceal carry because I believe most people are looking out for the well being of others. If most people are generally good to one another, you would want to have a greater number of those people armed in the event that someone wanted to harm people with a weapon. When is it better for a peaceful people not to have the means to defend themselves? Under what circumstances would you rather be in a situation where 1 person was shooting people indiscrimantely and no one else had a gun?
Even so, I probably wouldn’t respond to the efforts of gun control advocates because it isn’t that important of an issue to me. I respond because it completely distracts from the cause of mass murder, the enviornmental, and circumstantial causes of mass murder acts that includes peer interaction, general decption, and opporunity, among others. You cannot talk about these things because it goes against American indoctrination, the systems, the culture, and purported good intentions with which this country was founded. That is why I am so pro-gun, because I am forced to confront the myth. Otherwise I’m a felon, I cannot legally possess a firearm. Which is rediculous because I have not been convicted of any offense with a firearm.
5/09/2019 Democracy Now Headlines
Judging from my comment a headline was focusing on the Mueller investigation with undertones of impeachment for obstruction of justice.
My Comment: If you cannot pass legislation to improve the quality of life of your constituents, largely because it isn’t in the interest of the wealth and industry that causes your candidacy to be viable, it’s a good idea to focus everyone’s attention on an investegation that has failed to yield what you were looking for, i.e Russian collusion. Sure, there is probably evidence of obstruction of justice but the removal of Trump has very little impact on the lives of most people. I’m sure Pence is the beacon of hope who will usher in a new age of opportunity, equality, and prosperity. The point being, the general quality of life issues in regard to worthwhile opportunity existed before Trump and will exist after Trump. Trump in his genius of simplicity, denial, fabrication and manner of bluntness is the symbol of American evil but not the cause nor the sole embodiment of it. I’m hoping Bernie is elected. Not because I think he’s going to do much good, although there will be some differences that are meaningful to some people, but because just as other progressive candidates before him, things will generally be the same. Just as with Obama, people will see that. Then a few years after he leaves office people will forget that and put their hope in a new candidate who will promise the moon and deliver and ant hill.
Cecile Richards and Her New Political Organization Supermajority is Organizing for Women 2020
The segment was a press release for an organization interested in mobilizing women based exclusively on gender issues to become politically active, which on the surface seems like a good thing, but it was very divisive and emphasizing issues that are only marginally substanative. It was presented to over emphasize a level of adversity based on gender that is not present in the world.
My Comment: This is perfect way to further divide the underclasses along largely superficial lines. Which is to say gender discrimination does not pose a significant threat to the opportunities or quality of life of women. Blind lead the blind and no one knows where they’re at or where they’re going.
My Response: @earth ocean Spoken like a person who doesn’t understand what the word patriarchy means: A system where men hold power at the EXCLUSION of women. Probably a feminist who refuses to admit how women benefit from gender roles, like how a woman can have a man support them, can use sexuality to benefit in the work place, and have a variety of other opportunities that are gender exclusive. Beyond the first two points, the most glaring aspect of your ignorance is not understanding where I’ve been or the loads I’ve shouldered, the disadvantages I’ve faced and continue to face.
Democracy Now: Chomsky, The Green New Deal is Exactly Right
This is a clip of a recent talk Chomsky gave concerning the Green New Deal. He mentions there are people who have done work on how it could be implimented and says an economist has done work to show how it would be beneficial. I contend that largely unknown ideas scattered across the academic world does not constitute substance in regard to the GND, which is a list of generalizations like upgrading buildings and upgrading the grid, and goals like achieving zero emissions by 2030. I messaged one such person who I read an article from who has done work in the area of mass implementation of green technology, asking him about implimentation and I have received no response. How is as important as what, as how could be as simple as making mandates through regulation, which costs money, and would be passed on to rate payers. In that scenario people should know if they want a GND that might make their energy bill triple or if they prefer another mode of implementation. Beyond the mystery of implementation, if these ideas Chomsky is mentioning are the basis of the GND why doesn’t the GND reference these ideas in the legislation? Clearly because then people would have an idea of what the GND actually is and have the opportunity to critque it. Or they are ideas constructed with no plan for actual implementation, in which case you can’t cite work that explains this amount of energy is required, this renewable source produces this much energy, this area is good for this, this are is good for that, build transmission lines, battery storage, and change this power plant to this. Because it isn’t a matter of the government spending money to upgrade these things and it happens. There are private owners involved in providing energy, who own buildings, who own land, and there are also the same private interests involved in shaping legislative policy, which speaks to feasibility not implimentation. You have no Green New Deal. Furthermore, you are basically taking the entire democratic platform and putting into a piece of legislation that can’t even pass as a resoultion to create a GND. It’s a joke. It’s something to say to make activists feel good and to keep AOC in the headlines, and in office for years to come. But it is nothing of substance.
My Comment: Everyone has respect for the vast knowledge and understanding of Chomsky. Chomsky is of great value as a source of facts in history, despite that like the Green New deal he offers obvious general solutions with no real way of achieving them. We should end fossil fuel subsidies which will make renewable energy more appealing for investment. No shit. (Actually I got this wrong because I wasn’t paying attention to the video when I was watching it, his arguement is the redirection of subsidies from fossil fuels to renewable energy would help pay for the transition and reduce the amount money that would have to be raised)
How is an interest represented in government? The representation of an interest in government is equal to the money behind that interest compared to the organized money behind any interest the represented interest is adversed to. The interest of perpetuating fossil fuel subsides is naturally the fossil fuel industry, which is not only possessed of the ability to mobilize enormous sums of money, but which is also supremely organized. Although fossil fuels is one of the few industries that is near party exclusive (republican), they maintain relationships with enough democrats and they invest enough to ensure their interests cannot be significantly harmed. The interest of ending fossil fuel subsidies is the general population.
Even if the general population had the money to compete financially, their interests still are not represented in government because their contributions are given by largely anonomous unorganized donors. While this money is not insignificant in total dollars, it does not carry an interest towards representation because there are no relationships attached to it. When a citizen in the bottom 80% of income earners contributes this is endorsement money, which is interesting, because primarily the thing they are endorsing is the result of molding through management as well as political investment that is tied to interests typically contrary to the interest of the one’s making the endorsement. Bernie Sanders is the exception in terms of campaign contributions but is hardly as pure, principled, or capable as his followers believe.
It is also interesting that Chomsky says the Green New Deal is the right idea. WIthout questioning the feasiblity in terms of political will, the Green New Deal is the right idea but it is also a very vague idea, a list of goals lacking any substance. The Green New Deal is literally, a compilation of problems, and the goals associated with solving those problems. Not a plan, not even a general strategy. The goal of the resolution is to create a select committee to create a plan within the guidelines of the goals. The point is, there isn’t an ounce of substance to the resolution. Not the allocation of one dollar to anything, with the exception of funding research efforts in the interest of developing a plan.
Chomsky mentions there are plans and I am familar with the concepts of much of the research on the subject which takes into account the cost of and anticipated benefit of accomplishing some of the goals in the GND. What is not included in these papers is real world implementation into a market based economy. Additionally, if one of these academic plans were going to serve as the basis for an aspect of the GND why not reference it and what it would accomplish? As I have stated before, a list of problems and goals is not a plan to accomplish those goals. The GND is the problem and goals that signify the end of the problem but offers nothing in terms of how you accomplish the goals.
Chomsky has been absent solutions for 60 years, advising people inspired by his knowledge to organize with no specific end in mind. Any Chomsky interview where he is asked what people can do about the problems, he tells them to organize, which is correct. The problem is most are already organized but organized to no end, and you would think a world renowned linguist whose emphasis (from my minimal interest in that aspect of his work )appears to be context, would recognize the intent of the question is in regard to organizing to achive what end.
An actual and implementable solution is the establishment of Centers for Economic Planning. (See http://orioncs.net/centers-for-economic-planning/ )
My Response: Orion Simerl2 months ago (edited)@Hit Reset Button Your comment is either a reflection of your understanding of my comment or the realization that there is no substanative arguement against the true assertions contained in my comment.
My Response: @Hit Reset Button Perhaps you should consider a few more words to achieve the effect of writing a comprehendable sentence. “surely the christ you could has stated”. WTF are you trying to say? LOL I remind people the system is pay to play and the rules that govern the pay to play system. The balance of organized money for the general population verses the organized money of the fossil fuel industry. This is done to point out that Chomsky’s solution is unachievable and therefore not worth mentioning. FInally, as I have written since reading it, I speak on how the GND is vague and not what many people are led to believe it is. GND is much closer to nothing than it is to something. The points cannot be made as thoroughly as they were made in the comment using fewer words.
New Commenter: Christopher Bradley2 months ago His comment boils down to “I know a lot and the Green New Deal is lacking in specifics; therefore it is a waste of time”. Try a more solutions-oriented approach. If you know better, tell us how to proceed.
My Response: Orion Simerl2 months ago@Christopher Bradley There isn’t much to know about the GND, it is a list of goals lacking not only specifics but even a general plan. The solution is Centers for Economic Planning, which is basically company funded through a tax, created at the municipal level, with elected management and direct democratic input in the creation of investment strategies. The following is an excerpt from the plan which can be found at http://orioncs.net/centers-for-economic-planning/
A CEP allows people to decide what they will produce, meaning all people will have input into the opportunities that exist for them to be productive and earn a living. This has the consequence of perpetually growing the amount of opportunities that exist in an area. Beyond simply creating more opportunities, the opportunities that exist will be more worthwhile, because the aim of a center for economic planning is not to maximize profit, but to maximize the satisfaction of the population while maintaining some profit.
Beyond creating better opportunities through CEP owned enterprises, the opportunities that exist through privately owned businesses will increase as private employers will be competing for labor in a market made more competitive by CEP business offering better wages. Private investment is not need based but profit based.
The CEP invests according to the will of the people, so in addition to the benefits mentioned in the previous paragraph of having annual investment taking place to create an ever-increasing amount of high quality jobs, and economic growth, investment is taking place to meet the needs of the community. The most significant example of need based investment is the transition to renewable energy from fossil fuels. As long as it is more profitable to use fossil fuels than it is to develop renewable energy, private companies will continue to do so regardless of the harm it causes. Even as people recognize the need to make the transition, because people are without the means to decide what they are going to produce, this transition cannot take place. Centers for economic planning allow people to plan production centered around needs, like renewable energy, housing, resource preservation and development (like water), and other community priorities that vary by location.
The other aspect of sustainability and transitioning to renewable energy is the reality that greener behavioral choices come at a cost. It isn’t that people prefer to have greater carbon footprints, but people are without the means to reduce their carbon footprints. People are only as green as they can afford to be. By increasing individual prosperity, you empower people to make choices that are more ecologically friendly.
All people are part owners of the businesses owned by their CEP, and all people have input in how those profits are invested and distributed; so all people have a stake in the success of these businesses. In this, there is an inherent incentive to purchase from CEP owned businesses since the CEP is owned by all people of the city or the jurisdiction of the CEP. Additionally, for employees of CEP owned businesses, these employees are the owners of the parent company (the CEP) that owns the business they work for, meaning as a business becomes more profitable, the employees have influence over how those profits will be applied.
My Response: Orion Simerl2 months ago@thrisbt1 thrisbt1 I cannot give examples of existing CEP owned businesses because a CEP does not exist. Any business can be a CEP owned business, a retail outlet, a solar farm, a fast food resturant, a bank, a factory, “a factory that manufacturers minature models of factories”, any business that exists or is profitable can be a CEP owned business. Imagine 15 to 20% of the market across all sectors of the economy is owned by CEPs that are owned by the people in the jurisdictions they are created in.
This is a population possessed of 100s of billions of dollars in profit (among many CEPs long term projection). It isn’t about changing what cannot be changed systemically, it is about empowering people who are disenfranchised from participating in decisions of production, and decisions of politics through ownership.
More important than what a CEP can own which is anything, is how decisions are made. There are clear examples of this process in the third portion of the outline “Public Committees”, that demonstrates how the public will direct the processes of investment, both economic and political. ( http://orioncs.net/centers-for-economic-planning/ )
Achieving a CEP shouldn’t be that difficult, but in my experience it is. The plan consists of beginning a promotional campaign in a city or a county. The first step is for a small group of people to understand the idea of the CEP which is actually very simple. So far I have failed in inspiring the interest of even one person. Not that anyone either in person or through electronic correspondance has raised any valid points against the idea that I haven’t thoroughly answered, only that people nod their head and as far as I know no one has read the outline. If they have they haven’t expressed any interest to participate in the developmental, organizational and promotional processes.
In the city I’m from Milwaukee we have a population of 600,000 people represented by 15 city council members. 9 people, 8 city council members and the mayor is all that stands between a world with a CEP and a world without one. The rest of the nation will soon follow suit, succumbing to the contagion of a good example. The other obstacle is the present outline intends to use a sales tax to fund the CEP and the amount of sales tax the city of Milwaukee can levy is capped by the state. Milwaukee is less appealing for that reason as it would require state action, and if I am going to go through the trouble of trying to get something approved at the state level for the creation of a CEP at the municipal level, I may as well revert the outline back to it’s original form which was the creation of multiple county level CEPs through state legislation.
Of course it does no good to engage legislators concerning the creation of a CEP if the population doesn’t know what it is or how to use it. I find myself without the resources, financial as well as personnel to begin the campaign.
I’m reevaluating my approach and creating a new strategy while I juggle issues in my personal life. In the meantime I keep up with current events on DN and talk shit about the idiocracy I find myself in. More recently I have been considering a federal outline that I could use as a platform to run for office. Although I seriously doubt the ability to pass it at the federal level the exposure the idea would receive makes the effort worthwhile. I do have angles to gain the consent of the more advantaged classes so creating 25 to 30 CEPs through a federal outline is not altogether impossible. More than you asked, but if you are interested the outline requires maybe an hour or two to read in its entirety. http://orioncs.net/centers-for-economic-planning/
New Commenter: Carl Thomas-Thomsen1 month ago Sorry buddy… All that sounded good. But keep dreaming. Capitalism is strong with the force… Your talking about real socialism. And that’s not going to happen. No matter how much you make it look like Democracy. It’s a shame really…
My Response: Orion Simerl1 month ago (edited)@Carl Thomas-Thomsen It’s not socialism anymore than any other company with more than 1 owner or any corporation is socialism. It is a private entity owned not by the state but owned by private citzens. These citizens are using the liquidity they pool through taxes to fund their initial investment. It is not socialism. http://orioncs.net/centers-for-economic-planning/
His Response: Carl Thomas-Thomsen1 month ago@Orion Simerl it’s still not going to happen. Your talking about state funded business’s (I use the term for simplicities sake.) popping up left and right. All with specific mission statements that make previous business’s obsolete… Never happen.
His Response: Carl Thomas-Thomsen1 month ago@Orion Simerl don’t get me wrong. I think that America should embrace some of the ideals of socialism for the sake of equality. But I’m a realist. And the reality of the situation is… The “Haves” have the government. And there is only so much room at the top.
My Response: Orion Simerl1 month ago@Carl Thomas-Thomsen I’m not talking about state funded businesses. I am talking about a company with elected management and democratic processes that plans investment according to the will of the people within its jurisdiction.
The company is a private entity funded by a tax, it is not “state funded businesses…with specific mission statements that make previous businesses obsolete.” It is one entity that will own many businesses, not many businesses operating independently of a central organizer.
People elect public interest managers and an executive planner. There are processes in place (if you read the outline) for the public to contribute to and direct the investment strategy. The CEP does not act independently of public interest because the public is directing the investment strategy. Meaning businesses will not be planned and purchased that negatively impact small businesses. A CEP is not going to plan a construction company unless someone is selling a construction company or if there is a need for a construction compnay and someone proposes it. The CEP is an ally of small businesses who as citizens of the city can influence the investment of the CEP including political lobbying. The difference between a CEP and government in regard to influence is numbers of people determine investment priority in the CEP whereas the number of dollars determine representation in government.
It is somewhat frustrating, when I have I think about a 40 page outline on my website and I have to respond to assertions I’ve already addressed in the outline. If you have enough interest in the idea to comment why not read the outline when the link has been provided and under these circumstances you may be able to raise a valid objection? As far as actually doing it see the reply to thrisbt1 we are talking about less than a dozen people in most medium sized cities who need to understand the immense value of it. These are people who are at most in the pockets of local developers and other companies with local interest that are not harmed by a CEP. It is very doable.
My Response: Orion Simerl1 month ago@Carl Thomas-Thomsen As I said it is not socialism, socialism is state owned industry, state control of the means of production whereas this is the optimization of the market, where all people have ownership, influence over decisions of production, and a stake in the general prosperity of the economy which has political conseqences in a system of government that functions on investment politics. Not socialism.
His Response : Carl Thomas-Thomsen1 month ago@Orion Simerl pushing past my points by, re-presenting your own. Only works on cable news. Your talking about government agencies, deciding who, and what industries, are going to be given tax dollars. Our system is corrupt, as it is. Why would you want to add even more corruptable positions in it. I mean… Let’s pretend like it all exists currently for a moment. There is a board of elected advisors. (highly doubt that would happen. I’m almost certain they would be placed there by governors, mayors, city council members, judges, ect…) and they ask the states population to vote on what they think their state needs more of. (This is a representation of a truly democratic process.) What if the people decide they want an amusement park? It seems like a good choice. New jobs, it utilizes other existing industries, tourists, ect. But in this hypothetical, it fails to take into account all the additional infrastucture the task would require. The roads will need to be resurfaced. the aquifer will need to be expanded. Hotels built. All of those types of things. How will this agency proceed? Does it do basically what we already do… Hand out government contracts to established busines’s. (A process that is already full of backroom deals and corruption.) or does it create brand new busines’s specificly to handle the problem. (Which could easily be, just as corrupt.) Or what happens when one of the elected officials, takes a look at the statistics and realizes that the amusement park won’t make a profit for at least 10 years if at all. Because the voters didn’t realize that nobody wants to vacation in Idaho. Does the institution go against the will of the people… Also, you brought up the concept of these agencies in relation to “TGND”. In that circumstance. I believe that your proposal absolutely qualifys as socialism. Due to the fact that the government would be controlling, who would be controlling these new industries.
My Response: Orion Simerl1 month ago@Carl Thomas-Thomsen I did not push past your points I directly addressed your misconception that I am talking about government ran businesses and somehow you still failed to comprehend the rebuttal, because you wrongly assert again that I am “talking about government agencies deciding who, and what industries are going to be given tax dollars”. No I’m not talking about that and you cannot quote an assertion to that effect.
I am talking about a PRIVATE COMPANY, NOT UNDER THE DIRECTION, AUTHORITY OR MANAGEMENT OF ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY. That is not pushing past the point that is pointing out that you have no idea WTF you’re talking about. Now you’re creating a scenario based on a faulty understanding of the idea and process. I’m not pushing past the point, I am pointing out that “I’m sure there would be governors or…”, no because that is not part of the idea itself. You don’t get to make up your own facts on a subject that is predefined.
In your first scenario Ill ask you this. How does a private company involved in amusement parks accomplish the feats you bring up? That’s my answer to general idea of the question, the answer to the question itself can be found in the plan under public comittees, the first scenario where the scenario is beyond an amusement park, it centers around generating electricity from the force of passing cars. Not for the purpose of promoting the idea, but for the purpose of demonstrating the processes of accomplishing intricate projects. Your answer is there. http://orioncs.net/centers-for-economic-planning/
It doesn’t hand out money to government contracts, what I have I written even in these comments that would cause you to suggest such a thing? There is a process of an idea becoming included in the investment budget, processes that would prevent such an idea from being included. It is a 7 stage process clearly defined in the section Personnel and Responsibilities, sub section Public Proposals. http://orioncs.net/centers-for-economic-planning/
I did not bring up that there was any agency. There is no government agency invovled in the affairs of the CEP. I did not say one of these agencies that doesn’t exist would have anything to do with the GND. I said A CEP (not a government agency or under government management) will allow people to transition to renewable energy by being able to decide investment on a high level. Finally, your reason why it is soccialism directly contradicts the fact I stated about why it isn’t socialism, i.e it is a private company not a government agency therefore the government IS NOT CONTROLLING INDUSTRY. Fuck, “if you had a half a brain you’d be dangerous”.
Additional Thoughts: Looking back this is probably my second favorite exchange on youtube. My first favorite is further back and I still need to post it, and I was more impressed with my ability to hammer on poorly used debate tactics. I was also a little bit embarassed for a few reasons. First I wasn’t paying attention to the video which caused me to infer an explanation for what he said about ending oil subsidies when he was talking about redirecting them to help pay for the transition to renewable energy. I usually don’t take anything out from these comments but I did remove all references that build on that faulty interpretation. I’m also somewhat embarassed on how much of my arguement strayed from pointing out the inconsistencies between substance and plan concerning the GND and Chomsky’s assertion that there is a plan in place. I emphasized more on the side of how it couldn’t be passed. I think this was after a series of comments where I repeated the same thing in regard to substance, but this offered a new opportunity to cite work Chomsky is likely refering to and blow a larger hole in his assertion. It is meaningful because Chomsky can make a statement and people will presume he read a bunch of plans and this is his opinion based on the extensive reading he does. At the same time his answer is vague economists who say it will be better for people, it is a Trump comment with academic credentials attached to it. No reference to any engineers or studys related to implementation. Chomsky is quick to “for example” and he didn’t do this here, otherwise we get for example so and so explained this percentage of owners would do this if the GND offered this which would move us this much closer to this goal. Either way I could have cited studies and their deficiencies in regard to implementation and what they actually offered. This is labor intensive, and a lot to go through for youtube comments that will go largely unread. Chomsky was formative in my early goings from the transition fron a meat puppet to a human being learning to understand the world he existed in. He wasn’t formative in conclusions although some are logical based on evidence, but he was formative in directing. He would mention the Constitutional Debates and I found a book and began reading the Constiutional Debates, Walter Lippmann, John Dewey, Thomas Ferguson, Robert A Mcguire, the Keenan Memo’s, as well as other sources, writer, thinkers, and scholars. I read a few of his books Hedgemony and Survival, Failed States (I was very fresh to this kind of informaiton at the time and I was having troubles understanding Failed States due to a lack of a requisite knowledge of what was being discussed), and watched a few lectures and interviews, but I think the greatest value was my the direction to source material and people who have ongoing work that is unique and relevant to understanding the world. Some of what he says however, has no place in reality. The comment at the end of the video where he says a sit down strike is the precursor to worker take over is rediculous in the moder context. First because you cannot have a sit down strike workers will be physically removed, and second, in the world past where a sitdown strike is possible, there is no way worker could take over their jobs and eliminate the owners. This is what needs to happen? No one should take that seriously.
5/8/2019 Democracy Now Headlines
Headlines included a woman who was pulled over by the police for failure to signal and was then arrested presumably for obstruction charges and is alledged to have comitted suicide in jail.
My Comment: The last situation escalated because the woman didn’t know that the officer has the right to have the woman step out of the car during a traffic stop. Pennsylvania vs Mimms. Officer safety. He doesn’t have to prove it. An officer can have every person he pulls over for a traffic stop exit the vehicule regardless of the circumstances.
Point of contention: The footage from the phone recording show the officer yelling at her to get out of the car to which she responds what am I being apprehended for? To most people it probably seems wrong because she was only pulled over for a failure to signal. 1st, at that time she was not being apprehended or taken into custody. Every officer while performing a traffic stop for any reason is within the law to have the occupants of a stopped vehicle exit the vehicle. People may think it’s excessive to be told to exit the vehicle for a failure to signal but it it is a lawful command according to the law. Had she known this, she probably would have complied and we have a very different outcome.
5/06/2019 Democracy Now Headlines
Amy cites a report claiming the report states climate change is an existential threat to humanity in our lifetimes, which I don’t think is altogether unrealistic based on the evidence but when I read the report it did not state existential threat in our lifetimes.
My Comment: I appreciate that DN reported the IPBES release, but after reading the release it does not say “existential threat to humanity in our lifetimes.” The report stated “a truly global and generational threat to human well-being.” A threat to human well being is much less significant than an existential threat to humanity, and while the difference does not take away from the importance of preserving biodiversity to maintain ecosystems that are important to human beings, it is deceptive to assert research concludes something far worse than what it actually says. Disappointed, because although DN has clear bias and Amy often baits guests with questions intended to serve as evidence for the DN agenda, usually DN does not misreport the facts as it appears they have done here. https://www.ipbes.net/news/Media-Release-Global-Assessment Tomorrow someone will be chained to a tree spouting off about loss of habitat and biodivesity poses an existential threat to humanity in our life time, when in fact the threat is to our well being, and not existential according to this report.
Democracy Now 5/1/2019 Headlines
Headlines show video of a man suffering from a horrible disease testifying before congress.
My Comment: I don’t know if the best example that we need health care for all is a man suffering from an extremely dehabilitating disease, who can afford to pay $9000 per month, using technology most people probably don’t know exists. I am for health care for all, just seems like this example is making a lot of points against it.
Point of contention: The man is in a wheelchair using technology that tracks his eyemovement to allow his to speak. He claims he is spending 9,000 per month and he is arguing the need for health care for all. If a man who cannot move can afford $9000 a month it seems to go against the arguement that people cannot afford health care or the health care they have access to is inadequate. I don’t have health care, need health care, and cannot afford health care. I am for providing health care for those who do not have access but I don’t think this guy is a good spokes person for it given the depth of his disability, his ability to cover the cost, and the quality of his service.
The headlines also mentioned the Trump adminstration putting pressure on Venezuela and I commented on the subject
Second Comment: Maduro should step down. Not because he changed the election date to a date that was advantegeous, but because even before the sanctions that prevented Venezuela from exporting oil, he demonstrated he was not competent to maintain the gains the Venezuelan people seen under Chavez.
In 2017 he signed a budget for 8 billion dollars. Venezuela is a country of 32 million people. To put that into perspective Chicago is a city of 2.7 million people who are no where near as dependent on their government as the people of Venezuela and their budget in 2016 was nearly 10 billion dollars. A city not a country. You cannot run a country of 32 million people on 8 billion dollars.
In regard to incompetence, it was known while Chavez was still alive that the economcy required diversification. It required a great deal of spending to provide opportunity and assistance to those who needed it most and struggled the most under Pro-US regimes prior to Chavez. Chavez gained control of the state oil company and immediately began using the funds to stimulate the economy and to fund social programs. Oil prices were high. When 95% of your export revenue is in oil and the price drops, it affects your budget in a nearly equal proportion. If you are funding programs by spending 90% of your oil revenue, when the price drops by 30%, oil revenue no longer sufficient to cover the cost. You either need to sell more oil or fund the development of industries that will make up for the short fall.
Chavez was a man of pure intent, blunt honesty, extraordinary intelligence, and magnetic charisma. He possessed the ability to navigate the decline in oil prices. Maduro is not the same person in ability or intent. Minimally, in the wake of declining oil prices you need to survey basic needs and ether create agreements to ensure you can import irrespective of oil to satsify those needs or you must invest to supply those needs. You need expertise. He should have made deals to attract private investment where the people of Venezuela have a stake in that investment. Partnerships between the Venezuelan state and private companies. Instead you shut yourself out and allow the people to suffer.
I think Maduro was unable to balance the constant battle between the government and opposition with maintaining development and minding those things necessary for Venezuelan prosperity. Chavez was the catalyst for the revolution and a very capable leader. What we need to remember is the people of Venezuela are the revolution. Their situation will not improve while Maduro is still in power. Yes this is a US backed coup underway with the open intents to secure more advantegeous access to Venezuelan oil and other resources. The sooner it suceeds the sooner Venzuelans have an opportunity to democratically continue their revolution under better leadership. If there is any fear that democratic processes will be compromised after Maduros resignation, then he should arm the Chavistas and then resign. There is no other way forward.
Point of contention: I do not disagree with leftist activists or Democracy Now on much about the version of the events or the ethics concerning what the US role in the exacerbation of the circumstances in Venezuela. The only disagreement is the extent of disfunction prior to US sanctions. DN and the left would have you believe that Venezuela was doing well until the US applied sanctions that cut Venezuela off from the world economy. This made an extremely difficult situation impossible as there is no chance of the conditions in Venezuela improving if they cannot export oil. I contend, the same as any objective party on the subject that Venezuela was already in a very difficult situation due to the decline in oil prices. The United States and Western Europe is applying pressure and is effectively supporting a coup, and the Venezuelan people are suffering as a result. The purpose is to install a regime that will be freindly to US interest in regard to market access, espeacially in oil. The problem is, as long as Maduro is in power the people of Venezuela are going to suffer. The only way to improve the conditions of the people of Venezuela is to all the coup to succeed and then vote the revolution back in in the next election. Support for the regime is support for suffering, regardless of the tactics used to create regime change.
5/1 Headlines Green New Deal Protestors. Included in these headlines which I was very responsive to, protestors interviewed were calling on Senator Schumer to endorse the GND.
Third Comment: LOL “The only PLAN on the table that is going to address the climate crisis”. LOL This is getting really old. I’d rather believe that people can read and choose not to, but maybe they read but cannot comprehend. If you read the GND you know there is no plan there. Yet you have these people out here acting as if you a turn key proposal that will transform the world on the table. Again, you don’t have that. You have a list of goals. Activsts are passionate but not logical. He says they are putting their bodies on the line. Ok and for what? Schumer’s gong to pledge support for the GND? No. If he does, is it going to pass the Senate? No. So what are you really doing? You’re participating in an act for the stimulation it provides as a social activity. If you were really concerned with climate change you would read the GND. You would realize you have nothing there. You would organize to find a solution and educate the public concerning that soultion in an effort to actually achieve something. Yes it’s a joke.
4/25/2019 US Air Strikes in Syria
DN report on Airwars and Amnesty Internationals research on civilians killed in US air strikes in Syria during 2017.
My Comment: Airwars and Amenesty do a great job reporting accurately on the impact of US aggression which is largely concealed from the American public. The official narrative is the reality of popular perception in the states which is the US did Syria a favor by ridding the country of ISIS and in the process there was collateral damage which is the 10% of the true civilian death toll.
What Amnesty calls civilians the US labels hostile militants. The United States is not going to admit to the number of civilians they’ve directly killed in Syria. It’s very rare the US has a legitmate claim to serving a general public good in regard to intervention in other countries. In this specific case (2017 campaign) the US did serve a public good in its role in destroying ISIS. Of course the strategy did lead to excessive and unnecessary civilian casulties and the US is responsible for the existence of ISIS in Syria to begin with.
My position is not only is the US responsible for civilian casulties resulting from the bombing it conducted, but the US is responsible for all the death, destruction, and refugees since 2012. In 2012 facing international pressure and internal pressure from the population including militant factions Assad made a number of concessions, including the release of prisoners, the cessation of using live ammunition on protestors, and most importantly, drafting a new constitution to meet the demands of the protestors. The constitution allowed for non-Baath party members to run for government along with other provisions in line with popular will. 55% of the population participated in the referendum and passed the constitution by 80%. The Syrian people had a democratic path forward. Instead the US, UK, and France refused to allow the democratic decision of the Syrian people to determine their future.
Instead the west backed the militants which led to the carnage of the last 7 years: hundreds of thousands of people dead, the country left in mostly ruins, and millions of people forced to flee thier country. The contribution from other western countries is only made possible by the US decison. Had the US refused to support the Syrian militants the other nations supporting them wouldn’t have supported them either. The US is responsible for the present state of Syria and all the effects of the civil war over the last 7 years.
4/23/2019: Democracy Now Headlines
Headlines reported that Greenland lost 11 quadrillion pounds of ice since 1972. Headlines also mention the bombings in Sri Lanka that killed over 100 people.
1st comment: WTF is a quadrillion? lol. Could we use a larger unit of measure than pounds to avoid losing the meaning of the reference in a number in the quadrillions? That shit is funny.
2nd comment: If only Sri Lanka had stricter bomb control laws.
Points of contention: Come on a quadrillion? The number is so large it loses meaning. No one can picture what a quadrillion pounds of anything looks like. I suggested to use a larger unit of measure which probably still doesn’t do much to illustrate the amount. Better would be to measure in volume instead of weight, cubic miles, or something a person can picture and say “that’s a lot of fucking ice”. Not pounds, when the amount is already significant, it doesn’t require using small units of measure in an effort to inflate the effect. Not a very serious point, I just remember thinking WTF is a quadrillion? I think even most scientists outside of those who provided the data for this report begin using exponents to describe numbers more than a trillion but I could be wrong. Either way, to most viewers 11 quadrillion doesn’t mean anything but a lot of fucking ice.
Second comment was intended to mock the general gun control arguements made in every mass murder where guns are used.
4/3/2019 Democracy Now Headlines
Headlines included the speech from Chicago’s first black lesbian mayor.
My Comment: You’ve done it again. “Together we can and will put the interests of our people, the interests of all our people ahead of the interests of a powerful few”. “Where your zipcode doesn’t determine your destiny”. Platitudes are the limits of human beings ability to delegate the decision of governance. I don’t know anything about her but that shit always makes me chuckle.
Point of contention: Campaigns consist almost exclusively of empty rhetoric and platitudes lacking any substance.
One of the most interesting campaign events I ever saw was John Kasik in a town hall setting when he was campaigning for the republican nomination for president. It was a pointed presentation of a market oriented approach to reducing health care costs. The idea was to incentivize health care providers whose costs were below the national average as I remember it. If a health care provider provided services below the national average they would receive money from the federal government, meaning they could make more money overall by figuring out ways to cut costs. It is incentivizing efficiency, and naturally as health care providers are competing against one another to become more efficienct this affects not only profit but the national average for health care costs should decrease making it increasingly more difficult for a provider to qualify for government money, but also in the interest of profit itself, the implementation of more efficient methods will be copied across the sector.
I didn’t necessarily support the idea but it is remembered because it was such an anomoloy, to see something of substance in a campaign, as opposed to other candidates making statements on the subject like the US spends more than any other nation in the world on health care, and under my adminstration we will reduce the cost of health care and ensure all Americans have access to this basic human right, or something vague along those lines.
In this video we have the same tired rhetoric and people applaud wildly at these statements. This is the basis for the delegation of government, general statements that reveal nothing in the way of what the problem is specifically and how it will be addressed. Human beings participate in and consent to systems and processes they are largely ignorant of. It’s strange because if someone asked you to join a group where you would agree to rules that you largely didn’t make, would contribute money for services that benefited you minimally, and consisted of processes you largely didn’t understand most people would not join that group. Yet this is exactly most people’s relationship to government, and they are enthsiastic about the group and the leaders of it.
Jimmy Dore Show: BBC Reporter Corrects Mainstream Media
This show autoplayed after a Democracy Now video I was watching. It consists of some character dressed up like a 1950s private investigator who makes misleading statement after misleading statement about Venezuela.
My Comment: There is some merit to this pod cast as it informs people more confined to the American narrative of political and social reality, but there is also misinformation and reenforcement of the myth. For example, in the beginning, mentioning the Koch brothers reinforces the myth that Kochs are the sole or even the main motivating interest reinforces the idea of the by the mainstream left that the Kochs are an evil empire set on subverting the good intentions of the nation. The reality is the Kochs are only 1 refiner, and the refining industry as a whole benefits from availability of heavy crude. Not only the Koch refineries are geared towards refining heavy crude but the entire US oil industry is geared towards refining heavy crude. The abundance of light shale oil has forced the US to export much of the light shale and even global refineries are incapable of processing the light oil on par with the extracted supply. ( https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=36933 )
It is true Maduro was elected, but what is also true is that Maduro changed the date of the scheduled election to a date that was more advantageous to his reelection. If Trump in 2020 decided to move the election from November, to April, and then had the election in May, most people in the US would consider his second term illegit. This opened the door to delegitmize Maduro, although he is still much more legitimate than Guido who declared himself president with support from the west.
The quote from Jimmy Carter is in reference to the 2012 election of Hugo Chavez (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/03/why-us-dcemonises-venezuelas-democracy). It is inaccurate and disingenuous to apply that quote to the reelection of Maduro and the reporter knows better. It isn’t true that Koch doesn’t have to pay for it’s oil because of sanctions, the rule is the money owed for past shipments or if Venezuela continued to keep shipping oil, goes into a frozen account that will accessible by the opposition or a new regime (https://www.npr.org/2019/01/29/689587279/venezuelas-state-owned-oil-company-is-it-with-u-s-sanctions).
It’s also dishonest to say the Koch brothers as if the statement was true were the only ones who would have benefited. This is typical democratic mainstream propaganda, intent on over emphasizing and isolating specific players in an effort to legitimate systems by placing responsibility on the shoulders of a few scape goats. Their narrative is the conflict isn’t with the systems themselves, the conflict is with factions within good systems. More important than the last point is the facilitating the ease with which a modern campaign can be managed, maximizing the investment in your party. If you can create negative associations with a symbol, then you can use that symbol to direct public opinion. The more exposure you create to an impression, the more solid the symbol’s assoicated meaning becomes. Tactics like those used in this video make it easier come campaign season, where ads can consist of associating the symbol (Goldman Sachs and Koch) with a candidate, and this will serve as the basis for an individuals opinion of the candidate. Which is of little actual consequence as neither party represents the interest of the general public but it is a problem as people think they have an understanding of politics through a false associative understanding.
People think they are informed because they watch videos like this, and their political understanding consists purely of associations with no real understanding of the systems they live in or how results are produced.
Goldman Sachs purchased Venezuelan bonds, 2.8 billion dollars worth for something like 850 million dollars. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenrwald/2017/06/01/why-goldman-sachs-just-made-an-embarrassing-bet-on-venezuela/#787457624f85 I’m citing the article for the fact not the conclusion which is wrongly associating Venezuelan regime change with the French Revolution, misinterpreting the words of the opposition in regard to debt, and not understanding how the world functions she thinks Sachs won’t be paid) In 2018, a Canadian mining company Crystalex, reached a settlement for 1.4 billion dollars against Citgo for the expropreation of assets in Venezuela. Sachs purchased bonds issued by PDVSA, Citgos holdings are valued at nearly 20 billion dollars, meaning Citgo can cover the cost of PDVSA defaulting on their bonds. Had Crystalex not reached a settlement Citgo shares would have been auctioned to pay what they were awarded in damages. The same as whether regime change occurs or not because Citgo is a US corporation and subject to the enforcement of judgements by US and international courts. In 2222 when the bonds mature GS will have made 200 plus percent on their investment, tripled up. As far as funds being paid to Goldman Sachs the only money that would be paid is the agreed upon bond dividend, the interest promised on the bond paid on an annual or semi annual basis. These are funds that would have been paid with or without sanctions and or regime change.
The popular race dividing rhetoric in calling Guido a “white guy”. This is an effort to agitate racial stereotypes and pretend that race is a greater factor in the Venezuela than class. Which isn’t to deny a historical connection to race and class but neither is determined solely by the other. As NYT correspondant wrote when asked about race relations after spending weeks living in Venezuela “I see a lot of white faces in the government. But I also see a lot of white faces in the slums, though these neighborhoods are more brown than where I live. And I see a lot of faces here that I can’t really recognize.” ( https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/reporters-notebook/moving-to-venezuela/race-racism )
White people in South Africa were not going through the same struggle as black people in their slums during apartied. It isn’t South Africa where white people have created two tier citizenry based on race. Chavez was a man of extrordinary intelligence, pure intents, and magnetic charisma who accomplished much for the people of Venezuela whose creativity was missed in addressing the challenges Venezuela has faced, but there is no paralell between South Africa and Venezuela in the popular aparteid racial context. As he said, you have fair elections, and the elections involving maduro have been close, Ill comment more on the situation at the conclusion of the video. They paint a South African picture where 15% of the population was actually white of purely european disent and controlled the state with absolute authority. He lies or he is ignorant of the actual racial break down which isn’t about a third white and two thirds metizo black indiginous. It is 51% mestizo 2% indiginous, and 4% black. 57% even including indiginous people who are of a much different interest than the Mestizos. The white is even further away from a third than the grouping of Mestizos and other people of color is from 2/3rds, representing 43.6 percent of the population, and I suppose since they are not as dark we could add another 1% for the Asian portion of the population he doesn’t claim in his ill founded deceptive racial arguement. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Venezuela the source is the 2015 government census) I started writing this at the begining of the video after reading some of the comments and I am beginning to regret presuming on the merit of this podcast as the BS is rising higher and higher the further along we move through this video. Race division is a point of unity among all classes, even if it only benefits the ruling class emphasising race as a meaningful source of advantage or disadvantge keeps attention away from class which is the true measure of advantage and disadvantage. People who are born poor and white face the same obstacles as someone who is born poor and of color, whereas people who are born into wealth benefit from the same advantages of white people born into wealth. I’m not goin got go deeper into it here but feel free to cite reports and statistics and I will illustrate the error of your causation and correlation.
It is also false that the Chavistas support Maduro. The Chavistas are divided about Maduro due to his incompetence (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/07/venezuela-maduro-helicopter-attack-psuv-extractivism-oil I will comment further on the crisis itself after reviewing the video). I’m not sure what year those pictures were taken but the opposition has had a majority in the National Assembly since 2016 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Venezuelan_parliamentary_election ), meaning he is flat out lying or ignorant of the fact that government consists of 2/3rds GPP and 1/3rd Opposition.
Guido is unwanted not only because he represents the wealth of Venezuela but because he represents the same imperial interests that looted the country prior to the election and policies of Chavez. There are countless statements by Maduro and Chavez when he was alive about US imperialism, and there is no notable mention of a racist take over by Maduro or Chavez. They don’t want Guido because he represents imperial interests not a racial take over. I presume this guy doesn’t have any credibility anyway, this show probably doesn’t either beyond the conspiracy theorists and politically non-comprehending who view this channel, but what little credibility they may have had is gone with this video. Yet they 195k, views I came accross this page as it autoplayed after a democracy now video.
He is accurate in the accomplishments of Chavez, and Ill add that after Chavez reigned in the state oil company, you had an average growth rate in GDP of 13.5% per year with most of that growth taking place in the private sector. Palast is a liar and Dore is extremely ignorant based on this content of this video as demonstrated above.
Economist Jeffry Sachs US Sanctions Have Devestated Venezuela Killed Up To 40,000
Jeffry Sachs discusses the impact of sanctions on the Venezuelan economy and cites a statistic that he he admits is shaky in regard to the 40,000 deaths as of 2017.
Except that “cutting Venezuela off from accessing capital markets” did not prevent Venezuela from restructuring loans in PDVSA because the Russians provided them loans and they did restructure. The problems in Venezuela began with the inability of Maduro to manage the challenges of funding an economy that relied on higher oil prices. It is not a crisis that is created by the US it is a crisis that has been made exponetially worse by the US, but not created by.
We acknowledge the concrete circumstances the Venezuelan people face. The US is going to continue to strangle the Venezuelan economy as long as Maduro remains in power. If we are concerned with the conditions of the Venezuelan people the right move is for Maduro to step down.
The people of Venezuela created the revolution, and the people of Venezuela can restore the revolution but they cannot do it while the US prevent them from interacting with world markets. If he is worried about preserving democratic processes in Venezuela he can arm the Chavistas before he resigns, but I believe the processess will be protected after the transition of power. I also believe the Venezuelan people who were inspired and coalesed around Chavez the great catlyst, will find another capable leader who will restore the revolution and accomplish the same gains and even greater gains than were accomplished under Chavez. But this cannot occur while Maduro remains in power.
Are you so anti-imperialist that you would rather see people suffer instead of the imperialist agenda being accomplished? It means you lost sight of why we are anti-imperialist. We take the position of non-interference because it leads to the representation of a foreign interest over the interest of the people who suffer as a consequence. Support of Maduro prolongs the agony of Venezuelans. If a person is beating you because they want you to say uncle, eventhough it’s wrong they are beating you and you can make that point until you are unconcious, it doesn’t change the fact that they are beating you. If you want the beating to stop you say uncle. Then you can make the point that they were wrong and put yourself in a position to not allow the abuse to continue or take place again.
Note: The my next comment receives responses from a few different commenters. The bulk of the exchanges are with a conspiracy theorist who continues to pile conspiracy information into the debate without addressing the point of contention which I point out in the exchange. The first comment was in response to a comment which may have been deleted or it may have been in the video claiming that Venezuela is the result of right-wing foreign policy.
My Comment: It isn’t right wing foreign policy it is American foreign policy. The sanctions against Iraq he mentions were perpetrated for the purpose of bringing regime change in Iraq and they were held in place and tightened under Clinton, supported by Bernie Sanders. Sanctions against Venezuela although much less restrictive began under Obama. Sanctions against Iran were held in place under Obama despite reports from the IAEA that Iran had not had a nuclear weapons program since the early 2000s, which was wholy in response to the invaison of Iraq and and Afghanistan, fearing that without a nuclear deterent they could be next. Let’s stop with right wing left ring, democrats and republicans because any serious and objective analyst of US foreing policy knows there is no difference between political parties or adminstrations of different political leanings when it comes to US foreign policy. US foreign policy consists of ensuring access to foreign markets for the exploitation of labor and resources, and removing obstacles to that end. Liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, independent, right wing or left wing, foreign policy does not change much.
2nd Response: bryan s2 months agoVery true, though Obama was obviously not as bellicose towards Iran as the crazy neocons in the Trump admin are and he did lift some of the sanctions on Iran (hence the right wing claims that Obama gave Iran billions of $).
Note: The second respondant makes a good point brining up the withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal and re-implementing sanctions under Trump. A significant difference in degree but the policy regarding Iran is not much different. The agreement itself did lift all sanctions against Iran, and Iran as a signer of the NPT in compliance with the IAEA inspections should have been free to carry on their nuclear program not only without interference, but with assistance from the international community as specified in the NPT. Although people have a strong opinion on it because they were told it’s a very bad deal and makes us unsafe, the Iran deal (Joint Comprehensive I can’t remember the other words) allows Iran to enrich to 5% and then send the material off to be enriched to I think 20% for uses at that level. It ensures Iran is not working on a weapon through inspections where evidence would be left if Iran was enriching above 5%.
My Response: Orion Simerl1 month ago@MJB For Trump The Chavez Adminstration At 10 Years: The Economy and Social Indicators. Read it: http://cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela-2009-02.pdf Why do you suppose I’m getting all this non-sense?
Note: The comment was intended to show MJB the gains accomplished under Chavez in the first 10 years. The second portion “why do you suppose I’m getting all this non-sense”, was in regard to two conspiracy comments posted below. I moved my response to his comment to maintain continuity in the exchange of comments.
5th Response: MEN562 months agoYou’re wrong about that. US foreign policy today is neoconservative, which means it’s Jewish, and that has had a slow rise since it was birthed out of the Six-Day war in ’67, first infiltrated government in Scoop Jackson’s office a few years later, then entered the White House under Reagan, and took over under Bush II 20 years later, then crossed the aisle again under Obama/Clinton. But the “Judaization” of Dem foreign policy really happened under Carter with Brzezinski and under Clinton with Albright.
Prior Rockefellerist foreign policy was mostly about economic interests, but today it’s about ethnic interests and hatreds, neoconservatism definable as aggressive militarization against the historical and current enemies of the Ashkenazi. Venezuela is about defeating the main enemy of neoliberalism (the other big Jewish political philosophy of the last 50 years) in Latin America and gaining more control over world oil prices that can be used against other enemies like Russia and Iran. In the WASP Rockefellerist days it would just be about resource exploitation.
Note: I didn’t intend to address his comment because it is conspiracy theory based, which means he isn’t going to argue any points, he is going to reproduce conspiracy theory information without relating it to a point of contention. Eventually I do which will substantiate this note. He prescribes to a theory that elite Jewish familes run the world which includes foreign policy. Even in his comment which I am doing now because I didn’t do it at the time, he claims the “judaization” of the democrats foreign policy took place under Carter with Brzeninski. One of the most memorable acts of foreign policy involving Brzeninski under Carter was the arming of the Mujahadeen (Osama Bin Laden and Talaban in Afghanistan), which was done to fight a proxy war against Russia. Arming Islamic militants in the region is against the interests of Israel who at this time is supposed to be controling the foreign policy of the United States. Under Reagan, the US armed and worked with Saddam Hussain who funded terror against Israel, supported Hezbollah and other factions in support of Palestinian causes. Under Obama, relaxing sanctions on Iran through the nuclear agreement is against Israeli interest as well as telling Israel to cease bombing Gaza during Operation Protective Edge. Throughout the course of US foreign policy there are points where US policy diverges from Israeli policy which contradicts the assertion that the Jews control US foreign policy. Of course when you point these things out the conspiracy theorist will provide you a non-sense explanation from some dubious source as to the reason why the US going against Israel was actually part of some longer term strategy that they will connect with other events. This is why my initial response was dismissive of him. And his response didn’t clearly articulate a point of contention.
His Response: MEN561 month ago (edited)@Orion Simerl So I see my response was rendered invisible by the YT (ADL/SPLC) censors, so I’ll try my usual way of reposting, eliminating the one link and splitting my post in two: See, that can be a problem. For instance, this guy Sachs was the lead designer of the capitalist privatization plan in the 1990s that resulted in the rape of the Russian economy, aided by financiers on Wall St. and the City of London, and the rise of the mafia oligarchs, in particular the “semibankerschina”, the big seven that controlled half of the economy in the late ’90s according to one of them, the notorious Boris Berezovsky, who was later driven out of the country and then died mysteriously in London years later. The shock treatment privatization program advised by Sachs and the Harvard Boys also resulted in near-starvation in parts of the country and a huge drop in life expectancy; male average life expectancy dropped a minimum of 4-5 years, the equivalent of about five million entire lifetimes lost, mostly due to increased alcoholism and suicide – misery. Sachs is buddies with George Soros, who was involved in those from the beginning, just as he was involved in events in the Ukraine in 2013-14, just as he’s been conducting his own little war on hated mother Russia for the last 40+ years. It’s kind of hard to source a lot of information on this, and no one seems to make the connection between this and Russiagate. You can find articles like this one: [link to The Nation article titled The Harvard Boys Do Russia from 1998] but that only tells some of the story, and part of the problem, getting back to reading books, is that Anne Williamson’s completed manuscript for How America Built the New Russian Oligarchy, mentioned in that article, for some reason never actually got published – the word was that Soros used his pull with the publishers to stop it. But even there you wouldn’t get the ethnic angle to this. For instance, among the list of figures cited in that article, Jeffrey Sachs, Larry Summers, Andrei Shleifer, Anatoly Chubais, Nancy Zimmerman, George Soros are all Jews. There’s an article on the semibankerschina from the Guardian titled The Richer They Come… from 2007, after the fall, that touches on this slightly: “Few ordinary Russians will feel much sympathy for the losers. Any admiration for the gusto with which the country’s 50-odd billionaires live their lives is more than outweighed by outrage at the way many of them made their money. And in a country where anti-semitism is still rife and openly expressed, nationalist rabble-rousers have made much of the fact that of the seven oligarchs who controlled 50% of Russia’s economy during the 1990s, six were Jewish: Berezovsky, Vladimir Guzinsky, Alexander Smolensky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Mikhail Friedman and Valery Malkin. That fact is incontestable – but it is the result not of some grand conspiracy, but of the way the Soviet Union restricted Jews’ ability to assimilate and rise up in society. While ethnic Slavs dominated all the best career slots in the highly bureaucratised official society, Jews who wanted to get ahead were forced into the black market economy. When communism collapsed and the black market was legalised as free market capitalism, the Jewish entrepreneurs had a head start. “All this changed when Putin became president in 2000. Putin’s previous employer was the KGB – a notorious Slavs-only club. Since he took power, most of the original Jewish oligarchs have fled. But this probably has more to do with their failure to observe the new rules in Putin’s Russia than their religion. During his time in office, Putin – who is due to step down next year – has established a new law: leave politics to the Kremlin. Or else.”
His Response Continued: MEN561 month ago (edited)Part two… I guess that’s the most-generous, anti-anti-semitic spin they could think of for these thuggish mafioso con men. It’s actually a little worse than that, the members of this group shifted over time and the actual number is 8 of the 9 were Jews. Several years after that Harvard Boys article the government completed their investigation and fined Harvard $26.5M for failure to comply with their contract with the USAID (a CIA front, btw); Shleifer was fined $2M personally for his inside dealings with his wife Zimmerman. Summers, then president of Harvard, was fired, not just for his role in the thing but for also saving Shleifer’s job (he’s still there today, and the one notable goy, Hay, wasn’t so lucky), but they cooked up a cover story about girls not being good at math. By that point Sachs had already bugged out for a job at Columbia. A book you can read is William Browder’s Red Notice: A True Story of High Finance, Murder, and One Man’s Fight for Justice, which is anything but; it’s a book filled with fabrications. Browder’s Hermitage Capital was the largest foreign investor in Russia by 2005, but then he got the oligarch treatment, banned from the country and then, like Mikhail Khodorkovsky, was tried and convicted of fraud and tax evasion. Browder, whose grandfather was the head of the US communist party in the 1930s and met his Jewish grandmother while living in the USSR, was able to fight back, getting his Magnitsky Act passed through congress in 2012 (co-sponsored in the senate by co-ethnic Russia hater Ben Cardin and Zionist warmonger John McCain) and testifying in from to the senate as a Putin expert in 2017 related to Russiagate. This despite the fact that he dumped his US citizenship in 1998 and relocated to London, like Berezovsky and Khodorkovsky, because he didn’t want to pay US taxes on his growing pile of loot stashed offshore. The best way to get a handle on this lying scumbag is to watch Andrei Nekrasov’s film The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes, but that’s been hard to do, because Browder has been chasing around the world trying to stop it from being seen. Browder does get us to Russiagate, and of course the two biggest promoters of that have been the two great Jewish-owned/controlled institutions in this country, the mainstream media and the Democratic Party (the Dems get half of all their financial contributions from America’s Jews). If you look at congress you’ll see Adam Schiff, Chuck Schumer, Jerod Nadler and Diane Feinstein as leaders in pumping the narrative, all Jews, and of course in the media the charge has been led by the Jewess Rachel Maddow. Maybe the best picture of the history of this ethnic mission would be Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together, a history of the Jews in Russia – but nearly two decades after it’s original publication it still hasn’t been published in English. Imagine that, a major work by one of the most significant writers of the 20th century, a Nobel Prize winner, and essentially not available to be read in the US; I wonder why? So no, books are unfortunately not always the answer. Hopefully that worked. I guess the most-encouraging thing about this kind of hassle is you know you’re on the right track when you’re being censored.
My Response: Orion Simerl1 month ago@MEN56 “Alot of this information is hard to source”. The problem with conspiracy theories is it relies on making connections and drawing conclusions based on incomplete information. You take a fact and generally connect it with unrelated fakes under a predetermined narrative.
The subject of the video is US intervention in Venezuela. The point of contention related to my comment is US foreign policy is motivated by gaining or maintaining access or advantage in foreign markets for the exploitation of labor and resources or removing obstacles to that end. You are asserting that foreign policy is motivated by ethnic hatred. My point is demonstratable through non-controversial sources across the entire history of US foreign policy. It is your responsiblity is to show me where US foreign policy has deviated from the rule of motivation.
The second component of proving your case is to show me where US foreign policy is motivated by ethnic hatred. Because the subject of the video is US intervention in Venezuela, and if US foreign policy is not motivated by market access and advantage but ethnic hatred, explain to me how US intervention in Venezuela is motivated by ethnic hatred and not gaining a market advantage through the installation of a subbordinate regime?
Note: After two long comments sputtering on with assertions he admits are difficult to source I attempt to refocus the exchange on the point of controversy. As I stated in the initial note I know this is how debating conspiracy theorists plays out. It isn’t debating a point it is the insertion of facts and fabrications, and the seperation of facts from context to create a narrative that fits the theory. Even if a person invests the time to debunk each assertion the conspiracy theorist will either be dismissive of the sources claiming they’ve been contaminated by the conspiracy itself, or relegate the point to being non-essential to maintaining the conspiracy.
His Response: MEN561 month ago (edited)@Orion Simerl “The problem with conspiracy theories is it relies on making connections and drawing conclusions based on incomplete information. You take a fact and generally connect it with unrelated fakes under a predetermined narrative.” You’re right on that first sentence, but that’s also true re the establishment/mainstream line as well, isn’t it? Do you really think you get complete information on much of anything?
The 2nd sentence just reflects your bias, you are declaring facts unrelated when they may not be, and you are declaring a predetermined conclusion when that may not have existed at all. “My point is demonstrable through non-controversial sources across the entire history of US foreign policy.” Non-controversial to you because those sources are mainstream establishment sources. And those patterns of US history are likewise, the narrative that supports the worldview that the establishment generally wants accepted.
“…and if US foreign policy is not motivated by market access and advantage but ethnic hatred, explain to me how US intervention in Venezuela is motivated by ethnic hatred and not gaining a market advantage through the installation of a subordinate regime?”
It’s not an either A or B situation. From a deep state perspective, the old ruling group, the group I call the WASP Rockefellerist CFR faction that ruled supreme from WWI until at least the 1970s, was about neocolonialism, economic power over vassal states for resource exploitation purposes that served the interest of major corporations in major US industries. The CIA was a construction of this deep state faction, and two of the earliest CIA regime change ops reflected this, in Guatemala and in Iran in the early days of the Eisenhower administration, maybe the peak of the domination of this faction, with foreign policy led by the Dulles brothers. This seems to be what you’re talking about.
There is a piece of this involved in Venezuela, of course, the Koch brothers thing that is discussed, but it’s not the whole thing. The US has been trying to end the Bolivarian rule for two decades now, because they have been the economic engine behind the Latin American liberalization, the main enemy of neoliberal economic colonization, the enslavement by debt – Chavez used oil revenues to bail out countries like Ecuador from their IMF/World Bank loan debt.
Neoliberalism is an economic political philosophy that arose out of the rise of the Jewish/Zionist deep state faction in the last 50 years, predatory usury that has its roots in the Rothschildean international bankers going back 200 years. Neoliberalism really became US economic policy under Reagan, at the same time that the deep state regained full control in government for the first time in a couple decades, since the ’50s Dulli era.
The other major political philosophy of the Jewish/Zionist faction to arise in the last 50 years is of course neoconservative foreign policy. That also infiltrated an administration for the first time under Reagan, with people like Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, the trio who first united in Sen. Scoop Jackson’s office around 1970 and would later reunite under Bush II in 2001 and lead us to war with Iraq, and everyone knows that neocon Jew Elliott Abrams was deeply involved in the CIA wars in Latin America in the ’80s. Even then this was no longer about United Fruit or BP, the game involved had changed. By Bush II in this century the neocons had taken full control of US foreign policy, and we see that in the post-9/11 endless wars against Israel’s strongest neighbors, that domino line of conflicts starting with one based on lies, those lies all having on them Jewish fingerprints. The conspiracy theories on 9/11 tend to focus on oil, in the same way that the acceptable Venezuelan theory focuses on oil, but neither really makes much sense – we didn’t steal Iraq’s oil, and the oil companies don’t like all the destabilizing wars in the producing regions.
Trump ran an America First anti-intervention campaign, which was directly opposing the neocons, ethnically and operationally. His first Sec. of State, Tillerson, was a classic Rockefellerist-type guy, a former oil exec who wanted to have stabile relations with major oil producer Russia, but he got driven out. The reason in my view is that Trump made his deal with the devil during the election, taking real money from the GOP’s biggest contributor, Sheldon Adelson, a Israel-firster Zionist Jew, and that money had strings attached. Adelson was by far the largest contributor to either party in the 2018 midterms, something like $130M, and so more strings. Neocon Bolton, an Adelson boy and one of the figures in the late ’90s think tanks developing the game plan for this century, gets named National Security Advisor, a few days later Trump makes his first high-profile attack on Syria, and the next day pardons Scooter Libby, one of those Jewish neocons who left his fingerprints on those Iraq lies. Coincidence?
Then we get Abrams, also one of those Jewish neocon think-tankers in the ’90s, hired to deal with Venezuela. Trump has been falling back strategically under the internal Adelson/neocon assault and the external Russiagate assault, making symbolic moves like the embassy in Israel, the Golan Heights, those Syrian attacks and then the rollback on his Syria withdrawal, ending the Iraq nuclear deal, and some concessions related to the vilification of Russia.
Venezuela is another of those, a place where he has a sort of Monroe Doctrine cover, where interests align for that old Rockefellerist faction (probably most concentrated today in the oil and arms industries), and the appointment of Abrams is almost a declaration of this, an obvious criminal who is a part of the Podhoretz clan, a first family of Jewish neoconservatism. Their interests are found in neoliberalism and neoconservatism, debt-enslavement to the international bankers and aggressive militarization against the current and historical enemies of the Ashkenazi. Venezuela is a key piece in the rollback on Latin American liberalization that occurred over the last quarter century, because of the oil wealth, and controlling Venezuelan oil means controlling world oil supply and prices, which can be manipulated to weaken neocon foes like hated mother Russia and Israel’s biggest enemy, Iraq. But you won’t believe this because you can’t find a mainstream book by a mainstream author published by a major publishing house that puts this all together for you on a silver platter. Just like you can’t find that about US-Russian relations since the end of the USSR. Jeez, I wonder why? If you want to really figure out what’s going on today, you have to figure that out for yourself. Otherwise you just end up in a state of confusion – why are we in all these disastrous middle east wars? Why do we suddenly have a new cold war with Russia? Why did Wall St. not get punished or regulated after the ’08 collapse? The old blueprint of 50 to 100 years ago just doesn’t apply today, you’re busy being a general fighting the last war.
Orion Simerl1 month ago@MEN56 In your response you do little more than reinforcement the point you are arguing against. Iran intervention in 53 the record is clear regardless of what you think is going on behind the scenes. Mohammed Mossedeq was democratically elected and nationalized the oil to use the revenue for the benefit of the Iranian people. The company that would become BP and the British government persuaded the US to orchestrate the coup which was accomplished under the leadership of Kermit Roosevelt and installed the Shah Reza. Oil rights reverted to a consortium of private interests that included American companies as well as Western European countries. The US had good relations with Iran under the Shah until he was removed through revoltion. This is a clear example of economic motivation. There is no evidence of an ethinic motivation in this example you cite.
The same with Guatemala, where the United Fruit Company used a family relationship in the Eisenhour adminstration to create a coup against Jacobo Arbenz. United Fruit Company was unsatisfied with the compensation they were going to receive for unused land that was being expropreated, because they under valued the land to minimize their tax liability. More generally, the precedent of expropreation is undesirable because it creates competition between private entities and public entities in like industries. While the coup that resulted did not achieve the desired effects the motivation for the coup was economic, to maintain a market advantage in Guatamala. There is no evidence of an ethnic motivation for intervention in Guatamala.
We can keep going with this. Nearly any example of US foreign policy. Vietnam. After the Vietnamese rid themselves of the French, there was a Geneva accord for an election to be held. Ho Chi Minh was going to win the election. The US supported Ngo Diem who came to power in the south through a rigged election where he received more votes in some areas than there were voters. Diem with support of the US refused to allow the elections ordered through the UN to proceed. Conditions in the south birthed nationalist resistant groups. The US sent advisor and later direct military support. Why? Because the threat of communism wasn’t a concern that the soviet union was going to take over the world, but each communist state A: prevents market access. B: is a threat to achieving market access and market advantages in other nations, because each communist state serves as a pillar to support other states who prefer a course of self determination that limits foreign investment. There is no ethnic motivation in Vietnam either.
The problem I have with conspiracy theories is they are a great source of distraction from real issues of class rule, which is evident. No ethinicity has much of an advantage when it comes to policy making. Support for Israel is motivated by the general principle of US foreign policy in regard to market access and removing obstacles to market access and advantage.
What’s interesting, is if I was in charge of DHS or another state agency tasked with maintaining generally order and the mainstream narrative I would ensure there was a wing in charge of promulgating conspiracy theories. It is one of the most effective means of distracting people who have a genunine interest in participating in serious matters of civics. Maybe they don’t have to because there is a thriving industry of which you are a consumer that keeps people distracted with non-sense.
To return to my main point in regard to no ethnicity having much of an advantage policy is demosntratable governed through investement politics. Meaning no ethinic interest can have an interest that is adverse to the interest of industry without having more money to invest in politics than entire sectors of the economy or that interest has to be identical to the interests of industry. Representation in government is equal to the money behind the interest verses any interest the representation of an interest may harm.
With all this said, what agency of government do you work for?
Note: I’m not serious about him working for a government agency, I’m just playing conspiracy with the conspiracy theorists, although it isn’t outside the realm of possiblity. I don’t make the assertion seriously because I have NO EVIDENCE.
MEN561 month ago (edited)@Orion Simerl “In your response you do little more than reinforcement the point you are arguing against. Iran intervention in 53 the record is clear regardless of what you think is going on behind the scenes… There is no evidence of an ethinic motivation in this example you cite. The same with Guatemala, where the United Fruit Company used a family relationship in the Eisenhour adminstration to create a coup against Jacobo Arbenz.. There is no evidence of an ethnic motivation for intervention in Guatamala.”
You’re not following me – I absolutely agree with that. What I’m saying is that there are competing factions within the deep state, there was a faction in almost total control in the 1950s during these events that underwent a challenge from another rising faction in the ’60s, ’70s, ’80s, and by the ’90s the power structure within the deep state had inverted. Vietnam was about the Rockefellerist ruling paradigm of anti-communism and the military industrial complex, so it was sourced in that old ruling group. Today the ruling paradigm is Arab Islamic terrorism and the activists are the neocons, the result is endless wars to destroy Arab Islamic states, and this is a reflection of the Jewish/Zionist faction that has been supreme over the last 25 years.
“No ethinicity has much of an advantage when it comes to policy making… To return to my main point in regard to no ethnicity having much of an advantage policy is demosntratable governed through investement politics. Meaning no ethinic interest can have an interest that is adverse to the interest of industry without having more money to invest in politics than entire sectors of the economy or that interest has to be identical to the interests of industry. Representation in government is equal to the money behind the interest verses any interest the representation of an interest may harm.”
Risking another link here: https://www.jpost.com/US-Elections/US-Jews-contribute-half-of-all-donations-to-the-Democratic-party-468774 There was an article in Fortune that listed Killary’s 20 largest campaign contributors in 2016 and the top five, 9 of the top 10, and 14 of the 20 were Jews. What do you think they’re buying? Dem presidents Clinton and Obama nominated five supreme court justices and four were Jews, 2% of the US population producing 80% of their nominees and what would have been 44% of the court had Garland been considered. The FDR Dem party of 60 years was deconstructed under Clinton and Obama didn’t go after Wall St. and didn’t end the wars, in fact expanded them.
This has all happened post the change in the deep state, an event which can be said to have occurred with the Clinton defeat of Bush I. Bush was a Rockefellerist and an actual deep state operative (lifetime CIA and the symbol of this faction’s move from the NE to the sun belt), and his defeat was the end of the only presidency to not last two full terms since 1980, when the deep state regained control; none lasted that long in the ’60s and ’70s when they didn’t have control and there was internal conflict, and three ended with deep events (Dallas, Watergate, the October Surprise). Clinton won on a mountain of Jewish money arranged by Rahm Emanuel, who did the same for Obama, becoming the first Dem candidate to outraise/outspend the GOP candidate in the money (TV) era; Bush later blamed his loss on Alan Greenspan tanking his economy (we had a run of over 30 years of Jewish Fed chairs until Trump). Obama outspent Zionist warmonger McCain nearly 2 to 1 in 2008, which shows how much the world has changed.
My point is that things over the last 25 years are very different than they were for 50 years after WWI, and also different than during the 25 years of transition in between. The general worldview that you’re presenting is that old world, when America’s foreign policy was all about corporate capitalist intentions. That is simply not the world of today.
My Response: Orion Simerl1 month ago@MEN56 There is no evidence the US wants to destroy Arab Islamist states. Saudi Arabia, Qater, Bahrain, Jordan, and just about any nation that was not Lebannon, Iraq, Iran, or Syria has not been a target.
What is the common denominator? The common demonator of Arab Islamist freindly states is they are subbordinate with US goals in regard to market access and advantage. The latter were resistant. Saddam prior to invaison declaring the United States as an enemy state. Iran removing the installed leader in 79 and shifting towards national interests at the exclusion of US interest. In Syria you had a regime that was unfreindly to US interests and supported Hezzbollah and Hamas. Lebanon has absorbed Palestinian refugees and has been hostile towards Israel, although after 2006 when Hezzbollah handed the IDF their ass in a high hat, Israel left them alone. The point is, if there is an agenda to destroy Arab Islamist states because they were Arab or Islamists this would include all Arab states not only the ones where there are clear reasons why the US is seeking regime change. If the motivation is Arab Islamist, why hasn’t the US invaded Saudi Arabia? Not only is Saudi Arabia the most valuable but there are countless pretexts to be used in doing so. Instead they are sheltered by the US.
The destruction of Arab Islamist states is not because these states are Arab or Islamists, it is because the regimes they are seeking to destroy are unfreindly to their interests.
The article you cited explains that Jews typically support the democratic party over the republican party. Party politics is largely irrelvant because the viablity of a candidate is determined by his or her ability to gain the approval of industry in order to have the resources to run. Investment politics is true because you can trace who funded campaigns and lobbied for what and what benefit they recieved. Take for example this Sunlight Foundation study from 2014 that demonstrates what the most politically active corporations spent and what they received in renumeration. Tell me how the Jews and the Rockefellars coordinated this investment among the most powerful corporations in the world, and secretly benefited from the outcomes? https://sunlightfoundation.com/2014/11/17/fixed-fortunes-biggest-corporate-political-interests-spend-billions-get-trillions/
You make broad assertions about people but there is no direct evidence to anything you have said. Here you state “Vietnam was about the Rockefellerist ruling paradigm of anti-communism and the military industrial complex, so it was sourced in that old ruling group.” The pretext was the necessity of preventing Vietnam from becoming communist because it could lead to a domino effect in the region where other nations become communist. This is the cold war pretext. Again communism is adverse to US interests because it obstructs or eliminates market access and foreign investment. There was an interesting memorandum Noam Chomsky referenced which related to an admission by policy makers that massive amounts of spending on high tech industry which by and large is military spending could no longer be laid at the Kremlans door. Meaning in his words we’ve been lying to you for 50 years but Russia has collapsed and we still need to fund a massive military to secure our interests in the world which is middle east oil. What you have done is taken a largely accurate shift in the focus of policy, which was based on economic interests, and attached the name rockefeller to it.
I’m sure there are plenty of Rockefeller family quotes that can be attached to this shift in focus, but that is because the Rockafellers are big industry players, US policy is directed by industry, and again, seeks market access and market advantage on thier behalf in the world.
Jewish people benefit from being a much tighter knit people than other ethnicities. They are also the wealthiest ethinicity in the country. Wealth determines policy and because of this, there is going to be a disproportionate amount of Jewish people tied to policy because they are collectively wealthier than other ethnicities. It is a conspiracy of community and ethnic values. The supreme court has three justices who list Judaism as their religion. The other six are Catholic. Maybe you want to adjust your conspiracy theory to include the catholic church?
To the point, although there is not numbers, a large percentage of people who are Jewish practice law. People who practice law are generally policy makers or people who are assoicated with wealthy interests. This is to say based the propensity of Jewish people to enter the legal profession it is expected to see Jewish people associated with policy makers for this reason.
You call Mccain the warmonger next to Obama who did what? Continued the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, used drone and other strikes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somolia, among other locations. Supported Muslim extremists in Libya (which contradicts your destroy arab states motive because it the replacing of a regime that is very moderate in terms of being islamist and replacing it with very extreme islamist factions), supported Islamic militants in Syria instead of allowing their constitutional referendum to move forward, and was a warmonger as well.
His Response: MEN561 month ago (edited)@Orion Simerl “There is no evidence that the US wants to destroy Arab Islamist states.” No, just that three or four states have been destroyed, depending on yur definition. And it’s not US interests anyway, it Israeli interests, with the US as their proxy warriors. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, etc. are corporate states, they are not any real threat to Israel, and Israel has been in a kind of triple alliance with the Saudis and Turkey for decades now. The states that are a threat are the economically and militarily strong states with a national self-identity,, who have been, are or could be viewed as a threat to Israeli hegemony in the region, a Greater Israel. Those are the nations on the hit list. “The article you cited explains that Jews typically support the democratic party over the republican party. Party politics is largely irrelvant because the viablity of a candidate is determined by his or her ability to gain the approval of industry in order to have the resources to run.” American Jews have been on the left since the immigration wave of the period between the Civil War and WWI, which gave the US most of its European Catholic and Ashkenazi populations. That’s because Jews were radicalized against the Russian Empire, and also had played a key role in the 1848 revolutions, and they brought that radicalism with them to the US, where they would become the backbone of the US left for a century. But for the Jews in the sense of the Jewish deep state it really doesn’t matter, because Jews slide easily all over the spectrum. We saw that with oligarchic banker Jacob Schiff supporting Trotsky and aiding him in getting back to Russia in 1917 and funding the Bolsheviks with $20M, and Max Warburg doing the same for Lenin. We saw that with the neoconservative movement, where the father of the neocons Irving Kristol, a Trotskyite as a young man in the 1930s, famously said a neoconservative was a liberal mugged by reality. But the average Jew remains on the left, even as much as Jews have been slowly sliding rightward over the last 65 years or so, and so the tendency is to support the Dems. But that influence has driven the Dems rightward as well over the last 25 years, and today’s centrist “corporate Dem” is actually a Judaised Dem, the part of the party that has become addicted to the Jewish money that made the party relevant again after 12 years in the wilderness under Reagan-Bush. 92% of American Jews support Israel, even though the majority of them, the leftish Dems, don’t like the Likud government or their Palestinian policies. “Tell me how the Jews and the Rockefellars coordinated this investment among the most powerful corporations in the world, and secretly benefited from the outcomes? ” I don’t know what you’re saying. Yes, America is a corporate capitalist state, it’s based on materialism and the business of America is business. IBut have shown you how much money contributed to both parties comes from Jews, and with regard to the Dems every dollar that comes from some generic corporation or from some rich guy or from some NGO with an agenda or just from some average citizen, there’s a dollar coming from a Jewish source. That Jeff Gates interview I linked goes into how so much of this money is raised, bundled, and applied by the broad Jewish/Israeli lobby. You can find articles talking about how the money contributed to the GOP by three Jews – Shelly Adelson, Bernard Marcus and Paul Singer – has resulted in the US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, just as one example. Yes, one can chop up contributions by corporate sources and draw conclusions from that, but that’s focusing on corporate and business impact and completely ignoring the ethnic and cultural side, it’s largely ignoring the single-largest source of contributions, never mind the money spent on lobbying and on think tanks. Which the media and academia are most willing to do, because they are so controlled by Jews and fear of the anti-semite accusation that they aren’t going to talk about that, at all. “You make broad assertions about people but there is no direct evidence to anything you have said.” Seriously? So what is evidence to you, are we back to a book written by a mainstream writer published by a major publisher, etc.? The evidence is all around you, you just can’t or won’t see it. Look at Russiagate and who has been pushing that fabrication in the pess and in congress. Look at the attacks on Omar and Gabbard, for talking about the impact of Zionist money and putting these middle east regime change wars into the debate. What do you think that’s about, why is the party seemingly eating its own? You want me to go into the last 25 years between the Jews and Russia, from the Harvard Boys and privatization to Adam Schiff, Rachel Maddow and Russiagate? How about the William Browder story over that period, the personification of the whole thing? “The pretext was the necessity of preventing Vietnam from becoming communist because it could lead to a domino effect in the region where other nations become communist. This is the cold war pretext. Again communism is adverse to US interests because it obstructs or eliminates market access and foreign investment.” I think one of the best takes on Vietnam is by Peter Dale Scott, in his book Drugs, Oil and War, where he compares SE Asia in the ’60s and ’70s, Colombia in the ’90s and Afghanistan in this century, a confluence of actions related to oil and drug interests that fund CIA black ops. The capitalist incentive related to communism was really liberation movements and not Marxism; the communist aspect of places like North Vietnam and Cuba was more about western colonial interests push these rebels into the arms of the USSR and Chinese communist regimes more than anything. The communism paradigm was more about the home front, a controlling mechanism based on fear that would justify the actions. And the first act of the cold war was the purge at home, just as it was after WWI, and that significantly involved leftist Jews – why do you think it targeted Hollywood? The red scare after WWI was the start of the culture wars in America, after that wave of Catholic and Jewish immigration, and another aspect of that was the immigration acts of 1921 and 1924, which were intended to slow the immigration wave out of eastern and southern Europe that was changing the face of America and threatening the WASP power. After WWII it was again a red scare purge, but the other aspect was social engineering, which I think really targeted urban Catholics. Continued…
Note: Okay. He goes on for another few pages and it isn’t necessary. You can view it on the youtube page but I don’t want to prolong this exchange any further and prevent people from viewing additional content. By now you probably lost track of what the dissagremment was. He disagreed with US foreign policy being a product of market access and advantage, stating “Prior Rockefellerist foreign policy was mostly about economic interests, but today it’s about ethnic interests and hatreds.” As I commented he has to show how foreign policy is the product of ethic hatred, and how this principle is more influencial than economic interest. It requires a few paragraph example at most, and then we will determine the merit of the example.
He states the destruction of 4 Arab states is evidence that foreign policy is motivated by ethinc hatred, (to which I provided economic motives for), but, if foreign policy is motivated by ethinic hatred you cannot have an exception, even if they are “corporate states”. If foreign policy is motivated by ethnic hatred directed at Arab Islamists, you cannot have freindly relations with an Arab Islamist state, otherwise, you are acting on a higher value interest than ethnic hatred which is the true dominant motivation for foreign policy. Which is economic. The US dollar remained the world reserve currency largely due to the creation of the petro-dollar system if we need an example.
4/1/2019 The Real Migration Crisis is in Central America, Not the US Southern Border
The report discusses Trumps threat to close the southern border and the consequences there of.
My Comment: This is a political strategy to strengthen the defense of the declared national emergency in court but also to add credibility to the inflated problem of immigration itself. The problem has to be sustained with percievable progress made on the issue in order for it to be relevant for Trumps campaign in 2020. Beginning the border wall is key campaign promise Trump seeks to deliver on. If he closes the border it is done intent on putting pressure on democrats and opposed civil society to remove themselves as obstacles to the wall. 40% of imports from Mexico are manufactured by American companies. These companies will put pressure on politicans democrats and republicans to allow the wall as the wall is the lesser of two evils compared to the interuption of commerce.
We know migration is the result of US interference in Latin America, coups, the supporting of dictors and counter revolutions as well as using the IMF and the World through loan conditionalites to exercise control over the economic policy of these countries. The US policy is unchanged as the US still supports illegitmate regimes like Juan Hernandez in Honduras, and Hernandez knew aid would be suspended temporarily for this political stunt prior to the direct deposit not going thorugh. The solution to end immigration is debt forgiveness or compassionate restructuring without conditionalities, and aid to popular governments for the purpose of publically owned economic developement and social programs. You allow people to have self determination, allow them to create livable conditions, and they will want to remain in their countries. Otherwise people of oppressed nations will naturally seek opportunity for life in the nation of the oppressor which has benefited from decades of plunder.
4/1/2019 Democracy Now Headlines
Headlines included allegations of sexual harassment against Joe Biden.
My comment: Biden is trash, but he is trash based on his positions in public service, his willingness to represent the interest of political investors, not because he kissed this woman on the back of the head. I would comment further on sexual harrassment generally but it isn’t relevant to this particular incident. If what occured is the same as what was shown in the video her allegation of sexual harrassment it is a malicous attack of no merit.
His intentions do matter. Is the act intended as a sexual advance? Inappropreate is an arbitrary term, what is imappropreate for some is appropreate for others. Meaning if someone does something that they don’t feel is inappropreate it is incumbant on the one you finds it inappropreate to express that view if the relief is truely of any merit. If the behavior continues the person is wrong for knowingly crossing a stated boundary.
What I want to know is did she tell him the behavior is inappropreate to her and to stop? If she did, did the behavior continue? More likely than not, she didn’t say anything about it, Biden didn’t know he was doing anything wrong, and she waited for an opportunity to maximize her spotlight.
3/28/2019 Fighting Racial Bias from Charlottesville to the Coffee Shop, In the Age of Mass Murder
The report features a woman’s book written about her research on racial bias. Included as the title sugests is a reference to Charlottesville.
Note: This exchange begins with someone’s comment to which I respond to.
My Response: Orion Simerl3 months ago (edited) There’s also nothing more accurate in understanding why the incident occured. All Americans have the right to peaceably and petition the government for the redress of greivences. American’s have this right even if their greivences are founded in ideologies that are hateful and illogical. The “anti-fascist” counter-protestors went to the peaceful assembly intent on intimidating, and otherwise imposing on the right of this group to peacably assemble.
They wern’t there to ensure the statue which was planned for removal, was removed. They know from all their other protest activities that such efforts are ineffective at changing policy.
First at fault is the politicians who ordered the removal of the statue which has no public benefit, not in terms of improving race relations or generally improving the lives of their constitutients. It was reported the mayor knew it was going to cause disorder and despite not having any public benefit, the removal of the statue has the effect of burying the history of the period which is important for people to know in understanding where the country is based on where the country came from.
Second at fault is as I mentioned, the counter protestors who wanted to intimidate this group who was lawfully exercising their right to assemble. They were wrong based on their intent for being there. Third is the perpetrator who despite conditons that shouldn’t have been allowed to exist shouldn’t have plowed his car into the people.
It is accurate that the victims are more responsible for the murder than the murderer, which doesn’t absolve him of responsibility.
What’s interesting is the fact that most people on the left would agree to the same logic that conditions of economic inequality and poverty are responsible for creating criminals, but would disagree about the same use of cause and effect when it relates to a group they don’t like. The problem is the activist left has no more critical thinking skills than other groups in this country. They are for or against things without a principle basis for understanding why it is correct or incorrect to be for a thing in consideration of other factors, where positions and strategy are developed with fluid correctness.
Her Response: Aegypius monachus3 months ago (edited) Murder is murder regardless of political affiliation or “critical thinking skills of the left.” You will never see me defending a “liberal” who kills a protesting conservative.
My Response: Orion Simerl3 months ago@Aegypius monachus Murder is not murder. Murder is obvously wrong, it is an imposition on liberty in the taking away ones life and the ability of the person to be free on this planet. The first question is why does a murder occur since we want to prevent murder from happening recognizing the act isn’t in the interest of our species. The murder of a person killed by a serial killer is not the same as the murder of a husband who abused his wife and was eventually killed by her to end the abuse. The serial killer victim did nothing to contribute to the cause of their murder, whereas the murder of the husband was caused by his decison to physically impose on the wife.
The murder of the people killed by the man in Canada who randomly drove his car over people is not the same as the murder of the people killed in Charlottesville. Again the people in Canada did not contribute to the cause of their murders whereas the people in Charlotteville assembled with ill-intents and contributed to the cause of a member being murdered.
Murder is not murder. I wrote “It is accurate that the victims are more responsible for the murder than the murderer, WHICH DOESN”T ABSOVE HIM of responsibility.” That is not defense of the perpetrator but an accurate assignment of responsibility based on the facts and explanations I provided. The only way this isn’t true is if you contend that the facts are wrong or that the explanation (the assembly of the facts) is wrong. Otherwise your position is indefensable and the pride you have in the loyalty to your position prevents you from admiting you’re wrong and adopting the correct position.
I’m not talking about liberal or conservative in regard to your false dichotomy. I’m not liberal or conservative, I am unbiased in the application of truth which belies your bias based perception of reality. Stating that I will never see you defend the murder of a liberal who kills a conservative implies that I am defending the individual (which as I demonstrated I am not) based on a preference for his political leanings (which I am actually against). You are biased toward things, the platform of positions and issues you have adopted to be for or against meaning anytime these things are in conflict with the truth you side with the things. You are wrong. I prove it. An opinion is not equal to the truth.
Her Response: Aegypius monachus3 months ago (edited)@Orion Simerl Regardless of your “prideful belief” that you have a monopoly on “truth”, your false analogy, your non sequitur ad hominem (your assumption of my biases), I suggest you research the word “proof” which you like to use. You like to talk as though this is a science. Well, “In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by ‘proof’ an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory”. – Karl Popper
Her Addition: Aegypius monachus3 months ago@Orion Simerl And honestly, I’m not even referring to Charlottesville specifically. I was making a GENERAL comment about racial arguments in an “age of mass murder”.
My Response: Orion Simerl3 months ago (edited)@Aegypius monachus My arguement is the exact opposite of non sequitur and your reply is a prime example of non sequitur. Non sequitur means “a statement that does not follow from the previous arguement”. My arguement follows point by point.
1:A: Your comment of murder is murder. I demonstrate A: that murder is wrong. B: that because murder is wrong we should seek to prevent it. C: that in seeking to prevent it we should examine the causes. D: causes of murder distinguish one murder from another. E: responsibilty for a murder rests with all elements contrbuting to the cause. F: I didn’t use an anlogy I used examples. A man in Canada did kill 17 people in a random act of violence which is an example of a similar murder that is not the same as the murder in question.
2:You claimed I was defending the killer, I quoted a passage from my previous comment demonstrating that I did not.
3: I explained what is required to substantiate your position. “The only way this isn’t true is if you contend that the facts are wrong or that the explanation (the assembly of the facts) is wrong.”
4: I propose the reason why you cannot admit that you are wrong is pride which does not deviate from the arguement but attempts to bring you back to the arguement because you failed to acknowledge the substance of the facts and explanation I used.
5: It isn’t ad hominem when the assertion is based on an inference from your statements. You said “you will never see me defending a liberal who kills a conservative”. Any reasonable person who sees that statement can infer your biases from it. The other aspect of your bias come from the totality of the content of your post.
Your quote is not applicable fbecause my arguements are based on OBSERVATION which is emprical evidence. You’re resorting to a false non sequitur ad hominem defense and using a quote that is not applicable to the arguement is non sequitur.
My Response to Her Addition: Orion Simerl3 months ago@Aegypius monachus On a video where the only incident raised was Charlottesville. It isn’t honest, otherwise it would have been your first response, not a response after your position has been thoroughly destroyed. It speaks to your lack of charcter where instead of acknowledging the deficiencies of your position and growing you look for a place to run to maintain your error. In a general context with countless other examples I can show how blame rests with the victims of murder and how not all responsibilty rests with the murderer. Your attempt to seek refuge in the broadening of the context of your statement has failed almost as badly as your last attempt to resort to the assertion of non sequitur ad hominim, and the use of a quote which is non-applicable to my arguement. Futhermore, your original comment has nothing to do with race unless it is made in reference to the incident cited in the video which is Charlottesville, so even your attempt to broaden the context of your statement is flawed.
Her Response: Aegypius monachus3 months ago (edited)@Orion Simerl Look, the Unite the Right rally was a white supremacist rally, and the counter-protesters were not “abusive husbands”. We can argue about that for years and get nowhere because this is not a courtroom with a judge, witnesses, evidence, etc. Which is why I avoided the central topic. Yes, it is about that but also Trayvon Martin, Oscar Grant, Tamir Rice, and the list goes on, which is my original intent and I stick by it. I don’t have time to write long-winded diatribes like you. If you’re looking for a court case to practice your lawyering skills, go to law school. And I only responded to you at all because you seem to be bent on owning the truth which is a sign of megalomania.
Orion Simerl3 months ago@Aegypius monachus I didn’t compare the counter protesters to abusive husbands i compared the cause of murder of abusive husbands to the cause of murder to serial killers to show the contrast bewteen causes of murder, to substantiate the distinction between murders, to establish the fact that murder is not all the same, as you asserterted with the comment “murder is murder”. We are not arguing that the counter protesters are like abusive husbands. We are arguing that the victims in the Charlottesville mass murder are more at fault for what happened there than is the man who did it. What is required for this to be a true statement?
The subject is responsibility for murder and the test is where responsibilty is greatest in the context of Charlotteville murder incident. To be responsible is to cause something. I established the three major points of responsibility which included politicans, the victims, and the perpetrator. The victims were more responsible for the murders than the murderer, not only because of their presence but because their presence was motivated by ill intentions. They were there by the very identification of their name “counter protestors”, to impose on the rights of people who have the right to peacably assemble. A right that they exercise and abhor imposition on. The murderer reacted to circumstances created by people with bad intentions.
Had this group not created these circumstances through bad intentions the act would not have occured. Which again does not excuse his action but does establish that he is less responsible not only because of their presence but because they intended to create to create circumstances of intimidation that they knew would or at least could incite violence. Not only is responsibility greater due to the general bad intent of imposing on the right of the protesters but the fact they went there looking for trouble but they got more than they asked for when the prey became the predator. The statement is true based on the definition of the word responsibility.
Earlier you stated I thought I had a monopoly on the truth and this is partially true, not because Im tainted by personal bias but because people are loyal to things whereas I am loyal to the truth. Total truth rests in total knowledge which cannot be achieved due to the inability to know the “complete before”. It seems like I have a monopoly on truth because when I’m wrong about something I admit it and adopt the correct position, I don’t deny it to remain loyal to a thing.
Note: This was my favorite exchange on Youtube, primarily because of all the tactics used to win the arguement, accusing me of ad hominem, non-sequiter, an effort to change the subject, trying to change the context of her comment, attempting to use a quote to deny the practical basis of true, and in every case, being able to address the tactic and hammer it down.
3/22/2019 Water is LIfe: Midwestern Floods Threaten Indiginous Communities at the Forefront of Climate Change
My Comment: It’s amazing to me that day after day there are articles and people talking about the Green New Deal given the fact that the Green New Deal doesn’t exist. The Green New Deal is a list of goals with a vague set of general principles and the creation of a select committee. Yet day after day you have people saying the GND will do this, cost this, create this amount of jobs, and so on and so forth. It speaks not only to the ignornace of the American people including activists but to the way in which political dialogue in this country revolves around substanceless topics.
My Response: Orion Simerl3 months ago (edited)@#TrumpTheLyingInsaneFascistBigot In what way? It is a fact that the GND consists of “goals with a vague set of general principles and the creation of a select committee”. Read it. Most American’s do not know this which it is why it speaks to American ignorance. How does pointing this out speak to my ignorance? Or are you upset because you”re for something you fail to realize is empty ,so you make a baseless assertion about my comment to vent your frustration?
Her Response: #TrumpTheLyingInsaneFascistBigot3 months ago“The Green New Deal”, taken from the platform of the Green Party of the United States, is spelled out in no uncertain terms. That makes your comment ignorant of the propositions included in it. https://gpus.org/organizing-tools/the-green-new-deal/
My Response: @#TrumpTheLyingInsaneFascistBigot Except for the fact that the reference in video is to Ocasio Cortez and the GND of democrats which is also the subject of the stories I referenced, as well as the subject of popular attention. Not the green party GND, a party that has failed to seat even 1 representative in congress.
2: The Green Party’s GND is for the most part the same as Cortez GND in terms of substance. A plan doesn’t consist of writing a statement for example : The right to employment through a Full Employment Program that will create 25 million jobs by implementing a nationally funded, but locally controlled direct employment initiative replacing unemployment offices with local employment offices offering public sector jobs which are “stored” in job banks in order to take up any slack in private sector employment.
A plan consists of the details of the program, how much funding it will receive, where the offices will be located, the charter of the offices in regard to how they will be “locally controlled”, the actual jobs it will create. This is the difference between an actual plan and an item on a goal sheet.
Another example: Prioritize green research by redirecting research funds from fossil fuels and other dead-end industries toward research in wind, solar and geothermal. We will invest in research in sustainable, nontoxic materials, closed-loop cycles that eliminate waste and pollution, as well as organic agriculture, permaculture, and sustainable forestry.
Again this is not a component of a plan but a guideline in the creation of a component of a plan. A plan would include how the green research is prioritized, what funds would be diverted from what fossil fuel research, who would be conducting the research and towards what ends. A list of goals does not constitute a plan, and the Green Party’s GND as I have skimmed it, exists in a vaccuum which is absent of the realities of the present system even as it lacks any substance. I could go thorugh each point and demosntrate this. Again what we have is evidence of your ignorance of what a plan consists of.
A Green New Deal at minimum consists of details of explaining what will built, the details of operation, how many, how it will be implemented in consideration of law and the current market economy, how many of what it will create will be created, and so on and so forth. After you have these details then you make claims about what it will do like “create 25 million jobs nationally”. You cannot make the claim that we are going to create 25 million jobs nationally by creating a nationally funded program to create 25 million jobs nationally. What is the program? It doesn’t exist.
That’s one exampe it can be applied to the Cortez GND as well. 100% renewable energy in 10 years, by investing in infrastructure. That is not a plan. A plan consists of we are going to build X amount of X, at X cost, which will generate X amount of power, create X amount of jobs, and be implimented through partnerships with these companies who currently supply power, and this is how we will achieve 100% renewable energy by such a date. I hope I’ve done something to shed light on your ignorance between a plan and a goal. If you’re intrested in an actual plan of a turn key functioning institution you can visit http://orioncs.net/centers-for-economic-planning/
3/19/2019 ACLU: The US is Acting Like an Authoritarian Regime, Barring ICC Official from Investigating War Crimes.
My Comment: The ICC knows the US will not submit to any international authority on the crimes it perpetrates against the world, evident by the withdrawl from the ICC and also the repeated position of rejecting the authority of the ICC in regard to US officials. But the precedent is very significant because it brings the tactics and strategies of US foreign policy into the concious of the American people. Many American’s will reject the allegations outright, staying in line with whatever narrative the US supplies in response, but the investigation itself serves as a source of condemnation independent of activists, academics, and the victems themselves, as well as others who are perceived as having an anti-US agenda. Not a dent but at least a stone thrown at the American peoples perceived goodness of US intentions and tactics in foreign operations.
3/18/2019 How Austrailian Gun Control Stopped Mass Shootings
The report was an interview of Rebcca Peters who was an organizer for gun control in Austraila. The report was prompted by the New Zealand mass shooting in a mosque.
My Comment: Orion Simerl3 months ago (edited) As I have stated on many other occasions, gun control as a solution to mass murder is akin to banning utensils to solve obesity. As long as people are disastisfied, alienated, decieved, trapped, etc, some are going to want to kill people. An effort to limit the means by which they can kill people does nothing to address the cause of why people want to kill people in mass.
In Austraila, in the 20 years prior to the 1996 shooting there were a total of 95 people killed in mass murder events. In the 20 years after 1996 there were 96 people killed. Meaning the measure has not prevented deaths resulting from mass murder. Peters in disingenuous in her assertion that because of the gun control measures Austraila has never seen another mass murder event like what was experienced in 1996, because with the exception of the Coniston massacre in 1928 which was a murder of indigenous people, Austraila has never seen anything like what happend in 1996 in terms of the volume of casuelties prior to 1996 either.
She attempts to minimize post 96 attacks by claiming there have been some but it was a person murdering their family. In the 17 incidents prior to 96 3 were familicides. In the 19 mass murder incidents that occured after 1996 event 4 were familicide. In regard to volume, the highest concentration of victims from a mass murder event from 1928 to 1996, of course excluding the 96 event was 15 people dying in a nightclub in 1973. After 1996 there was an attack in 2000 that killed 15 people. Both incidents were caused by arson.
While she states that Austraila hasn’t seen anything like 1996 after 1996, the nation has not seen anything like 1996 before 1996 either, and the 19 incidents producing 96 casulties is not a reduction in mass murder incidents nor casulties resulting from mass murder.
I am a felon and cannot legally own a firearm in the United States, meaning I don’t I have a horse in the race. Despite this disadvantage I could procure a gun if I wanted to. Many other people I know are also felons, many of whom have access to or have guns. Gun control measures are of a very limited effect even in regard to their ability to limit one’s access to guns, but this is not the reason I am against gun control measures.
The advocation of gun control is used to imply there is a solution to mass murder events. It is included in the platform of the democratic party because the causes of disastifaction cannot be addressed because it compromises the American Myth. To talk about the reasons, you have to address an unfair, plutocratic system, where most people cannot create their own opportunities, where people are struggling financially, where people have no representation in government, and where people are confined to an inherited reality socially reenforced in an enviornment of mass indoctrination, that drives them to purpose driven ideological lies, that are as valid as the lie of the mainstream. Every event is unique.
School shootings are usually the product of social alentation that generally stems from economicly disadvantaged circumstances.
The New Zealand shooting although I haven’t read the shooters manifesto derrives from politically driven deception adopted by a person who was socially fringe and looking for purpose. The point is, gun control is not a solution and it is used as cover in the United States to maintain the illusion that everything is copacetic. Source of mass murder events is available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia
First Response: Big G Haywood3 months agoAbsolutely right. That’s a Marxist Analysis, whether you know it or not. In a Capitalist System, where people are barely able to survive, and many have lost everything, of course they are going to want to take it out on someone else. Address the real problem. And besides, I won’t feel safe when a bunch of Neo-Nazis are the only ones with a lot of guns.
My Response: Orion Simerl3 months ago@Big G Haywood I’m for liberty and democracy in the absence of state owned enterprise. (http://orioncs.net/liberty-and-tyranny/) (http://orioncs.net/centers-for-economic-planning/).
Second Response: Nicholas Page3 months ago That is an incredibly simplistic and incorrect analogy. If you take away someone’s utensils they may still use their hands to achieve the same result utensils provide. If you restrict access to guns, or remove them from the equation entirely, gun related violence drops. This is a statistically proven fact.
Look at Japan, a country with restrictive guns laws and less guns in circulation than the US. They had only 22 shooting crimes in 2017. Compare that to the US in the same year where we had over 15,000 gun related deaths.
These events are not unique, as you claim. A gun related crime is by nature not unique as it takes a gun to commit one. Additionally, the Anti-Defamation League produced a study that showed that every domestic terror event in the US last year was perpetrated by a native born, right-wing extremist. Out of the 50 deaths that resulted from said extremism, 48 were caused by guns. More guns, more gun related deaths.
Even if school shootings are the product of social alienation, it’s not alienation that walks into a school and kills people. It’s a person with a gun. There are plenty of people throughout history who have been outcasts but did not resort to violence. It’s a combination of lax gun laws, disenfranchisement, and radicalization.
So tell me, if you were to take away a shooter’s utensil would they be able to punch 15,000 people to death? Stab perhaps? The reality is that while people who intend to commit violence will in some way do so, removing guns or making them much harder to acquire will most certainly lower the number of casualties.
Your attempt to dismiss the obvious solution as some sort of myth by which people have been indoctrinated has no basis in fact. The opposite is true. The gun enthusiasts who claim that any restriction will result in a complete revocation of their 2nd Amendment rights are the ones who have been indoctrinated. The US government has already come for your rights. Our right to vote is being gerrymandered away while super delegates and the electoral college actually decide our elections. Millions of Americans don’t have healthcare and those that do can’t afford to use it. Our money is being taken through regressive taxation and given to the wealthiest people and corporations. Our education is being dismantled through defunding and misinformation campaigns.
So who are really those who believe in a myth? Those who wish to take action and fight against gun violence or those who cling to their guns and maintain a fantasy that they can fight an authoritarian government? Gun control is the solution and if you can’t see that then you’re the one maintaining an illusion.
My Response: Orion Simerl3 months ago (edited)@Nicholas Page You compare Japan and the US which is apples and oranges. How about Russia and the United States in murders per captia since you want to change the subject from mass murder events to homicide in general? Russia has very restrictive gun laws yet it has more murders per captia.
I compare the Austraila pre gun control, and Australia post gun control. What are the facts? The facts are in the 20 years preceding the 1996 event that caused the gun control measure there were 17 mass murder incidents that took the lives of 95 people. The 20 years following the 1996 event there are 19 incidents of mass murder that killed 96 people. There is no reduction in incidents of mass murder and no reduction of deaths as a result of incidents of mass murder. That is a factual assessment of the results of gun control,.
The analogy compares the act of eating with the act of killing. Yes, if you cannot use utensils, you can eat with your hands. The same way as if you cannot kill with guns, you can kills with bombs, fires, vehicles, etc.
You stated “if you restrict access to guns you remove them from the equation entirely”. How is restricting access to guns removing them from the equation entirely? As I also wrote I am a felon, I cannot legally possess a gun, but if I want a gun I can get one. I’ve been in houses where everyone is a felon and yet the house is full of guns, people are armed. Gun control while it may make it more difficult for someone to get a gun it doesn’t prevent people from having guns. The only way to remove guns from the equation is the prohibition of firearms altogether. But as you said, you’re not for the revocation of the 2nd amendment.
You say “it’s not alienation that walks into a school to kill people, it’s a person with a gun”. What causes that person to walk into a school with a gun? Is it the inclusion in a social group, a feeling of belonging, and the opportunity to express himself and be treated with dignity and respect? He exists in the world alone and his only feeling of belonging is found online, through idelogies that begin with race. He puts on his MAGA hat and decides he is going to sacrafice himself for the good of his country by murdering people.
The question of taking away a shooters weapon if he will be able to punch 15 thousand people to death is rediculous because these 15,000 victims were killed by thousands of perpetrators. Most are killed by one person, so yes, they could be killed by hand or a knife. Again you’re mixing apples and oranges. The topic is mass murder. As I explained in my original comment, aside from the 1996 event in Austraila, the two other events of mass murder one taking pace in 78 and the other taking place in 2006 the perpetators killed their victims in fires. There are a variety of other methods people can use to kill large numbers of people. In Canada last year a man rented a Ryder van and mowed people down on the side walk, killing about 20, and injuring more. This is the point. That gun control does not prevent people who want to kill large amount of people from killing people.
When I’m talking about indoctrination I am not talking about the second amendment. I’m talking about you. You’re worried about gerrymandering in a system where you can vote for one of two parties and neither candiate serves your interest. You talk about regressive taxes, and yes the top marginal tax rate is low. However, inequality and the inability for most people in this country to create their own opportunity will not be solved through increasing taxes that cannot be passed. The most ambitious of taxes is Warrens wealth tax will generate an estimated 200 billion dollars in revenue annually. 2018 budget we borrowed 5x that amount, a trillion dollars. In regard to tax policy its interesting that during the period of a high marginal income tax rate from 1942 to 1982 the higher marginal tax rate did not lead to significant increases in revenue and the redstributive effect was much lower than it was after 1982, whch largely a product of stagnated wages and more people qualifying for assistance. The republican arguement is also wrong that lower taxes stimulate the economy as Saez found no correlation between economic growth and the top marginal tax rate. For more on that I recomend ( http://orioncs.net/the-popular-myths-of-tax-policy/)
You are a product of the very indocrination I am describing. You tow the line of the democratic party and maintaining their positions is more important to you than being right about an issue. I clearly demonstrated that gun control is not a solution. Nations that have implemented gun control measure like Austraila, which is the subject of this issue did not see a decline in the amount of mass murders incidents or victims. That is a fact.
My Response: Orion Simerl3 months ago@Nj Osborne For all the issues of the United States, free speech is a right that is upheld. It makes no difference what I write on a comment board and no difference what I say because voices of truth and dissent can be drown out in a power structure where money controls the power of information.
Part of the reason I post comments is to attract attention to my tranformative ideas and messages, which can be found at orioncs.net. There has been an active and effective campaign of suppression against me undertaken through tactics that leave plausible deniability for the parties involved. If I am ever able to break free and receive the attention my ideas and analysis merit, the proliferation of principles and the realization of solutions will be profoundly transmorative.
Presumptious, but not inaccurate. In Liberty and Tyranny I explain the singularity which defines the duality of ideal and unideal serving as the foundation of truth. ( http://orioncs.net/liberty-and-tyranny/ ) Liberty is ideal as I mentioned because everyone wants to do what they want to do. Liberty is true because all the happenings on this planet are the result of individuals exercising their free will.
Any creature is free to do as they please so long as they are not imposed upon by another creature, and provided they have access to the resources (money) and the abilities (education) to do as they please. What is required for all people to be free is respect of boundaries and opportunity.
Opportunity is actually only a boundary issue. It is a collective boundary, because systems are responsible for opportunity. People who are ignorant, indifferent to, or benefit from the effects of systems leave people trapped in disadvantaged circumstances or exclude them from collective decision making (government) are imposing. People are culpable for their ignorance because ignorance is a product of motivation, and being ignorant of the systems which you are a part of reveals the subjective impurity of one’s motivation.
To not go too far into it, the measure of liberty is boundaries or respect. Liberty is true and ideal, and I am true to liberty.
My analysis, thinking, and process of creation flows through this framework.
In regard to a solution. As I stated, I’m not for the state owning the means of production. What is the greatest institution for the creation of wealth and opportunity? The corporation, which is a private entity of collective ownership.
I seek the creation of institutions called Centers for Economic Planning. Similar to corporation in regard to ownership and directing power but owned not based on the purchase of shares but thorugh an individual’s place of residency. A Center for Economic Planning is created through legislation at the city level (there are other jursidictions it can exist in as well) so that it may be funded through a small tax, but the CEP is owned by the people who live in the city and it IS NOT part of the local government.
The owners, which is all the residents of the city, elect management the same as the shareholder elect the board of directors. A tax is collected for the first 5 years which is used for investment creating and acquiring businesses at the direction of the public.
A Center for Economic Planning increases the amount of opportunities that exist, but more importantly it increases the quality of opportunities that exist. In allowing people without money the ability to decide what they are going to produce on a grand scale people will be able to decide production in line with sustainable practices, including accelerating the transition to renewable energy on par with the need to avert climate catastrophe. A byproduct of better opportunity and increasing individual prosperity is providing people with the means to reduce their carbon footprint individually, as green behavioral choices come at cost. Most importantly, the profits from the businesses owned by the CEP aside from reinvestment, can be applied anyway the people of the city decide, including providing people thorugh their CEP to direct politics the same as industry does presently.
It can be accomplished at the city level in medium large sized city (400 to 600k people) with a grass roots movement and lobbying. A CEP changes the balance of ownership through opportunity, changes the balance of wealth through ownership, and changes the balance of power through wealth as well as contributing to individual prosperity. It strikes at the heart of all issues in the country and I think of it as a silver bullet solution. Centers for Economic Planning: http://orioncs.net/centers-for-economic-planning/
Again, what I say doesn’t matter much what I say so long as no one is listening.
3/7/2019 Andrew Bacevich: The US Saudi Relationship is a Principle Source of Destablization in the Middle East
The video is as the title suggests and includes the assertion that the US should have a different relationship with Saudi Arabia because the US is no longer dependant on middle east oil.
My Comment: Bacevich asserts correctly that the United States is no longer dependent on foreign oil which for a long time motivated foreign policy in the region. He implies the acknowledgement of energy independence in foreign policy should bring more accountability to Saudi Arabia, relax hostility towards Iran, and cause the United States to realize that the region is not important to it.
The strategy is much deeper than ensuring access to the resources of the oil rich region. He calls the policy towards the region by the United States misguided because it has led to destabilization of the region. However, from a strategic stand point, destabilization is a desired goal especially for regimes not under the influence of the United States.
If we remove the sanctions from Iran that have been in place to different degrees since 1980, with the exception of 2 years under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the independent oil and gas abundant nation achieves a much greater level of development. Iran becomes not only a great influence in the region, but an influence globally. This influence is a detriment to the US because Iran is not under the direction of the US. Iran’s prosperity would have been further accelerated had the US not supported the Iraq invasion of Iran which US support was key in prolonging.
The removal of Qaddafi in Libya we all know had nothing to do with humanitarian intervention but was an undertaking to remove an obstacle to US interests abroad, more specifically to Western European interest in Africa, primarily France. What applies to Libya applies to the middle east.
Saudi Arabia is important because it is a subordinate state, and even more so, because it has the most desirable form of government for subordinate states in that it is authoritarian with power emanating from a few individuals. Some may argue Saudi Arabia is not subordinate citing the war in Yemen, the assassination of Jamal Kashoggi or even the sheltering of Saudi citizens in the US from US law. But none of this is detrimental to US interests despite the political “challenges” they pose.
Saudi Arabia is subordinate in the sense that they do not challenge US interests. They are not concerned with Israel and their illegal annexation of the west bank, the siege of Gaza, the denial of the Palestinian’s right to self determination, or the war crimes committed against the Palestinians. They are not supporting revolutions or resistance from people attempting to free themselves from governments who put the interests of the US ahead of the interests of the people. The relationship with Saudi Arabia is still important in the absence of energy dependency.
To go further, what happens in Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait if the US does not bomb civilian infrastructure and does not push for the murderous and strangling sanctions in the 90s? We can speculate Iraq under Saddam may have continued in military conquest but it is unlikely given the lessons learned from the invasion of Iraq and Kuwait. Even in the absence of the normalization of relationships with between Iran and Saudi Arabia, Iraq still maintains stability, an increased level of development, and is a force of influence globally that opposes US interests in the developing world.
It is likely, that without US intervention, including sanctions, that regional stability and prosperity may have prevented discontent in Syria. Yet with history as it is, US intervention in Syria further weakens Iran, and weakens Hamas and Hezbollah. When I refer to intervention in Syria, I am referring to denying the progress that may have taken place through the constitutional reforms passed through referendum which were undermined by the US and Europe arming, training, and providing diplomatic support for militants. That intervention led to the civil war. Denying Palestinians statehood is important in the sense that no good can come out of the existence of another non-subordinate state, regardless of how far away they would be from having any influence beyond their borders.
In a middle east without US influence and intervention the growing power of each nation encourages cooperation among these nations. As I often state the goal of US foreign policy is market access or geostrategic purposes related to market access. The middle east is still important to the US not because the US requires access to their markets, but because these nations if allowed to develop in the absence of US interference would likely become an obstacle to US goals globally.
3/6/2019 NBC Liz Cheney: Illan Omar Embodies “Vile, Hate Filled, Anti-semetic, Anti-Israel bigotry”.
The report consists of two politicans fundraising by accusing Illan Omar of anti-semetism for stating the Israeli lobby influences US policy on Israel/Palestine.
My Comment: The media is more at fault for these false accusation of antisemitism against Omar. In all the interviews and press conferences I’ve seen there has not been one reporter who asked how the assertion that lobbying money influences political will is antisemetic? Politicans and other critics alike are free to make vague allegations without speaking to the substance they base these allegations on. A nonbiased media would address the substance instead of providinbg attention to these baseless allegations. Omars biggest mistake was her apology because it implies she did something wrong or made a mistake which she did not. Unfortunately, the alligence of the US government to Israel is not actually an alligence and it is not only all about money. Israel is important for geostrategic purposes in a region of importance to the United States. There is also a great deal of investment from US companies in Israel. The money from AIPAC and other pro-Israeli interests is important to ensure congress is always populated with enough pro-Israel representatives and senators for Israel to remain protected from international law, and the implementation of a two state solution. What these congressmen are doing by slandering Omar is actually fundraising.
3/5/2019 Vox: A Better Way to Tax the Rich
Report discusses Warren’s wealth tax.
My Comment: The federal government is not without the ability to pay for programs it is without the political will within both parties to pass programs that serve the interests of the bottom 70% of people in the country. As the world reserve currency the US dollar enjoys a status of ever increasing demand. Nations price their goods in dollars and as a result there is an ever increasing demand for dollars globally. Deficit spending where roughly a quarter of the federal US budget is borrowed about a trillion dollars is spent and filters into the domestic and international economy to meet the rising demand.
Last year the budget passed was roughly 3.9 trillion, with about 900 billion of that borrowed. The total amount spent was actually over 4 trillion, meaning relative to the overall budget 200 billion dollars is insignificant. Any bill that can pass both chambers and be signed into law can be funded. The US could borrow more than it borrows annually with no consequences.
First a wealth tax will not pass. The wealth and industry that directs policy and selects the candidates you can vote for is not going to accept this. Warren knows this, but Sanders 2016 campaign demonstrated that radical rhetoric is resonating with the American population and so it has become a tool of portions of the democratic party to get elected. More important than whether or not the wealth tax could become law is the fact that you cannot tax your way towards equality. What I found most interesting about a paper a read from Emmanual Saez on the history of the highest marginal tax rate was during the period from WWII to the 1980s where the top income tax rate was over 70 percent, is the collected revenue was not substantially greater and there was less of redistributive effect during the periods with the higher marginal tax rate. Its all a show, vote for the one who makes the effort to seem as if they have concern for your interest.