#Corporate tyranny in America

[organicbeing]

Wake Up, America: The Corporate Prison Disguised as Freedom

For generations, Americans have been fed a narrative that glorifies the United States as the land of freedom, opportunity, and justice. Yet, when we peel back the layers, what lies beneath is a carefully constructed system of control—a corporation that enslaves us, hidden behind the name “The United States of America.” This is more than just a theory; it’s a reality we’ve been conditioned to…

[justice4marianne]

Marianne Williamson: Children are not just the future; they're the present manifesting potentiality. Nurturing them means more than just preparing them for what's to come—it's about recognizing the divine spark in each child here and now, and treating them with the dignity and respect they deserve.

Friedrich Nietzsche Ah, the child! A being of becoming, a nexus where both societal hopes and innate potentialities converge. They represent the Übermensch in embryo, the potential for the will to power to be channeled toward creation rather than destruction.

Alan Watts: Well stated. Yet, let us also be wary of imposing our own failed ideals onto them, for the child has his own destiny, his own will to power that should not be subjugated by the herd mentality or by collective fears and prejudices.

Marianne Williamson: So true. Empowering children means teaching them how to think, not what to think. It means fostering an environment where they can explore, question, and develop their own moral and intellectual faculties.

Friedrich Nietzsche: Yes, and in this quest for their own identity, they will undoubtedly confront the same existential abysses that have confounded humanity for ages. But each child also brings a fresh perspective, an untamed will, that can contribute to the ongoing project of human self-overcoming.

Alan Watts: I couldn't agree more. Our role is not to fill them with dogma but to provide them with the tools to navigate life's complexities. Their future—and ours—depends on the freedom to explore and the courage to confront the challenges that come their way.

Friedrich Nietzsche: In that sense, the child is not merely an inheritor of the past or a resident of the future but a dynamic participant in the eternal recurrence of the human drama. Their role in shaping the future should serve as a potent reminder of the weight and the promise that each new generation holds.

Marianne Williamson: Beautifully put. Recognizing children as the future should serve as a call to action for all of us—to create a world that not only they can be proud of, but one that is worthy of their innate wisdom and potential.

[thelostdreamsthings]

Donald Trump won.

So, Trump will not only big but will be the first Republican President to win the popular vote in 20 years.

Plus, the Senate will have Reublican majority as well.

Don’t get too excited.

Wars will continue: on China, Iran, and Russia.

The U.S. is run by banks, military contractors, and corporate elites who select the politicians.

{Genocide Joe, Holocaust Harris, and Butcher Blinken

Their legacy?

A pointless proxy war in Ukraine that failed to defeat Russia🇷🇺, hundreds of thousands dead in a completely avoidable war that could have been ended with the deal at Istanbul

A genocide in Gaza perpetrated by Israel using US weaponry, the mass infanticide of children, and modern-day lebensraum-style ethnic cleansing. All under the banner of Blinken’s ‘rules-based order’

A Middle East and global south revolted, disgusted, and furious at the genocide in Gaza, which has shown the world the consequences for daring to resist the oppression of the US and its allies

The rise and strengthening of BRICS, as developing global south countries flock to BRICS+ to escape Washington’s dictatorship under the current global financial system

The coming together of the US’🇺🇸 official enemies; Russia🇷🇺, China🇨🇳, Iran🇮🇷, and North Korea🇰🇵 deepen their ties as the threat from Washington and its vassal states in Europe grows

4 years of genocidal, warmongering tyranny.}

5 things that sunk the Democratic boat:

🔹COVID tyranny

🔹Inflation

🔹Wars in Ukraine and Gaza

🔹Illegal immigration

🔹Kamala Harris, an empty shell ⬇️

RESPECT TO JILL STEIN could have had a comfortable career as a Harvard-trained doctor. Instead she's devoted her life to facing down the powerful, corrupt forces of the system, at immense personal risk.

History will be kind to her. ⬇️

America rejected:

Beyonce

Lady Gaga

Katy Perry

Megan Thee Stallion

John Legend

Oprah Winfrey

Barack Obama

Michelle Obama

Bill Clinton

Hillary Clinton

Usher

Taylor Swift

George Clooney

Ariana Grande

Jamie Lee Curtis

Bono

Mick Jagger

Bruce Springsteen

Robert De Niro

....

The era of the celebrity endorsement is DEAD.

[harleyxhoward]

Analyzing The Abilities of Characters From The Boys Pt. IV

🫀A-Train🫀

From the fastest man alive to one of America’s most wanted, A-Train/Reggie has known nothing but stress and urgency his entire life. Despite his relatively laid back demeanor he leads with most of the time, under the surface of his douchey jock persona is a vulnerable and terrified individual. Him being a speedster seems to be the result of the Compound V (acting as a form of instant evolution for most patients) giving him the ability to escape gunfire by outrunning the bullets when he was younger. This story foreshadows his future, with the issues he’s constantly outrunning increasing in severity until the shift from internal struggles of addiction and balancing his public persona with his personal love of Popclaw, to external survival issues like Homelander and the rest of Vought.

His redemption arc plays itself out to juxtapose The Deep. While both characters harmed Hughie/Annie deeply in the first episode alone, A-Train goes on to feel remorse and even tries to make up for it. He risks his life by being the leak in order to make amends for everything he’s done. The fact that he saw Ashley as someone worth saving meant something remarkably significant to me about how their characters both feel trapped at Vought despite the tremendous power they both wield. Ashley’s quite literally the CEO of one of the most influential corporations on the planet, and yet she behaves like a cockroach, even at times being reduced to crawling on the floor to appease Homelander when attempting to leave the room. A-Train is the fastest man alive, and yet he feels powerless to put an end to Vought’s tyranny up until the end of S4. When he finally strikes The Deep and makes it evident that they are two opposite sides of what once was the same coin, he revealed to the audience that regardless of having Blue Hawk’s heart beating in his chest, his heart’s still in the right place. Ultimately, it’s this desperation to right his wrongs and “escape” his still potentially deadly fate that make me view his speed as being a fitting ability for his character to inherit.

[gusty-wind]

PUTIN: THE ONLY ADULT ON THE WORLD STAGE (for now)

Russian President Vladimir Putin gave his Victory Day Speech on May 9, 2024 and it echoed the ghost of America's past.

"...we in Russia, we pay homage to the fallen soldiers. We pay homage to the veterans of America, of the United Kingdom. We pay homage to the heroes, the war heroes, from China. We pay homage to the past."

Reflecting on the greatness of all nations who fought and died for their countries, ancestors who fought for a common victory, Putin called out the sickness that plagues the West.

"Our only friendships that we can have between the east and west around this world, what we want for the future is a future of peace, a future of stability, not a future of blood. But the elite in the west, they keep talking of their exceptionalism, of how they are different, and they are the ones creating a sense of disruption between our people. They are the ones destroying family values, traditional values that make everyone on this planet human. They are forcing their will on other nations, forcing their rules on others. But it would appear that they have forgotten what Nazism was all about."

How is it that Americans can not see that our U.S. Government is infected with the fascists of WW2 in the form of public private partnerships of evil? Was the COVID plandemic that killed millions worldwide, with a DOD manufactured virus and bioweapon, not enough evidence that fascism kills?

When government and corporations conspire for profit and execute a genocide on their people we have fascist tyranny.

Contrast Putin's words and actions to that of the Biden Regime.

A regime that lied to us about the safety and efficacy of the bioweapon, has flooded America with tens of millions of illegal invaders, and continues to weaponize the justice system against a political opponent and patriotic Americans. Constitutionally protected rights be damned.

Putin shows respect and calls for unity.

"I pay homage to you, to all you, who defend Russia on the battlefield. All of you who are serving your nation as part of the great patriotic war. Because thanks to you, we can prove that there is nothing stronger than national unity. And for Russia, for our brave armed forces, victory for all."

America is lawless and adrift at sea. We are rudderless and in need of unity and strong leadership. The People must come together to face the challenges of governing ourselves and examine our priorities as a nation.

WE CAN UNITE. WE CAN DEFEAT GLOBALISM.

We will re-emerge as the re:PUBLIC we once were.

Stay tuned, get ready and be optimistic.

WE WILL WIN THIS WAR FOR THE SOUL OF OUR COUNTRY.

[mariannesgirl]

“I want to take a moment to express my gratitude and respect to President Biden. He reached what had to have been an extremely difficult decision, but he did what is best for his party and his country. Clearly in his heart he shares the goal of the many millions of Americans who wish to see Democrats defeat Donald Trump in November.

The nomination of a new Democratic candidate must be opened to a genuinely democratic process at an open convention. No one should simply be anointed to the position of nominee; all candidates must be heard and their agendas explored. Our party’s basic first principle is democracy. We cannot save our democracy without practicing it ourselves.

I look forward to taking my message to the American people, and convincing Democratic delegates, that I am the best candidate to take us to victory in November.  Donald Trump has broken the mold, and we must break it too. He has introduced an age of political theatre that cannot be successfully countered by a status quo politician, however good they might be, for we are living in a different kind of moment.

We will inspire the American people with a compelling vision of their improved material conditions should they elect Democrats in November. My proposed policy prescriptions dismantle the matrix of corporate tyranny that now limits the economic opportunities of a majority of Americans.The Democratic party must recommit to our most important first principle: an unequivocal advocacy for the working people of the United Sates.

We will not bend to the economic royalists who have ripped apart America’s social safety net and caused such suffering to so many people.

That is my message, and with it we will win.”

— Marianne Williamson, July 21st, 2024

[dailyanarchistposts]

J.5.15 What attitude do anarchists take to the welfare state?

The period of neo-liberalism since the 1980s has seen a rollback of the state within society by the right-wing in the name of “freedom,” “individual responsibility” and “efficiency.” The position of anarchists to this process is mixed. On the one hand, we are all in favour of reducing the size of the state and increasing individual responsibility and freedom but, on the other, we are well aware that this rollback is part of an attack on the working class and tends to increase the power of the capitalists over us as the state’s (direct) influence is reduced. Thus anarchists appear to be on the horns of a dilemma — or, at least, apparently.

So what attitude do anarchists take to the welfare state and attacks on it?

First we must note that this attack on “welfare” is somewhat selective. While using the rhetoric of “self-reliance” and “individualism,” the practitioners of these “tough love” programmes have made sure that the major corporations continue to get state hand-outs and aid while attacking social welfare. In other words, the current attack on the welfare state is an attempt to impose market discipline on the working class while increasing state protection for the ruling class. Therefore, most anarchists have no problem defending social welfare programmes as these can be considered as only fair considering the aid the capitalist class has always received from the state (both direct subsidies and protection and indirect support via laws that protect property and so on). And, for all their talk of increasing individual choice, the right-wing remain silent about the lack of choice and individual freedom during working hours within capitalism.

Secondly, most of the right-wing inspired attacks on the welfare state are inaccurate. For example, Noam Chomsky notes that the “correlation between welfare payments and family life is real, though it is the reverse of what is claimed [by the right]. As support for the poor has declined, unwed birth-rates, which had risen steadily from the 1940s through the mid-1970s, markedly increased. ‘Over the last three decades, the rate of poverty among children almost perfectly correlates with the birth-rates among teenage mothers a decade later,’ Mike Males points out: ‘That is, child poverty seems to lead to teenage childbearing, not the other way around.’” [“Rollback III”, Z Magazine, April, 1995] The same charge of inaccurate scare-mongering can be laid at the claims about the evil effects of welfare which the rich and large corporations wish to save others (but not themselves) from. Such altruism is truly heart warming. For those in the United States or familiar with it, the same can be said of the hysterical attacks on “socialised medicine” and health-care reform funded by insurance companies and parroted by right-wing ideologues and politicians.

Thirdly, anarchists are just as opposed to capitalism as they are the state. This means that privatising state functions is no more libertarian than nationalising them. In fact, less so as such a process reduces the limited public say state control implies in favour of more private tyranny and wage-labour. As such, attempts to erode the welfare state without other, pro-working class, social reforms violates the anti-capitalist part of anarchism. Similarly, the introduction of a state supported welfare system rather than a for-profit capitalist run system (as in America) would hardly be considered any more a violation of libertarian principles as the reverse happening. In terms of reducing human suffering, though, most anarchists would oppose the latter and be in favour of the former while aiming to create a third (self-managed) alternative.

Fourthly, we must note that while most anarchists are in favour of collective self-help and welfare, we are opposed to the state. Part of the alternatives anarchists try and create are self-managed and community welfare projects (see next section). Moreover, in the past, anarchists and syndicalists were at the forefront in opposing state welfare schemes. This was because they were introduced not by socialists but by liberals and other supporters of capitalism to undercut support for radical alternatives and to aid long term economic development by creating the educated and healthy population required to use advanced technology and fight wars. Thus we find that:

“Liberal social welfare legislation … were seen by many [British syndicalists] not as genuine welfare reforms, but as mechanisms of social control. Syndicalists took a leading part in resisting such legislation on the grounds that it would increase capitalist discipline over labour, thereby undermining working class independence and self-reliance.” [Bob Holton, British Syndicalism: 1900–1914, p. 137]

Anarchists view the welfare state much as some feminists do. While they note, to quote Carole Pateman, the “patriarchal structure of the welfare state” they are also aware that it has “also brought challenges to patriarchal power and helped provide a basis for women’s autonomous citizenship.” She goes on to note that “for women to look at the welfare state is merely to exchange dependence on individual men for dependence on the state. The power and capriciousness of husbands is replaced by the arbitrariness, bureaucracy and power of the state, the very state that has upheld patriarchal power.” This “will not in itself do anything to challenge patriarchal power relations.” [The Disorder of Women, p. 195 and p. 200]

Thus while the welfare state does give working people more options than having to take any job or put up with any conditions, this relative independence from the market and individual capitalists has came at the price of dependence on the state — the very institution that protects and supports capitalism in the first place. And has we have became painfully aware in recent years, it is the ruling class who has most influence in the state — and so, when it comes to deciding what state budgets to cut, social welfare ones are first in line. Given that such programmes are controlled by the state, not working class people, such an outcome is hardly surprising. Not only this, we also find that state control reproduces the same hierarchical structures that the capitalist firm creates.

Unsurprisingly, anarchists have no great love of such state welfare schemes and desire their replacement by self-managed alternatives. For example, taking municipal housing, Colin Ward writes:

“The municipal tenant is trapped in a syndrome of dependence and resentment, which is an accurate reflection of his housing situation. People care about what is theirs, what they can modify, alter, adapt to changing needs and improve themselves. They must have a direct responsibility for it … The tenant take-over of the municipal estate is one of those obviously sensible ideas which is dormant because our approach to municipal affairs is still stuck in the groves of nineteenth-century paternalism.” [Anarchy in Action, p. 73]

Looking at state supported education, Ward argues that the “universal education system turns out to be yet another way in which the poor subsidise the rich.” Which is the least of its problems, for “it is in the nature of public authorities to run coercive and hierarchical institutions whose ultimate function is to perpetuate social inequality and to brainwash the young into the acceptance of their particular slot in the organised system.” [Op. Cit., p. 83 and p. 81] The role of state education as a means of systematically indoctrinating the working class is reflected in William Lazonick words:

“The Education Act of 1870 … [gave the] state … the facilities … to make education compulsory for all children from the age of five to the age of ten. It had also erected a powerful system of ideological control over the next generation of workers … [It] was to function as a prime ideological mechanism in the attempt by the capitalist class through the medium of the state, to continually reproduce a labour force which would passively accept [the] subjection [of labour to the domination of capital]. At the same time it had set up a public institution which could potentially be used by the working class for just the contrary purpose.” [“The Subjection of Labour to Capital: The rise of the Capitalist System”, Radical Political Economy Vol. 2, p. 363]

Lazonick, as did Pateman, indicates the contradictory nature of welfare provisions within capitalism. On the one hand, they are introduced to help control the working class (and to improve long term economic development). On the other hand, these provisions can be used by working class people as weapons against capitalism and give themselves more options than “work or starve” (the fact that the attacks on welfare in the UK during the 1990s — called, ironically enough, welfare to work — involves losing benefits if you refuse a job is not a surprising development). Thus we find that welfare acts as a kind of floor under wages. In the US, the two have followed a common trajectory (rising together and falling together). And it is this, the potential benefits welfare can have for working people, that is the real cause for the current capitalist attacks upon it. As Noam Chomsky summarises:

“State authority is now under severe attack in the more democratic societies, but not because it conflicts with the libertarian vision. Rather the opposite: because it offers (weak) protection to some aspects of that vision. Governments have a fatal flaw: unlike the private tyrannies, the institutions of state power and authority offer to the public an opportunity to play some role, however limited, in managing their own affairs.” [Chomsky on Anarchism, p. 193]

Because of this contradictory nature of welfare, we find anarchists like Noam Chomsky arguing that (using an expression popularised by South American rural workers unions) “we should ‘expand the floor of the cage.’ We know we’re in a cage. We know we’re trapped. We’re going to expand the floor, meaning we will extend to the limits what the cage will allow. And we intend to destroy the cage. But not by attacking the cage when we’re vulnerable, so they’ll murder us … You have to protect the cage when it’s under attack from even worse predators from outside, like private power. And you have to expand the floor of the cage, recognising that it’s a cage. These are all preliminaries to dismantling it. Unless people are willing to tolerate that level of complexity, they’re going to be of no use to people who are suffering and who need help, or, for that matter, to themselves.” [Expanding the Floor of the Cage]

Thus, even though we know the welfare state is a cage and part of an instrument of class power, we have to defend it from a worse possibility — namely, the state as “pure” defender of capitalism with working people with few or no rights. At least the welfare state does have a contradictory nature, the tensions of which can be used to increase our options. And one of these options is its abolition from below!

For example, with regards to municipal housing, anarchists will be the first to agree that it is paternalistic, bureaucratic and hardly a wonderful living experience. However, in stark contrast with the right who desire to privatise such estates, anarchists think that “tenants control” is the best solution as it gives us the benefits of individual ownership along with community (and so without the negative points of property, such as social atomisation). The demand for “tenant control” must come from below, by the “collective resistance” of the tenants themselves, perhaps as a result of struggles against “continuous rent increases” leading to “the demand … for a change in the status of the tenant.” Such a “tenant take-over of the municipal estate is one of those sensible ideas which is dormant because our approach to municipal affairs is still stuck in the grooves of nineteenth century paternalism.” [Ward, Op. Cit., p. 73]

And it is here that we find the ultimate irony of the right-wing, “free market” attempts to abolish the welfare state — neo-liberalism wants to end welfare from above, by means of the state (which is the instigator of this individualistic “reform”). It does not seek the end of dependency by self-liberation, but the shifting of dependency from state to charity and the market. In contrast, anarchists desire to abolish welfare from below. This the libertarian attitude to those government policies which actually do help people. While anarchists would “hesitate to condemn those measures taken by governments which obviously benefited the people, unless we saw the immediate possibility of people carrying them out for themselves. This would not inhibit us from declaring at the same time that what initiatives governments take would be more successfully taken by the people themselves if they put their minds to the same problems … to build up a hospital service or a transport system, for instance, from local needs into a national organisation, by agreement and consent at all levels is surely more economical as well as efficient than one which is conceived at top level [by the state] … where Treasury, political and other pressures, not necessarily connected with what we would describe as needs, influence the shaping of policies.” So “as long as we have capitalism and government the job of anarchists is to fight both, and at the same time encourage people to take what steps they can to run their own lives.” [“Anarchists and Voting”, pp. 176–87, The Raven, No. 14, p. 179]

Ultimately, unlike the state socialist/liberal left, anarchists reject the idea that the cause of socialism, of a free society, can be helped by using the state. Like the right, the left see political action in terms of the state. All its favourite policies have been statist — state intervention in the economy, nationalisation, state welfare, state education and so on. Whatever the problem, the left see the solution as lying in the extension of the power of the state. They continually push people in relying on others to solve their problems for them. Moreover, such state-based “aid” does not get to the core of the problem. All it does is fight the symptoms of capitalism and statism without attacking their root causes — the system itself.

Invariably, this support for the state is a move away from working class people, from trusting and empowering them to sort out their own problems. Indeed, the left seem to forget that the state exists to defend the collective interests of the ruling class and so could hardly be considered a neutral body. And, worst of all, they have presented the right with the opportunity of stating that freedom from the state means the same thing as the freedom of the market (so ignoring the awkward fact that capitalism is based upon domination — wage labour — and needs many repressive measures in order to exist and survive). Anarchists are of the opinion that changing the boss for the state (or vice versa) is only a step sideways, not forward! After all, it is not working people who control how the welfare state is run, it is politicians, “experts”, bureaucrats and managers who do so (“Welfare is administered by a top-heavy governmental machine which ensures that when economies in public expenditure are imposed by its political masters, they are made in reducing the service to the public, not by reducing the cost of administration.” [Ward, Op. Cit. p. 10]). Little wonder we have seen elements of the welfare state used as a weapon in the class war against those in struggle (for example, in Britain during the miners strike in 1980s the Conservative Government made it illegal to claim benefits while on strike, so reducing the funds available to workers in struggle and helping bosses force strikers back to work faster).

Anarchists consider it far better to encourage those who suffer injustice to organise themselves and in that way they can change what they think is actually wrong, as opposed to what politicians and “experts” claim is wrong. If sometimes part of this struggle involves protecting aspects of the welfare state (“expanding the floor of the cage”) so be it — but we will never stop there and will use such struggles as a stepping stone in abolishing the welfare state from below by creating self-managed, working class, alternatives. As part of this process anarchists also seek to transform those aspects of the welfare state they may be trying to “protect”. They do not defend an institution which is paternalistic, bureaucratic and unresponsive. For example, if we are involved in trying to stop a local state-run hospital or school from closing, anarchists would try to raise the issue of self-management and local community control into the struggle in the hope of going beyond the status quo.

In this, we follow the suggestion made by Proudhon that rather than “fatten certain contractors,” libertarians should be aiming to create “a new kind of property” by “granting the privilege of running” public utilities, industries and services, “under fixed conditions, to responsible companies, not of capitalists, but of workmen.” Municipalities would take the initiative in setting up public works but actual control would rest with workers’ co-operatives for “it becomes necessary for the workers to form themselves into democratic societies, with equal conditions for all members, on pain of a relapse into feudalism.” [General Idea of the Revolution, p. 151 and p. 276–7] Thus, for example, rather than nationalise or privatise railways, they should be handed over workers’ co-operatives to run. The same with welfare services and such like: “the abolition of the State is the last term of a series, which consists of an incessant diminution, by political and administrative simplification the number of public functionaries and to put into the care of responsible workers societies the works and services confided to the state.” [Proudhon, Carnets, vol. 3, p. 293]

Not only does this mean that we can get accustomed to managing our own affairs collectively, it also means that we can ensure that whatever “safety-nets” we have do what we want and not what capital wants. In the end, what we create and run by ourselves will be more responsive to our needs, and the needs of the class struggle, than reformist aspects of the capitalist state. This much, we think, is obvious. And it is ironic to see elements of the “radical” and “revolutionary” left argue against this working class self-help (and so ignore the long tradition of such activity in working class movements) and instead select for the agent of their protection a state run by and for capitalists!

There are two traditions of welfare within society, one of “fraternal and autonomous associations springing from below, the other that of authoritarian institutions directed from above.” [Ward, Op. Cit., p. 123] While sometimes anarchists are forced to defend the latter against the greater evil of “free market” capitalism, we never forget the importance of creating and strengthening the former. As Chomsky suggests, libertarians have to “defend some state institutions from the attack against them [by private power], while trying at the same time to pry them open to meaningful public participation — and ultimately, to dismantle them in a much more free society, if the appropriate circumstances can be achieved.” [Chomsky on Anarchism, p. 194] A point we will discuss more in the next section when we highlight the historical examples of self-managed communal welfare and self-help organisations.

[manwalksintobar]

The United Fruit Company // Pablo Neruda

When the trumpet sounded everything was prepared on earth, and Jehovah gave the world to Coca-Cola Inc., Anaconda, Ford Motors, and other corporations. The United Fruit Company reserved for itself the most juicy piece, the central coast of my world, the delicate waist of America. It rebaptized these countries Banana Republics, and over the sleeping dead, over the unquiet heroes who won greatness, liberty, and banners, it established an opera buffa: it abolished free will, gave out imperial crowns, encouraged envy, attracted the dictatorship of flies: Trujillo flies, Tachos flies Carias flies, Martinez flies, Ubico flies, flies sticky with submissive blood and marmalade, drunken flies that buzz over the tombs of the people, circus flies, wise flies expert at tyranny. With the bloodthirsty flies came the Fruit Company, amassed coffee and fruit in ships which put to sea like overloaded trays with the treasures from our sunken lands. Meanwhile the Indians fall into the sugared depths of the harbors and are buried in the morning mists; a corpse rolls, a thing without name, a discarded number, a bunch of rotten fruit thrown on the garbage heap.

[tastethebloodofmeatthawsmoth]

Occasionally I'm reminded that Jacobin magazine exists. "When we talk about the American Revolution today, it’s difficult to look past the world that came out of it: a country with stubbornly persistent racism, widespread gun violence, rampant economic inequality, and deep political dysfunction. For those of us on the political left, it’s not easy to separate the insurrectionary project of Anglo-American colonists in the late eighteenth century from the injustices that plagued American society after the revolution, and those that have plagued it since."

... almost as if those things were directly related! (Also LOL at "insurrectionary project.") "Fifty-five of America’s most prominent men — the 'Founding Fathers' — convened a secret meeting in Philadelphia to illegally overthrow the existing constitutional order. Holton concludes that the Founders’ ultimate objective at the Constitutional Convention was to replace the relatively democratic political order created by the state constitutions with a federal government that was less susceptible to popular pressure, and more conscientious of its obligations to private creditors." This is a somewhat popular pseudo-conspiracy theory, but not actually true. The meeting may have been secret, but until ratification, it was only a proposal. It was ratified after extensive public debate and "was adopted by... a remarkably open and representative procedure." (Herbert J. Storing, What the Anti-Federalists Were For) "So the American Revolution was about a whole lot more than political independence from the British Empire — it was about building a fundamentally independent people. The popular base behind the revolution sought to create a nation of freeholding farmers who owned their own land, were self-sufficient, and were free from the arbitrary authority of others." This another popular fairy-tale, but the romantic ideal that the early settlers were virtuous stout yeomen committed to self-sufficiency is not actually true. "never a purely subsistence society, the New England colonies were thus from early in their histories & increasingly during the 17th century heavily involved in trade." - Jack P Greene, Pursuits of Happiness. More and more of the "popular base behind the revolution" was producing wheat, cattle, and horses for sale in coastal cities and the West Indies - to sustain plantation slavery - by the 1700s. And then we turn from the 3rd grade social studies report on the American Revolution to Jacobin's idea of democratic socialism, which looks suspiciously like capitalism, except we get to elect the people bossing us around: "Through changes like introducing profit-sharing, allowing workers to elect managers, and democratizing decisions around investment and production, we can transform the modern workplace from a focal point of collective misery to a site of equality and democracy. A mixed economy of worker co-ops and publicly owned enterprises would dramatically expand the number of Americans who own wealth — albeit collectively — while also breaking the arbitrary, unaccountable corporate authority that rules life at the workplace."

The bar is so low lol

[scottguy]

Any nonvoters who still think the "rules" we have in the United States will magically prevent tyranny by a Nazi-like party don't understand.

The Supreme Court proved it with their recent ruling. Trump proved it by openly violating the emoluments clause and openly calling for a violent overthrow of a democratic election.

The right has NO INTENTION of FOLLOWING the "RULES."

And there isn't a damn thing we can do about it right now until Republicans are ENTIRELY OUT of POWER.

The above is what they mean when they say: "Your institutions will not save you."

So VOTE! VOTE BLUE to save democracy.

The latest Supreme Court ruling is terrifying because it proves the right-wing is absolutely EAGER to watch democracy crumble so they can permanently entrench the rule of white, male, patriarchal, religious zealot, corporate brown-nosing, 'screw the citizens and their environment'actions.

This is not a game. Your very future depends on it. Trump will destroy the quality of life in America when every country cuts off trade relations over immigrants, lgbtq, and liberals being arrested and sent to jails.

If you aren't arrested, you'll be unemployed because the economy will crash when there's no one left to pick produce or help produce protein like pork, chicken, and beef. (Always immigrants)

Your healthcare will be canceled just because Trump hates Obamacare and because insurance companies want to keep ALL your money... if they will even bother to sell you insurance.

Your Social Security retirement age won't be until 70. (But you'll be fired for being too old!) Your Medicare will be privatized to companies who will deny procedures and medications constantly for more and more profit.

Life will be a living hell.

Don't you think stopping the above is worth the trouble of voting blue?

[truthdogg]

I think this meme overlooks the fact that the US has always been something of a corporate oligarchy, if not in those exact words.

Those wealthy landowners & merchants who set up our government included a sort of power-sharing arrangement between members of their class that was modeled on the one they overthrew, one that was designed to keep their wealth in charge. They even talked about the “tyranny of the majority,” and how they feared the rabble (yes that’s us) usurping control.

The history of the United States of America is a constant push back and forth for control between wealth and that rabble the founders so feared. No matter how you look at it, the rabble has gained power since that famous beginning, and it’s counterproductive to believe that this country was ever some sort of egalitarian paradise.

The main point of arguing that it ever was is to ensure that the majority loses that limited voice that it has gained over the past 250 years. Today’s corporate control should be expected based on our past. It has taken the hard work of thousands to build any sort of equality and it will take the hard work of thousands more to build it further.

The oligarchy is advanced, yes, but that isn’t new. Fighting against it, even from the inside, is an American tradition and it must keep going.

[organicbeing]

Rigged Debate: How the Media and Elites are Steering the Election—and Selling Out America

The debate last night was a glaring example of biased moderation. Throughout the event, it was clear that Kamala Harris was given a pass on fact-checking, while Donald Trump was heavily scrutinized. Harris often redirected her responses to make everything about Trump, avoiding direct answers to critical questions. This lack of transparency was frustrating to watch, as she failed to provide clear…

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Chris Hanson

Published: Feb 6, 2024

The foundation of the American spirit lies in the sovereignty of the individual and the freedom to pursue happiness. The distinction between the right to pursue happiness and the right to happiness itself underscores the crucial difference between equality and equity, respectively. The right to pursue happiness requires equality of opportunity, a fundamental pillar undergirding this country’s foundation that the DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) movement kicks out from under us. In America, no one is entitled to happiness or any other specific outcome in life. We are a nation of free and sovereign individuals who stand independently, on our own two feet.

The emphasis on the individual and fundamental human rights has positioned the United States as a leading nation, one that has combated the horrors of Marxism and tyranny. It’s maddening to witness the elites in this country rebrand Marxism, weaponize it with shame and guilt, and rapidly alter our nation’s very foundation.

DEI is more accurately described as Division, Equity and Insanity. The terms “diversity” and “inclusion” are so inherently positive that few feel the need to delve deeper into the meaning of “equity.” Moreover, the social and political landmines associated with questioning these concepts leads most to comply without protest.

In today’s culture, voicing conservative ideas is perilous. Marxist militants scour social media, deriving a false sense of virtue from destroying lives over past, allegedly racist remarks. These individuals make no effort to find the truth. They resemble self-obsessed toddlers, seeking attention with minimal effort, blind to the harm their actions cause.

The woke elite appear to be deliberately dismantling the finest aspects of this country, favoring policies that are anti-human at their core. The American spirit is the fuel that built this country. Religious and personal freedoms, as well as the traditional family, have long been under siege. While truth and love, also essential to America’s foundation, are harder to assail, we as humans have the capacity to embrace these ideals and let them guide us towards an honest and productive life. However, DEI, with its lies and divisiveness, is now aggressively eroding these values.

The true meaning of “equity” is the equality of outcome, something far worse than even division and insanity. It is a Marxist ideology that inherently eliminates personal responsibility and the incentive to work hard, fostering entitlement and dependency. Instead of a world where “you get out what you put in,” equity gives you what the ruling class decides your race, sex, and sexuality deserve. In this light, hard work, determination, and talent combined mean less than one’s identity. 

DEI and similar anti-truth movements are destroying the American spirit rooted in individuals’ right to shape their own destinies. The elite ruling class picks the winners and losers based on identity, undermining the right to pursue happiness. They are creating a system that is bound to deteriorate as it denies that the path to improvement lies in allowing talent, work ethic, and character to shape one’s future. This is the essence of the American spirit–the freedom of opportunity. Our sacrifice of truth, beginning with the era of political correctness, has led us to a point where we often question the existence of truth itself.

The elites use guilt and shame to manipulate the masses into accepting overtly racist, false, and anti-human ideologies, branding dissenters as racist. The government imposes more and more rules as it balloons towards tyranny. Corporations, complicit in this war against truth, are gaining immense power. People are becoming increasingly dependent on various comforts and amenities, often voluntarily contributing to this progression towards tyranny. We seek comfort, and so, when faced with uncomfortable truths, we deceive ourselves.

Our societal addiction to comfort has led us to inadvertently promote DEI. In the current climate, where moral virtue is often signaled through vicious public condemnation and attacks on one’s reputation, most white people—and others inherently viewed as “oppressors” in various contexts—avoid discussing DEI topics altogether.

This dichotomy of “oppressor” vs. “oppressed” is precisely what the American Spirit abhors. Sometimes, oppression is very real and backed by the force of a nation, as seen in Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, and Mao’s China. At other times, it occurs on a personal level–such as spouse over spouse, or a parent dominating their family. Our constitution demands freedom from oppression. Oppression is not only wrong but also evil. It’s a form of theft, where an individual or a group deprives others of their most basic human rights–freedom, personal responsibility, and the right to strive for success and control one’s destiny.

Proponents of the DEI movement, by their actions, become true oppressors. They discriminate based on race, resulting in white and Asian men having fewer opportunities compared to women and people of other races. In doing so, they prevent white and Asian men from attaining positions their talents and hard work merit. At its core and in its execution, DEI seeks to oppress white and Asian males. This has become normalized to the point where any objection is met with severe backlash, routinely labeling the objector as racist.

Logic and reason tell us, without any doubt, that DEI is a racist ideology that actively seeks to oppress individuals who have done nothing to deserve such treatment. We know exactly where that path leads. The thought of what the world will become in 50, 20, or even just 4 years if this ideology is allowed to continue spreading unchecked is terrifying. Adherence to the truth is the only way out of this mess. However, this is challenging because the truth is often difficult to accept. People often prefer their own version of truth to justify their actions at any given time. However, we can’t expect to create a better world if we keep finding ways to avoid making necessary sacrifices.

[azspot]

His central contention is that American politics since the mid-twentieth century has concentrated so much economic power in the hands of large corporations and financiers that it cannot be construed as anything but coercive and inimical to America’s cherished traditions of liberty. In line with classical political theory, traditional American republicanism, and legal realism, Ahmari argues that whether an action or system is coercive cannot be evaluated merely on formal elements (was there a contract signed?) but on the substance of the transaction. A contract signed at gunpoint is clearly the result of coercion. A nondisclosure agreement used to muzzle a victim of sexual assault is not perhaps quite as coercive, but it is hardly the exchange between free and equal actors envisioned by our legal system. Many of us might prefer the contract signed at gunpoint as at least a more honest reflection of the underlying circumstances.

Corporate Tyranny

[scottguy]

According to Trump a president could murder fellow Americans.

Real possible scenario if this had been true...

Trump, under his preposterous theory, could have had a SEAL team assassinate John MCain as the final vote stopping him from ending Obamacare.

Then, because a Republican Senate would have refused to convict Trump after impeachment because they just don't give a damn about justice.

Trump would still be in power and could never could be sent to jail for cold-blooded, politically calculated MURDER.

Americans would have lost healthcare because the president could have LITERALLY gotten away with murder just to enrich health insurance corporations at the expense of the American people.

Murder, JUST to overcome the vote of ONE man who had sufficient conscience to care for the health of Americans in both parties.

In Trump's America, if you have a conscience, you're a legitimate target for murder.

If that's okay then...

Next, as Democrats we'll order ALL Republicans murdered because they're fascist pieces of sh*t who are detached from reality and want to be Nazis. No more voting. All the Republicans would be dead! Democrats win forever! There's a lot of months until November!

Hey, it's the president acting *officially*! So that would make it okay! (According to Trump & his lawless lawyers.)

This is the America you want?

THAT is the world Trump and his have us live in if we lived by his sociopathic and utterly amoral state of mind.

Imagine, right-wingers, any power you wish YOUR party could have will ALSO be legitimate for the OTHER party. 😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱

Sociopathic right-wingers want NO LAWS for themselves but plenty of laws for EVERYONE else. 🙄

That's not justice, it's tyranny.

[veale2006-blog]

BQQQM!!! President Trump’s 2nd Declaration of Independence!!!

The American people, with the utmost respect for the founders of America and the framers of the original Declaration of Independence, humbly emulate their measured response to rising tyranny and despotism. They believe it is their moral obligation, especially those with knowledge and opportunity, to work on behalf of the people, choosing unity over division, nationalism over globalism, and sovereignty over submission. They hold that all human beings have equal value, that America was founded under God, and that their God-given rights cannot be abridged without due process.

The Second Declaration of Independence, however, distinguishes itself from the original in seeking independence from a different object. Despite warnings and safeguards, a cabal of foreign investors and private interests has gained possession of America's wealth, labor, and future, even reaching into the lives of children. Regardless of interpretations of events like the adoption of a “corporate” constitution or amendments impacting the people, the fact remains that foreign groups lay claim to America's assets. Rather than dwell on motives or speculate based on theories, the people seek a comprehensive solution: independence from all claimants, regardless of their origin or hidden agendas.

Enumerating the transgressions clarifies how these events shaped America’s current challenges:

The Civil War devastated America’s economy, divided families, and left the nation in financial need. Foreign investors offered aid but demanded governmental control to secure their investments.

By 1871, Congress, overwhelmed by debt, formed a partnership granting these investors administrative authority, effectively surrendering America's independence.

With growing control, foreign interests began to prioritize their agendas over the people's welfare, embedding themselves in Washington, D.C., and steering governance.

By the early 1900s, these investors controlled the press, allowing them to manipulate public perception to protect their actions.

They also promoted the misleading idea that America was a democracy, fostering unrest and undermining the founders' vision of a Constitutional Republic designed to protect minority rights and prevent factional rule.

In 1913, they founded the Anti-Defamation League to discredit anyone exposing their influence.

That same year, the 16th Amendment empowered them to tax Americans directly, despite this power being prohibited by the original Constitution, raising questions about the legitimacy of its ratification.

The 17th Amendment allowed Senators to be elected by popular vote, compromising a key safeguard of the Republic, as previously they were appointed by state legislatures to balance the House's public influence.

Also in 1913, they established the Federal Reserve, a foreign-controlled central banking system, despite warnings from presidents such as Jefferson and Jackson.

Finally, in 1920, Congress, through the Independent Treasury Act, transferred the U.S. Treasury’s assets, including gold and silver, to the Federal Reserve, thus surrendering national financial sovereignty.

These events, once obscured, now come to light, guiding America toward a renewed commitment to independence from foreign influence and reclaiming the vision set forth by its founders.