Posts Tagged ‘disorder’

A left wing newspaper covers the Right

August 27, 2018

For those who don’t know, the Right wing government has had a change of Prime Minister. It was agitated for by the extreme right, and he kept yielding to them, until they rewarded him by challenging him for leadership. They succeeded in the overthrow, but not in putting one of their absolute own in place. We still have a neoliberal leader.

Where I live We are always being told by the Right, that the local non-Murdoch newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald is a left wing newspaper. I thought I’d test this hypothesis by looking at relevant article headlines for the first three days after the Morrison coup. See what you think.

For any confused Americans, ‘Liberal’ in the rest of the world means something like “in favour of capitalism” it does not mean “progressive”.

The lines reaching the margin are the headlines, the indent a vague summary of the article. Remarks in {}s are mine.

Saturday
Morrison snatches top job.

  • [New PM vows to unite party, nation]
  • Podium finish for Morrison after day of Drama.

  • [PM embarks on Campain to heal divisions]
  • PM vows action on Power prices.

  • [no mention of climate change or emissions. No criticism of his focus]
  • Headaches ahead on the policy front.

  • [he will push control of the policy priorities back to the centre right]
  • He promised so much but sadly delivered little.

  • [Peter Fitzsimmons laments Malcolm Turnbull’s failings]
  • Real Malcolm did stand up, too late.

  • [Another peice on Turnbull’s failings. Both legitimate the challenge]
  • The Rise and rise of a ruthless pragmatist always in a hurry.

  • [Morrison’s career as a moderate pragmatist… His connections with Peter Costello a Liberal stalwart and John Howard. Loyal to Turnbull. Likes football. A bastion of middle Australia. Competent Treasurer. Hailed by business. General moderate good guy.]
  • Down to earth, a good man, a winner, a clown.

  • [8 positive comments on Morrison from voters in his electorate one negative and one indifferent for balance.]
  • No Honeymoon for PM.

  • [Shock jocks still want Abbott/Dutton as PM]
  • The inside story of Scott Morrison’s ascendancy.

  • [Morrison had more application than Dutton. The mess is all the fault of those more conservative than Morrison. He was loyal to the end]
  • The breaking of politics in Australia.

  • [Left wing identity politics, and right wing insurgency is the problem. Steady democracy is on the way out – so the coalitions’ behaviour in the last week is the new normal]
  • Editorial: Liberals choose the sensible centre-right.

  • [No comment needed]
  • Letters: Turnbull can only blame himself. Narrow victory for the progressives
    Stephanie Dowrick: Rise up and resist the leaders with no vision.

  • [mildly critical, but the ALP are as bad.]
  • Tom Switzer: Popular ideas can help Morrison unite a split party.

  • [Malcolm Turnbull was never one of us. Morrison must fight the culture wars, political correctness and left identity politics. {presumably the government’s actual policies are not popular or desired by most people.}]
  • Peter Hartcher: Vengeance but no end to madness.

  • [Over a quarter of the peice gives Abbott’s attack on Turnbull without comment. The implication is that the Liberals have gone away from their conservative base and lost trust.]
  • Sunday
    Morrison to end school Funding War.

  • [{We will eventually find out that this means giving still more money to over-wealthy high fee private schools}]
  • Dutton backers tell PM to show he’s listening on immigration.
    Normal bloke next door is what Australia needs.

  • [The new Prime Minster is one of us]
  • Treasurer turns to Costello for tips.
    Everyone loves the real friendly new first lady.
    No clash of dynasties in Wentworth.

  • [all is peaceful in the ex-PM’s electorate. No one cares he has been displaced.]
  • The Roof of the Broad Church may be falling in

  • [Critical of Coalition or Turnbull Government, but implies that the republicans in the US are a populist working class party -NO]
  • Wanted firm political leadership.

  • [critical of both sides]
  • Editorial: If Morrison can be his own man then there’s hope.

    Monday
    Morrison treads softly in reshuffle.
    Voters warm to PM but turn on Coalition.

  • [Sounds critical but the “coalition has kept core support near the 44.6 per cent it gained at the last election” so they are hopeful of winning. {No mention of other polls which show Coalition support collapsing}]
  • PM Rewards Allies and restores key rivals to power.
    Morrison did everything for a truce. But one move was too far.

  • [Pragmatic cabinet reshuffle that did not reward Tony Abbott.]
  • Accolades flow for top Foreign minister.

  • [Be nice to Julie Bishop day. Don’t talk about sexism. Bishop was widely regarded as a leadership contender who worked hard for people on her side. She was roundly rejected by her party.]
  • Amanda Vanstone: No wonder the public is annoyed.

  • [Criticises nameless bad people in the Parliament so its all generalities]
  • Cancer eating the heart of democracy.

  • [Kevin Rudd attacks Rupert Murdoch and Tony Abbott.]
  • Identity politics

    August 25, 2018

    There is a lot of bad press being given to left wing identity politics at the moment, but strangely right wing identity politics seems to be ignored, or people pretend it does not exist, even while it is particularly virulent. Perhaps the right wing media use this identity politics in an attempt to get people on side with right wing policies which are not popular….

    Now as far as I understand it, left wing identity politics is people saying something like “I’m gay, black, working class and redneck and I demand respect on all counts, stop disrespecting me, or excluding me for being any of these things.” Sometimes it sounds a bit incoherent, but if you accept the idea that we are all equal in principle, then its pretty straightforward: “Yep that’s ok. I’ll do my best.” This is not to say people on the left are universally tolerant (who is?) but that the movement of Left identity politics is expansive and aims at recognizing people who are usually ignored or actively repressed as worthwhile human beings.

    Right wing identity politics, on the other hand seems to go something like “everyone who is not like me is inferior, and they should shut up and listen to my wisdom and worship”. In general it seems the hard right will not tolerate any difference from their own position, which ever one it is they have chosen at this time. If anyone is different, or says anything different, then they must be expelled, or silenced as they are overtly inferior and corrupt.

    Despite commentator Jordan Peterson’s optimistic proposition that the Right excludes racists, being the same ‘race’ as them is often important – although they may say that ‘whites’ are discriminated against, presumably for not being approved of for slurring blacks or Muslims or whatever… (Muslim is not a race, they say, so if they insist all Muslims are evil, its not racist). Sometimes it seems that right wing Christians claim they are discriminated against because they can’t burn people at the stake any more, and expect applause for that act.

    This kind of identity politics almost automatically appears to makes most of the right inclined parties seem more and more deeply intolerant and self-involved, especially when they have the support of right wing media. This media also tolerates no difference and tells them how those on the Right are oppressed by, say, leftwing gay people wanting equal rights to marry or to hold hands in public. It was interesting that during the anti-gay marriage campaign, the right often argued that marriage was about children and therefor no marriage which could not have children was legitimate – thus narrowing the number of people (even heterosexuals) who should marry even further. The Right appears to believe that those who are not joined to them are sinful and should not be heard.

    In Australia, this kind of identity politics is why the Australian Liberal party (Liberal in the sense of pro-capitalist Victorian liberalism) is moving away from being what it used to claim was a ‘broad church’. The hard right appears to be trying to get rid of anyone who does not believe in exactly the same set of policies they believe in, even when both sides are happily ‘neoliberal’ in terms of the economy. Neoliberalism, involves nannying and protecting the corporate sector, and ignoring wage theft, pension theft and financial fraud from the corporate sector if it can, while trying to prosecute unions and cut wages and conditions for ordinary folk. Hence they were outraged at the last Coalition prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, because he admitted that climate change might be a problem, and that politicians should occasionally listen to the concerns of other people – even when he consistently yielded to their concerns. Yielding was not enough, he should never have thought otherwise in the first place. This refusal to accept him was effectively a form of violence towards Turnbull, and any Australians who might have agreed with him.

    While at the moment some people may vote for the Liberal and National Coalition out of habit or out of fear, there is a risk that it will become a minor authoritarian collection of parties driving off everyone who might question the identity that their hard right promotes.

    After all, how big is the intersection between those people who want to promote climate change, kill off gay marriage, incarcerate people fleeing tyranny, and lovey up corporations at the expense of ordinary people? Probably not that many.

    So in terms of social category theory, left wing identity politics seems to be trying to expand the categories of what is considered equal humanity, while right wing identity theory seems to be trying to narrow the categories of what seems human, and increase the strength of their identity boundaries and distinctions from others. The higher and harder the barriers they erect, then the more they will probably feel persecuted by the others (‘we-categories’ rarely recognized themselves as persecutory) and the more ruthless and potentially violent they will likely become to preserve that purity.

    The path to social disaster and fragmentation becomes clearer.

    Skepticism and Evident climate change

    July 30, 2018

    I guess everyone interested in climate change will have encountered people who state three things. One; that climate change is not evident, Two; that climate change has happened in the past and is part of the natural cycles, and Three; that we cannot predict exactly what will happen…

    Changes that happen slowly are rarely evident to bare human sensory apparatus. We acclimatize, and declare it has always been this way – despite the record of above average temperatures we have been registering (and of course averages are undermined by people’s experience of variations, and by their desires to keep seeing normality and experience tranquility) People who move from cold countries to hot countries may soon feel that temperatures which would have once been ‘hot’ feel ‘cold’. Unaided senses may not always be accurate enough to detect climate change, that does not mean it is not happening. When we can detect climate change with unaided senses it will probably be too late.

    After saying that Climate change is not evident, then people may point to previous incidents of climate change and imply it is relatively harmless, or that we cannot do anything about it, and it has nothing to do with us. While I think the idea that climate change has happened in the past is probably correct, the rest may not be.

    I particularly have no idea how the concept that “the planet has been going through heating and cooling waves for millions of years” can be considered ‘evident’ in itself – especially if contemporary climate change is not evident. The concept of previous climate change is based on a whole lot of theory, interpretation and data gathering.

    Most of that theory is part of the web of theory which also suggests that the current climate change (even if natural) will be rapid (in geological terms) and devastating for ecologies and human civilization.

    Current climate change is also compounded with widespread ecological devastation from human sources (deforestation, over-fishing, chemical pollution, depletion of phosphorus etc.), all of which are likely to make the change even more violent and which were not present in previous ‘natural’ periods of change.

    The further assertions that because the planet has had changes of climate many times before we should not be worried about it this time, do not seem evident at all to me. Especially as rapid climate change in the past does seem to have been harmful for species.

    The third point about uncertainty of what will happen is true; the future is always uncertain. However, because the future is uncertain does not give us the right to assume that the least unpleasant events are the most likely. That is actually a refusal to accept uncertainty.

    So what is evident? To me it is evident that we depend on ecologies, and creatures depend on each other (I do not live alone in a vacuum) – this is also backed up by many studies, which give what I would call evidence. Other people may deny this for whatever reasons. But if you accept that some kind of mutual dependence is evident, then continually messing up, destroying and injecting waste into these ecologies is evidently harmful to us all, and likely to result in catastrophic change past a certain point. So its probably best to stop doing it, and try something else. Harm may also result from these remedial actions, but that harm is not evident – it is supposition.

    Is it evident that a bullet through the chest will kill me? No, not until it happens – and if it is evident, then there will probably be no me for it to be evident to. There is a level at which it may be best to work with some supposition.

    Can we reform capitalism

    June 14, 2018

    This is another website’s summary of the arguments of Yorrick Blumenfeld, slightly modified. URL below.

    Summary: Capitalism cannot be reformed, because its nature is destructive.

    Capitalism erodes and corrupts democracy: Capitalism is fundamentally antidemocratic. Money controls Parliaments and politicians, not the other way around. Corporate money tends to buy the ability to write and engineer favourable legislation, as parties need money to campaign, and corporate sponsored think tanks decide the environment of thought. The highest bidder – which is usually a group of corporations – buys the government.

    Drive to the Bottom: Capitalism pits small countries, states, and counties against each other, seeking special tax breaks and subsidies in highly wasteful “corporate welfare” programs. Capitalism seeks the lowest level of conditions for the people: cheap labour, cheap resources, cheap dumping of waste and cheap regulations.

    Capitalism drives off accountability: The political strucutre of corporations shields upper level managers from accountability, while shareholders are protected from personal liability for damage done by the corporation in making the profit they share. Multinationals are not responsible to any electorate, or to governments that respect them. Corporations can always be elsewhere, when they are challenged – just as they take their profits away from where they are earned.

    Capitalism’s values are insufficient: Capitalism doesn’t foster many things we value such as: ethics; controlling child labour; strict health and safety standards; reducing hours of labour; providing security for workers; preserving nature; or guaranteeing holidays and weekly breaks from labour. The market economy has failed to focus on durability and ecologically sustainable products and services, and it cannot because these count as costs, not profits. The only spiritual values capitalism can recognise are those that see money as a sign of God’s favour, demand obedience from workers, or generate sales.

    It fails to serve the poor: This model underserves over three billion people. Two hundred plus years of capitalism have not brought about global prosperity or environmental balance. It has brought massive prosperity for the very wealthy. Most of the world’s current wealth is controlled by an extremely small number of people – which gives them even more power to govern in their interests alone.

    Capitalism has a stability and debt accumulation problem: The supply of money is dependent on people and firms relying on loans and perpetually increasing their debt. Issuing interest requires endless economic growth to pay back the debt, which is neither in the national nor in the global interest. This inflated speculative debt drives the never-ending economic crises and bubble bursts. Without debt current capitalism would collapse. Most of the world’s monetary transactions are purely speculative: wealth is being burnt.

    Corporations are subsidized and unaccountable: Capitalist companies are often heavily subsidized (including subsidized by the global ecology by making pollution and destruction an ‘externality’). They also avoid giving back to the community. For instance, corporations avoid taxes that support infrastructure fundamental to their expansion. They use shell companies, tax havens, and modern electronic transfers to shuffle capital around and evade responsibility and to avoid contributing to the life conditions they need. They are parasitic on healthy societies, which they help run down

    Globalized capitalism creates local vulnerability: Globalized export-oriented high-tech capitalism undercuts national and regional self-reliance in key commodities. Heavy dependence on global supply lines for items such as food and energy creates a fragile and dangerous situation. Countries may not be able to feed themselves in the near future. Just like workers cannot be self-sufficient without jobs in capitalist organisations. Capitalism creates low resilience to crisis.

    Capitalism undercuts diversity and threatens groups: It favours cultural homogenization as well as the homogenization of goods and services to advance market control and to increase profit through uniformity of production. By pushing consumerism and materialism and crushing all other value and survival systems, some would argue that capitalism inspires terrorism. At the least, undermining local conditions creates nationalisms, and fundamentalisms in response.

    Capitalism ignores and destroys nature’s life support systems: Capitalism denies that the biosphere has any limits. By failing to internalize the costs of environmental pollution, and purposefully misleading people about the effects of pollution to further their profit, corporations drive a process that radically reduces planetary carrying capacity. Endless expansion of growth and destruction of resources and ecologies is destined to cause overshoot and collapse. Fisheries are over fished, land is over grazed, chemicals are pumped into the environment with little restraint or knowledge of effects, other minerals are extracted from the environment destructively with little attempt at rehabilitation. More waste clogs the land air and sea. The ‘invisible hand’ of corporate power has been destructive. Capitalism will almost certainly drive global suicide.

    http://www.fdnearth.org/essays/capitalism-cant-be-reformed-try-the-incentive-economy/

    Other points

    Capitalism destroys commons: Capitalism produces the tragedy of the commons, in which common property is consumed and destroyed by profit seeking, because the only property that can be recognised is alienable private property. Capitalism enforces the idea that people should not cooperate to restrain the business of others when it impacts on them. Common-land is simply land to be exploited, and to be destroyed or polluted in order to cheapen the cost of production, as is the air and water. All cheap or free things tend to be undervalued, unless they can be monopolised. Capitalist theorists say they can solve all our problems by turning everything, including you, into private property. Then somebody will care. But capitalist property rights also include the right to destroy ‘your’ own property. If someone owns the air, then they can pollute it without challenge. However, if no one owns the air then everyone, especially the powerful, can pollute without challenge as well. Common property is of no value, yet it is the basis of all value.

    Capitalism owns the law: for the same reason it owns politics. It buys the lawmakers, and exemptions from the law, so that law favours it’s actions. Similarly because law itself is a process involving lawyers, it can buy the best lawyers and exploit the incoherencies of law, and stretch out cases for such a long time that ordinary people are rendered bankrupt, and cannot afford to challenge the wealthy – even if the wealthy do break the law. The more the law can be bought the more wealth dominates.

    Capitalism treats workers as a cost and considers them disposable: The aim of any capitalist enterprise is to deliver a profit and high salaries to those who run the organisation. It may also aim to return profit to shareholders. Workers are a cost. They diminish profit. Hence the amounts spent on them must be cut, and the conditions of work should be as cheap as possible. Thus the natural tendency of untouched capitalism is to reduce wages, extract more work from workers, and lower conditions of work.

    Ethics and Culture

    April 23, 2018

    Ethics is cultural, we are brought up to feel that certain things are wrong, and that we should behave in certain ways. It is also bound up with political relationships between groups – if a person is a member of our group, or someone we identify with then we are likely to treat them specially; usually (but not always) we will be more sympathetic, accept excuses, assume they are really right, be persuaded by their arguments, and so on. These seem to be matters of fact. But our responses to them are ethical.

    Should ethics be cultural? Should ethics be political? This is instantly an ethical question, and thus irresolvable if my initial question as to whether any ethical propositions could exist that were not already ethical, although I suspect most people would not say ‘yes’ to either of these propositions…

    it seems to me that agreement with local customs cannot be a basis for ethics. It seems to be a cop out. I would expect a an ethicist to challenge local customs. That they would be socratic in the sense of seeing whether those customs had any basis in reality or were coherent, or likely to produce the results that the holders’ intended. While arguing that ethics should produce the result it intends is another ethical statement, it seems to be one most people might agree with – although they don’t have to, its not compelling. My kind of ethicist would not be socratic in looking for a definition of the good or the just, because that leads to the unreal….

    When I suggest that there is no basis for ethics which is not already ethical, I’m not suggesting that ethics is always coherent, although I may assume an ethical position that coherence is usually good. For example an ‘ethics of love’, may also generate violence, oppression and hatred (especially if it is applied via rules… but that is another argument for another time), and this may not seem compatible with its initial formulation. People with this ethics may be aware of these problems (as when Franciscans were brought into the inquisition), but these ethical people may attempt to suppress awareness of unintended consequences, in order to support their ethical systems, and produce even worse consequences and incoherencies….. And it seems ethicists might challenge that, although the challenge can always be denied.

    Why is there Pollution?

    March 27, 2018

    Economic production demands the production of waste, as things are transformed into other things and they are transported around. An important question is whether this waste is processable by the ecology in general. If the ecology the waste is dumped in cannot process it, or the waste is poisonous to humans or other creatures and plants then it can be called pollution.

    Pollution often occurs when:

    • people do not have to take responsibility for their own waste (ie they can dump it on someone else who is less powerful),
    • dealing with waste would interfere with profit (when profit is considered particularly important or sacred),
    • dominant people have technology which produces waste but don’t have technology that can process that waste into something useful or harmless,
    • dominant people think of the world as infinite and able to take any amount of waste (or when they think their personal waste is trivial),
    • the groups doing the polluting don’t have to take political notice of those people or ecologies harmed by the waste.

    It is probable that contemporary forms of civilisation have developed because of the historical cheapness of producing pollution. People who produced the waste largely did not worry about those who suffered from the waste. Now there is so much pollution being produced that everyone is starting to be affected by it, there is more recognition that it is a problem. The Global Ecology cannot process the waste our economies emit.

    It seems likely that because of our historical experience, many people in power cannot imagine a civilisation without pollution, or imagine their own power and wealth continuing without pollution. Therefore they insist it is someone else’s problem, and that nothing should be done.

    In the long term, pollution only exists because anti-pollution politics is not strong enough or is too compromised with alliance with those who produce waste.

    Flux and Transformation

    February 18, 2018

    This is a comment inspired by a video whose URL is at the end of the post, about interconnectivity, and how the human body replaces itself, by absorption and excretion.

    There are a lot of processes which demonstrate interconnectivity, however, far more importantly this argument really demonstrates the possible basis of reality is flux, change and transformation.

    This is difficult to get, because the whole trend of western metaphysics is towards the idea that reality is eternal and unchanging, whether this is expressed in notions of the unchanging God, or the unchanging archetypes, or the unchanging nature of elementary particles such as atoms. All of these ideas can support interconnectivity, but it is the interconnectivity between things which do not change – at best it is about ‘flow’ of unchanging things.

    This view of reality as fixed, seems to lead towards pathological behaviour, as action becomes setting up the perfect structures, the perfect reality and clinging to it. Spirituality is about clutching to peace, or growing in a particular way. Psychology can insist that we should always be happy or self-actualising or something. Politics is about holding to the structures you have pronounced to be the best – at the moment our politics seems devoted to maintaining the power of established corporations and their plutocracy rather than the survival, or gentle transformation, of the world they depend upon.

    However, if reality is flux and transformation, then everything changes all the time. Furthermore, given complex systems theory, it seems that everything changes unpredictably in specific; we might be able to predict trends, but we cannot predict specific results. One of the properties specified by what we call ‘reflexivity’ is that if people think they understand the ‘systems’ they are in, then their behaviour changes and the system changes the way it works. This change may not be for the better.

    In his book known as ‘metaphysics’, Aristotle points out that Plato accepted the world is flux, but insisted that real reality is fixed, because otherwise it is impossible to speak truth. If everything is constantly changing then you cannot say anything true about them, as they will have changed. Aristotle seems correct in his interpretation of Plato to me, and this is a classic example of a philosopher encountering an uncomfortable position (ie everything is flux) and deciding that because it is uncomfortable it is untrue.

    There are other ways around this problem. Firstly it may not be possible to speak absolute truth, but that does not mean we cannot speak and think as accurately as we can (and that means accepting flux, misunderstanding and degrees of uncertainty). We can also speak in terms of flux, talking say of ‘patterns’ rather than structures, and temporary stasis rather than permanent equilibrium, we can give up expectations that we should know how things will turn out, and be prepared to learn from events as they happen. At the moment, if our actions produce bad results we are prone to deny this, and apply our actions more stringently and rigorously.

    To reiterate, we are caught in and part of a series of largely unpredictable fluxations. However, if we think that things should be eternal and unchanging, or we think that good things should be unchanging, we attempt to imprison that flux. This generally adds to suffering and increases apparent destruction and disorder. A current example, is the refusal to deal with climate change, and the tendency in Australian and US politics of trying to accelerate and maintain fossil fuels, old styles of concrete, environmental clearing and de-naturing. This is an attempt to cling onto an old order which nowadays produces destruction, and will produce more and more suffering the longer it is clung to.

    These points should be obvious to Jungians, as expectation of flux comes out of alchemy, and alchemy is the art and science of transformation. It tells us that the world is constantly transmuting, and that transmutation processes can look messy and chaotic, and that attempts to avoid the realisations of painful stages can be disastrous. It also provides symbolic guides for working with events rather than against events, or providing direction without compulsion. As such alchemy is still the radical way, and difficult for us to really approach, but it may be necessary.

    Stages of social collapse….

    February 2, 2018

    Slightly Edited from “How societies collapse” by Umair Haque

    Step one. The economy stagnates, [and social mobility declines. Largely because the elites, (religious, military, or mercantile) monopolise property, markets, and information, and control the government to protect themselves. They keep up, or increase, patterns of behavior that destroy the ecology they depend upon]. Life becomes harder and meaner for most people. The elites will deny the stagnation and destruction because, otherwise, they have admitted that they have failed, or are making things worse: in this way, a social contract and any sense of mutual obligation is broken and never gets repaired. [Note after and during the Great Depression and post WWII, there was an attempt to fix things up, because it seemed obvious that the ruling elites faced revolution if they did not.]

    Step two. Ordinary people end up competing more and more viciously to maintain their living standards [as there is no means of co-operation which is allowed. Unions and other cooperative activities are broken or declared to be evil, as they could form challenges to the elites. Competition between each other and loyalty to the elite is lauded as prime virtues.]. Social bonds break and social norms begin to disintegrate.

    Step three. People turn to supposed strongmen in the hope of gaining the safety democracy has failed to give them. This is the moment when decline implodes into true collapse. [Most of these ‘strongmen’ will defend the ruling elites while pretending to defend the people or the nation. People can regain valued cooperation by supporting the visible elite through patriotism, nationalism, party loyalty or religious fundamentalism. Things can feel better for some. There is hope.]

    Step four. The strongest groups begin to exterminate the weaker perfectly legally. The insiders’ economic portions are kept stable by excluding, or eliminating, whole social groups altogether. [Or the dominant groups intensify application of the techniques which have given them wealth and which destroy life] This fact is kept from the people, officially — but who cannot be aware at some level?

    Step five. Because the problem of stagnation is rarely solved by exterminating the weak [or destroying the ecology], the society has doomed itself to forever attempting to take its neighbouring societies harvests’ or falling apart. [In so doing, it generates enemies which can boost internal loyalty, and keep the system going until total collapse.] This is how fascism leads to atrocity, war, and mass murder.

    From: https://eand.co/how-societies-collapse-91fcd98f03d3

    Trump as ‘Radical’

    October 10, 2017

    I recently asked a person why they thought Trump was working for the benefit of the American people.

    Their reply mentioned the employment figures, ending the TPP, and peace in Syria.

    I have to agree that the employment figures are nice but it seems that they simply continue the trend established under Obama. So far, I have not heard any evidence which supports the idea that Trump had anything to do with the continuation of this trend or had actually increased the trend. I’d be surprised if, without any large scale legislation, the first six month’s of any president’s office did not express the last six months of their predecessor.
    What policies did he implement, or actions did he perform, that have changed things in that six months? without this data it could easily be that he is riding on the results of Obama’s policies?

    I won’t object to abandoning the negotiations on the Trans Pacific Partnership. People on the left have been arguing against the TPP for ages, as being a surrender of national sovereignty to corporate power, especially given the secret courts which would have allowed corporations to challenge wage increases, health restrictions and environmental laws as impinging on ‘free trade’. There has been massive amounts of right wing screaming against these objections. So it was good that Trump has now almost made it an orthodox position. However Clinton argued similarly, and in either case the TPP was not in force, so it was probably not yet impacting, and having only having a minor effect on the economy.

    I’m certainly not sure about ceasefire in Syria. The war still seems to be going on as far as I can tell and I’ve recently been reading reports about the Russians complaining about American backed rebels. Trump may have bombed an airport, but that seems to be it, everything else seemed to be giving Putin the free hand he wanted, although Trump denounced the Syrian government as a major enemy in his speech to the UN, implying something should be done, or that he might strike again.

    The idea of the ‘deep state’ and the autonomous power of the military, is now recognized by some on the right, thanks to Trump’s rhetoric. But the question remains how much of this is mere rhetoric. The general idea of the “military-industrial complex” has been part of Left orthodoxy for years (I can’t think how long Chomsky has been going on about it), so its only recently that the right has taken it onboard, even if they tend to blame Clinton rather than Bush Jr. for the wars in the middle east. However, the point is that it is the collaboration of corporations and the military that seems to be the prime problem, whereas the usual impression I get from the right is that they think that giving the corporate sector more power and money will solve the problem, which it probably won’t. I don’t know of any evidence that private military contracting has declined under Trump, and his deep commitment to boosting military spending will only increase the deep state and the bonds between government subsidy of corporations and military power.

    Trump is threatening Iran and sometimes China, tearing up treaties, and threating nuclear war again (he already threatened that for the middle east during the elections). Nuclear war probably poses a reasonable threat to the safety of the American people, and his threats could increase the possibility of anticipatory strikes. He also seems to oppose disarmament or attempts to contain the spread of nukes. As far as I can tell, by his own account he appears to be continuing the mess in Iraq caused by the Bush Jr Admin ignoring all the advice they received. In March this year he said “our soldiers are fighting like never before” in Iraq and doing really well.

    We shall see what wars arise in future, as the idea of combat seems appealing to him.

    Mr. Trump also appears to be proposing to continue the Republican project of tax cuts and tax holidays for the wealthy, while removing health care and increasing military spending beyond its current level of excess – usually if military spending increases, the products get used. The money to pay for this spending has to come from somewhere, as so far the Laffer curve has never appeared to kick in and provide those increased tax revenues. We can guess the money will not be taken from corporate subsidy, but there is always a possibility.

    Mr. Trump has also continued the Republican project of making it easier for US corporations to pollute and poison people and has abandoned an enquiry into the health effects of coal, not just because we already know coal is bad for people, but because his policies imply he just doesn’t seem to care about people’s ill health if that bad health increases profit. That he won’t tackle the elites producing climate change is to be expected. He is following the old trickle down economics always popular with the wealthy elites, and which might just help him make more as well.

    Health care is one of the things the supposed master deal maker cannot apparently negotiate a deal on, even when the Republicans have spent years arguing against the Affordable Health Care Act. Now given the opportunity Trump cannot persuade them to repeal it, let alone make it better as he continues to promise – let us hope he can improve it. He did however make a deal with the Democrats on another issue, perhaps they are less prone to elitism, and they might help improve health care, if that is what he wants.

    I still do not understand why a group of billionaires, (some hereditary), high corporate figures and the billionaires who have been supporting them with their media is not an elite, and one not particularly shown to be sympathetic to the people. They even behave as an elite; Trump seems to be the most expensive president in history because he want to go to his elite clubs and resorts. From what I’ve seen Trump also does not appear treat his ordinary workers that well. That there is a war in the wealth elite does not imply that either side has an interest in really supporting the people.

    Indeed one of Trump’s problems as one of the hereditary wealthy seems to be that he has always been the boss. He has been able to do what he wants and fire those who disagree or give alternate advice. He is renown for the catch phrase “your fired,” and genuinely seems to have enjoyed uttering it. He has no preparation for working in a field in which he is nominally first among equals – he is part of an elite used to obedience.

    We also have the Russia problem. That is not yet proven. But if Clinton had won, and the Russians had supported her covertly, and members of her team had had contacts with them during the election, and Clinton had lied about her business interests in Moscow, then we know that Republicans and the media would be screaming for her impeachment. Trump would probably be demanding her execution for treason. I personally don’t hold it likely that Putin supported Trump because he thought Trump would help the American people, or make America great again… precisely the opposite.

    More on Neo-Nazis

    September 5, 2017

    In the thirties of last century it is possible that there were idealistic Nazis. However that was then, this is a long time afterward.

    If you go to a rally carrying swastikas, then you are proclaiming and celebrating your ‘right’ to beat people up and stick them in death camps. You are looking for someone to victimize. You are not celebrating everyone’s right to exist in a civil political discourse.

    Given this. Where there are Nazis it is highly probable there will be violence. If there are people prepared to engage in protective violence after they have been attacked then this is probably a good thing. Otherwise you are letting Nazis walk all over everyone. There is no even hand here.

    Even handedness is just the usual righteous attempt to crush any resistance to anti-democratic movements.