One of the most insidious parts of oppression and then victimization of individuals, groups, or nations is that it makes so many begin to self limit their goals to within the box oppression builds for us.
Why did John Lennon have to be killed by an apparently mind controlled assassin with the legend of an obsessed lone gunmen?
Because he sang about what was not merely possible, but actually feasible.
He added an explanation that the enforcers of the private oligarchy really did not want the public to recognize, or think was feasible to get away with having said.
John said go ahead, imagine what you want; that apparently angered the shit out of those already in control of the explanations.
This puzzled me for many years. Lennon was already long past his great influence. It was very improbable the lightening of mega popularity would strike twice. The Deep State can stop popularity by denying mainstream distribution any time.
Then it occurred to me.
Lennon had seen through the oppression game. It’s a set of obstacles and misrepresentations intended to make the oppressed embrace victim hood as the only feasible path.
It makes them self-limit the possible.
Lennon wrote songs (created an entertainment) that outflanked the oppression game, same as Gandhi built a resistance philosophy that did.
Same as Lincoln built a republican government that out flanked the oppression games being played by the private oligarchies of North and South.
Anyone that restores a nation’s capacity to focus on what is best for itself, instead of on limiting itself to accepting what is best for its private oligarchy is apparently best murdered, when ever feasible, from the POV of the oppressing private oligarchy.
Put another way, oppression works by focusing us on the problems, not on our best interest.
The oppression game is a very clever way of getting us to focus on our problems rather than on what we want and should have.
Everyone should be free, well fed, well housed, have any needed medicines, feel safe, get equal justice, have their votes counted, live under representatives trying to serve their constituencies best interests, be prosperous, enjoy life and live as they wish, so long as they hurt no one.
They shouldn’t be settling for a victim’s franchise.
There, that was easy.
Any government, firm, or person that doubts the feasibility of persons best interests is oppressive and part of the problem.
The oppression game makes us willing consent to the unfeasibility of our best interests.
Our best interests are feasible.
Always have been.
Always will be.
Its not the system. It’s the issues.
Foreign policy is complex.
Domestic budgets are complex.
Economics are complex.
All of these levers that operate civil society aren’t just simple things. Pull one, that may throw another off kilter in the same way that adding one chemical to a mixture will cause a certain reaction.
I remember when the “tea party” wave swept across the country in 2010. The thing that struck me more than anything, as a person that had previously very much been in support of shorter terms for politicians, was the lack of overall competence demonstrated by many of these newly elected “leaders.”
They didn’t know even the basics that you learn in junior high social studies or civics. Because of that, many of them were dependent on certain special interest groups to tell them how to vote on bills that they had no personal knowledge about.
One newly elected legislator, when handed a new bill in committee asked “how am I supposed to know what this bill does?” A veteran legislator told him he needed to read the bill. At that point, the freshman legislator asked “and then how do I know how to vote?”
While it may seem like getting rid of career politicians would limit the special interests, in reality, the opposite is true. Because the special interests are experts in their field, they can generally sway newer legislators more easily.
One year here in Kansas, the NRA sponsored a bill about knife length and crossbows. Before knowing that the NRA was behind the bill, the bill couldn’t even get a committee hearing. Once the NRA came out backing the bill, the bill flew through committee and passed through the House easily. When questioning the bill on the House floor, the response “this is the NRA bill” was given to answer the question of why this bill needed to pass. Like I said, it passed easily.
Term limits don’t eliminate lobbyist influence. They increase it.
As for the idea that @jaybate-1-0 poses to allow government workers to educate and keep things operating, in this partisan climate, that is troublesome.
I have seen non partisan workers skewered by politicians simply for telling them that something would not work, or that it was a bad idea. Because an idea like lowering taxes is partisan, telling a legislator that its a good (or bad) idea is seen as partisan rather than sound policy advice. That’s how it is on most hot button issues - advice is viewed through a partisan lens rather than sound or unsound policy advice.
This cripples the internal bureaucracy because they can’t just advise without sounding partisan if they disagree with what certain interest groups suggest.
Because China has been in its current form (geographically, at least) for centuries, it is far more stable than the former Eastern Bloc ever was.
This long history also means that, ethnically, China is actually quite homogeneous. The Han-Chinese make up over 90% of the population. While China is linguistically very diverse (nearly 300 languages, probably twice that if you include local dialects), most Chinese speak Mandarin (about 70%). Based on that, more than 60% of the population is both ethnically and linguistically united.
Simply put, it is unlikely that China would break up even in the event of a revolution because of its longstanding historical borders. Many of the subgroups are so small that it would be difficult to break off into a separate nation, particularly for those that would be entirely surrounded by mainland China.
I think those factors contribute to actually stabilizing China substantially. Even in the event of a change in governance, China would probably still have a population over 1B, making it a substantial world player either way.
Given the amount of controversy the last couple of days stemming from the Trump-Putin meeting, this is why you do not meet one on one.
No one knows what was agreed to, and there’s no notes or written documentation to fall back on. All we have is whatever Trump and the interpreter remember. That’s poor practice.
A Texas-Kansas oligarchy applied its wealth to the politics of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio. Now an older, larger oligarchy is applying its wealth to Kansas. All politics in an oligarchy is application of wealth for increased spatial influence over infrastructure—existing, or planned.
@jaybate-1-0 Thanks man. I will definitely check it out.
I’ve been going to Cape Cod since I was a kid, and when we go, the spirit of the place inhabits me. I love everything about Cape Cod; it’s maritime history, pirate and otherwise, it’s native american and puritan roots, and the hard but warm edge of the people that lived there before tourism made it a desired destination, which still lives on even as the old timers pass, it’s stubborn defiance to widen the 2 lane highway that runs through it, the most amazing amateur Summer baseball league in the country, a wonderful collection of museums and events focusing on the cape’s marine life, and walking miles of flats in the bay at low tide. I chase fish and pick up crabs in the shallows with my kids and feel timeless; it is what I have done since I was their age. It all amounts to a feeling of belonging, and being off the grid.
The Cape is changing. But it has changed with grace and a hidden power in my life that it has yet to relinquish.