I am afraid of this – deeply afraid.
I have spent a long time considering my position on Trump and Brexit. Where did I end up? Attacking the liberal left for their failure to include the moral right. There is only one thing that can prevent the rise in fascism – unity. Unity of purpose against the 1%.
What could happen? The Left are taking to the streets. The Left are taking their right to demonstrate as being accepted, and especially in the US assuming that that right will be accepted. It was not accepted with Occupy, why is it going to be accepted now?
But there is a big difference now. Trump has let the deplorables out. Rather than being muzzled by token liberalism these deplorables are now being encouraged by Trump. These deplorables appeared to form the bulk of his election train, are they going to stand by and allow the Left to demonstrate freely?
What happened in Germany pre-Second World War? Hitler was VOTED in. There was a backlash in the street (Rotfrontkämpferbund ), and this backlash was met by Hitler support (Sturmabteilung). The German streets developed a pretext that the streets were unmanageable, the state took over and there was fascism. “In the mid-1920s, the party engaged in electoral battles in which Hitler participated as a speaker and organizer,[b] as well as in street battles and violence between the Rotfrontkämpferbund and the Nazis’ Sturmabteilung (SA).” References from wiki Hitler’s rise to power.
Is it conceivable that such forces exist in the US?
Is it possible that the Left will mobilise on the streets? They are doing so now.
Is it possible that White Supremacists would go out on the streets to support Trump?
Is it possible that Trump would let this happen?
Is it possible that the 1% would allow this situation to escalate to such an extent that more and more troops would be needed to keep the streets quiet?
If all these things are possible, is that not fascism?
Am I right to be afraid of rising fascism?
Now there can be only one solution – unity of purpose against the 1%. It is time to build bridges between the moral left and the moral right, at the moment it is not possible for the dogmatic left and racist right to meet – they are too entrenched. The meeting points are morality and compassion that can then build communication to unravel all the propaganda that now exists on the Net. It is only by both moral sides getting to know each other that the barriers will get taken down.
Am I right to be afraid of rising fascism?
If so, do something about it now.
Archive for the ‘Freedom’ Category
At least since the end of the second world war we have had a neoliberal system – probably since we had universal suffrage, now ordinary people are paying for this compromise. Neoliberalism allowed for public political parlour games in the West. Over regular periods (usually 4 or 5 years) we went through a sham of electoral democracy in which politicians stood up for marginally different versions of the same deal, neoliberalism, with the parties (usually two in each country) offering different levels of token support for ordinary people whilst carrying out 1% policies.
And the left has now paid for their own compromise with this neoliberalism.
Here is an example that happened to me. I don’t know what the current CP tactics are but back in the 80s the CP asked its members to compromise with the neoliberal system in order not to split working-class or union support. Typically this involved extremely distasteful actions. In my own case I attended the NUT conference, and at this conference I was asked to support the Broad Left which included the mainstream leadership. I attended their disco (I attended discos then) and watched a degree of sycophanticism that was so distasteful I walked out. It was undoubtedly true that the Trots, known as the Socialist Teachers’ Alliance then, were adopting policies that would have split the union if their conference motions had been passed. So I understood why the CP asked me to do what I did, but it was distasteful. More attempts at building bridges on the left against the neoliberalism could have been made but they weren’t, and there was an impasse with built-in stagnation. Such analysis concerning these bridges was not around then, so all of the left needs to accept responsibility for this. I think it significant that there was no recognition at the time concerning neoliberalism. The analysis was simply bourgeois and proletarian, and working within the labour movement, either in the unions or the labour party, to remove the impact of the opportunists. The weakness of this analysis, lacking any emphasis on the neoliberal system, was significant in the lack of bridge-building. Because the emphasis was on mass movement unity, battles existed on the left (typified by Trots vs Commies), and the direction of the discourse was always towards unity within the mass movement. However that unity, supposedly considered as unity of the proletariat, effectively meant unity on the left, and there was never any real efforts to unify with the right wing – whether in the union or the labour party. In the minds of the left the populist right, because of their politics lacking compassion for liberal issues were being identified with the 1% when in fact they were populist right and needed to be included within the mass movement against the 1%. To me this weak position was the early causes of the separation of the populist right and move to fascism that is indicated by votes for Brexit and Trump.
Soon after this NUT conference I left the UK so I don’t know how the CP and others on the left have dealt with neoliberalism since then, but I do feel this stagnation continued. Supporting the 1%-Labour, Blair Labour and Blair unions, might well have been CP strategy in order not to split the Labour movement. How awful – supporting war.
As a result populism, those on the right against the 1%, has taken the stage. Now we have a far harder battle, how to unite with this populist right, against the 1%. If we don’t accept that this is the way forward, then fighting against the 1% will be self-evidently impossible when the 99% are so divided. How many of the 99% could now be described as on the left and against the 1%?
I suggest that the left in the 99% have dissociated themselves from the populist right, primarily because of the platforms that I have assessed as being part of the populist right:-
1) Work against the 1%, its influence, the lobbyists that Trump described as the swamp.
Whilst the first two are clearly unifying the third is intended to be divisive by the 1%.
However if the power of the 1% is to be minimised, both the populist right and the liberal left need to compromise against the real enemy – the 1%. In the US such a compromise seems almost impossible but it has now become necessary otherwise people are in for a very difficult time with the increasing rise of fascism. This is a compromise that is far more distasteful than the compromise I had at the NUT disco but without it fascism will increasingly take centre stage.
It is my understanding that Trump supporters actually believe he will support them against the 1%. Undoubtedly he has strategic plans for buying off his supporters such as providing jobs in Trumpland, and it is conceivable that whilst adopting 1% and anti-liberal policies (racist, sexist and against LGBT) he will maintain his vote-base.
This division of the 99% between the liberal left and populist right can be laid straightforwardly at the hands of neoliberalism, what has neoliberalism done for these hard-working white people on the right – in Trumpland? Nothing, why would they? The 1% seeks only to exploit for their own profit. But what is far worse, what has the left done for these people? Nothing. The left has fought other legitimate battles, often involving identity politics, and as a result these working people whose personal politics have not been compassionate – such as racist, sexist and anti-LGBT – have lost their incomes and become attracted to the populist right. Yet our interests are the same, and it is self-defeating to turn around and demand that because they are part of the 99% they should change their views and join us. They haven’t, and in the US they have chosen Trump – been conned by Trump – been conned by the 1%.
Because the liberals have supported neoliberalism, have been myopic in the politics they have been involved in, and ignored a significant proportion of the 99% – a proportion that Trump has strategically manipulated, the US now has a 1%-government that will move the US towards fascism.
There is an aspect of US media that I have not seen discussed but is the practise. I watch US comedy progs such as John Oliver, Daily Show, Samantha Bee, Saturday Night Live – these are the only US comedies I find funny. When I am watching them I see nothing but pro-Democrat party propaganda. I see attacks on Trump – OK I agree he is preposterously funny, not attacks on the 1%, and I see the progs increasing divisions within the 99%. These progs add to the problem because they perpetuate and increase the divisions with the rest of the 99%. I can enjoy the humour without being sucked into the division, but can most of the watchers? Can they see that the intended divisions are also part of the 1% mainstream media strategy of dividing the 99%? Without discernment liberals and the left will continue to be part of the problem.
Similarly left-wing media in the UK are attacking and ridiculing Trump, they are perpetuating the situation. The populist white right who are inclined towards UKIP are being ignored by this left-wing, and the 1% are agitating against the 99% using similar tactics to the US. This situation is different to the US because the government is right-wing. However it is functionally the same. Divide the 99% – left against right. Identify the media as left wing, identify the mass movement – labour party and unions – as not being interested in white people. Not being interested in protecting the jobs of white people. Similarly there are attacks on PC in general thus the populist right are ignoring much truth that is spoken by professionals such as teachers, social workers and care-workers. Underlying the rhetoric of this populist right will be blame – blaming the left (liberals in general although the use of that term is not as common in the UK because of the Liberal party and their alliance with Cameron). Neither right nor left are sufficiently focussed on the impact of the 1% in the UK.
Because liberals have supported neoliberalism, the 1% has divided the 99% by financing the populist right. Because liberals have failed to persuade more white people that what liberals are doing is right, we now have a situation where the populist right has grown significantly; liberals and the left do not put forward uniting policies such as fighting the 1% and maybe morality and compassion, they simply promote their own dogma and expect the populist right to accept it. We now have a situation where the liberals, left-wing and populist right need to court each other in order to provide a united front against the 1%. For years the liberals and left have ignored this populist right, and the 1% have managed to cleave apart the 99%. The populist right have peddled preposterous statements such as left-wing mainstream media, and because the left has previously ignored this populism such statements now have significant traction. The 1% have financed this populism with their main purpose being to divide the 99%, and there is such a strength of rhetoric against the left-wing, much of it built on lies and propaganda such as the anti-PC movement, creating unity will be hard. Not all of the populist right can be won over as there is a significant proportion of deplorables, but amongst the rest are compassionate, moral people, who, because of the propaganda, in the US manage to support a horrendous man (Trump) who is immoral and lacking in compassion – being racist sexist and anti-LGBT. In the UK the pattern similarly shows support for the Tories and UKIP, both of which are parties for the 1%. These moral people, quiet white people, need to feel ashamed for supporting Trump and Brexit (and UKIP) but that also means that liberals need to eschew their neoliberalism, and show the non-deplorable on the populist right that there is a unity of interest against the 1%. Both populists and liberals need to change their focus away from each other and towards the real enemy – the 1%.
I have looked a little into the mindset of this moral populist right, and I do not understand it. Yet we must understand each other. Through unity of purpose against the 1% communication needs to be built between the left, liberals and the populist right. This will be difficult because of the years of antagonism, but if we don’t do this Trumps, and to a lesser extent Farages, will continue to arrive on the scene as fascism increases.
To my mind the onus of communicating lies with the liberal left. For all of last century the left has recognised the need to build the mass movement, yet after a century of such building in the US a member of the 1% standing for president has managed to divide the 95% in only one campaign. Not only is the candidate a member of the 1% he is an overt racist and sexist, yet he still split the vote. Why?
1) He promoted racism and sexism and other forms of bigotry. Voicing such enabled the deplorables. But those that should be ashamed also voted for him because they have been convinced that within the propaganda their compassion does not have to recognise racism and sexism.
2) Trump has managed to convince many on the populist right that he is the person to vote for in fighting the 1%. To people on the left this seems ludicrous but this is because the left has failed to see how they have been compromised by neoliberalism. Below I discuss Obama as an example of neoliberal failure. Because of this neoliberal failure leaders on the populist right have been able to convince members of the 99% that mainstream government and media is controlled by the left. How can the liberal left have been so remiss? Because they failed to identify and attack neoliberalism, even with Occupy opening the territory the left within the Democrats failed to take advantage. The Democrats did not identify themselves with Occupy, and so they lost the high ground with regards to attacking the 1%. Left-wing press clearly do such 1%-attacks, the Democrats don’t as a whole, and the populist right have identified the 1%-Democrats as the Left enabling a right-wing vote for the Deplorable.
3) And of course the main failure of the left has been its failure to embrace all in the 99% including those on the right. White racists and white disguised racists have lost their jobs as a result of 1% accumulation. Despite their lack of this compassion many of these people are hard-working trying to look after their families, and the left-wing have not represented them. This is shamefully ignorant as they have had years of analysis, understood that it is only through unity that the 99% can win yet such people have been ostracised because they lack liberal values – and compassion. If you genuinely believe in mass movement politics then you have to embrace white racism with all its faults. By being inclusive these people will hopefully see beyond the racism into recognising their interests are the same as all working people including liberals. At present they don’t and that has been as a consequence of the neoliberal system – a system that too many on the left have accepted.
4) The liberal left have become pre-occupied with identity politics. Rather than attacking the 1% the liberal left have focussed on legitimate issues such as gender equality, racial equality, LGBT equality etc Because they also failed to dissociate themselves from the neoliberalism, much of this focus worked on getting these identity groups better pay. From the perspective of the populist right all that appears is that the left agenda is to increase the pay of these identity groups at their own expense. Identity politics needs to fit into the struggle against the 1%, and this is clearly not the case. This is again a failure of the left to struggle against neoliberalism.
Voting a black man as president in the US alienated this populist right. This could have been alleviated if Obama had adopted policies that included the white right. When you consider the rise of Black Lives Matter, he didn’t even promote the interests of black people. When you examine with discernment, what he has done he has mostly acted as a puppet for the 1%. Prior to the elections and soon after mainstream left-wing media, what little I know of it, were fawning over Obama. But what has he done in the struggle against the 1%?
To conclude, the blame for the rise of the populist right and their manipulation by the 1% into accepting Trump and Brexit can be laid very clearly at the hands of the liberal left. They failed to focus on the real problem – the 1%, and the majority of them have colluded with the neoliberal system. The left have focussed their energies on identity politics thus alienating the populist right who have started to identify with neo-fascist groups. Even moral compassionate white people have thus identified because they have become alienated from the left part of the 99%. It is time for the left to change, re-orient their dominant strategies into fighting the 1%, and work towards including the populist right even though there is divisive racism and sexism within the right.
I would like to see a change in the use of the term neoliberalism – new liberals? How can the populist right recognise the difference between left liberal and neoliberalism? Without such a recognition how can there be a united 99%? A long blog!
Brexit and Trump have also brought home to me another important issue – what is truth? Speaking the truth is part of the 8-Fold Path, Magga (4 Noble Truths), and never has it been more important to recognise the truth when the representatives of the powerful are lying so much.
The first thing I learned about the truth as an adult was when I started on the Path and began to develop insight. At that time seeing people or knowing stuff was so important. Basically it was a reaction to all the lies that education and upbringing had given me. Developing insight is the most important tool for understanding the truth, and very few people discuss this. Insight is definitely not taught in schools!!! At the same time, in the search for truth recognising insight in others became an important aspect of discerning truth. It is not possible for one person to know the truth in all things. So a pre-requisite for truth is insight and the recognition of insight. One key aspect of recognising insight is that of sila – moral integrity. Recognising moral integrity is almost as difficult as recognising insight but there is an obvious corollary to this:-
If a person does not have moral integrity, then they certainly do not have insight and would not see truth as important.
Having moral integrity and talking about morals is definitely not the same thing. There are many people who use morality within religious institutions as a means of control, and yet they themselves do not have morality. In other words religion and morality are not the same although within the religious institutions there are people with insight and moral integrity.
Compassion is the most important fundamental concerning truth. Compassion means the freedom from suffering for all, and in this I include Gaia. So in seeking the truth the person must show compassion. Therefore a person speaking the truth will be working towards compassion, and therefore someone who is sexist, racist, or does not support LBGT rights is not compassionate, and is therefore not speaking the truth. So there are yardsticks, how compassionate is the person and how much insight do they have?
Of course these yardsticks are absolutes, and applying these absolutes in everyday situations especially in something as criminal as politics is very difficult.
But trying to use these yardsticks let’s examine the political situation but not as yet in terms of party politics. What politically exhibits the least compassion? Quite obviously the first political yardstick is war. Who benefits from war? People don’t but corporations do, the global MIC, Military Industrial Complex does. So we have a political question to ask as a benchmark concerning support for the MIC and the corporations – I will use the vernacular the 1%. The most heinous weapon of war is the drone, these are hugely expensive to make and generate huge profits, a definite plus for the MIC. The immigration crisis is blowback, a huge consequence of interfering wars and the heinous use of drones.
These corporations work hand-in-hand with global finance institutions such as banking and insurance. So for me the 1% of MIC, banking and finance are those that control global politics, and politicians who stand against the 1% are those who I support. I have not mentioned BigFood and BigPharma but these corporations have similar interests as the other corporations of the 1%.
For me Occupy stood against the 1%, so I support the Occupy movement. It is my understanding that the Occupy movement stood behind Bernie in the US and Corbyn in the UK. Whether this is true or not what Bernie and Corbyn say stands against the 1%.
But is what they say what they mean, are they telling the truth? Or is it just rhetoric?
In Corbyn’s case I have sufficient personal knowledge of the man to know that he is genuine although I haven’t always agreed with his tactics. In the UK in London from 1985 through to 1992 I was a political activist, and this brought me into contact with Corbyn’s sphere of influence – he was an MP and community activist in North London then. For me there was no doubt about his moral integrity and compassion, but at the time I was active I felt his tactics were mistaken. Now I support him, times change.
I support Bernie. His rhetoric is good, and I have a general feeling that he is moving in the right direction. But because of the lack of personal connection I cannot be so definitive. My intuition makes me feel he merits support, but I would not go beyond that because of my lack of personal contact.
What is most interesting about these two political candidates is that they are both struggling with their party hierarchies. There is a movie I often recall called Lifting the Veil. Whilst the movie does attack both the Labour party and the Democrats, it is more concerned with attacking the system. It is my understanding that the movie claims that the electoral system has been manipulated by the 1% as a media circus, and that there is never any intention of genuine democracy – government by the people for the people. This is in line with the approach of neoliberalism as most notably discussed by Noam Chomsky (for me).
Given that I accept that the political system of neoliberalism is the problem, the question then is how it is to be defeated and what is it to be replaced with? For me compassion means that I am seeking a system that treats people as equals without regards to “race creed or colour”; I would also now add gender preference. This is fundamentally the rights of all people over the few, the 99% compared to the 1%. At present we have governments directed by the 1% against the interests of the 99% who they want to exploit as their workforce. So the question is how do we organise for a government by the 99% (or 100% where the government treats all people as equal)? In determining veracity I would be investigating whether the politician is genuinely interested in a government of and by 100% of the people.
So far I have avoided political terminology in describing truth. And this is because of problems with the media and education. It is my view that western societies (and probably global societies) are inundated with propaganda that is directed by the 1% for their benefit. The terms 1% and 99% are very similar to the Marxist terminology of bourgeois and proletariat, and there has been continued propaganda against Marxists, socialists or any who subscribe to Marx’s theories. There is much to be learnt from Marx’s dialectical approach. But the main point of Marxism is that all the people need to work together against the self-interests of the 1%. In my adult years I have never seen people more divided, and I think propaganda and obfuscation by the 1%-media are the main causes. Typically I have seen mainstream media organisations described as left-wing when I have always described them as right-wing. In terms of compassion this site might well have the same objectives – healthy people, but in terms of the media our descriptions could not be further apart. In this the 1% have been so successful in dividing us.
There is another reason I have not promoted myself as socialist, I believe that sticking to ideas or an ideology is a mistake. While ideas can guide, holding to an ideal restricts the mind. Adhering to dogma stagnates an institution whether it is religious or political, people also become restricting if others are expected to fit in with ideals. So another point of truth is enquiry. Does the truth hold up to inspection of the enquiring mind? For many years dogma has been thrown at me either from the left wing or in religious circles, but none of this dogma alone produces clarification. It is only with insight that dogma moves beyond the idea. Examining a situation in the light of compassion and through enquiry examining the dogma and situation is a process to determine the truth. Does what is said fit a set of rules is not truth-determining?
I often draw parallels between US and UK politics, typically Republicans vs Democrats and Conservatives vs Labour. In the UK historically the conservatives have supported the 1% with token liberal rhetoric for the welfare of the people and nationalist populism in the interests of the white population, and whilst historically Labour grew out of the working-class its representatives are now simply opportunists. In the UK a nationalist populist, Nigel Farage, has arrived on the scene promoting racism, and this populism has recently been accepted by many people – a significant factor in Brexit; his party UKIP primarily attracts disillusioned working-class Labour voters.
The I in UKIP stands for Independence, and I think this term independent is significant. In UKIP’s case it maybe means independent from the EU – Brexit. But in character UKIP supposedly represents an alternative to the conservatives and labour (the neoliberal system). At the same time it discusses the people’s interests over that of an elite – again appealing to an understanding of those against neoliberalism, but its appeal to the British electorate is because it is white nationalist. In my view UKIP is an appeal to white popular racism, and although sadly they are increasing in popularity their only impact so far has been their contribution to Brexit which also included majority conservative influence. In the UK this populism has divided the 99%, and in the UK I believe that is why UKIP has been funded and given more coverage in mainstream media than is warranted for a small party.
In the US the situation is slightly different but the impact of nationalist populism combined with the conservative interests has led to the election of Donald Trump. Because of my compassion I cannot support either UKIP or Trump because of their racism – and in Trump’s case overt sexism. (I suspect also LGBT issues but I am not certain of that). Initially I said that if a person does not have moral integrity I cannot believe that they will tell the truth, that applies particularly for Trump although I also distrust Farage.
In the US many people rue the election because Hillary was not elected. However in the neoliberal system Hillary represented the 1%-system elite of the Democrat party, and so she lost the populist vote. For the same reason support from Occupy was not strong because of the same neoliberalism, and because of the way the Democrat party cut out Bernie.
In terms of truth it is worth examining how events have panned out in terms of the way they have benefitted the 1%. Particularly in the US nationalist populism has benefitted the 1% by splitting the 99%. The populists have however elected a member of the 1% to deliver an anti-1% platform, can that ever happen? We will have to wait and see. Is Trump a political “whistleblower”?
In terms of truth this splitting is very important because it explains much that goes on with populism. Within the framework of blaming the elite the primary purpose of the populism is division. When you examine much of the analysis in both camps it places the source of the problem with the 1%. Two important platforms of US populism were “draining the swamp” and “against Wall Street”, both of which any left-winger would be happy to support. But then comes the division because the most important attack politically is to blame the left. And here is the inconsistency, the swamp and Wall Street are not the Left.
When considering the populism we have to examine emphasis. The 1% have no problem with being blamed if their strategy of dividing the 99% works so the rise of this nationalist populism just benefits them. For me the main political truth is that the 1% cause our problems, and that we should all fight against the influence of the 1%. In blaming the 1% I seek unity against the 1%, and seek strategies that negate their financial power and influence. This strategy unites all working people, it unites small business owners who are trying to balance their books, but it works against people who manipulate financial laws for their own profit. Such small business owners do not go bankrupt and start up again. Such people pay taxes however unfair the tax system might be because those taxes provide education and infrastructure for ordinary working people. The 99% have all this in common, and if we all worked together then the 1% cannot exploit us.
However divided we become manipulable so it is in the interest of the 99% to divide the left and right. The internet has succeeded in doing this. By investing in the internet the 1% have developed websites that present their divisive populism.
At the same time populism has inconsistencies because the strategy is division and not the interests of the people themselves. The government is described as left-wing and yet a major popular platform is the swamp – the revolving door of the 1% that controls the government. How can the government be left-wing and 1%-controlled? And Trump himself is a major inconsistency, how can a member of the 1% be interested in fighting 1%-control? However these inconsistencies don’t matter if the purpose is division, that division is a consistent purpose:-
Consistency – division
Such inconsistency is for me a good measure of the truth.
Where next do I go in terms of the truth? Over the years I have developed mechanisms for determining the truth. These are based primarily on the arena of politics that I know – what has been called the “left”. I know these people, and have developed some insight into their degree of truth-telling. Over the years I have seen how important the truth is to the left wing, if there are any doubts in the veracity of a left-wing statement there is a huge mainstream backlash. More responsible left-wing people are very careful with the truth, but that is not all left-wingers for sure with some of the more vociferous getting carried away with rhetoric; so there has to be truth-discernment from within. Based on my experience and insight I would use certain left-wing evidence and avoid the rhetoric. This can only be a personal approach to truth.
Political correctness is also worth discussing when examining the truth. PC developed throughout my lifetime, and in my view it developed because language was a significant part of racism and sexism. Demanding that people were not racist or sexist in the language they used was a good position when trying to remove the embedded racism and sexism in society. As a result racists and sexists were expected to improve their use of language. This gave an illusion that people were less racist or sexist but in the UK Brexit showed that people had not truly changed. At the same time there has been a backlash against the “PC police”, people who have too vehemently reinforced the change of language without helping people change their attitudes. With UKIP and Trump those people who have been straitjacketed by the PC police have been allowed to express their racism and sexism. Because there was a repression there has been a backlash against PC in general, and as a result truth has suffered because much truth came out of the research those people did.
At the same time it is populist to reject what PC people have said because populism attacks the left wing. As I have said, this is a change that I find hard to understand as the government has always been a puppet of the 1% so for populism to claim government is left wing is difficult for me to grasp. Again this is an indication as to the ability of the 1% to influence. Look at what has happened. The 1% continue to dominate and their profits continue to increase despite the crash of 2008. Governments have applied austerity measures as a consequence, awarded bankers bonuses, and yet populism has divided the 99% so that there is an obfuscation concerning the left wing. The power of money is amazing.
So to conclude how I determine truth:-
1) Overlying everything else is compassion
Finally since this has been mainly concerning truth in politics, I ask that we recognise a political delusion that has been perpetrated. Most people vote for economic reasons ie vote in a way that they think will give them most money. Vote for greed. When greed is voted for we get manipulated by the greedy. Why not change the way we vote to that of compassion, vote for people who genuinely talk about caring for others and the environment. This would change the political arena.
Trump upset me – quite depressed, and led me to a rethink. Am I sufficiently up-to-date and in touch if I didn’t see it coming? This is a summary of my blogs to give a context.
In Trumped I guess at the impact. In Left supports Trump I attack a Jewish activist who is very knowledgeable but is missing an understanding of neocolonialism – the Veil and elections. Blame the liberals takes a similar tack about the Veil – neocolonialism.
Shame of White People begins to look at the real problem – the racism of white people, why aren’t these people ashamed to vote for a DEPLORABLE like Trump? 53% of white women voted for a blatant sexist and exploiter of women, how can they? Growing up afraid starts to look at my background community – the white people who voted for Brexit and who are typical of the silent Trump supporters. In Brexit is racist I make it clear that I see Brexit as a racist vote, and point to the problem that is not the deplorables but “nice” white people. In “nice” white people I detail a description of the demographic of the silent foolish racist white people who have supported Brexit and Trump. In Rising Fascism I point out the fascism that these “nice” racist fools have been tricked into creating. And finally I look at what the left needs to do to consolidate.
To what avail? These “nice” white people will be bought off and matters will get worse. At least I know not to listen when people tell me racism is better now, and millennials are you any different to the mentalities of the hippies and so on I grew up with whose materialism changed them to Brexit? Millennials when you are invested in the economy will you also be fooled into this “nice” white racist position – especially when the rising fascism will mean that good understanding through controlled media will not be as easily accessible?
The insecurity surrounding the Trump presidency is creating fear throughout the world, and fans the ego of this horrendous man. When you look at Hillary you see a career politician, a paid-up member of the Veil and a Bilderberg agent. With Trump nothing is certain, and much of the following is speculation.
Liberals see the vote as an aberrance that can be fought and possibly reigned in but I see it as far worse than this. About the only policy that he has been democratically certified for is no-policy. There appears to have been an electoral deal – Carrier. Apparently they had said they would move their plant to Mexico, now Trump has given them tax breaks maintaining some of the jobs in Indiana – his heartland. The cost of these jobs seems prohibitive, and effectively the tax-payer has funded a new automated Carrier plant.
This type of manipulation, if repeated, will make Trump a favourite with business and his “nice” white people leading to a further presidency. I foresee a term in office that will be 100% self-serving – promotion of his presidency and his business with targeted benefits for his voters.
What this means for the rest of us is not certain. Government will not act as a break on the wars-for-profit hawks behind the scenes of Washington. At the same time he will not act as a break to the Wall Street demons so long as they will enable his second term; his finance picks support Wall Street. He has not drained the “swamp”, but given them access through his picks. If the “nice” white people get jobs and his “nice” white communities are favoured, they will ignore the promises about the “swamp” – ultimately this personal wealth is all that interests the racism of “nice” white people.
Who does it look bad for? The state sector and the minorities. The state sector offers him nothing, and he has no votes there. As for the minorities the future looks bleak. On the campaign trail Trump gathered around him a violent mob of horrendous people, these people Hillary accurately described as deplorables:-
For some reason the campaign withdrew this slur, I don’t understand this. Those deplorables will always vote Republican – or not at all; Democrats have no chance with those votes. But they were never Trump’s target audience. His target was the Klauses, arrogant white people connected to small businesses who seek security at whatever compassionate cost. For these “nice” white people there is no concern for the wider society, their communities are relatively peaceful and there is still a community ethic. They help each other, and look after each other. The costs of the wider society are just a drain on their resources. Their contact with minorities is limited, the minorities who live up the road fit into their community and will be helped as would any of their neighbours. The slums and the ghettoes of the inner cities are not their problem. Trump need not target the compassionate society to maintain his votebase.
Hillary was not talking about “nice” white people when she talked of deplorables. She said 50% of Trump supporters were deplorable. I am ashamed that the community I was born in were part of the other 50%. I am ashamed of them, I am ashamed for them, and I am sad that they are not ashamed. Hillary’s tactic was to try to separate the deplorables from “nice” white people, and to try to make those “nice” white people think for themselves. The tactic failed miserably but personally I don’t think the tactic was wrong but she did not follow through on it.
Basically people will be left to fend for themselves, and this suits the relative affluence of rural white societies. But in the inner cities this will lead to greater vulnerability to gang culture.
As for Muslims there will be increased Islamophobia where every Muslim will be seen as a terrorist. Because Trump has given credence to the deplorables, they will feel they have the right to demand the US for the whites. This would be especially so given some of the right-wing picks of the Trump government. As Trump will not want to “waste” money policing the inner cities and protecting the Muslims from these deplorables, their lives will become much worse – suffering random acts of violence.
The insecurity of the Hispanic community will worsen. Throughout his campaign there has been talk of the wall and Mexican rapists, this will allow the deplorables to be violent to Hispanics. At the same time Trump will continue to allow cheap labour where his votes are not affected, I am not sure how this will work; it will be a balance in which he will curry favour with business to enable jobs for his voters.
This of course will lead to a rise in racism, why do I see it as a rise in fascism? Here is wiki on fascism. Reading this do you not see mega-similarities with the Trump campaign – with Brexit. The fear of war that was at the basis of my upbringing has not dissipated but morphed into racism, and appeals to that racism echoes authoritarian nationalism– the basis of fascism. “Nice” white people who believe in their own compassion are hastening the emergence of fascism as a solution, how can that be??
The emergence of the expression of white racism exemplified firstly by the Brexit vote and then the vote for Trump deeply saddens and angers me.
My parents were in their teens during the second world war, and were grateful for the peace that followed. As was the frightened community I grew up in that was racist and sexist, and the fear brought out violence including in myself. But mostly this violence was reactionary, the establishment (1%) fighting any form of change.
When I started to think I rejected the fear-based system in the community I grew up in. As an adult I tried not to be racist and not to be sexist, and I tried to work for peace eschewing any violence. For this my community said I would grow out of it. I am proud to say I never have, and trying not to be racist or sexist – and not being violent – are attributes I am proud of.
However significant proportions of the community I grew up with have not changed. Rather than educating themselves into overcoming their fear by being compassionate, they have clung to their fears and this clinging shows in their racist vote patterns. The media claims that Brexit and Trump is a symbol of liberal failure, and looking for something different. They claim that the white racist vote is voting for a change, but neither Brexit nor Trump offer change they only offer a return to the fear and racism of the community I grew up with. Apart from rhetoric and falsehoods what policies that benefit these people have we heard from Brexit or Trump? With Brexit we see the confidence of the money markets manipulating the exchange rates leading to economic loss – hopefully temporary. At the same time there has been an increase in racist violence, will there also be an emergence of increasing domestic violence? What do you think of that possibility 53% of US white women?
There is no rationale to these votes. Trump offered these US racists the sacrificial excuse of “Crooked Hillary”, an excuse which might be valid if the alternative had integrity but when you see the depravity that is Trump how can any rational person vote for him?
My childhood community was not founded in rationale but fear. In this world of fear they went to work, their standard of living grew, as the 1% exploited the peace that followed the second world war and exploited the neo-colonialism in Africa and other ex-colonies. The 1% grew rich and my community went to work leading to a safe but comfortable standard of living. In all of this racism and sexism did not matter because they were afraid of the war.
But these people did not move on. They were happy to call people becoming aware of these social crimes as young people who will grow out of it. And they never grew. They hankered for the past, the peace that followed the post-war community. The needed change was reacted to by the 1%, and those people chose to see those changing as being the cause of the violence – this of course was the stance of the mainstream media (part of the 1%). This fearful community chose not to develop, hankered for a racist sexist post-war peace, and had their fear manipulated by Brexit and Trump.
Instead of describing this ignorance for what it is – a racist and sexist reactionary white community, the mainstream chooses to call this racism a vote for change. Instead of shaming these white people for a racist sexist ignorance, there is a token respect for their willingness to vote for something different. The fact that they are voting for “something different” that is fascist is glossed over. It should not be glossed over, this Brexit/Trump vote is a reactionary vote for racism and sexism. These people should be made to feel shame not excused because they are “seeking change”. Corbyn offers change but this is not fascism so votes for Corbyn are not considered votes for something different.
The Guardian should have the word “shame” plastered all over the front page. But unfortunately this shameful group of “nice” white middle-class and upper working-class are too powerful so the mainstream does not cry “shame”. My extended family are “nice people”, they go to church and help each other and their neighbours. I will not ask but most of them I suspect voted for Brexit, their American equivalents voted for Trump. They are not the bigoted Trump rabble from his rallies who were portrayed in the progressive media, but the quiet white people, amongst the 53% of white women, who voted for Trump. I am ashamed of them. I have always been the aggressive outsider critical of the mainstream, and they pointed out my anger as a weakness. They did not look at their own racism and sexism as a weakness. So many times I sat quiet as disguised racism was the polite conversation, this is now not acceptable. I am ashamed of their vote, they should be ashamed. I should not be the one who has to be quiet in polite conversation, they should be because their racism is shameful.
I grew up afraid but with nothing to fear – or better afraid of the wrong thing. This fear characterised my environment, a quiet Manchester suburb where we conformed to a way of life – a way of wage-slavery. But it was better than war – the second world war, so I soon learned to understand where that came from. I live outside the UK now but when at uni my friends went abroad – I was afraid. As I hit bottom and came out of the conditioning and the fear, travelling was still not the answer because of this fear. But I was developing as a person working on the fears created in the UK. When I was 40 I moved abroad and never turned back to the UK environment that is so dominated by fear.
This fear explains so much that is wrong with the UK, including the racism that underlies Brexit; I am sure it explains Trump but I don’t know those people well enough. Whilst I grew up afraid I grew up feeling a sense of being imprisoned – repressed. This was what my environment did to me. For a long time I saw the problem as being my father, but whilst there are individual characteristics there – that it is not appropriate to discuss – my focus on him at the time was not justified. It was the fear that came from the suburban environment. You can understand it. The parents were all people who had been involved in the war, their adolescence was as children in a country at war. In my house it was never discussed but the fear was there. Wage slavery was just accepted because it was better than war.
When I went to uni it was as part of a generation who were questioning. At uni I don’t remember questioning much as my life was dominated by the bottle, but I suppose I must have because after 18 months of the world of work I hit bottom. And never looked back. I have always seen that hitting bottom as breaking out of conditioning – the academic mindset, but it was more. It was breaking the restrictions that fear had put on me. I carried that fear with me a long time even after I had hit bottom. But hitting bottom was the beginning of breaking through the fear.
What did that fear do to the UK? I grew up surrounded by racism, sexism and violence. At teacher training college I went to a fancy dress ball in a dress for some reason – I had some strength having hit bottom three years previously. A trainee teacher who was a rugby player touched my dick that was showing through the tight dress, I touched his back in a blasé way and he thumped me – I walked away; I was not a fighter and he was bigger than me anyway. Why was he violent? At the same place another teacher promised to buy a bike from me. We agreed that I would leave the bike outside my house and he would collect it and pay me some money. Maybe he was drunk, maybe he didn’t want it – that is not my point. A year later I was teaching so was he. He was living in a squat with a colleague. She told him what I said, he told her if I ever told her the story again he would come and hit me. Fear breeds the kind of violence these two teachers showed. They grow up with fear, and then defend themselves by being violent. I chose those stories because these people were teachers, the violence amongst less educated is worse. Violence is not an acceptable way of life but it is created by systemic fear and is integral to western way of life. For me this is a significant part of Britain, and why I don’t live there.
But the violence that is British is not unique in the West, nor am I saying that it is uniquely western. But what is the excuse for such fear now? My parents had grown up during the war (I am 64), so they had fear. My generation grew up with that fear but actually had nothing to fear. Yet the fear continued. Why? Conspiracy theory; remember conspiracies like this just develop, not some idea from a smoke-filled room. Fear worked to create profits. My parents, my environment, was an excellent place for profits. Through the 50s and 60s the fatcats made huge profits based on a compliant workforce, and why was the workforce so compliant? Because of fear of war. Look at the history. Slowly in the 50s and 60s began to fight off the fear that was repressing them. Violence dogged that breaking out because that was the fatcats holding onto their post-war profits. Young people expressing themselves brought out that fear, and arms of repression, police and others, jumped on them. For 20 years the fatcats made huge profits at the expense of a low-paid workforce. During the 70s the workforce sought their due recompense and the fatcats refused to budge and closed the country down. This increased people’s fear, and with the media defending the fatcats people turned that fear on themselves – against the unions, and voted in Thatcher. Thatcher then fostered that fear in other ways, and so on until the present day.
In British society what is there to be afraid of? There is no second world war that parents had lived through. But there is the fear and violence that has been fostered ever since my childhood. There is racism that has been built up by the media. Fear of losing jobs to immigrants, a fear that is not borne out by statistics. A fear that is fanned by the media which is the PR arm of the fatcats who will do anything for a profit especially not pay fair wages. There is however a legitimate fear that is rarely discussed because it would affect the fatcats’ wealth, the fear of blowback from all the wars for profits; this is not a fear recognised by many.
How I would experience that fear if I was growing up in Britain now I do not know. But what I do know is that that fear is manufactured by the establishment to maintain a compliant workforce – to maintain the fatcats’ profits. That fear is so strong that the equivalent environment to the one I grew up in voted Brexit. Now I am not a big fan of the EU as I am an internationalist and don’t like Fortress Europe (against the USA). But for the people of my background to be voting for Brexit shows how bad that fear still is. And yet that fear has no legitimacy, it is created by the divisions the fatcats through the establishment impose on society in order to increase profits.
In Britain we now grow up with fear because they want us to be afraid. That is a reality we should know. How you deal with it I don’t know, after all the bully boys the system creates still are violent – however educated.
In this Guardian article, it says “53% of white women voted for Trump, according to CNN exit polls.” And in this article, 42% of women, 53% of white women, voted for Trump. Whatever an individual woman might say the general reality is that a competent woman politician who had been smeared incessantly did not attract the votes of 53% of white women. Trump was no respectable sexist, he was outwardly chauvinist demonstrating characteristics I would only expect to see in the worst pub. Yet 53% of white women voted for him. How can ANY woman be voting for him? Whether a woman is right-wing fascist or whatever, surely what Trump says should prevent any woman from voting for him? His sexism ought to preclude him from candidacy but 53% of white women don’t care.
I immediately feel like attacking the women’s movement. Some of the more aggressive women do not hesitate to attack men over chauvinism yet 53% of white women voted for Trump. In much the same way that I feel shame over the way white people are LINK, I feel every liberal white woman should be ashamed at this state of affairs.
You 53%, I do not understand you.
I feel like shouting at liberal women to get out there and do something, but I have no right. I have the right to point this out and ask questions of the movement. This man, Trump, would never have been elected in the 60s – at the start of feminism, now 50 years later he is elected. Black people note his racism and he gets no votes, 53% of white women do not care about his blatant sexism. Serious work needs doing, there has to be a level of complacency amongst liberal women.
I note the difference between the two feminisms – reformism and revolutionary – that I I discussed earlier this year . No revolutionary could vote for Trump, does reform allow you to vote for Trump if you get more salary?
I want to compare two women – Hillary and Thatcher. To me Thatcher stood for all that is wrong, I see 1979 (with Reagan) as the end of possible change gained from the hippies and the beginning of an age of right wing oppression where people just worked for money – wage-slaves. Yet many feminists lauded Maggie because of her “power in a man’s world”. Compare Hillary to Maggie, she has competence, established herself in a man’s world, whilst I disagree with what she represents – neoliberal exploitation – as a woman she is a political icon. Yet 53 % of white women did not vote for her.
You 53%, I do not understand you.
White people should be ashamed, white women – 53% – should be more ashamed.
I supported feminism in the 60s because of violence towards women – and how for some women were perceived as little more than a kitchen chattel. The Beyonce image of feminism means little to me, her succesful image is reformist rather than revolutionary, but my studies convinced me that if body image is such a prison that Karen Carpenter can die from anorexia and Jane Fonda felt she had body issues this was enough to say despite my personal interactions the struggle needs to continue. 53% white women voting for Trump shows me that the struggle of the women’s movement has hardly begun.
53% white women need to feel shame.
(this was written before the election).
This type of left-wing blog makes me angry. Jonathan Cook is very knowledgeable on Israel and antisemitism, and should be read (followed) for that, but to me this blog on Hillary is not on the money. For progressives the election was over when Bernie was squeezed out. Jill Stein could be an alternative to Bernie but in my view one should vote for her only in states where Hillary has no chance. A vote for Jill Stein in a close contest is a vote for Trump. The others ….
I start with the following assessment, and it is only that – I don’t know for sure. Hillary represents Wall Street (despite what Michael Moore says in Trumpland). Under Hillary I would expect a continuation of Wall Street policies as with Obama – war for profit, drones etc.
Under Trump I see no difference on wars for profit, drones etc. He is Republican, where do we see with Republicans a reduction in wars for profits and drones? Why would Trump stand up against Wall Street?
In terms of foreign policy I would see no difference. I would expect Trump to take a backseat on foreign policy letting Wall Street and the MIC do what it wants. From this point of view Jonathan Cook’s personal interest is correct – there is no difference in terms of his campaigning interest – justice for Palestine. I think Jonathan’s argument that Trump is an isolationist does not have traction because it is rhetoric. Where does this rhetoric translate into foreign policy? Hillary does not advocate foreign interventionism except when she attends CFR, I assess Trump would not advocate it either but that it would just happen anyway. Trump’s isolationism is about supporting fascism, and not concerned with foreign policy. However Trump is jingoist, that will allow for “war for profit” manipulation as the US must “defend” itself.
So the difference lies in domestic policy. Trump is sexist and racist and encourages sexism and racism, Hillary is token liberal paying lipservice to both – again an assessment. How will these affect domestic US society? The moronic right wing – the US fascists will take credibility from a Trump government, and there will be an increase in such assaults. These atrocious white fascists (Supremacists/KKK) will have an increasing voice in US society, and there will be an increase in violence – as can be seen with Trump’s rallies. As Jonathan says “destroying the politics of respect, and civil discourse, could quickly result in the normalisation of political violence and intimidation.”
Jonathan dismisses decorum as an issue. Hillary of course is more experienced as a debater, and Trump says what he wants. The question here is truth. Trump is no respecter of truth, and appears not to care whether anything he says is truthful. We do not know whether Hillary is truthful, my view is that she is truthful only when it suits her, but she does not lie to smear. Hillary was forced to lower her standards to participate in the debate, could she have remained with a higher detachment during the smears that Trump threw out? I don’t think so.
Consider the sex smears. Has Trump said anything meaningful against Hillary? Absolutely not. The sexual smears have been directed against Bill, what has that got to do with Hillary? It is just smearing without any integrity.
The Clinton foundation will have been involved in promoting imperialism as are all these US foundations, using charity laws to promote the interests of the 1%. The Trump foundation promotes Trump.
I think the disguise of the Clintons, typical of Obama and all mainstream politicians, is marginally better than Trump but only just. What happens if we support the smear approach of Trump? Everything is up for grabs – just because he pretends to open up all the diplomatic disguises of Wall Street politics.
But what he is doing is lurching the debate to the right? What matters is a progressive government – represented by Bernie at the moment? It is possible that Trump’s right wing violence will lead to a greater left wing consciousness but such a consciousness would be forced to express itself through violence. Under Clinton such a dialogue could still be held in a peaceful way. With the Bernie contest she voiced more progressive policies because she had to. When Trump has moved everything to the right there can only be a debate of extremes, and as the Trump extreme is happy to extoll violence the left will be forced to do the same.
When you have issue-based campaigning – such as Palestine, you have to consider when and how foreign policy will change. Of course with US insularity foreign policy is the last to change but it can only change with a generalised progressive agenda, move the debate to the left and maybe some of that progression will make a change to foreign policy. When the debate is controlled by the fascist, foreign policy can never liberalise; Israel as an ally for the US will be cemented. This cannot help Jonathan’s campaigning interest – Palestine.
Jonathan’s summative position is striving for people to vote out of conviction. I ask
“when would the 1% ever allow candidates with compassionate conviction to stand?” Trump has a form of conviction – self-aggrandisement through politics.
A conviction vote can never happen. Electoral democracy can never be meaningful, that seems to be the fallacy of Jonathan’s blog, he seeks a meaningful vote. As he quite righty pointed out, the genuine democracy of Bernie was manipulated out of the arena. Conviction voting is never going to change that. Democracy can only happen through genuine grass roots democracy that hopefully will have an impact on the controlled electoral process. If the grass roots democracy moves the agenda leftwards, then maybe the candidates such as Bernie or Elizabeth Warren will emerge with more chance. Over my awareness since the 70s there has never been left-wing candidates with any chance like Bernie or Liz Warren or Corbyn. This is positive and a Trump government will stifle such by his promotion of fascism. It is naïve to think that conviction voting can ever be anything other than Trot extremism, for progressives voting must be tactical.
Not only was I angry to read this blog, I was disappointed with some of the naivety. It made me respect the wisdom I gained from the training of the experienced with my short stay in the Communist party. Where does Jonathan learn from the wisdom of the elder?
And perhaps most important although Jonathan won’t see this as important, a candidate should at least avow morality – lipservice, sila. It shows how low the western ceiling is that sila has no traction.
When you meet the American ego it is obnoxious. When you watch Michael Moore in Trumpland you see that he has some grudging respect for them. It is like the realisation I had in South Africa, the majority of Trump supporters are like the whites in South Africa, they are like my father, they only care about what they can get for their family. Somehow they think Trump can get it for them.
For me Trump means “business as usual” but that is only in the strict meaning of the word. Business as usual not life as usual. Corporations will have a field day as the shackles of regulation and common courtesy will be taken off. If there is a Trump long-term people will die from environmental disaster such as Erin Brockovich.
Life is where things will change. In Thailand there are no regulations to protect the Farang, you take it or leave it. If you have money it is OK, if you don’t you take risks. Because Thai people are usually good to get on with, Thailand works as a place to retire – even with a military government. But in the US such lack of protection does not work. The bulk of the Trump election mobs are the worst shades of humanity, these racist sexist KKK morons will now be considered acceptable. The manosphere will rule.
But the bulk of Trump supporters are not this mob, they are ordinary white people looking after their families. What gets in the way? Short term – government and taxes. They do not feel they are against the corporations in general, business is OK for them. There are some business excesses of these corporations but mostly business is business is OK. They have not made the jump to understand that small business interests and corporate interests are not the same. They do not see that corporations have stifled them, they blame government rather than corporations or their demise. These people would deride me when I say socialists and small businesses have the same interests.
They see Wall Street as the enemy yet somehow they do not see that Wall Street and the Corporations are the same. They see Wall Street as Hillary – she probably was, Michael Moore – and the enemy to their small businesses. Hillary did not address any of these interests so she lost their votes – in Trumpland. On reflection Bernie stood more of a chance with their votes because he stood against Wall Street especially as voting for such a debased human as Trump with no sila will have hurt this type of Christian. But Trump appeared to stand for what they wanted, a government that will let them bring home the bacon.
But these people are deluded because America is corporate – not small business. Deregulation that will help big business will mean that the big fish will swallow up the small fish. Reduced taxes will hit the compassionate state sector and the standard of state education, healthcare etc will fall. This will hurt the poor and the small business. America is now for the unprincipled bully and poor people need to look out.
Why would foreign policy change? Trump is jingoist and business interests will control that jingoism to maintain the current foreign policy, drones make a profit, no US citizens get hurt, and America stays “great”. Jingoism does not require action, maybe it would require a response. But who would choose to go up against a fool like Trump – not even Putin.
The only thing that will change is US sila as the worst sorts of white humanity will be given their head. Whilst the small family tends to have good moral interactions with friends and neighbours they are ignorant of racism and sexism. The wife accepts the control that she maintains in return she does not promote feminism, black people and latins are unknown and the other – and fair game. These people have found it harder to make ends meet, and are hoping that Trump will enable that. Trump managed to detach himself from Corporate America in the campaigning but his corporatism will show in presidency – and his voters will miss out, ends will not be met. Tax reductions will buy them off for a short while. Any money saved in government expense will add to the profits of the bully boys – and not to these hard-working people. They have been duped.
They have been played, much like foolish Klaus. Why did regulations come in? Because Corporations can pay to implement them, and it helped break small businesses making them easy pickings. The regulations the Corporations want Trump will keep, the ones they don’t want will go – the ones that will help the poor. Regulations like that don’t come in because of pressure from the poor. Unleaded petrol came in when corporations could profit – not because it helped the poor, helping the poor was the sales pitch. Government is in the pocket of corporations, Trump will be as well. If he doesn’t fall in line they will squeeze him – or kill him; Trump is so obnoxious people will be lining up to kill him.
The American ego is just so stupid.