Thursday, August 29, 2019

Laura Walker... The Oracle Report ~ Tues. 8/27/19; Wed. 8/28/19

THE ORACLE REPORT | Virgo 2019 New Moon

Wednesday, August 28, 2019
NEW RECORDING: Virgo 2019 New Moon

Tuesday, August 27, 2019
Balsamic Moon Phase:  release what you do not want to carry into the upcoming new cycle

Moon in Cancer/Leo 7:54 pm EST/11:54 pm UTC

Tzolkin:  13 Sun (the most holy day in the Sacred Calendar)

Skill:  gain focus and equilibrium

True Alignments:  value system, overcoming, exchange of spiritual knowledge, benefits, donating time or money, cooperation, practice, discipline, other dimensions of awareness, heightened creativity, attuning to spiritual forces and messages, light at the end of a tunnel

Catalysts for Change:  frozen in place, repeating a negative pattern, failure to see a life lesson, feeling of sacrifice that has come to nothing, loss of perspective, confused, excluding others, downgrading or devaluing (watch money and markets for changes today)

Sabian Symbol for the Solar-Lunar Month:  “glassblowers shape beautiful vases with their controlled breathing” (creating your own “vessel”)

Sabian Symbol for the Solar-Lunar Year:  “fairies dancing in the setting Sun” (sunset on the new world order)

The big story today is Mars making a trine to Uranus.  Mars empowers the “expect the unexpected” element of Uranus.  Mars rules energy, impetus, motivation, and drive, so it maximizes Uranus’ effects.

Mars is discharging the degree in zodiac of “a merry-go-round.”  In many ways, various “merry-go-rounds” stop - suddenly today and tomorrow.  Seemingly never-ending cycles lose power.

Sometimes when we get off of a ride that has been going around and around, we are wobbly.  Our feet try to find solid ground, and our heads try to stop reeling.

After a few moments, we are able to focus and feel grounded once again.

This is what we have in store today.  How wonderful is that?  Who is ready to get off of a crazy ride?

Look for drastic changes in your outlook as your mind clears.  Something will “dawn” on us that we have missed while we have been whizzing around and around.  We become aware of something that was happening on a much deeper level.  

It is a profound gift.

Mars will make exact trine with Uranus at 6:39 am EST/10:39 am UTC tomorrow, but the effects begin today.

When Mars does make the exact trine with Uranus, it will be discharging the energetic of “a harem.”  As I mentioned yesterday, this is the Sabian symbol for the New Moon in Virgo, which begins early Friday morning.  Since Uranus is discharging “a woman of Samaria (Sumer, Mesopotamia, Iran, Iraq) comes to draw water from the well,” we will get a foreshadowing today and tomorrow of what is to come next month with regard to the global sex trafficking ring.  It will be interesting to see what develops.

Remember that Uranus always brings the unexpected.  It is not possible to totally predict it.  It is sudden, often shocking, things come from out of the blue, accidents happen, rejections or course corrections occur. 

We also can feel like we have “lightning” in our bodies.  Uranus rules anxiety and insomnia. It can be very uncomfortable, but it always works in our favor.  What may look like a tragedy now is seen as a blessing later.

We should not forget that Uranus is conjunct the Chiron Point.  This means that Uranus is doing everything that needs to be done in order to heal things and teach us better ways.  Uranus conjunct the Chiron Point is an epic transit that happens only every 84 years.  It is in effect until May 4, 2020.

Further evidence of today foreshadowing the fall of archontic systems comes with the Sun is discharging 05 Virgo, “a man becoming aware of nature spirits (fairies) and normally unseen spiritual energies,” and Mercury discharging 27 Leo, “daybreak - the luminescence of dawn in the eastern sky.”

We see what will come from this year’s theme of “fairies dancing in the setting Sun” when the “fairies dance at the break of sunrise.”

Wise owls have their ears open and eyes peeled on the horizon.

Tread lightly out there today, everyone.  People are likely to be erratic.  Stay focused when driving, when using electrical devices (especially around water), and if lightning is present where you are today

Let’s rejoice in the ending of a merry-go-round.

Image & Text Source: http://www.oraclereport.com/

Emerson, Lake & Palmer - Black Moon (1992)~

Wednesday, August 28, 2019

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky is Roadblock to Progress!

~ Bernie Sanders Kentucky FULL Interview Hill TV Krystal Ball | 2019/08/27 ~ 
Bernie Sanders Goes After Mitch McConnell
on His Home Turf, in Kentucky.

Sunday, August 25, 2019

WAKE UP AMERICA! Democracy is Slipping Away from Us...

 The 2017 White Supramicist Torch March in Charlottesville, Virginia 
~ History Holds the Antidote to Trump’s Fascist Politics ~

JUL 16, 2019 OPINION | TD ORIGINALS

Politics

History Holds the Antidote to Trump’s Fascist Politics by Henry Giroux

The great force of history comes from the fact that we carry it within us, are unconsciously controlled by it in many ways, and history is literally present in all that we do. It could scarcely be otherwise, since it is to history that we owe our frames of reference, our identities, and our aspirations.” —James Baldwin

America is in a state of crisis that touches every aspect of public life, extending from a crisis of economics produced by massive inequality to a crisis of ideas, agency, memory and politics, aided and abetted by controlling apparatuses that induce ubiquitous forms of historical amnesia. We are in a new historical period, one in which everything is transformed and corrupted by the neoliberal tools of financialization, deregulation and austerity. Within this new nexus of power, anti-democratic principles have become normalized, weakening society’s democratic defenses. Egregious degrees of exploitation and unchecked militarism are now matched by a politics of disposability and terminal exclusion, in which human beings are viewed as the embodiment of human waste, reinforced, if not propelled, by an ethos of white nationalism and white supremacy. As historian Paul Gilroy has noted, the motion of history and the production of politics are now being read “through racialized categories.”

Fascist principles, or one version of what journalist Natasha Lennard calls microfascism, now operate at so many levels of everyday society that it is difficult to recognize them, especially as they have the imprimatur of the president of the United States. Fascist practices and desires work through diverse social media platforms and mainstream and right-wing cultural apparatuses in multiple ways. They largely function ideologically and politically to objectify people, promote spectacles of violence, endorse consumerism as the only viable way of life, legitimate a murderous nationalism, construct psychological borders in people’s minds in order to privilege certain groups, promote mindlessness through the ubiquity of celebrity culture, normalize the discourse of hate in everyday exchanges, and produce endless “practices of authoritarianism and domination and exploitation that form us.” In the fog of social and historical amnesia, moral boundaries disappear, people become more accepting of extreme acts of cruelty and the propaganda machines that create alternative thoughts, and view any viable critique of power as fake news, all the while disconnecting toxic language and policies from their social costs. Writer Fintan O’Toole may be right in arguing that such actions constitute a trial run for fascism:

Fascism doesn’t arise suddenly in an existing democracy. It is not easy to get people to give up their ideas of freedom and civility. You have to do trial runs that, if they are done well, serve two purposes. They get people used to something they may initially recoil from; and they allow you to refine and calibrate. This is what is happening now and we would be fools not to see it.

Under the reign of neoliberalism, the dark plague of fascism engulfs American society as the history of concentration camps disappear, the killing of intellectuals is forgotten and the terror of fascist violence evaporates in the spectacles of violence accompanied by anti-intellectual blabber and a rampant culture of forgetting. What must be remembered here is that we are not only moral and political subjects, but also historical subjects capable of both understanding and changing the world. And it is precisely this relationship between historical consciousness and political action that points to new possibilities for change. And while historical consciousness can be both informative and emancipatory, it can also lead to “malicious interpretations of the present,” as well as elements of history that are difficult to accept. At the same time, historical awareness can uncover dangerous memories and narratives of those whose voices have been drowned out by those who have the power to write history to serve their narrow and reactionary interests. It is precisely in the use of “critical” history to offer the resources to challenge the ideological, educational and militant tools deployed by emerging right-wing and fascist groups that their toxic use of history and the present can be challenged. In this instance, any radical social movement needs a historically informed notion of struggle that is solidly on the side of a strong anti-capitalist movement. Resistance is no longer an option, given that both the humanity and the life of the planet are at stake.

American society has turned lethal, as is evident in its assaults upon poor children, undocumented immigrants and those considered disposable by virtue of their race, ethnicity, religion and color. In an age when historical memory either disappears or is rewritten in the language of erasure and misrepresentation, too many people look away and become complicitous with diverse forms of fascism emerging across the globe. Regimes of fear destroy standards of truth, creating easy paths for warmongers, racists, misogynists and nativists to take advantage of a comatose public. Neoliberal fascism, a new social and political formation that combines the savage consequences of economic inequality and a politics of survival with the dictates of ultranationalism and white supremacy, took hold in the 1970s and has become a powerful engine of violence and cruelty, both in the United States and in an increasing number of other countries. Neoliberal fascism is the enemy of revisionist forms of history, because it disdains any resource that can be used to hold power accountable and translate past events into a form of moral witnessing in the present.

In its upgraded forms, any viable resistance to fascism needs new narratives, a new understanding of politics, power and resistance in order to counter violence and state terrorism while reviving historical memory as a forum for critically interrogating the unsettling and unspeakable, as well as a critical engagement with a culture of real, visceral and symbolic violence. Politics here takes on an ethical necessity and ambition. Most importantly, we need a politics in which education becomes central, a politics in which it is recognized that the populist moment in the service of neoliberal capitalism is, at its core, a crisis of identity, memory and agency, if not democracy itself. As capital is liberated from all constraints, historical memory and the institutions that support it wither, along with the democratic ideals of equality, popular sovereignty and the freedom from basic social needs. Scholar Nancy Fraser has argued that the upsurge of populism in the United States is partly fueled by a revolt against the political elites, the false promises of liberal democracy, and “blockages” caused by neoliberal modes of governance. She writes:

In the United States, those blockages include the metastasization of finance; the proliferation of precarious service-sector McJobs; ballooning consumer debt to enable the purchase of cheap stuff produced elsewhere; conjoint increases in carbon emissions, extreme weather, and climate denialism; racialized mass incarceration and systemic police violence; and mounting stresses on family and community life thanks in part to lengthened working hours and diminished social supports. Together, these forces have been grinding away at our social order for quite some time without producing a political earthquake. Now, however, all bets are off. In today’s widespread rejection of politics as usual, an objective system wide crisis has found its subjective political voice. The political strand of our general crisis is a crisis of hegemony.

In this instance, populism emerges as a form of politics in which any gesture toward giving a real voice and power to people is substituted for the power of demagogues who claim to speak on their behalf. Right-wing populism begins as a revolt against a neoliberal winner-take-all society and is quickly appropriated by demagogues such as Donald Trump to address a mix of economic anxiety, existential uncertainty and the fear of undocumented immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers. Instead of learning from a past filled with genocidal wars waged in the name of difference, the emerging fascist tyrants have enshrined a form of unlearning that privileges moral comas and recounts endless narratives of hate that vilify immigrants, refugees and undocumented children as chosen enemies of the paragons of racial cleansing.

Something sinister and horrifying is happening to alleged liberal democracies all over the globe. Democratic institutions such as the independent media, schools, the legal system, the welfare state and public and higher education are under siege worldwide. Public media are underfunded, schools are privatized or modeled after prisons, the funds for social provisions disappear as military budgets balloon, and the legal system is increasingly positioned as an engine of racial discrimination and the default institution for criminalizing a range of behaviors. The echoes of a fascist past are with us once again, resurrecting the discourses of hatred, exclusion and ultranationalism in countries such as the United States, Hungary, Brazil, Poland, Turkey and the Philippines. Right-wing extremist parties have infused a fascist ideology with new energy through an apocalyptic populism that constructs the nation through a series of racist and nativist exclusions, all the while feeding off the chaos produced by the dynamics of neoliberalism. Under such circumstances, the promises of a liberal democracy are receding as present-day reactionaries work to subvert language, values, civic courage, history and a critical consciousness. Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, for instance, has pledged to rid his country’s educational system of all references to the work of radical educator Paulo Freire. In the United States, Trump accelerates his work on public and higher education by cutting budgets and appointing Betsy DeVos, a billionaire and sworn enemy of public education and advocate of school choice and charter schools, as the secretary of education. In addition, education in many parts of the globe has increasingly become a tool of domination, as market fundamentalists and reactionary politicians imprison intellectuals, close down schools, undercut progressive curriculum, attack teacher unions and impose pedagogies of repression, often killing the imaginative and creative capacities of students while turning public schools into a conveyer belt that propels students marginalized by class and color into a life of poverty or worse—the criminal justice system and prison.

We live at a time in which two worlds are colliding. First, there is the world of neoliberal globalization, which is in crisis mode because it can no longer deliver on its promises or contain its own ruthlessness. Hence, there is a worldwide revolt against global capitalism that operates mostly to fuel forms of right-wing populism and a systemic war on democracy itself. Power is now enamored with amassing profits and capital and is increasingly addicted to a politics of social sorting and racial cleansing. Second, there is a genuine series of democratic revolts and struggles, which is growing, especially among young people, and is rewriting and revising an updated script for democratic socialism, a script that can both challenge the neoliberal world of finance capital while rethinking the meaning of politics, if not democracy itself.

What is not in doubt is that all across the world, the global thrust toward democratization that emerged after World War II is giving way, once again, to tyrannies. As alarming as the signs may be, the public cannot ignore or allow a fascist politics to take root in the United States. Such a threat has been exacerbated as a mode of consciousness and at a time when academic discipline has lost favor with the American public. One consequence is that historical consciousness has been replaced by a form of social and historical amnesia. No longer a required course in most institutions of higher education, history in its various registers and genealogies has declined into near oblivion at a time when forms of public knowledge and civic literacy have accelerated exponentially. Moreover, “fewer than 2 percent of male undergraduates and fewer than 1 percent of females major in history, compared with more than 6 percent and nearly 5 percent, respectively in the late 1960s.” Some colleges have threated to abolish their history departments. Ironically, this is happening at a time when an increasing number of Americans are ignorant of the past, making them vulnerable to the simplistic appeals of demagogues. Ignorance has lost its innocence and is no longer synonymous with the absence of knowledge. It has become malicious in its refusal to know, to disdain criticism, to undermine the value of historical consciousness, and to render invisible important issues that lie on the side of social and economic justice.

James Baldwin was right in issuing his stern warning in “No Name in the Street”: “Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can have.” As is well known, Trump’s real and pretended ignorance lights up the Twitter landscape almost every day. He denies climate change, along with the dangers that it poses to humanity; he shuts down the government because he cannot get the funds for his border wall—a grotesque symbol of nativism; and he mangles history with his ignorance of the past. For instance, he once implied in a speech that Frederick Douglass is still alive and is only now getting the recognition he deserved. Trump’s ignorance is legendary, if not shameful, but what he models is dangerous, because presidential historical ignorance suggests that the problems suffering people face, they face alone. That is, in their social atomization and isolation, they are unaware that history’s great liberating force is that “having a sense of history is knowing that whatever happens to us or to our world we are not alone. It has happened in some form before.”

This lethal form of ignorance now fuses with a reckless use of state power that holds both human life and the planet hostage. Historian David Bright claims that Trump’s “ignorance of history, of policy, of political processes [and] the Constitution,” rather than his authoritarianism, is “the greatest threat to our democracy.” According to Bright, Trump’s grasp of history operates at a level of understanding one would expect from a fifth-grader or younger. However, there is more at stake here than the production of a toxic form of ignorance and the shrinking of historical horizons. Trump not only distorts history, but also makes it, and in doing so suggests a contempt for knowledge, which he manipulates for political purposes. Ignorance in high places is a boon to history deniers and legitimates the authoritarian assumption that history is only made by strong men. What we are witnessing is the corruption of politics, coupled with explicit expressions of cruelty and a “widely sanctioned ruthlessness.” How else to explain the current separation of children from their parents at the southern border in the United States, and the creation of internment centers that have been exposed as an assault on civil rights and human dignity?

It is hard to imagine a more urgent moment for making education central to politics. If we are going to develop a politics capable of awakening our critical, imaginative and historical sensibilities, it is crucial for educators and others to develop a collective language that rewrites the traditional notion of politics. Such a language is necessary to enable the conditions for a collective international resistance against Trump’s efforts to forge what Noam Chomsky calls a global reactionary alliance under the U.S. aegis, including the “illiberal democracies” of Eastern Europe and Brazil’s grotesque Bolsonaro. Such a movement is important in order to resist and overcome the tyrannical fascist nightmares that are descending upon the United States, Brazil and a number of other countries in Europe plagued by the rise of neo-Nazi parties. In an age when the only obligation of citizenship is shopping and a culture of compassion has given way to a culture of cruelty, it is all the more crucial to take seriously the notion that a democracy cannot exist or be defended without informed and critically engaged citizens.

Education, both in its symbolic and institutional forms, has a central role to play in fighting the resurgence of fascist cultures, mythic historical narratives and the emerging ideologies of white supremacy and white nationalism. Moreover, as fascists across the globe are disseminating toxic racist and ultranationalist images of the past, it is essential to reclaim education as a form of historical consciousness and moral witnessing. This is especially true at a time when historical and social amnesia have become a national pastime, particularly in the United States, matched only by the masculinization of the public sphere and the increasing normalization of a fascist politics that thrives on ignorance, fear, hatred and the suppression of dissent. Oppression is no longer defined simply through economic structures. A neoliberal culture of precarity and uncertainty has resulted in job insecurity, declining wages, the slashing of retirement funds and the weakening of the welfare state, all of which are largely addressed through right-wing cultural apparatuses that frame such conditions pedagogically as part of a broader politics of fear, hatred and bigotry. Education, particularly in the social media, operates with great influence as a sounding board for right-wing nihilism and white supremacy groups and has become a powerful portal for circulating fascist ideas, legitimating hate-fueled violence and promoting ugly racist rhetoric that undermines democratic ideals. Yet education is not simply about domination, and it reaches far beyond the classroom, and while often imperceptible, is crucial in using the new media to challenge and resist the rise of fascist pedagogical formations and their rehabilitation of fascist principles and ideas.

Against a numbing indifference, despair and withdrawal into the private orbits of the isolated self, there is a need to create those formative cultures that are humanizing, foster the capacity to hear others, sustain complex thoughts and engage in solving social problems. We have no other choice if we are to resist the increasing destabilization of democratic institutions, the assault on reason, the collapse of the distinction between fact and fiction, and the taste for brutality that now spreads across a number of countries, including the U.S., like a plague. The pedagogical lesson here is that fascism begins with hateful words and the demonization of others considered disposable, and moves to an attack on ideas, the burning of books, the disappearance of intellectuals and the emergence of the carceral state and the horrors of detention jails and camps. As historian Jon Nixon suggests, pedagogy as a form of critical education “provides us with a protected space within which to think against the grain of received opinion: a space to question and challenge, to imagine the world from different standpoints and perspectives, to reflect upon ourselves in relation to others and, in so doing, to understand what it means to ‘assume responsibility.'”

This is even more reason for educators and others to address important social issues and defend public and higher education as democratic public spheres. It is all the more reason to defend the teaching of history as a protected space within which to teach students to think against the grain, hold power accountable, embrace a sense of citizenship and civic courage, and to “learn about the world beyond the confines of their home towns, and to try to understand where they might fit in.” We live in a world in which everything is now privatized, transformed into what authors Michael Silk and David Andrews call “spectacular spaces of consumption” and subject to the vicissitudes of the military-security state, all the while accompanied by the rise of a fascist politics rooted in the mobilizing passions of ultranationalism, racism and an apocalyptic populism. One consequence is the emergence of what the late historian Tony Judt called an “eviscerated society”—“one that is stripped of the thick mesh of mutual obligations and social responsibilities to be found” in any viable democracy. This grim reality has been called a “failed sociality”—a failure in the power of the civic imagination, political will and the promises of a radical democracy. It is also part of a politics that strips the social of any democratic ideals.

Trump’s presidency may only be symptomatic of the long decline of liberal democracy in the United States into a corrupt political and economic oligarchy, but its presence signifies one of the gravest challenges, if not dangers, the country has faced in over a century. A formative culture of lies, ignorance, corruption and violence is now fueled by a range of orthodoxies shaping American life, including social conservatism, market fundamentalism, apocalyptic nationalism, religious extremism and unchecked racism—all of which occupy the centers of power at the highest levels of government. Historical memory and moral witnessing have given way to a bankrupt nostalgia that celebrates the most regressive moments in U.S. history.

Fantasies of absolute control, racial cleansing, unchecked militarism and class warfare are at the heart of a U.S. social order that has turned lethal, evident in the militarizing of schools and public spaces and the centrality of a war culture as an organized mode of governance. This is a dystopian social order marked by hollow words, an imagination pillaged of any substantive meaning, cleansed of compassion and used to legitimate the notion that alternative worlds are impossible to entertain. What we are witnessing is an abandonment of democratic institutions, however flawed, coupled with a full-scale attack on dissent, thoughtful reasoning and the social imagination. Trump has degraded the office of the president and has elevated the ethos of political corruption, hypermasculinity and lying to a level that leaves many people numb and exhausted. He has normalized the unthinkable, legitimated the inexcusable and defended the indefensible. Under such circumstances, the United States is moving into the dark shadows of a present that bears a horrifying resemblance to an earlier period of fascism with its language of racial purification, hatred of dissent, systemic violence, intolerance and the Trump’s administration’s “glorification of aggressive and violent solutions to complex social problems.”

The history of fascism offers an early warning system and teaches us that language, which operates in the service of violence, desperation and the troubled landscapes of hatred, carries the potential for resurrecting the darkest moments of history. It erodes our humanity and makes many people numb and silent under the glare of ideologies and practices that mimic and legitimate hideous and atrocious acts. This is a language that eliminates the space of plurality, glorifies walls and borders, hates differences that do not mimic a white public sphere, and makes vulnerable populations—even poor young children—superfluous as human beings. Trump’s language, like that which characterized older fascist regimes, mutilates contemporary politics, disdains empathy and serious moral and political criticism, and makes it more difficult to criticize dominant relations of power. His toxic language also fuels the rhetoric of war, a supercharged masculinity, the rise of public anti-intellectuals and a resurgent white supremacy. However, this shift toward a fascist politics cannot be laid exclusively at Trump’s feet. The language of putrid values of a nascent fascism have been brewing in the United States for some time. It is a language that is comfortable viewing the world as a combat zone, a world that exists to be plundered, and one that views those deemed different because of their class, race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation as a threat to be feared, if not eliminated. When Trump uses a toxic rhetoric that portrays undocumented immigrants as criminals, rapists and drug dealers, he is doing more than using ugly epithets—he is also materializing such discourse into policies that rip children from their mother’s arms, put the lives of immigrants at risk and impose cruel and inhumane practices that assault the body, mind and human dignity.

While it is fruitless to believe that there is perfect mirror for measuring a resurgent fascism, it is crucial to recognize how the crystalized elements of an updated fascism have emerged in new forms in the shape of a U.S.-style authoritarianism. Yet, too many intellectuals, historians and media pundits deny the presence of fascist politics in the United States. In part, this may be because history is written by the winners, but also because a form of serious historical analysis operates from a weak position in a culture of instant gratification and immediacy propelled by the need for instant pleasure. In the age of selfies and tweet storms, time is reduced to short bursts of attention as the slowing down of time necessary for focused analytical thought and imaginative contemplation withers. Author Leon Wieseltier is on target in arguing that we live in an era in which “words cannot wait for thoughts [and] patience is a … liability.” In the current age of instant gratification, history has become a burden, treated like a discarded relic that no longer deserves respect. The past is now either too dangerous to contemplate, relegated to the abyss of willful ignorance, or  rewritten and appropriated in the interests of the anti-democratic forces of ultranationalism, nativism and social Darwinism, as is taking place in countries such as Poland and Hungary. However frightening and seemingly impossible in a liberal democracy, neither history nor the obvious signs of a fascist politics can be easily dismissed, especially with the claim that demagogues such as Trump have not created concentration camps or engineered plans for genocidal acts. Echoes of a fascist past are strikingly evident in degrading and inhumane conditions in the migrant detention sites, many of which hold children as young as 5 months old.

According to the Michelle Bachelet, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the conditions in the detention centers holding immigrants and refugees were “undignified” and “alarming.” Her accusations were confirmed by a Department of Homeland Security report on detention centers on the southern border:

[P]oor conditions include overcrowding, flu outbreaks, and lack of clean clothing. The report also detailed horrific incidents—such as overuse of solitary confinement, and reports of nooses in detainee cells—that signal violations of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention standards and infringements on detainee rights.

It gets worse, especially in regard to the caging of children in prisonlike detention centers. The New York Times has reported that many of the children are suffering from hunger, are housed in cramped cinder-block cells with only one toilet, are sleeping on cement floors and are subject to a number of illnesses, including scabies, shingles and chicken pox. According to the Times, lawyers who visited the Clint, Texas, detention center described seeing:

… children in filthy clothes, often lacking diapers and with no access to toothbrushes, toothpaste, or soap. … Warren Binford, director of the clinical law program in Willamette University in Oregon, said that in all her years of visiting detention and shelter facilities, she had never encountered conditions so bad—351 children crammed into what she described as [a] prisonlike environment.

Fascist politics, in its more recent, updated capitalist formation, has a long history of covering up its crimes against humanity, especially the most egregious acts of genocide. Trump and his top immigration officials may not be perpetuating overt acts of genocide with his nativist policies and acts of unimaginable cruelty in incarcerating immigrants, especially children. Nevertheless, he is following a fascist script in denying “reports that migrant children were being held in horrific conditions in federal detention facilities,” even as the accounts of disease, hunger and overcrowding have multiplied in recent days. Moreover, like his counterparts in NATO and the EU, there is silence about who creates these refugee populations across the globe. Lying in the service of egregious forms of evil has a long history among demagogues. What is different with Trump is that he lies even in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary. In this instance, Trump’s lies and attempted cover-ups function as a form of depoliticization. That is, lying performs as a tool of power, promoting forms of manufactured ignorance in which it becomes difficult for the public to separate fact from fiction in order to recognize the violence and injustices imposed by the Trump administration on those populations it considers disposable. Given Trump’s embrace of an upgraded version of Hannah Arendt’s notions of thoughtlessness, cruelty and the banality of evil as central elements of totalitarianism, it is difficult to argue that fascism is a relic of the past.

Simply because the Trump administration may not be replicating in an exact fashion the sordid practices of violence and genocide reminiscent of fascist states in the 1930s does not mean that it has no resemblance to such a history. In fact, the legacy of fascism becomes even more important at a time when the language, policies and authoritarian ideology of the Trump administration echo a dangerous warning from history that cannot be ignored. Fascism does not disappear because it does not surface as a mirror image of the past. Fascism is not static, and the protean elements of fascism always run the risk of crystallizing into new forms. Fascism in its contemporary forms is a particular response to a range of capitalist crises that include the rise of massive inequality, a culture of fear, precarious employment, ruthless austerity policies that destroy the social contract, the rise of the carceral state and the erosion of white privilege, among other issues.

Fascism is also obvious by its hatred of the public good, by what author Toni Morrison calls its “desire to purge democracy of all of its ideals,” and by its willingness to privilege power over human needs and render racial difference as an organizing principle of society. The ghosts of fascism should terrify us, but most importantly, the horrors of the past should educate us and imbue us with a spirit of civic justice and collective courage in the fight for a substantive and inclusive democracy. What must be remembered in this time of tyranny is that historical consciousness is a crucial tool for unraveling the layers of meaning, suffering, the search for community, the overcoming of despair and the momentum of dramatic change, however unpleasant this may be at times. No act of the past can be deemed too horrible or hideous to contemplate if we are going to enlarge scope of our imaginations and the reach of social justice, both of which might prevent us from looking away, indifferent to the suffering around us. This suggests the need for rethinking the importance of historical memory, civic literacy and critical pedagogy as central to an informed and critical mode of agency. Rather than dismiss the notion that the organizing principles and fluctuating elements of fascism are still with us, a more appropriate response to Trump’s rise to power is to raise questions about what elements of his government signal the emergence of a fascism suited to a contemporary and distinctively updated political, economic and cultural landscape.

Source: https://www.truthdig.com/articles/history-holds-the-antidote-to-trumps-fascist-politics/


In fact, independence was formally declared on July 2, 1776, a date that John Adams believed would be “the most memorable epocha in the history of America.” On July 4, 1776, Congress approved the final text of the Declaration. It wasn't signed until August 2, 1776.

Image Source: wikipedia

Tuesday, August 20, 2019

Eliminate Inter-Corporate Monopolization of American Wealth...

American History and the 2020 Election

Whatever distractions candidates promote to win voters, some underlying issues will wield their influence on 2020 election outcomes in any case. The biggest of these are the historically accumulated anger and betrayal felt by millions of working class Americans. Since the 1970s, their relative position within income and wealth distributions has declined. Real wages stagnated while workers’ rising productivity made ever more profits for employers, widening inequality. That alone depressed the class, but US society is structured to add many political, cultural, and social demotions onto those whose relative economic position declines.

As stagnant real wages constricted workers’ consumption growth, political supports (from government programs to politicians’ attentions) shrank. Shifting cultural norms (smart phones, fashionable bars, fancy sports arenas, etc.) entailed new costs that were increasingly unaffordable. Rising consumer debt (mortgages, car loans, and credit card balances) only partly offset the new costs. Yet that debt also raised new kinds and degrees of financial anxieties.

A central social promise of post World War 2 America – that working class children could expect, prepare for and graduate from college – began to erode. Declining state support for higher education institutions forced more of their costs onto students just as working class families’ relative income and wealth positions fell. Student debt burdens exploded and stressed working class families from another direction. Debt-hobbled young people could not leave home, start new families, become self-reliant. Self-blame about that plus reliance on parents and fast-mounting debt anxieties further problematized working class households. Results included the opioid crisis, rising rates of suicide, mass shootings, and psychological depression.

Working class feelings of betrayal and anger had an important historical roots that some understood but most only implicitly sensed. Something seemed to have changed in America, to have been different before. Trump’s caricature MAGA slogan touched a nerve even as it mystified what made that nerve so sensitive. Certain aspects of US history do matter deeply to the upcoming election.

The US had survived the Great depression of the 1930s by means of government policies that included massive fiscal stimuli. Some of them took the form of new social programs targeting most of the American people (although distorted by racial, gender, and other discriminations). These included the Social Security system, unemployment compensation, and the federal hiring of millions of the unemployed. To these must be added key legislation: the first minimum wage law and the National Labor Relations Act. Together these actions realized a rise in the relative position of the working class within the distributions of income and wealth. More than that, they initiated the idea that this was indeed a New Deal for the country, a new path forward. US society’s commitment to that path seemed secure in the light of FDR’s unprecedented, successive electoral victories.

The US working class understood that the Republican Party was not its friend. It tilted heavily toward the Democratic Party except for some who could be distracted by appeals to racist, religious, anti-immigrant, and/or ethnic commitments (old staples of US politics). The working class came to expect that the attention, support, and real help it got from the Democratic Party under FDR would prevail. Republicans, it presumed, would not dare stray very far from the 1930s’ dominant themes. And even if they did, the Democratic Party would come roaring back to set things straight again. An “American Dream” seemed well within reach for the US working class.

By and large, the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s reinforced such working class expectations notwithstanding rising demands of African-Americans and other marginalized groups for inclusion in what had been provided chiefly to the white, male working class. The federal government led the way with job-creating infrastructure projects (public housing, highways, etc.). State governments created a public higher-education system geared toward the working class. Genuine but slow headway was made toward broader social inclusion. The New Left in the 1960s implicitly acknowledged the situation by prioritizing its demands for both fuller and faster inclusion of the formerly marginalized.

Everything changed in the 1970s. Defeats and setbacks earlier (for example, the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act undermining labor unions) intensified to become a general betrayal of the US working class. Enough time had passed since the 1930s to enable corporate America to shift gears from its earlier evasions and weakening of the New Deal. Corporations and their allies undertook a frontal assault aimed at its total repeal. With Reagan, the Republican Party moved to the right and the Democratic Party began moving into the space thereby vacated. Both parties increasingly shared commitments to what came to be called neo-liberalism. They diverged chiefly around the pace for government intervention in the economy to be reduced (tax cuts, deregulation, etc.) and reliance on private enterprises and “free” markets to be increased. Republicans were in a rush. Democrats wanted to go more slowly, helping victims of the rightward political economy shift to cope and adjust to it.

The frontal assault took the form of policies supporting, mostly uncritically, the three initiatives of corporate America to get out from under the New Deal’s limitations on their profitability. The first of these took advantage of two contemporary technical changes: the jet engine and modern telecommunications. One enabled corporate executives easily and quickly to traverse the globe, while the other enabled corporate real-time oversight and control of operations anywhere on the globe from US headquarters. Together, these breakthroughs enabled the boldest US manufacturers to move production to foreign locations much more than had been the case before. The far lower wages abroad and local governments desperate to bring jobs enabled huge profits for the arriving US firms. That then forced their competitors to join the export of jobs from the US ever since. Republicans enthusiastically and then Democrats more hesitantly embraced US capitalism’s profit-driven globalization.

The second corporate initiative came from capitalists who could not easily move overseas (for example, in many service industries). They boosted profits by bringing low-wage foreign workers into the US: major new immigration waves especially from Latin America. The third initiative entailed capitalists installing computers, then robots, and now artificial intelligence in a massive program of labor-saving technical change. Jobs exported or lost to automation plus rising supplies of immigrants entering the US labor force contributed to the real hourly wage stagnation ever since. That was definitely not what the US working class had come to expect emerging from the New Deal.

As stagnating wages hindered workers from realizing the American Dream after the 1970s, their feelings of betrayal were temporarily held in check by two working class responses. First, stagnant real wages helped drive millions of women into the paid labor market adding to competition for jobs. Second working class families borrowed more. On top of mortgage and car loans, US consumers added massive new credit card and finally student debts. These enabled and sustained rising working class consumption over the century’s last quarter. The class could still strain toward the American Dream even if doing so was increasingly dependent on multiple wage earners per household and on rising debt. Meanwhile, stagnant wages plus debt fueled a boom in global capitalism. The stock market bubbled, enriching the top 10% and reinforcing the celebration of neoliberalism by both Republicans and “centrist” Democrats. They believed their own hype about a “new economy,” a “new normal,” the “end of ideology” (i.e. socialism) and so on. Capitalist utopianism was in fashion.

The expanding debt proved to be a bubble that eventually burst: first around the dot com craze in 2000 and then in 2008’s major collapse. The US working class was shocked three times in quick succession. First, the promise of rising standards of living was now definitively broken: wages were flat, debt levels had reached unsustainable levels, and families and households were exhausted. The postponed reality of an American Dream fading out of reach began to sink in. Second, the working class watched Republicans and Democrats falling over one another in and after 2008 to give big finance and big business every possible taxing, spending and regulatory support, mostly at taxpayer expense. Concerns about deficits, long a staple of conservatives, disappeared. The idea of boosting the economy from below disappeared as well. Everything was trickle down economics no matter how little trickled (millions of “underwater” homeowners were promised help that never arrived). The final blow came when, after trillions had been spent to revive a near-dead capitalist class, the “problem of rising deficits” was rediscovered to rationalize an austerity program for the masses.

The three shocks proved too much for large sections of the US working class. They expected little from Republicans, but felt betrayed by the Democrats. The Democrats could and should have stopped it; but the Party was too weak or too embedded in the neoliberal status quo to be of any use. The entire “Washington” apparatus – both parties – were jointly responsible. Working class anger against them spilled over to the media that protected them by taking their lip services seriously rather than exposing and condemning their betrayals.

Of course, large numbers stayed with the Democratic Party because they saw it as the lesser evil. But others – more than enough to swing many elections – were ready and eager for someone in either Party who could and would express their anger and sense of betrayal against both major party establishments. Trump did that far more sharply and clearly than Sanders. Both stayed within their respective Parties but Trump’s break from his party’s old establishment was much more confrontational as in his aggressive nationalism (expressed in gross hostilities against immigrants, foreign trading partners, allies, etc.). It underscored a break with the capitalist globalization that Republicans had endorsed. In contrast, Sanders’ identification as “socialist” – certainly an important break from Democratic Party tradition – shocked many who had been indoctrinated for the last half century with the demonization of that concept. Sanders’ economic platform (advocating a Green New Deal) also was more a progressive version of classical Democratic Party positions than a break from them. Centrist Democrats had repeated lip service to such positions while ignoring them in practice.

Similar feelings of betrayal turned European working classes against their old parties culminating in the May, 2019, European Parliamentary elections. There too, Trump-like figures (Farage and Johnson in the UK, Salvini in Italy, and so on) mark sharp, extreme nationalist confrontations with the old center-right. Meanwhile, much less sharp confrontations characterize the new left’s relations with the old center-left of the established socialist parties. Thus, the new left is largely Green and vaguely anti-capitalist: more progressive than the old socialists but in degree, not in kind. In but one instance so far, France’s yellow vests, a potential exists for the left to find new modes of expression and mobilization adequate to confront and defeat the right.

In both Europe and the US, the most angry, betrayed sections of the working class preferred the sharper confrontations with and breaks from the old political establishment. Trump’s nasty tweets, much like Farage’s, Johnson’s and Salvini’s intemperate outbursts, suited their mood, won their votes and continue to build support among them. The example of the yellow vests could do something parallel on the left. The 2020 election in the US will be a next big opportunity to express both sorts of working class feelings.

The history summarized above holds lessons for 2020. A return to the past in Democratic Party rhetoric, symbolism, and personalities (such as Biden) is a recipe to repeat political mistakes and losses since 2016. Biden will likely lose for the Democrats as the comparably backward-looking Bob Dole did for the Republicans in 1996 (Dole perhaps learned the lesson and eventually endorsed Trump, the only former Republican presidential nominee to do so). Another lesson is that Sanders is the Democrats’ best hope unless and until other plausible candidates take clear, strong positions to Sanders’ left. One such position might articulate the working class’s sufferings as systemically derived from a declining capitalism and thus propose system change as a solution: such as change to an economy based on worker coops instead of hierarchical capitalist firms. Such positions would provide on the left more attractive, bold and new plans than what Trump offers on the right.

Staying inside the Democratic Party is also dangerous for Sanders’ – or someone further left’s – chances. Running as a Democrat carries very negative associations for voters even if it benefits from what remains of the Party’s electoral machinery and from the hard core base that votes Democratic no matter what.

Politics is changing fast in the US now. Lenin’s remark that for decades nothing seems to happen and then in a few months decades happen applies yet again. Socialism is being rediscovered and re-admired as Gallup and other polls show clearly. Given the US’s last half-century repression of teaching seriously about or even publicly expressing socialist ideas, debates, and programs, the rediscovery process is working quickly through the old left-Democratic Party ideas, the old left-Keynesian economics, etc. Newly excited young socialists are already testing and moving beyond those limits.

Different ways of understanding and institutionalizing socialist movements will emerge soon as the initial celebration of “democratic socialism” matures into different socialist orientations. How the Democratic Party manages the 2020 election will not only show whether it understands the lessons of history. It will also influence the pace and details of the emerging new socialist left. Finally, because of that new socialist left’s size, momentum, and its support in the general population (especially among the young), what it becomes will importantly influence all the rest of US politics in ways not seen for the last half-century.

Richard Wolff is the author of Capitalism Hits the Fan and Capitalism’s Crisis Deepens. He is founder of Democracy at Work.



Monday, August 19, 2019

The Two Progressive Candidates Running as Democrats in 2020!



Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren speak to Atlanta youth conference

The Overlooked Difference Between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren

It’s their approach to party politics—not policy—that truly sets the progressive senators apart.

By Aidan Smith ~ JULY 23, 2019 (

The skeptics were wrong. After a long period of speculation that only one of the progressive icons would run, Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have both emerged as major players in the crowded Democratic primary. In a historically large field that includes a wealth of corporate-friendly moderates, the two senators have stood strong in their commitments to tackle growing economic inequality and the influence of money in politics, while the party establishment hesitates to antagonize capital. As Sanders and Warren prepare to debate next week, analysts everywhere are comparing the candidates’ political profiles—and missing the mark.

To many mainstream commentators, the firebrand senators’ simultaneous campaigns are an exercise in redundancy. And to many on the left, this situation provokes concerns that the progressive vote could split, allowing a moderate candidate to emerge from the field. We’ve seen countless think-pieces that contrast the two progressives’ policy priorities, bases of support, and public images. In the popular socialist magazine Jacobin, for instance, writer Shawn Gude compared the two senators’ differences to those between anti-war leader Eugene Debs, the standard-bearer of the Socialist Party of America, and the progressive lawyer Louis Brandeis, a former Supreme Court Justice nominated by Woodrow Wilson. “Warren’s political tradition is the left edge of middle-class liberalism; Sanders hails from America’s socialist tradition,” Gude argued. “Or, to put the distinction in more personal terms: Warren is Louis Brandeis, Sanders is Eugene Debs.”

Gude offers an interesting historical analogy to an argument made often by meticulous political observers: that Sanders’s immediate priorities are direct redistributionist policies, while Warren, reputed as a policy wonk, is most interested in systemic changes to the American market economy. Neither of these descriptions is without grains of truth, but this line of analysis feels scrupulous to a fault. Regardless of their ideological distinctions, neither candidate would be able to fully implement their transformative agenda without an agreeable Congress, which Warren and Sanders would surely admit. But the means to establishing a change-oriented Congress under progressive leadership relies on the core distinction between the two candidates—something Gude’s Jacobin piece, like various other takes, from The Washington Post to HuffPost, fails to identify.

The real difference between Sanders and Warren is actually quite simple: In the most basic of terms, Sanders sees himself as a progressive operating within the Democratic Party structure, while Warren sees herself as a Democrat who supports progressive ideals. As tautological as that may sound, the difference is rather meaningful from a left-wing perspective. For the most part, albeit with differences in the details, the two envision the same role for the American state: a government that protects the most vulnerable living among us by holding the rich accountable.

What differs in their visions is the ideal role of the Democratic Party. Sanders sees the party as an obstacle to meaningful progress, a box within which he is forced to work, given the catatonic nature of the American two-party system. Warren is surely frustrated by the friendliness of Democratic leadership toward Wall Street and multinational corporations—once lamenting that “Republicans and Democrats had locked arms to do the bidding of the big banks”—but she is fundamentally a party loyalist. In her view, the Democratic Party is, if not good, an acceptable vehicle for political change in need only of tweaking rather than a complete makeover.

Sanders’s team, by contrast, established Our Revolution, a social-democratic PAC that aims to push the Democratic Party leftward. While the PAC has been criticized in outlets like Politico, which alleges disorganization and inefficacy on Our Revolution’s part in the years since its 2016 launch, it has been active in its support for hundreds of candidates across the country at national, state, and local levels. For his part, Sanders has directly invested considerable resources in support of insurgent candidates like Michigan’s Abdul El-Sayed and Florida’s Andrew Gillum, and Sanders’s allies have nurtured the growth of groups like the Justice Democrats, which helped elect the members of the Squad to Congress last year.

Win or lose, the mere specter of Sanders involving himself in a contested primary is enough to make party moderates uncomfortable. Even before Our Revolution and Justice Democrats candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s congressional campaign proved threatening to incumbent Joe Crowley, her entrance into the race in 2017 was enough to push Crowley left, causing him to sign on in support of Medicare for All. Warren, on the other hand, has taken a radically different path, choosing to play it safe in virtually every major contested primary, a political calculation that stands in stark contrast to her fearsome advocacy for issues such as student-debt cancellation and trustbusting.

The only notable endorsements by Warren in the primaries for the 2018 midterms were seen in California, where she supported her protégé Katie Porter’s successful bid for Congress, and in Ohio, where she backed longtime collaborator Richard Cordray’s unsuccessful gubernatorial run. (Cordray beat Our Revolution candidate Dennis Kucinich in the primary, then lost to Republican Mike DeWine in the general election.) Warren did not support El-Sayed or Gillum in their primaries and notably chose not to endorse Sanders ally and civil rights leader Ben Jealous until after he won the primary in his bid for governor of Maryland, even as he garnered support from major players in the Democratic establishment such as Senators Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, both of whom are now running for president.

When Warren has used her national stature to wade into electoral politics, it has almost invariably been to boost the fundraising efforts of conventional Democrats backed by the party establishment, even when their stated platforms are at odds with hers. In 2016 she made national headlines for her efforts to elect then-rising star Jason Kander when he mounted a surprisingly competitive race for Senate in deep-red Missouri. After the centrist Marine Corps veteran Amy McGrath won a 2018 Kentucky congressional primary on largely nonideological lines, Warren assisted McGrath via the senator’s enviable email list.

Supporting centrist candidates running in tough territory is perfectly reasonable. After El-Sayed’s loss, Sanders stumped for establishment-backed Democratic nominee Gretchen Whitmer’s Michigan gubernatorial bid and made a stop in Nevada to support moderate Democrat Jacky Rosen’s campaign for Senate, both of which succeeded in November. But it is evident from Warren’s forays into electoral politics that her political imagination begins and ends with getting more Democrats elected to high office, regardless of their quality.

There’s only so much a Democratic majority could accomplish as long as the party’s institutions are ridden with hedge fund managers, defense contractors, pharmaceutical lobbyists, and other actors whose interests are in diametric opposition to the progressive reforms that Sanders and Warren champion. In the two years since Trump’s inauguration, the leadership of the Democratic Party has invested far more time and energy into curbing potential opposition from its left than it has to resisting the total acquisition of America’s political institutions by the far right. Sanders intimately understands this. Warren, irrespective of her personal beliefs, does not operate as if she does, and that could prove a major impediment to achieving her policy goals.

SUPPORT PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM
If you like this article, please give today to help fund The Nation’s work.

For a half-century, internal Democratic debate has been set on the terms of the party’s right wing, and the result has been the total transformation of the party that brought the United States the New Deal into a staid, hollow institution more interested in self-preservation than in improving the lives of its voters. This makes the vocal presence of both progressive lions in the presidential race more than welcome, especially at such an early point in the primary cycle. But in the coming months, progressives are going to have to make their choice. Ultimately, it is Sanders, not Warren, who foregrounds his values over party loyalty, making him the more effective general-election candidate—and president.

Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated Amy McGrath’s military service background. She is a retired US Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, not an Air Force veteran.

Aidan Smith is an electoral analyst and political consultant from Orange County, California.