DNC vileness (DNC dirty tricks 2)

[[ WARNING!!! : unvarnished feelings ahead!!! Unsuitable for those under 11 years of age!!! ]]

I have been negative on Hillary for a long time. But not in the extreme. I suppose I was neutral (or even positive?) when she was Secretary of state and senator. Before she declared her intention to carry forth neocon politics, oligarchy, dynasty, etc to a presidential term or two. Make no mistake. It is only on ‘soft’ social issues, such as gay rights, that they perceive to have minimal impact on the ‘hard’ power gradients, that she panders, disingenuously, progressive.. But in the last week or two, NPR has started airing the occasional (maybe 2 a week New ones) clip of Hillary Clinton on the stump. Her words and manner of speech, I find personally offensive and revolting. In this, I am perhaps in a small minority, having read several books and audio recordings as a you,g man that were explicitly devastating on the history and practice of using the violent, aggressive, denigrating, assaultive, etc characteristics of the ‘dominator’ personality/culture that has reigned since before writing was invented (some archaeological remnants of prior cultures, such as tassili plateau petroglyphs and the remains of catal huyuk city and environs remains remain) (and other clues less explicit) .. I resent being beaten with a verbal stick. Most of it is in the manner of speaking, although the content that has been aired has also been despicable (though only mildly; nationalist, partyist, in-group bullshit). But I found myself more profoundly enraged by the anti-fertility-control nazi young lady they had on for an extended chat from yesterday a few minutes ago. Her tone was even and agreeable, but her insistence on vile and despicable anti-logical dogmas made me want to … Do something like spit on her or worse, although I never would do such a thing. Well.. The ‘iron lady’ pitch put Margaret Thatcher in power for like a decade or more, I don’t know the exact count (she took ‘elocution’ lessons before her first election to change her ‘girly’ previous tones to a deep, booming, ‘more manlike’, endless series of implicit threats). .. Such is the stock in trade of most stripes of authoritarian personas, I guess? Those who are director ranked pawns rather than pawn ranked legislators anyway. All pawns of the evil idea viruses infecting their lives and psyches. Meanwhile, my most searched post (admittedly tiny volume) recently is ‘DNC Dirty Tricks’ asking people to sign some petition that invoked the DNC (wasserman-schultz and the rest) shut out of the Bernie campaign out of the 50 state voter registry during a key period in the weeks before the first primaries and caucuses.. The post is 2015 tho I didn’t check its precise date. Otoh I strongly believe that if trump does not launch apocalyptic wars, he will otherwise completely Fuck everything up. But in spite of all his bigotry, excess privilege, lack of personal insight, and various other fatal bullshit, he publicly comes across as far more likeable than hrc. So. Shall I vote green, libertarian, no presidential vote, or hrc? I shall see I suppose. But even if i vote for her, I hate her guts. Sanders supporters have known for endless months that the dnc was working to destroy his campaign. .. And Fuck these idiots who say ‘well he wasn’t a Democrat. Of course the party didn’t want him’ .. If that had any validity there would be a probation period between party registry and being able to vote or run. Anyone may become a Democrat at any time. They just have to fill out the paperwork. ., if you want to work to continually thwart your base and those who want to sign up and vote, perhaps it is YOU who need to find a different motherfucking party. All this said, I still find more wisdom in anarchism than TV politics. But I vote too.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “DNC vileness (DNC dirty tricks 2)

  1. A party split? Hmmm. What we really could use is very rich who are beneficent, instead of the ultra-greedy maleficent we unfortunately have gotten throughout time (with exceptions who are & have been quite notable). We down in the grapes don’t mind not being rich, but we do mind things going unutterably dull on us. I know people are trying, but it all hinges delicately on the prevailing Zeitgeist. We accept fascism as inescapable law. There isn’t another course possible. But when the Croesus-rich don’t endow civilization with TRUE (as well apart from imitation) attractions, sites, entertainments and arts, the general morale sags, and the momentum moves in the wrong direction. The artists, unable to commit to their visionary work because of general malaise and shortsightedness, turn away from their gifts or cop to the…yes…malaise. He and she are key to all our fates. They have to be able to rise above mundanity. The political machines seem to be either unwilling to look at this phenomenon, or don’t care enough about their societies. We DON’T want to go the way of ancient Rome. We want to care deeply about things. But we can’t do that with prefab and imitations. Jack Spicer said it highly accurately when he wrote, ‘A poet is a time mechanic, not an embalmer’. We look back at our healthy eras and end up mere emulators. No. This cannot give us a Crane’s Bridge to futures in which we want to joyously or authentically participate. It is an act of unusual courage and strength to get everything out of the way to find new tempi and novel rhythms. This begins with having beneficent super-rich. We down here have no choice but to exist in THEIR Zeitgeist.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I am feeling rather more sympathetic to her, as all the water has gone under the bridge. My problem with her manner of speaking may have betrayed a dab of implicit sexism, although I do not think it is wrong to object to ‘dominator voice’ / politics in general (“dominator culture” is ref Terrence mckenna) . But my small rage was likely disproportionate. This was the primaries, tho, and the DNC did stack the deck royally against Bernie, if memory serves me correctly. Got a free copy of ‘Primary Colors’, the book, the movie of which I’d seen as a kid the other week. And am about 2/3rds thru it. That also shows a lot about who HRC really is (it states emphatically that it’s a work of fiction, and the author is ‘Anonymous’, but it is generally believed to be by an insider from Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign). However she was also reckoned to be a terrible, wooden, campaigner, and overly afraid of the press (understandable, having had a big red bullseye on her back for 2.5 decades in the right wing, yet still, incorrect & maladaptive). The current radioactive meltdown of the GOP, & autoerotic asphyxiation by DJT gives me great satisfaction; yet things could have been so much better. I recommend a party split, not that it’s likely to happen, because I think that it is the single best thing the GOP could do for themselves, and the nation & world. Why continue to make nice with people who’s guts you diametrically hate & who sabotage & attack you at every turn, dragging down the ‘conservative’ agenda with battles for Maoist like ideological purity crusades? (1/2) not done, but have to get on bus in a minute

      Like

    2. I think it could be the chance of a lifetime to demolish the 2 party system, which basically everyone on all sides despises, if not this minute, they have before and will again, despise it, on another day. It is a terrible distortion, forcing everyone to line up together, even over violent disagreements, & impoverishing politics, policy, and the ballot box, and most of all, honesty & truth & ‘straight-shooting’. We must vote for parties we can’t stand, 50% of the time, because we have to keep the ‘demonic’ ‘other side’ out. In reality there are 10,000 different sides, but the 2 party system erases them, as like the Stories of indigenous people and other minority out groups were erased by the winners-write-the-history-books problem of colonialism (which is easing and being counteracted in the 21st century, but not yet done). 2/* still not done, but must exit bus & get to venue

      Like

    3. A terrible *campaigner, however able she may have been for the actual job (laying aside the question of the liabilities of the many people (putin, GOP, et al) who have pre-judged her as ‘enemy’). While we may be stuck with our particular super-rich, the fantasized end of citizens United and end&or very serious rework of the corporate personhood laws/precedents (& and properly working campaign finance limits) would go a long way. Sort of too bad that it can be so obvious to so many what the correct solutions are and yet they remain politically unattainable (and often resisted). I do not, personally, believe that the super-rich are by and large malign or decadent and uncaring for others. Haven’t done any dedicated study in the area ppersonally. But for instance, take the Koch brothers. I do not believe that their intent is or really, even could be, determinately and definitely malign (meaning mostly; all things exist in degrees and continuous variances; pure 0/1 and other integers largely exist only in mathematics …. + probability/s ~densities~. It is a problem instead of too much faith and demand for absolutes (no compromise) in maladaptive, strongly inaccurate, or otherwise faulty political/economic ideologies, theory, and other types of linguistic constructs, particularly those that pretend to be comprehensive, complete systems/solutions. Unlike the John Rawls book, I personally believe neither that any ‘comprehensive doctrine’ can be any better than an incomplete and distorting contraption, nor that nominal adherence to one is a constructive way to interact/transact/interpret with the world, nor that many people at all even attempt to order their world and direct their behavior with said CDs. Even the most devout or politically committed structure only a small fraction of their tiny increments of being/doing by the explicit and determinate rules and beliefs. I could of course be wrong about the motives and acts of the preponderance of the super-rich. But restructuring our economic/psychic world toward broad based fairness and empowerment (while resisting over concentrations of power as well as forced ‘equality’ and conformity.sameness; well then we could largely cease worrying what the super-rich do, so long as they can still be held accountable to the rule of law (enoughly). It is all highly optimistic, if abstract. But ideals do not need to be completely or at all enacted to serve as ones compass/pole star, going forward. I do think it is useful to think in terms of restructuring constructs, rather than merely the common words (‘law’,’money’,’ethics v morality’) as the abstraction allows one to think, cross breed, and even act, across the boundaries of disparate fields & phenomena, and hook together or blend them in New ways. The sort of underlying conceptual geometry of the ‘thingamajigger’ in question, rather than merely the superficial screen of words. I am becoming exceedingly tired of writing this, lovely as it has been, but suspect I may find yet more to say comment. An imperfect final word, i will say again, since few will have read or recalled, my position that ‘evil’ is a circular illusion, which cannot be assigned any meaningful definition without the delusional ‘inverse faith’ in a supreme ‘evil’ being, there is no such ‘prime mover/source’ for it, merely a messy imperfect world filled with variously glowing and messed up technological primates (octopi, dolphins, even bacteria and rocks, when one thinks of panpsychism) … ‘money’ similarly yet distinct, has no actual reality, aside from what is commonly agreed and understood, and as such it can be transformed and redefined in infinite possible ways. While restructuring explicit and other game rules (‘law’ is one variant) is one approach, actions, either to formula or experimental, also alter the world continuously. The overall gestalts of chaos theory and emergent systems are only two lenses that could perhaps be employed much more in fruitful action by persons than they presently do. Wow. I sure do go on. Interesting ancestor script for this sorta kinda, and well stated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Discordia#Overview

      Like

Effusive praise and venomous criticism goes here. We also like discussion & shares! :

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s