Monday, November 21, 2016

Identity supremacy sucks...

MEMES make life so easy. Instead of a boring 500 or 1000 word essay that nobody reads, you can make up a colorful image that people GET immediately.  (Even if it's stupid or evil.)

This one is pretty self-evident. All sorts of supremacy is really tacky at best and sick at worse. Be it by racial, religious, ethnic, national or other groups.  Certainly if it's MALE supremacy.  And even, female supremacy, what little of it there is.

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Obama right about crude nationalism/ethnic identity /tribalism

First, the spate of American secessionist news quickly has subsided.  We'll see if there are a bunch of secession petitions on White House.gov after (ack! I can barely write or say it) President Donald J Trump takes office. (Assuming he doesn't throw up his hands and give it all to Vice President Mike "outlaw all abortion now" Pence the day after the electoral college makes the election official.) 

Anyhow, right wingers are far more liable to jump to the secession alternative. And after a year of Trump as president, both right and left may be ready.  Obama's exact quote on this topic, made November 15, 2016 on his final foreign trip, was: “I do believe, separate and apart from any particular election or movement, that we are going to have to guard against a rise in a crude sort of nationalism or ethnic identity or tribalism that is built around an ‘us’ and a ‘them.’”

He was referring to various incidents of bigotry in the United States since the election of Donald Trump as well as the controversy over Steve Bannon who has been running the very nasty "Breitbart News" since Breitbart's 2012 death. Bannon says the publication is: "virulently anti-establishment, particularly 'anti-' the permanent political class."  However, it publishes material which seems to me and others to be misogynist, xenophobic, racist and white nationalist.  In other words really stupid and often disgusting.

My concerns with secession are:
* making it nonviolent
* making it individual liberty and community-based not "states rights" of existing states-based
* replacing majority rule representatives democracy (which always leads to elite rule) with supermajority/direct democracy which is less susceptible to elite and "majority" rule
* not forcing anyone to join an entity they do not want to join
* and minimizing "crude nationalism/ethnic identity /tribalism", the topic of this blog entry


Here is a February 2008 blog entry from my former blog "Secede and Survive" at VermontCommons. It has now transitioned to VermontIndependent.org.  Called "Secession and Sectarianism" it is about the dangers of this topic in organizing secessionist movements.

Secessionists face the problem of sectarianism both from the most rabid unionists who oppose secession on ideological grounds and, contrarily, from those who support it as a means of advancing and even imposing their sectarian agenda, be it racial, ethnic, religious or ideological. Concern about distrust, bigotry, sectarianism exploding into separatist violence is legitimate because throughout history such divisions have erupted into violence, sometimes among ever growing numbers of factions.

Recent examples are sectarian divisions in Yugoslavia throughout the 1990s, in Rwanda in 1994 and especially in Iraq after the 2003 United States invasion. So it is very important to build a secessionist movement that recognizes and has strategies for dealing with sectarianism.


Sectarianism is always a threat. Even the smallest states in the United States will have a variety of political, economic, regional, religious, ethnic, racial and other groups envisioning very different alternative institutional structures. It’s certainly possible that as secession catches on even Vermont could see splits among anti-capitalist anarchist, right wing Christian separatists, laissez-fair middle class libertarians, gated community Republicans, and whatever other local Vermont groups and networks might exist. And if the most aggressive and violent males in each faction have their way, it could turn bloody.The bigger the state, the more the sources of conflict.

Current political structures dampen and contain such conflict; in “democracies” through a democratic facade that masks special interest rule and in autocracies through brutal military and police repression. At the same time, elites also may pursue deliberate divide and conquer strategies to keep different subgroups from uniting against them, including employing propagandists and provocateurs to stir up trouble among different groups.

However, once the state structure is weakened or destroyed - usually by its own failings, the most ruthless sectarians can organize armed groups to grab territory and resources and drive out long time residents. And this may be one of the legitimate concerns of those who question the League of the South and the Second Vermont Republic’s relation to them. Is the League of the South a group that just wants to maintain a certain heritage among its members, without fomenting bigotry and hate against other groups? Or is it, like some claim, a “racist hate group.” (It has issued a statement that racism is un-Christian.) Does it just want freedom from state interference in its family or community life? Or does it want to impose its culture, including Christian culture, on those who do not share it - or drive them out if they refuse to submit?

Of course, given the opportunities that secession can provide for mischief, the same can be asked of left wing anti-capitalist anarchists or groups like the North Star Republic communists who want to smash any private enterprise they consider to be too big - and for some that includes private home ownership and Mom and Pop stores. And then there are radical environmentalists who might try to impose an impoverished environmentalist lifestyle on others.

I’ve done my own heated expose on the violent extremists in such movements in my e-book THE RETURN OF STREET FIGHTING MAN. And questions about bigotry and sectarianism can be asked of some LaRaza members who might want to drive all the “gringos” out of re-taken territories in the South West. Or of black separatist groups like the Nation of Islam. All of these groups should make it clear they do not intend to impose their values on others.

The declarations of intent of the most sectarian secessionists frighten people into believing all secessionists have extremist political, economic or cultural views they intend to impose on everyone else. That’s why wise secessionists, and the various networks and organizations they create, should stress their goal is giving people choice, including, but not limited to, creating homogeneous communities. We do not want to give the impression our goal is to replace today’s many diverse and multi-cultural communities with a “diversity” of homogeneous ones when it is not. Diversity is what makes people and cultures stronger.

I explored the solution to these problems previously in my first Vermont Commons blog entry “Issues in Secession.” It details the necessity for emphasis on community-based, not big state secession; libertarian tolerance, voluntarism and minimal government; clear principles of nonviolent conflict resolution, bills of rights and consensus-oriented and direct democracy decision making.


Will post "Issues in Secession" soon... (Blogged shorter description previously here.)


Wednesday, November 09, 2016

Liberals already talking secession...

Sure glad I'm not a Hillary supporter or I'd REALLY be pissed about the woman abusing and molesting slime bag Donald Trump being elected President. (Though it is a relief not to have to hear about Bill Clinton for the next four years.)  I feel sorry for Melania Trump.  She just wanted to be quiet Eurotrash enjoying wealth and fashion in the USA -  and now she'll be the butt of sexist jokes for years.

I'm going to try not to do TOO many new nasty Trump memes (they're all over my twitter account), but latest vent...



And yes, two liberals have told me they now support secession.  Interesting times... Guess I'll have to wake up now and not go back to saying I'll get organizing some day.
Update on hour later: And so #PresidentTrump related #Secession talk begins. Here and here

Update next day: Well, I didn't make the DC protests, though a few of us are planning a feminist protest in the near future. And just for anyone who comes along some day and says I never protested Bill Clinton, here's the proof.  A similar photograph from March 25, 1999 was published on the inside cover of an alternative media magazine. Here some from Bill Clinton protests I attended and even helped organize in 1998 and 1999. (Soon to be moved to another link in new wordpress setup.)


Tuesday, November 08, 2016

Secessionism about to blow up again...

In this December 2012 blog entry about post-2012 election "secessionist developments" I noted that jump in (mostly "right wing" secessionist activity after Obama was elected in 2012.  Remember all those White House on-line petitions? I wonder if they'll bother to do it again. Somewhere I summarized the secessionist sentiments of some liberals when George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004 and those of "right wingers" when Obama was first elected in 2008. That's six presidential elections in a row, if the trend continues. (2000/4/6/8/12/16)

I did find some comments I wrote about the same phenomena in 2000:
During the six weeks that the 2000 Presidential election remained contested, Republicans contemplating the prospect of Al Gore “stealing” the election from George Bush openly talked of secession. A New York Times reporter writing on this “secession” impulse agreed:” It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the [Presidential] race was about a cultural divide in American life.” Walter Williams noted: “Irreconcilability faces us today. There's one group of Americans who does not wish to bother anyone but wishes to be left alone. Another group of Americans wants to plunder and control the lives of others. This latter group of Americans shows no sign of letting up, much less retreating. A return to rule of law and constitutional government or separation are the only peaceful solutions.”

One interesting thing I've noted here and there is pundits talking about, and me thinking about, how much of the cultural divisions in all nations are between conservative rural areas and more liberal urban ones.  Another reason for radical decentralization down to the community, county or city level.

Of course, my ten year promise of updating Secession.net to further these ideas still hasn't happened. Though I have learned wordpress and put a few sites up. Too much time screwing around with activism and Wikipedia and more activism, now a days mostly on line. And paying the rent.  I have this poster below on my wall. Must get organizing in person again!

I'm assuming Hillary will win and we'll have more "right wing" secessionist activism, with Trump sticking his nose in it for as long as he can get publicity. Unless of course he IS Hillary's Manchurian Candidate and succeeded in helping her get elected.

If Trump wins - I'll be out there rioting too! Or at least making videos of it all...  Unless I start cursing so loud I drop dead of a heart attack.  But it would make for some interesting left-libertarian secessionism - til Trump sends us all to the concentration camps!  Will update y'all...

Meanwhile here's a few fun and relevant graphics collected over last 16 years.

Monday, October 10, 2016

Declaration of Independence Dominates Debates AGAIN!!

Sure it's a subliminal message, but this was the third time the debate committee showed it, from a somewhat lower angle. They also had it behind the Vice Presidential debaters. (Who were so obnoxious I turned them off after 8 minutes.)  Maybe their set designer is a sneakily effective libertarian?? Or radical decentralist? Or anarchist?

Anyway, how many subliminal messages can one get before they become the DOMINANT one.  Trump's message: "i'm a tool who can grab all the #10 pussies I want." Hillary's message: "Yes, my husband is a bastard, but I'm stuck in the 1950s. How else could I make it to be president?"

Sunday, October 09, 2016

2016 Presidental election: from sex assaults to nuclear war


Anyone who reads my 2016 election posts can see they are overwhelmingly about patriarchal sex, with patriarchal nuclear war a close second. Allegations that one candidate is a woman-demeaning sexual predator who would start nuclear war over a tweet, contrast with allegations that the other candidate enabled her sexual predator husband and is pushing for nuclear war against Russia. This 2016 presidential election is emblematic of the political degradation and self-destructive path of large patriarchal nation states.

This week the focus has been on sexual assaults: who's the biggest sexual assaulter of women - Bill Clinton (and his allegedly enabling wife Hillary) or Donald Trump (and his possibly enabling wife Melania)? The big difference between the two couples is that Bill (and Hillary) deny the sexual assaults and Trump boasts about them!

Much as I believe the allegations versus Clinton of flashing/groping/rape, I have to admit he's innocent until proven guilty. Hillary's enabling is not quite as clear, though I would not be surprised if it was true to some extent. Some good articles about Bill's alleged assaults on women and Hillary's denial and defense.1, 2, 3, 4. These have been around for more than twenty years.

Released just this weekend was a 2005 tape of Trump on microphone confessing/admitting/boasting about sexual assaults: "I'm automatically attracted to beautiful [women]. I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. I just kiss, I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything — grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

As the New York Times wrote: "Why did a decade-old three-minute video provoke a sudden revolt by party officials against their nominee, an uprising that could very well destroy their chances of taking the White House? Because the glee with which he bragged about sexually assaulting women, by forcibly kissing them and grabbing their genitals, turned a boorish man into an outright predator."

Yup. Trump already was known for his aggressive sexuality, frequently expressed poor regard for women, and several allegations of sexual assault, including rape of a girl who was 13 years old at the time. See Esquire and Huffington Post stories among others. So it is easy to assume Trump was being honest - for a change!

Trump's initial apology did not deny predatory acts. He just said he regretted them... and Bill Clinton was worse! Relevant quote: "I’ve said and done things I regret, and the words released today on this more than decade old video are one of them...I’ve said some foolish things, but there’s a big difference between the words and actions of other people. Bill Clinton has actually abused women..." (Evidently Trump thinks kissing and grabbing genitals is NOT abuse??)

And then, of course, a tape was just released of Trump agreeing with the disgusting sexist radio yapper Howard Stern that Trump's daughter Ivanka is gorgeous. He even gives Stern permission to call his daughter a "piece of ass".1, 2  Just reinforcing the perception of Trump's sexual perversity.

But then, during tonight's second presidential debate/townhall, after the moderator pushed and pushed him, Trump finally explicitly denied doing any kissing or genital grabbing or anything else. Oh, yeah, tens of millions of Americans believe him. (NOT!) (My meme take on it below.)

It is sad to see women who Bill Clinton probably DID assault speaking out against him in a Trump-stunt press conference right before tonight's second debate. They obviously are in denial about Trump's sexual depredations or they would not have shown up. And they probably don't know that Trump made light of allegations against Bill Clinton for years, a fact in the news for months. At least none of these women are Trump's preferred young, buxom "10s", so he won't try to kiss them or grab their genitals.

The sexual aggressions of patriarchs and their enablers (male and female) are just a symbol of the larger aggression that politicians and the media suppress: that U.S. imperialism and large nation state rivalries are leading us to nuclear war. Let's see the IMPORTANT headlines and stories just this week of nuclear threat stories we are NOT seeing prominently or at all on CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN or Fox. Or even most major American newspapers.

10/4/16: State Dept: US Considering ‘Military, Other Options’ Against Russia in Syria

10/4/16: U.S. vs. Russia: What a war would look like between the world's most fearsome militaries

10/4/16: Russia builds huge underground shelters in Moscow as it prepares for NUCLEAR WAR with West

10/4/16: Is Nuclear War becoming Thinkable?

10/5/16: What We Talk About When We Don’t Want To Talk About Nuclear War

10/4/16: 40 million Russians involved in annual 4-day defense drills

10/7/16: Russia Building Up Forces in Syria Since Ceasefire’s Collapse

10/7/16: The US Air Force Just Dropped Two Fake Nukes

Monday, September 26, 2016

Trump vs. Clinton: Post-Nuclear War Comments

Since nuclear war and which candidate is most likely to start it is always my biggest election year issue, I made this video comparing how Trump vs. Clinton would comment in a statement after a nuclear exchange that struck the U.S. My Youtube Introduction reads: Many fear that Trump - or Clinton - will start a nuclear war. It's an argument supporters on both sides give for supporting their candidate. Given their histories, I think it is easy to imagine that these are the kinds of statements each might make should nuclear war happen under their "reign".

A few hours after posting it I discovered this article "Poll: Nearly half of voters think Trump will detonate a nuke" which notes that 22% of Trump supporters think he'll user nuclear weapons, something that inevitably would escalate to world nuclear war!

Gary Johnson, the less than perfect libertarian candidate who still is 10 times better than Hillary/Trump, at least would bring up issues that the debate moderators will doubtless ignore. Seven of those, according to Reason magazine, are: the massive and escalating national debt; centralized government taking over state and local issues; squashing international trade (goodbye dollar store, hello $3.50 dish sponge); US military intervention, including with shock and awe, anywhere anytime neocon-neoliberal ideologues feel like it; spying on all of us to make it easy to prosecute and convict individuals of SOMETHING should the state find it to be necessary; free speech - let's keep it!; war on "drugs", i.e., black people, nonconformists or anyone the state wants to target. Check it out!


UPDATE:  During the 9/26/16 Presidential Debate with Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump quickly melted down and descended into confused ranting, as expected. To me the most significant aspect of the debate was the debate stage background: the first lines of the Declaration of Independence which, as I love to remind my readers (i.e., the millions yet to discover this blog), include the phrase highlighted in the memes below. (The first from the debate, the second my last July 4th meme.)