Immigration has become the norm. What are we going to do about it? For immigrants, immigration is not a choice. It’s life and death. It’s always been that way in the United States. However, as war, climate change and natural disasters continue to destroy living conditions for millions of people, even those in favor of accepting immigrants may fear that it requires a bigger commitment than they are prepared to make. If a public figure adds to that fear by lying about the dangers posed by immigrants, these same people might change their minds about immigration. They might even vote for that public figure, hoping he will protect them from this great danger. I want to challenge the notion that they have to depend on self-serving politicians for information about immigration.
(more…)Our Season of Creation
-
-
Why worry about same-sex marriage and trans-ideologies? This article is not a rejection of same-sex partners and trans people. It’s a request for the missing narrative about hetrosexual relations and how they affect social organization. Currently it is being drowned out by a particular version of a patriarchal narrative.
It is more efficient to talk about heterosexual relations
The problem is one of focus and proportion. If this conversation is supposed to be about organizing a just society for our children and grandchildren, the same-sex marriage and trans-rights movements should not be dominating it. But the goal is not to fight same-sex marriage and trans-ideologies. It is to supply the missing parts of the conversation. Women need to talk about heterosexual relations and marriage. Failing to recognize this need assures that an agenda will be imposed on them, and therefore on their posterity, while they are not paying attention. This is because the female role is recognized and valued by the powers that be, much more than it’s valued by women themselves.
Same-sex marriage and trans-ideologies impose on women
Gay and trans people deserve freedom from violence and discrimination, but this can be said about every minority group in the world. We all deserve freedom from violence and discrimination–including women. However, same-sex marriage and trans-ideologies have not only taken over the converstion, their practice dominates and imposes on women. Same-sex marriage increases the market for adopted and surrogate children; trans-ideology tells women they have no right to deny biological men access to women’s spaces. Women don’t even have a right to tell biological men they are men. The movement appears to be in a state of denial that it is women who will create the families of the future. However, it is not in denial. Appearances can be deceiving.
An over-emphasis on Same-sex marriage and trans ideologies, and an underemphasis on women, is anti-social and unsustainable.
How are these movements anti-social? Women are the center of family relations. Movements that impose on women while refusing to admit this imposition are antisocial. How are they unsustainable? They are unsustainable because they depend on the misfortune of other people.
The anti-social aspects of the trans movement include biological men invading women’s spaces and women’s sports. The anti-social potential of same-sex marriage comes about when the partners feel entitled to adopt children. This potential may be increased by same-sex marriage. It makes a son’s homosexuality more acceptable to his parents. Same-sex marriage equalizes the son’s social status with heterosexual marriage, and it implies grandchildren. While this might seem to improve relations within that particular family, it imposes on other families. This happens regardless of whether same-sex couples really want children. it is possible that same-sex partners would not choose to adopt without family pressure.
Same-sex marriage and trans-ideologies are not the problem.
If we believe these movements are anti-social and unsustainable, what can we do about them? That is probably the wrong question. I believe these movements dominate the conversation because heterosexual relations are taken for granted. Women take them for granted at least as much as men do. In fact, it’s likely that women take heterosexual relations for granted to a much greater degree. Women need a conversation about heterosexual relations and marriage in general, preferably with input from the parents of women.
For example, someone could propose that the key factors in a properly organizated society are: marriage customs which involve parents and which are understood by each family in a community; an economy that does not extract excess wealth from the citizenry; a cleansing of racist and misogynistic beliefs and doctrines. They could also set priorities. For example:
- Marriage customs within the family must include financial protection for brides and their future children. This requires the citizenry to be able to hold on to its wealth.
- If the citizenry is to hold on to its wealth, the modern state must go. The modern state is structured to extract wealth from the people.
- The influence of the Greeks, starting at least as early as Plato, must be purged from our religion, education, and philosophy. Greek influence is imperialistic and misogynistic. At its core is a disguised rivalry between patriarchy and motherhood.
Change must start with families
The goal is not to fight same-sex marriage and trans-ideologies. The goal is to focus on heterosexual relations. Several posts will be necessary to expand on these factors. Unfortunately, even though the conservative ruling class claims to support traditional families it is likely they will not support this. And in my opinion, we should not be under any illusions that we can prevail in the event of a debate. Then what am I suggesting?
Why worry about same-sex marriage and trans-ideologies? I believe they are a symptom. I’m arguing that the problems we face today cannot be solved under our present cultural, social and economic conditions. If we don’t understand this, our efforts will be a waste of time and energy. We may be able to implement smaller measures, but even under the best scenario we will still be left with the system that led us to this place. The goal is not to fight same-sex marriage and trans-ideologies. The goal is for women, (and the parents of women) to supply the missing narrative about heterosexual relations and marriage, and how these relations influence society
-
Harold Kaplan said ‘humanist aspirations’ are the dominant American intellectual tradition. 1 But an abstract notion of democratic humanism is only part of the story. Kaplan explains democratic humanism in the context of writers of the American classics: Emerson, Thoreau, Cooper, Poe, D. H. Lawrence, Hawthorne, Melville, Whitman, Twain, and Henry James. They composed the American classics and the poetry of democracy, and in their works we see hints of the strange continent that confronted them. (more…)
-
According to Harold Kaplan, Americans do not question the effects on the United States of the Reformation and the Enlightenment. But was the Enlightenment a democratic movement? Kaplan wrote:
(more…)“We do not question that the twin roots of American national history were the religious revolution, which broke the Catholic hegemony, and the secular Enlightenment, which finally broke the traditional political structures, monarchical and hierarchical, of Europe…” (p. 14)
((Harold Kaplan, Democratic Humanism and American Literature, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1972, p. 14)) -
Plato has ruled the world for 2500 years through his lasting influence on philosophy, politics, and religion. It’s time we paid attention to what he actually said. He is considered an authority on politics, even though in his lifetime, his writings were not compatible with the politics of his home country, Athens. Some of the worst attitudes of the modern world can be traced to him. He proposed a so-called link between societal ‘decay’ and race. He was also a misogynist. And yet he can’t be easily discarded. He is too much a part of us. Instead, I believe his influence has to be explored, discussed, and evaluated for its usefulness to contemporary society.
(more…) -
This article proposes that we live under the influence of bourgeois (middle class) manipulation, examining how the bourgeoisie might manipulate society to serve their interests.
In a previous article I questioned whether we, the voters, owe anything to the Enlightenment or to the Enlightenment’s champions, the Freemasons. Since Enlightenment ideals helped pave the way to modern democracy, this led me to wonder what it means for our republic if we question these things. What does democracy owe to the Enlightenment and Freemasonry?
The Bourgeoisie Takes Power
It was evident that Enlightenment democracy was not for all of the people as soon as the bourgeoisie achieved independence from the English aristocracy. They immediately began to oppress the less privileged. They began by taking over the commons and literally fencing out people who had depended on the commons for their livelihood. Anyone found in these enclosures was suddenly considered ‘poachers’ and given severe punishments, including hanging.
The Commons This supports the premise that bourgeois manipulation replaced monarchy. My question is, what does that mean for the people’s ability to imagine a new type of society? One might conclude that any cultural attributes we have were manufactured by the privileged classes, many of whom mistrusted the masses and feared an ‘excess’ of democracy. We are defined by ‘them’.
But Don’t Workers Imagine a New Type of Society?
Some might argue that they identify as workers and they imagine a time when they will own the companies. However, that implies continued dependence on those companies, not to mention a similar worldview. The category is too restrictive because it doesn’t take in all of life. For one thing, it doesn’t consider the type of work or how it fits into a larger worldview. Or even what that larger worldview might be. This vision might even be said to replace or suppress other manifestations of human culture. However, the most important fact may be that the category itself is not stable.
The Very Category of Worker is Considered Expendable
The plan to win back worker’s rights is premised on the fabled post-war boom. But the post-war workers’ boom took place during a time of industrial strength, which no longer exists. Without industry there are no jobs. If there are no jobs, there are no workers.
The category of workers only exists in relationship to industries. Unfortunately, workers have never resisted the general trends in industrial activity. They have always fought for working conditions and monetary compensation within the system. The flaw in that approach becomes evident with the rise of automation and artificial intelligence.
The tendency of technology to replace workers is a contemporary version of the enclosure system in that it ignores the plight of the humans who are affected. The working class has not risen to the challenge of criticizing this in a meaningful way, which has a lot to do with the failure to develop a larger worldview. Real meaning must be based on a livable future for all the creatures on the planet.
The Bourgeois Class Thinks the New Age Will Belong to Them.
Will the bourgeois class maintain its safe position in the new age? Probably not in the way they imagine. If a recent video is any indication, they believe they will morph into the leaders of the new age. This video, Changing of the Gods, seems based on an assumption of the establishment’s continuing control. Under this assumption, recent history becomes a series of signposts on the way to an identical worldview. Consider, for example, their treatment of the rise of feminism. It includes a clip of feminist CFR member, Gloria Steinem.
-
One of the reasons I supported Bernie Sanders for president was his support of family farms against the abuses of agribusiness. Agricultural policy and food security should be at the center of our plan for the future. This makes sense because we have a large and growing global population and dwindling resources.
I want to discuss an article in the February 2016 issue of Harper’s entitled The Trouble With Iowa. This article makes it clear that agricultural policy in the United States is not concerned with a quality life for farmers, promoting food security, or encouraging the responsible use of resources. We must find a way to end the abuses of agribusiness.
(more…) -
Aside from the climate crisis there is general agreement that individuals on the left don’t have to share the same religious beliefs or ideology. However, that belief is misleading. A focus on Gender rights seems to be an ideological requirement. The issue of Gender rights has become a litmus test for left-ness. A realistic analysis of our allies and our opposition suggests this ideology acts as a handicap for political success.
A Focus on Gender Rights Alienates Important Allies
The climate crisis is rightly a major focus for the political left. Due to time constraints and the ongoing attacks on the democratic process, there are natural limits to additional issues that can be effectively addressed. These limits have to do with our indigenous allies in the fight against climate change and their consensus, or lack thereof, on our political patform.
No one seems concerned that our allies among the Native Americans believe there are only two genders, male and female. This lack of concern is surprising, considering that globally, indigenous people are the foundation of our fight against climate change. We’ve asked them to teach us to care for the land and they’ve indicated that they’re willing to do so, but how teachable are we if we blithely carry the gender rights banner at the front of the parade?
Would the Left Benefit From a Narrower Focus?
In my opinion, individuals on the left have some important questions to answer. What are we trying to accomplish? Are we trying to address a threat to the human race, or are we establishing leftist credentials? Do we behave as friends to our allies, or competing ideologues? Do we fit the Right’s definition of the ‘radical woke’ left, or are we clear-headed strategists? I would argue that if you don’t think these are important questions, either you are not serious, or you don’t understand our opposition.
Gender Ideology is an Easy Target for the Right
Ideologues on the right have made their opposition to gender ideology a major part of their platform, and they are unified against this issue. They also deny the danger of global warming. So, in the minds of undecided voters, denial of global warming has become inseparable from a conservative position on gender. In this scenario, the left’s focus on gender ideology is the opposite of strategic. It is a handicap.
-
Political violence is a major concern the world over. Lately, the United States seems to be catching up with the rest of the world due to manipulation of electoral outcomes by certain actors. The chief cause is corruption and dysfunctional institutions. Fortunately, there is a new theory explaining the connection between corruption and the cycle of electoral violence.
Electoral Misconduct and Political Violence
Electoral violence is the focus of Sarah Birch’s book, Electoral Violence, Corruption, and Political Order. According to Birch 1 a combination of electoral malpractice and political violence fosters electoral violence.
Conceptually, electoral violence is located at the intersection of electoral misconduct and political violence. Electoral misconduct, also known as electoral malpractice, is ‘the manipulation of electoral processes and outcomes so as to substitute personal or partisan benefit for the public interest (quote by Birch p, 10)
State and Non-state Actors Commit Electoral Violence
Based on data collected for this study, the majority of electoral violence is committed by state actors. It addition, the study developed theoretical reasons to believe that the state shapes the settings in which this violence takes place.
Non-state actors might also use violence to counter the attempt by state actors to exclude them from power. This is part of Birch’s integrated theory about the context that determines electoral violence.
Violence is used by state actors (and their proxies) mainly as a tool to exclude other actors from political power in competitive elections , and violence is used by nonstate actors largely as a means of contesting such exclusion and seeking access to power (p 5).
How Has This Happened in the United States?
But how does this happen in a country like the United States, where voters have had confidence in elections for more than 200 years? Even though the current trend in the US is toward more violence, voters still think of elections as a peaceful, democratic way to provide power and legitimacy. However, due to changing conditions, incumbents and candidates are unwilling to depend on the electoral system to win or hold on to power.
Incumbents and Candidates Don’t Think the Electoral System Will Help them Hold on to Power
Birch’s study of other countries where electoral violence is more common indicates that this is due to the presence of widespread corruption and clientelism. Methods for winning elections in the US still include open competition on the basis of policy proposals, but they also include manipulation such as vote-buying and force. Both state and non-state actors believe that under present conditions, violence is the only way to attain or hold on to power.
The Main Factors Leading to Corruption and Electoral Violence
There are many factors that lead to corruption and electoral violence and every country is different. But generally the combination of weak democratic institutions and dysfunctional informal institutions provides the setting for electoral violence.
Elections are high-stakes affairs in states with weak democratic institutions and strong informal institutions of clientelism, patronage, and corruption. In such contexts, those in power control economic and legal, as well as political resources, such that incumbents have ample reason to fear loss of power. In addition, they have reason to fear that if they lose a critical election, they themselves will be permanently excluded from ruling, as the victors may be reluctant to allow genuinely competitive contests in future. Political orders characterized by high levels of corruption and ineffectual democratic institutions are therefore ones that are strongly conducive to electoral violence. (p 5)
Chaos is the End Result
If unchecked, the end result of corruption and dysfunction is a descent into chaos. Either voters don’t turn out, or they vote for things that will increase their chances of survival. This is not the basis of sound policy proposals.
Politicians are also influenced negatively. One result is that they might become reluctant to discuss certain issues for fear of retaliation.
Forceful manipulation of the democratic process can lead to widespread instability in the entire country or region, including civil war.
What Can Be Done?
In the absence of reform, the simple logic of dysfunctional democratic institutions and corruption will lead to a vicious cycle of violence and societal breakdown. However, the downward trend can be reversed by strengthening democratic institutions and punishing corruption. Knowledge of the factors Birch identifies in her book can help policy makers avoid it or recover from it.