Dissent in A Fear Society

In his book THE CASE FOR DEMOCRACY, Natan Sharansky, a former Soviet political prisoner released from prison by Mikhail Gorbachev in 1986 wrote “A society is free if people have a right to express their views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm.”  He also added, “A society that does not protect dissent will inevitably be based on fear.” Although it is clear his perspective is based on his personal experience growing up as a Jew in the former Soviet Union, it strikes me as if he is writing about America today.

Since the start of this century, the focus of the US federal government, in all aspects has been directed toward encouraging uniformity and conformity, in view, belief and idea of all its citizens, specifically by playing on the emotional projection of being either “with or against us.”  This mentality gained its maximum utility of expected outcomes when the U.S. began its famed “war against terror.” Terror being singularly contrived from emotion representing in its basic understand an extreme fear. I say this because no two individuals, let alone all humans for that matter are the same.  Some may have an extreme fear or water, others may not; some may have an extreme fear of snakes and insects, others may not. However, this is the desire of the powers that function in the highest capacity of both political and corporate leadership in America. 

Now there are many that would argue against my thesis, however, they would most be those individuals that consider themselves progressive and would in the same sentence disavow the historical truth that their views are rooted in socialism, specifically cultural Marxism. They will also in the same sentence admit that no one has the same identical experiences, backgrounds, views, preferences and/or intelligence, yet cannot accept that others may not agree with them based on the aforementioned. The point being, the notion of a complete and uniform homogenous society defined by a severe ideological commitment to uniform collectivist values, ideas, views and beliefs is as realistic as the Easter bunny.

The reality of individual differences I speak of is a social pariah in today’s America. Dissent, even based on fact or personal view is currently equated to being the enemy. And there are many examples to this. Let’s us take global warming for example, which has been conveniently changed to climate change. Now from my experiences and readings, I understand that even before the Wurm glaciations (before man existed), there has always been climate change on the Earth – this is a scientific fact. However, with this said, if I don’t accept it is due to man, or that no single factor has ever been the sole cause of any phenomena, I am ridiculed by the majority; and instead of being disproven by discourse and data, called names and ridiculed.

For me, not relying on the words of a politician, specifically that carbon is a pollutant and man is the SINGLE cause of these changes, is my death nail. Why because in my argument I include the sun and its recent periods of strong coronal mass ejections and solar radiation storms, stronger solar flares and increased UV radiation of the past few decades, in formulating my perspective. I also include the observation that these events we experience Terrestrially cannot be caused by man or “carbon pollutants” alone if it is well documented they are occurring on Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto (Pluto is undergoing global warming, as evidenced by a three-fold increase in the planet’s atmospheric pressure during the past decade plus), Mars, Triton (Neptune’s largest moon), and other celestial bodies which don’t have SUVs or humans driving them. 

And don’t ask them to compare the Carbon dioxide rates of Venus to Earth in terms of Carbon dioxide density, then they only curse more for you having dissenting and differing ideas of your own. Especially if you ask, if Saturn, Mars, Jupiter, Pluto and Triton all "appear" to be warming, how can we be sure that Global Warming is man-made let alone a function of carbon dioxide emissions? The only response one in my experience would get are vehement attacks on charcter but not facts, simply because I trust physicist and MIT over Al Gore and Barack Obama.

Like the war on terror, this entire man-made carbon is a pollutant (when carbon is organic and not inorganic) is fatuous and typical of a fear based society just like the war on terror. This is also observed even with regards to basic beliefs. If you do not agree with gay marriage or homosexuality one is called a homophobe simply for not believing in the practice.  Personally it is like saying because I hate the Dallas Cowboys (which I do); I am a footballphobe – complete and utter idiotic nonsense. The way I see, one can believe what they want, and I can listen or accept or disagree, but just because we have different views don’t make me think you are stupid or less than those who agree with me.

See America, we are not as free as we think in this constitutional republic. Whether folk can see it or not, this nation is teetering on the brink of tyranny. Yep, I said it. If one is chastised for not accepting what others say you should accept, or believe what the middle of the normal distribution say you should, and you are punished for such, that my friend is tyranny of the fascist order. Don’t take my word, recently a former vet was arrested and called mentally ill  for voicing his views against the government on Facebook, and now, The Obama Administration via Eric Holder will be implementing a program designed to punish and imprison folk for thought that they see and deemas disagreeable.  And this isn’t from Orwell’s 1984. 

We have these behaviors now because most folk do not think for self and have instead been indoctrinated into what to believe. As such, when they do think, it is merely an amalgamation of generalizations and stereotypes which are not grounded in research or fact, but rather due to their learned irrational natures and simple mindless. Consequently, when their beliefs are questioned and/or challenged, if they cannot ignore you, they take it as a personal attack to defend the status quo, they call you intolerant and prejudice just because they don’t understand specific distinctions or nuance or from a personal point of view, they just hate to be wrong, because that in their minds such makes them feel as if they are not important.

 

This is what happens in a fear society, when you do not agree you are the bad person - the enemy. All that matters, even if they know they are being controlled and their thoughts are not their own, is that those they acknowledge the power that makes them feel important, correct and even worse – knowledgeable.

America from this perspective is moving away from a free society because dissent and differing views and beliefs are no longer tolerated or accepted. And the folk who accept this would never dare to accept or think that their government, like the intellectuals under Stalin, or the scientific class of Iran in the early 1980s, would ever think of doing such. But that is how it is done, it isn’t call TV programming by accident, nor is by chance that major news outlets glorify the masses on behalf of the corporate and political class.

So if you did not know, now you should, but I suspect most will ignore the wisdom in this tractate and cut on their idiot box and talk about shit they don’t know what the fuck they talking about as if they really know. And I have no problem with saying what I believe, for as it was once written, you make enough laws we all can be criminals and this my friend, is a risk I can live with as a free thinker.

Black Progressive is An Oxymoron

Seems it has become fashionable over the past four years for African Americans to consider themselves to be politically progressives as opposed to liberals. The way I have managed to understand progressivism, in simple terms is that it is a political ideology that states it desires better conditions in society that is rooted in early 20th century liberal philosophy. It is supposed to be a response to the impact of industrialization as well is a political philosophy in between the response taken by traditional conservatives and socialist to deal with social and economic issues. Naturally, it started in urban areas and was first championed by folk advocating egalitarian and liberal methods to reform socioeconomic policy.

Scholars have had a very difficult time defining Progressivism. Some have even grouped both Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson as Progressives even absent of any common ideological ground between the two. They even add Lyndon Johnson and now, Barack Obama in scope and aim.

For some oddly coherently dissonant reason (historical and philosophical), I find it implausible and oxymoronic for any African American to call themselves progressives.

I would advance that most describe themselves as such either because of the aforementioned adumbrated definition, or because they support President Obama and white democrats call him progressive. In the past I have often had to disabuse politically, what I comprehended about the progressive political orientation. Specifically that it is rooted in the concept of liberal internationalism as implemented first via the foreign policy of Woodrow Wilson, the 28th President of the United States. Albeit not called such during the time of the imperialistic colonization of Africa, Wilson approach to the world (on behalf of the well-being of America) was immured to practices similar to what led to the enslavement of Africans and the subjugation of other world ethnic nationalities. This is the main reason I find African American progressive as a term, to be dysfunctional and improbable.

It assumes the false and contumelious Kantian Moral Imperative of exceptionalism that resulted in apartheid in South Africa and Nazism as well as the White Man’s Burden in Europe. The Progressive narrative in antithetical to the political philosophies of African Americans from a chronicled perspective and stresses a “muscular nationalism” designed to serve Americas well being only from a plutocrats perspective singularly internationally – meaning foreign policy is for the simple goal of protecting US national security (the wealthy). Ergo, the best national security involves advancing democracy abroad even by military force, regardless if nations desire such or not.

Back home, we have seen the pseud Darwinism of progressive politics from the attributing of race based cultural traits being antecedents for criminal behavior (Cesare Lombroso) and prior to that in the opinion of Chief Justice Roger B. Tanny who wrote in the Dred Scott ruling: that free blacks would always be “identified in the public [white folks] mind with the race which they belonged, and regarded as part of the slave population rather than free.”

True, Progressives began in response to political powers unwilling or unable to address the economic and social changes consequential of the industrial revolution in America; but somewhere it turned into a monster that overlooked liberty, self-determination, sovereignty and individual rights- all in complete contradiction of the struggles of African Americans from slavery to the civil rights movement. And just as then, Progressives today want the same things from safety to making sure that our political system is free from corruption. The problem is that they want all of this implemented by advancing American interests by a Hobbesian (warlordism) the internationalism that at the same time make positive-sum interactions almost impossible.

First progressives place America first and intentionally ignore that we live in a global world and not an isolated one. Thus they miss the bigger picture that most African Americans have traditionally observed, that declining living standards, weapons proliferation, deforestation and social injustice everywhere, especially when perpetrated by America, is a hazard and a danger to us all. This means that progressives applaud approaches put forth by men like Obama, Roosevelt, Truman and Wilson because simply put, their policy advocate that the United States knows what's right and what other should do -- all the US has to do insist that others snap into line. Thus both the left and right looks at other nations as objects of American foreign policy, rather than as being free agents themselves.

Now it seems in the age of Obama, even liberals support war under the cover of other attributes. The war in Libya was the progressive way to protect innocent civilians. President Obama is in many way similar to both Wilson and Roosevelt. This is why I assert that black and Progressive are incompatible just as freedom and ignorance, for progressives thrive and promulgate economic inequality for if it didn’t exist they would not be able to survive. This is the reason why the 99 percent exist, and why we find ourselves in wars in Libya, Yemen, Somalia and asking for one in Syria. The progressives do not send their kids off to war for a better life or struggle economically, they have it all, unlike most African Americans, even the ones who call themselves progressive.