|10-29-2004, 10:43 AM||#1|
Author of 'Breaking Open the Head'
Join Date: Aug 2002
For the last few years, my suspicion has remained the same - and nothing has happened in the interim to change it: I do not think that Bush and Cheney have the slightest intention of leaving office, no matter what the election "result." Considering the number of scandals they have presided over (Enron, etc.), considering the deaths of 100,000 Iraqi civilians, considering their flaunting of the UN and the Geneva Conventions and international law, considering their fanatical apocalyptic perspective, and much else revealed since the 2000 selection of the resident, the Bush junta is simply not going to leave office voluntarily, facing the prospect of trial and imprisonment.
Therefore, a few possibilities present themselves after the Tuesday election.
My assumption is that the polls are slanted or crooked (as several articles have pointed out), and that Kerry will be the actual winner of the race - after all, Gore won the 2000 election, considering the large-scale voter fraud in Florida, and it is difficult to imagine that Bush has picked up rather than lost much support since that time.
My assumption is that the 2002 congressional election in several key states was also juked by the electronic voting machines, awarding the Senate to the Republicans. My strong suspicion is that Paul Wellstone's death was an assassination. His death was eleven days before the election. If he had died one day later, his name would have automatically remained on the ballot, and whoever ran in his stead would have won easily. Instead, I believe Mondale had to be written in - a befuddling factor for thousands of semiliterate or semiconscious Democratic voters that threw a close election to the Republican candidate.
Either the voting machine tampering and various illegal obstructions will create the illusion of an actual Bush victory, or the results will be obscured by insane amounts of litigation - mass Democratic elections have always been a slightly fuzzy process, and I do not see how the intensive scrutiny now being put on the voting process can cause anything but mad legal shenanigans that could last years - in the indeterminate meantime, the Supreme Court and the Republican Congress will no doubt support Bush to continue in office. This would be the beginning of the end for even the illusion of democracy in the US.
There is also the possibility of an election-eve dirty trick or "surprise": An anthrax attack, a "dirty bomb," the capture of Bin Laden or some other engineered "success" in the war on terror.
Of course, there is the possibility that I am wrong and Kerry will somehow win a fair-and-square victory - I just don't see how this could happen.
The only good news of the last years has been the strengthening of the opposition to Bush, the realization of how extremely dangerous and destruction this situation is. I still don't understand why this realization took so long to gain force, but now that it has developed, it will only continue to become stronger, in the event of a Bush "victory."
Considering the strong prospect of a deeply compromised and tampered-with election, the big question will be: How much force will the opposition to Bush (Democrat and Left) care to exert to attempt to force his ouster? And what leverage do they have with the Congress and Supreme Court on the other side?
Since direct or violent opposition is utterly out of the question as long as the police and military remain with the Right (and it is a very interesting question to what extent Bush has alienated the military and secret service with his fanatic disregard for reality), we will probably be in a situation of a kind of silent or underground insurrection for the next years.
The question will then be: What kind of opportunities does such a situation present? What is the best way to operate? What tactics can be effective?
The illusion of the comfort zone that Americans now linger in is probably going to crumble - and that is a good thing. When people become uncomfortable, they become open to change. I would like to see a mass movement towards a Gandhi style nonviolent protest against the 100,000 Iraqi dead, against use of depleted uranium on foriegn soil, against the economic dictatorship of the New World Order.
My suggestion would be that despite this political nightmare, things will continue to get simultaneously, surreally, both better and worse, as we go deeper into the transition into the new form of human consciousness. It is in the crucible of the next years (three to five?) that the elements of this new consciousness will be forged, as all of the obscurations are burned away.
"Look for diamonds on the sidewalk."
|10-29-2004, 02:18 PM||#2|
Join Date: Oct 2003
I couldn't agree more with the above statements.
The October Suprises which seem most likely are a "surgical strike" on Iran, or the unveiling of a dead Osama. Neither of these would suprise me.
But honestly, I don't think that Bush needs anything like that to win. With as much voter fraud as we've seen evidenced in the destruction of voter's registrations, the notoriously fraudulent Diebold machines, and the fact that Jeb Bush has upheld a no-vote list in the same manner as he did in the 2000 election, I have no doubt that Bush will win.
A simple analysis of the 2000 election will tell you that Bush will not give up power. In that election he sent a message, in the same manner as Charlemagne and Caesar before him: he took power by manipulative force, not by democratic mandate. Bush essentially crowned himself, and the message is clear, once that power was taken forcefully, it will not be given up. I told a friend today, Fascists don't willing concede their authority....
It's also important, as Daniel said, to realize that this is all necessary for change. I've never seen this country as politicized as it is today. People are discussing the issues everywhere! Even if most of them are woefully misinformed, at least they're being confronted with the reality of some of these issues, like the oil empire, and the internal descent into totalitarian repression that we've seen in the past few years. I imagine that this state of agitation hasn't been prevalent in America since the beginning of the Vietnam War.
Civil war, at this point, seems inevitable. I was arguing with a friend the other day who advocates violent uprising. He referred to Ward Churchill, a professor on my campus, who has said that non-violent means will only work if the government responds with non-violence. I told him that I find that to be a fallacy: if Ghandi could do it, then so can we. I told him that I would be down for violent uprising, if and only if I could be assured that the resulting system of power would be non-violent, and this seems really implausible to me. You cannot respond to violence and oppression with a more self-righteous form of violence, even if the ends are justified in your mind. Violence will beget violence. The only way to end violence is to establish peace; this revolution obviously cannot be accomplished through violent means. To do so would be entirely self-defeating.
I am apprehensive about this though, it seems that the army/civilian police are so brainwashed that they will never, ever join common cause with a populace movement, which is always necessary for a revolution to occur.
Will Bush's re-election instigate a revolution? Doubtful, but I'm sure that there will be widespread protests and rioting, just as there was four years ago when he was "elected". Hail to the Thief....
The political system is dead; Democracy is the modern incarnation is a blatant lie. This seems in large part to be directly caused by the utter degeneration of the media as an independent check/balance system removed from governmental control. When the White House correspondents aren't allowed to ask non-scripted questions at a press conference, you know we're in a bad state.... Did anyone watch John Stewart on CNN the other day? I thought that was awesome, I've never heard someone from within the media establishment so openly and directly criticize their own peer group. This is undoubtably what we need more of. Amy Goodman's talk at the Bioneers conference was astounding. She really impressed me. Her new book, "The Exception to the Rulers" outlines the social media disease in detail, and advocates the uprising of a truly alternative press. I think that if this were to occur in greater force, critical mass could be reached within the general populace.
The political system is dead, and the new activism must be an activism of consciousness: a realization of peace that radiates outward from the sanctuary of inner being.
Let's cross our fingers...
[ October 29, 2004, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: Humming ]
~ Anything that you imagine will eventually become true. ~
|10-29-2004, 03:35 PM||#3|
Join Date: Jan 2004
I'm really not to sure how this all will play out, but the thing that strikes me about this thread is how quickly this meme has arisen and seems to be spreading in the last few days.
I was having a discussion with someone three days ago or so where suddenly it dawned on me that there was going to be a civil war. The next day I saw a link to the civil war story that was posted here and was directed to the same link through a different site.
I have been in several discussions about this topic with a wide group of folks across the political spectrum in the last day or so.
Sometimes the meme just explodes on the collective consciousness.
"Depend on the wind of distant drums; We'll know the next step when it comes." - Hunter
|10-30-2004, 12:45 AM||#4|
Join Date: Apr 2004
The problem with revolutionary violence is that there are few (if any) righteous 'terrorists' left. The famous example is of the russian who stepping out of the crowd to kill the czsar with a bomb stopped himself from throwing it when he saw a child riding in the same vehicle. The beheadings, targeting of civillians etc is terrible. But when the military is destroying innocent families everyday you can see why they may be led to these actions. 'Man' is weak.
But i dont think all violence is wrong. Should the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto not have fought back? should they have gone into the streets and told the nazis they will not cooperate? or simply submitted and put trust in life by getting on the trains only to become ash by the same time the next day? Should the allies have continued to appease Hitler? I feel violence can be holy, it can be righteous, when done for the right cause and in the right manner.
You see, sometimes the injustice is so great, and the odds so stacked against you that you have no choice but to fight or kill yourself as protest.
Ghandi did achieve great things, but its rosy glasses time if we say that the movement was totally peaceful. there were a number of riots and streets battles that help to shake off the Empire. Not only this but the Empire was crumbling anyway, the peaceful demonstrations were effective in that case but this just doesnt hold for every situation.
Having said this most of the revolutionary actions we see today are targetting the wrong people and are not what i would see as the right actions.
"You passing will leave scant trace in history, wiped from memory like a forgotten dream, like sand slipping through fingers..." Akercocke
|10-30-2004, 02:10 PM||#5|
Join Date: Feb 2003
The new position I have come to in the past couple of years is realising how extraordinarily inevitable everything is – I used to believe the obvious somehow undermined its own manifestation by being obvious; how wrong. Another drama playing out this theme from another direction at the moment is the Church; my notes from last week read:
“There is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy about a potential schism in the worldwide Anglican Communion at the hands of Rowan Williams, “which would dismantle 500 years’ work”. Williams is adopting precisely the stance expected of him by both his supporters and his critics; it may be seen as both a conscious and subconscious manifestation of all the Communion’s needs. Many have charged Williams as having a secret agenda of bringing about the end of the Communion as we know it and this may well be the case, but it is not necessarily a bad thing. Williams is mighty among contemporary church leaders and history will probably remember him kindly.”
|10-31-2004, 01:22 AM||#6|
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New York City
As for civil war, I don't believe there's any real chance of it here in the U.S. except among all the lawyers ready to contest every state and district where the vote is close. I think most people just want the election over with so they can go back to real life and not have to see all the political commercials and hear the campaign spin every day. If this thing drags out for weeks I believe most people will really be annoyed.
One thing I have noticed from much of the campaign coverage is the high-spirited enthusiasm that seems to radiate from the crowds, a real sense of joy and pride in participating in the process overall. It seems to me that a political system where Michael Moore can go into the Republican convention and be tolerated in a good-humored way--there's something fundamentally very healthy there. I say that from the standpoint of someone who's non-partisan and independent.
|10-31-2004, 02:20 AM||#7|
Join Date: Dec 2002
"..I think most people just want the election over with so they can go back to real life.."
This alone may be the reason for civil war.
Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow
T. S. Eliot
|10-31-2004, 09:49 AM||#8|
Join Date: Oct 2002
Not everyone is pessimistic about Nov. 2:
Indian astrologers say stars shining on Kerry to be next US president
by Uttara Choudhury
NEW DELHI, Oct 29 (AFP) - Indian astrologers say that the planets favour* Democratic candidate John Kerry to win the White House race over US President* George W. Bush in next Tuesday's polls.
"For months opinion polls have shown the race between Bush and Kerry, his* challenger, to be neck and neck," said author and astrologer Lachhman Das* Madan, who also heads the Astrology Study and Research
Institute in Delhi.
"But the cosmic writ reveals Bush cannot become the president of the US* again. On the other hand, Kerry's horoscope shows that Saturn is in the third* house from the moon which is highly favourable," he said.
"The planets Mercury and Mars in the fifth and third house have exchanged* positions. Success in competition is certain...Kerry will be the new* president."
Madan made news after he predicted former Indian premier Rajiv Gandhi would* meet a "violent end" three months prior to his May 1991 assassination by a* woman suicide bomber said by India to be a member of
Sri Lanka's Tamil* separatists.
"It does not make me happy when sad predictions I utter come true. I only* make them so that people and especially the government can be warned and can* take the necessary precautions," Madan said.
"President Bush should also look after his health. His birth chart shows* that the Sun is on the ascendant and has eclipsed Saturn, the lord of health,"* added Madan.
While Kerry and Bush scrambled for late votes across the key battleground* states of Florida and Ohio ahead of Tuesday's ballot, pollsters were split on* who was ahead but agreed the outcome was too close to call.
Several US pollsters have said the election appeared headed for a photo* finish similar to the result in 2000.
But astrologer and writer Abha Bansal, managing editor for the "Future Samachar" (Future News), said nothing could change Kerry's destiny to rule.
"Kerry's horoscope shows that he was born to rule -- he has a number of* "rajyogs" (ruling signs) which are on the ascendent right now," said the* 45-year-old.
She said Kerry was in a particularly strong position because the Moon, which denotes luck in Indian astrology, was in alignment with his professional* aspirations.
"His horoscope shows the Moon and Sun (profession) are in line with each* other...He will be a stable ruler. Up to January 2006, Mercury is configured in* a favourable position which will bring him money and power.
"Astrologically Kerry is in a very strong place. Jupiter and Saturn are not* configured in a favourable position for Bush and he may not get the desired* result in these elections," said Bansal. "I would be surprised if he won."
Bansal had predicted the shock exit of former Indian premier Atal Behari* Vajpayee and his Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party in a dramatic* election loss in May.
Another encouraging finding for Kerry was that Indian astrologers considered he would point the United States in the right direction.
"Kerry's win will rejuvenate the United States and bring peace to the rest* of the world," said Delhi-based astrologer Gopi Krishna.
"He set the country on a course correction. Kerry's White House spell will* be good for peace in Iraq, the Middle East and Afghanistan," he said.
|11-02-2004, 06:27 AM||#9|
Join Date: Oct 2003
This statement comes from the World Socialist Party website, so be forewarned that you are reading propaganda... however, it is *factual* propaganda, unlike a majority of the campaigning done by either of the two branches of the Republicrat dictatorship. I am posting this because it is an acute analysis of the causes involved with the act of revolution, and the winds of change which seem to be blowing so fiercely on this Election Day.
"On eve of 2004 election: US faces unprecedented social conflict"
Statement of the Socialist Equality Party
1 November 2004
In an atmosphere charged with political tension, tens of millions will go to the polls November 2, joining the millions who have already cast ballots in heavy early voting in the US presidential election. Tabulations of new voter registrations, absentee balloting and early voting indicate that voter turnout will rise sharply, both in absolute numbers and in the percentage of those registered who go to the polls, reaching levels not seen for some 40 years.
Pre-election polls suggest that Tuesday’s vote will be one of the most closely contested presidential races in American history, whose outcome remains too close to call. Whatever the result, the election cannot resolve the mounting social and political tensions in the United States.
The press is filled with commentaries noting the acute polarization in the presidential vote: the huge numbers attending rallies on both sides, the doubling of turnout in early and absentee voting, the dramatic increase in voter registration, the obvious intensity of popular feeling against Bush and his policies. There is an undercurrent of concern about the potential for individual eruptions of violence or even wider civil strife, particularly in response to the Republican Party’s unprecedented efforts to suppress voter turnout in minority working class areas.
This political polarization is strangely disproportionate to the stated differences between the candidates. On the war in Iraq, whatever their disputes over its origins, both Bush and Kerry pledge to maintain the US occupation and achieve a military victory over the Iraqi resistance. Both subscribe to the doctrine of unilateral, pre-emptive US attack on any country deemed to be a potential threat, and both single out Iran and North Korea as the likely next targets. Both unreservedly support Israeli military violence against the Palestinian people.
The two candidates have clashed on some areas of domestic social policy, principally abortion, stem cell research and health care, but they agree on the fundamentals: defense of the profit system and the subordination of American society to the interests of giant corporations and the very wealthy. Both are multi-millionaire representatives of the financial aristocracy. Both were educated at Yale, having even been members of the same exclusive society at the elite university—Skull and Bones.
Kerry has identified himself as a capitalist (he is married to the billionaire heiress of the Heinz ketchup fortune) and explicitly rejects wealth redistribution as a goal of social policy. He has made balancing the federal budget his top domestic priority, pledging to scrap his promises of more affordable health care coverage and other social reforms if and when they come into conflict with deficit reduction.
Given the relatively narrow substantive differences between the Democratic and Republican parties, what accounts for the enormous tension over the outcome of the presidential vote?
The popular opposition to the Bush administration owes little to any enthusiasm for John Kerry or the program of the Democratic Party. Rather, it reflects a recognition on the part of millions of working people that the Bush administration represents a new phenomenon in America: a government more reactionary than any that has preceded it—one that openly seeks to rule through fear and intimidation, wages war on the basis of lies, and plunders the public treasury to enrich corporate America.
The character of the Republican campaign—lies, smears, provocations, efforts to suppress voter turnout—profoundly offends the democratic instincts of millions of working people. This government came to power through electoral fraud and the anti-democratic intervention of the US Supreme Court to halt the counting of votes in the Florida election crisis of 2000. There is growing concern that even more flagrant attacks on democratic rights may take place on or after November 2.
The geographical pattern of the presidential vote is indicative of the social forces involved. Bush draws his strongest support from the states of the South, still the main centers of social reaction, poverty and backwardness, and from the depressed farming and mining states of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains. Kerry’s support is concentrated in the major urban centers of the northeast, the Great Lakes, and the Pacific Coast—the longtime centers of industry and finance most closely associated with education, culture and technological development.
The political climate of the past decade in the United States cannot be compared to any other period of American history save the decade of the 1850s that preceded the Civil War. The last ten years have seen virtually uninterrupted political warfare between the two major parties, including the shutdown of the federal government in 1995-96 by the Republican majority in Congress, the series of investigations into the Clinton administration that culminated in the impeachment and Senate trial of Clinton in 1998-99, and finally the stolen election of 2000, in which the Supreme Court installed as president the candidate who had lost the popular vote. The 2004 campaign threatens to take this conflict to an even higher level.
In the final analysis, the source of the intensifying political conflicts must be found in the social structure of America—above all, in the enormous growth of social inequality. The gulf between the wealthy elite and the vast majority of the population has reached staggering dimensions over the past 25 years.
The top 1 percent has doubled its share of the wealth of American society, from 20 percent in the late 1970s to over 40 percent today. The 400 richest individuals, according to the most recent Forbes magazine list, have amassed a combined fortune of over $1 trillion. This coincides with rising or record levels of poverty, homelessness, job insecurity, personal bankruptcies and small business failures.
To a great extent, this social chasm has thus far found expression in a political polarization that runs not along clearly economic lines, but rather around cultural issues such as abortion and gay marriage. The confusion over such issues—by means of which a section of the working class is mobilized behind the most right-wing, pro-corporate elements and against its own self-interest—compounds the central and longstanding historical problem of the American working class: the lack of a tradition of mass working class politics, and the absence of any mass party identified with the working class.
From a historical standpoint, both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are parties of the American bourgeois ruling class. They appeal for the votes of working people, but do the bidding of the corporate elite. Over the past 25 years, both big business parties have shifted drastically to the right.
American politics has assumed the form of a sweeping social reaction, aimed at overturning the reformist legacy of the New Deal. The essential feature of this process has been the massive redistribution of wealth from the working class to the richest sections of American society.
It is impossible to gain mass support by advocating openly a policy of plundering of the many to enrich the few. Hence the cultivation of a social base for reactionary policies by disguising the real economic program with appeals to political backwardness and cultural prejudice.
This process began in the 1960s under Nixon, who turned the Republican Party toward the South—previously the bastion of the Democrats—and made overt use of white racism to build up a regional base. In this, the Republicans invented nothing new: they simply appropriated the methods of the old Southern bourbons—segregationist Democrats from Theodore Bilbo to George Wallace, who worked to split the working class along racial lines—and adapted them to the post-Jim Crow era.
This was increasingly combined with the utilization of Christian fundamentalism to whip up political backwardness and give right-wing policies a religious gloss. Agitation over issues such as abortion and school prayer has most recently been supplemented by appeals to anti-gay bigotry. This year, the Republican Party has sought to boost Bush’s campaign by scheduling referendum votes in eleven states on measures to ban gay marriages and even same-sex civil unions. These votes will take place on November 2, and are the focus of efforts to bring Christian fundamentalists and other religious conservatives to the polls.
It would, however, be wrong and highly misleading to believe that every Bush voter is a confirmed reactionary. Many are from layers of the working class hard hit by mounting economic insecurity. (The counties carried by Bush in 2000 generally had lower average incomes than the counties carried by Gore).
The Republican campaign is able to exploit the political confusion of these voters, making bogus appeals on an array of issues, because there is no mass political force making a serious appeal to their more fundamental social interests.
The Democratic Party is careful to avoid any clear class appeal, presenting itself invariably as the party that speaks for the “middle class”—a deliberately nebulous term used to signify nothing in particular. While relying on the apparatus of the trade unions to provide funds and hustle for votes in working-class areas, the Democratic Party offers nothing to the rank-and-file workers. That would require it to break with its own class—the same multimillionaires who control the Republican Party and use the two-party system to prevent any genuine mass participation in American political life.
The half-heartedness, cowardice and incoherence of the Democrats go a long way in explaining the most obvious question in the 2004 elections: how is it possible that a president with Bush’s abysmal record could remain virtually tied in the polls on the eve of Election Day? These traits are not simply personal features of Kerry or the congressional Democratic leadership: rather, they express the intrinsically two-faced and dishonest nature of the party itself, which relies for electoral purposes on historical links to the reform policies of the New Deal and the civil rights era—policies that it has entirely abandoned.
Significantly, the Democrats have not conducted a political campaign against the Bush administration as a party. The Kerry campaign is not linked to any effort to elect a Democratic Congress. While 34 seats in the Senate and all 435 seats in the House of Representatives are at stake in the election, only nine Senate seats and a few dozen House seats are being seriously contested. Continued Republican control of the House is all but conceded, and the Democratic candidates in contested Senate races are running right-wing campaigns which stress fervent support for the war in Iraq and, in many cases, past support for Bush administration policies.
Whichever candidate wins, the two big business parties face a political dilemma.
Even if the Republicans retain the White House, the election will have revealed the extremely limited social base for Bush’s reactionary policies. The country is deeply divided, with half the population voting to oust a sitting president in wartime.
If the Democrats come to power, they will have won by making an appeal, even in the most limited way, to a constituency which is far to their left—opposed to the war in Iraq, demanding greater social equality, a rollback of Bush’s anti-democratic measures, and serious social reforms. A Kerry administration will rapidly come into conflict with expectations and demands for social change to which they are neither able nor willing to respond.
A profound social and political challenge to the status quo is inevitable whether Bush or Kerry occupies the White House."
~ Anything that you imagine will eventually become true. ~
|Thread Tools||Search this Thread|