The Uses of Disillusionment

There is a form of disillusionment that makes possible a passionate engagement with the world--not for the sake of any change that one might expect to result from one's actions but for the sake of the beauty of the stance.

This is not exactly Proust's gift to the world (as I understand it), for he had abandoned passionate engagement with anything but the recollection of past passions. "His theory" wrote Joseph Wood Krutch, "was that the quality of a direct experience always eluded one and that only in recollection could we grasp its real flavor." I accept his theory, but rather than abandon myself to the detached aestheticism of the spectator, put aside my desire for the "real flavor" of my own experiences and focus, instead, upon the active construction of the myths into which I seek my own immersion and, hopefully, transformation.

Such transformation enlists the aid of recollection: the remembrance of those archetypal forms one finds in heroic lives.

And so every day I decry the evils thereof and preach the coming apocalypse; at the same time, I go about my ordinary business confident in the knowledge that, as Leo Tolstoy put it, "God sees, and waits."

In this way, disillusionment leads not to despair but, paradoxically, frees one for action; for disappointment loses its sting. Realism and Romanticism are posed in a dialogical tension. One reads Morte d'Arthur and then Don Quixote in pari materia, one work of genius informing the other. This is, after all, the natural rhythm of our lives: to move from dreaming to wakefulness to dreaming once again. Privileging one state over the other results in a sort of schizophrenia. There is far too much of that going around today--not to mention the delusive expectation that if we can just elect the right people, all will be well.

Disillusionment prepares the way for the coming political revolution: when the people of this country finally accept the fact that politics as usual is the opiate of the masses and that fundamental (i.e., Constitutional) change is not only possible, but realistic and desirable. A new America is but a Constitutional Convention away. But that convention will not be convened until a moral transformation takes place; one that permits us to kick our addiction to self-defeating political habits.

Let go. Dream. Rise up.

Oh Gosh! What A Surprise! The Doctor Wasn't A Terrorist After All!

Oh my. The treasonous government lap-dog media messed up again. I'm so shocked that I didn't read this correction in the New York Times!

It's the Constitution, Stupid!

I hate to borrow a line from old Bill Clinton, but in this case I'll make an exception. After all, let's give big Bill his due: the first 6 years of his 8 year presidency were years of relative peace and prosperity and a hopefulness that seems almost fantastic next to the subsequent dark years of W and unmitigated disaster. That said, Mrs. Clinton is NOT A CHOICE. Bill's saving grace was that he was something of a Romantic, an idealist deep inside. Hillary is, as I have said for many years now, Nixon in a skirt. She cannot tell the difference between a political VISION for the country and her personal, political AMBITION. She wants the presidency so bad she can hardly stand it. Not only that, but she actually believes that she is entitled to it. Don't just listen to her words, listen to the "music" behind her words. Hillary Clinton would bomb the bejesus out of Iran or any country that she felt gave her the flimsiest excuse, the slightest opportunity to prove to the joint chiefs that a woman can send troops into battle just as well as a man. The key word here is OPPORTUNITY. Hillary Clinton is an opportunist extraordinaire. Why the hell do you think she married Bill? She knew he couldn't keep his hands to himself; but she also saw Bill as her big OPPORTUNITY. And the sacrifices that she has made these many years as Bill's spouse entitle her--in her own mind--to succeed him to the Oval Office. It's twisted, my friends.

But what is even more twisted is that the Democratic Party Machine also believes her to be entitled to the Presidency. And this is yet another reason why the Democratic Party is part of the problem and not part of the solution. I don't propose that the party be dissolved, but that it be forced to make its way honestly in the political system by being one party among many in a TRUE MULTI-PARTY PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY.

Many Americans suffer from the delusion that we have such a system in the United States. After all, isn't that what they teach us in high school civics? Friends, friends, friends: high school civics sold you a dream, not the political reality of the Plutocratic American pseudemocracy. What we have in the U.S. is a "two-party" system. No provision is made in the Constitution for this system: it is an ad hoc development that the Founding Fathers (white, propertied, 18th century males) tried to AVOID. Read George Washington's "farewell address"--the Founders sought to avoid party politics for the simple reason that they did not wish our fledgling DEMOCRACY to get "out of hand." Why do you think that they made provision in the Constitution for an "electoral college"? These guys (whom we we all treat as saints and were anything but...) did not trust the PEOPLE.

Tom Jefferson threw a wrench into the plutocracy's plans when he wasn't getting his way with the old-boy network and decided that the best way to royally piss them off was to form a political party--the Democratic Party. When Jefferson did that, it was the ONLY political party in the United States. There was the ruling class, and then there was this party of opposition--also part of the ruling class but now endorsing positions that the common run of (white, male) Americans could also support. It was a bitter pill for the plutocrats to swallow, but swallow it they did and eventually formed their own counter-party. And that was it. In time, the two parties established for themselves a monopoly over the American political system and, over the years, have grown chummier and chummier. And why not? They all represent the same constituency: the American plutocracy.

Those who are paying attention can see what a huge mess the plutocrats are making not only of the United States but of the world today. Hillary M. Nixon will not alter our course significantly. And, I am afraid, though I love him, neither will Dennis Kucinich--the one tried and true proponent of a truly decent America running for President today (Obama may be a true proponent, but he is far from tried). The solution to our problems is not plugging this or that individual into the Oval Office. The origin of our problems lies in the undemocratic system that we would be plugging that individual into. It's the Constitution, stupid! We must change it and soon.

If you wish to see what a modern Constitution looks like (as opposed to our jury-rigged, 18th century one), google "Constitution of Finland." It is just one of many in use around the world today that creates a multi-party, parliamentary democracy. In the history of human governance to date, it's the best we (as a species) have done.

And don't Americans deserve the best? That's what we always tell ourselves. Then why in god's good name are we settling for something that only serves up the same old plutocratic bull-shit election cycle after election cycle?

I'll say it again: IT'S THE CONSTITUTION! We must change it or resign ourselves to living out the rest of our days in McUSA,Inc.--not the home of liberty but the militarized agent of global capitalism run amok.

The Treasonous 4th Estate, Part 2

"All the Lies We Dare to Print"

On the Treasonous 4th Estate

It's Here

"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

--Sinclair Lewis

The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same

"Riding roughshod everywhere, U.S. imperialism has made itself the enemy of the people of the world and has increasingly isolated itself. Those who refuse to be enslaved will never be cowed by the atom bombs and hydrogen bombs in the hands of the U.S. imperialists. The raging tide of the people of the world against the U.S. aggressors is irresistible. Their struggle against U.S. imperialism and its lackeys will assuredly win greater victories." --Mao Tsetung

And now they tell us that the "threat level" is raised--always with the caveat that they have no credible information of an imminent threat.

I say: if you don't go around the world making enemies, your "threat level" will drop precipitously.

The real terrorists are in Washington. Threat level: astronomical.

George McGovern

Was he the last truly decent man in American politics? Certainly one of the few. I watch W. do his best Nixon imitation as he stumps yet again before a hand-picked audience for "stay-the-course-of-criminality-and-disaster." How is it, I wonder, that such an imbecile is free to walk the streets, free to spout his mouth off and parade his ignorance on the world-stage with impunity and--worst of all--in my name? With McGovern, we see the face of a decent, intelligent American, a Henry Fonda-esque figure, a man of conscience and courage. With Bush, we see the poster-boy of Selfishness and Sadism, Greed and Cruelty, religion-inspired bigotry and crony-capitalism, American-style.

And I fear we are only testing the upper limits of how low we can go.

One Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

Go Left, Young Man, Woman, Child...

My preoccupation these days seems to be to talk up the Revolution. The present political system in the United States no longer represents the interests of the vast majority of U.S. citizens. The United States itself is a rogue state on the world stage: a symbol of violent lawlessness and oppression. And anyone who has not completely stupefied his or her conscience understands that there is absolutely no way to morally justify the near complete conversion of the U.S. Constitution into the operating charter of the Military-Industrial-Complex. USA, Inc. is not a free republic and anyone who believes at this late hour that it is is either deluded or not paying attention.

Furthermore, no "political savior" can possibly come from the Republicrat-Democan monoparty. The very best we can hope for is a Bill Clintonesque figure who can keep his zipper up while in office. But that best is no longer good enough--if it ever was. Clinton helped to slow the progress of the fascistic MIC take-over of the Federal government, but he was incapable of either stopping it or, better, reversing its course. The present draft of the U.S. Constitution is not adequate for the most urgent needs of the present hour because it does not create a multi-party parliamentary democracy which would enfranchise true political diversity.

Let's face up to the brutal reality: it is time for radical change. It is my uncompromising desire that this change come about and that it be effected by a non-violent people's revolution that will convene a Constitutional convention and create a new government. But, as British historian Christopher Hill has observed: "Revolution happens only when the government has lost the confidence of an important section of the ruling class" (The Century of Revolution: 1603-1714, p. 104). The genius of the ruling class in this country has been its ability to shore up the confidence of its membership through thick and thin. That's not so hard to do when you consider that the reins of government are securely in their hands. The only thing that would cause any member of that class to break rank would be a conscience. But candidates for admission to the inner circles of the ruling class are skillfully selected; I estimate the chances that an enlightened conscience/consciousness will ever breach the charmed circle to be somewhere between "slim" and "none."

Nevertheless, I cheerfully hope for the best, sending my blogger-blather into the far reaches of cyber-space where it is incapable of effecting any change whatsoever. And I go on hoping and praying and dreaming that a thirst for justice for all of the world's oppressed will one day infect the American people. In the meantime there's this...

Or, this...

Hey, pass the bread...is the circus back in town?

The Theater of the Corrupt

I have blogged enough about the Libby case on this page. It should suffice to say that, as a practical matter, Bush's "commutation" of Libby's sentence is no different than a full pardon. Not one dime of Libby's $ 250,000 fine will come from his own pockets--though it may be funneled through his personal bank account for the sake of appearances. For sound analysis, see Barry Grey's article on the WSWS.