I've spent my entire life working hard to overcome fear, now find myself having to give up my freedom because of the irrational fears of people like KO. I got vaccinated and the reaction was intense, including heart palpitations that lasted 6 weeks. I wasn't afraid of the virus, I was attempting to cater to the fears of others like Olbermann (had no idea he was still around!) Astonishing that he's so out of touch he doesn't realize his rant and so much else that's going on is purely about irrational fear.
What I find most reprehensible about his rant -- and choosing just the one is daunting -- is the blatant falsehood of its premise. It's the exact same dumb-on-purpose way participants in the ruse embodied by our two party system characterize our non-voter majority as apathetic instead of what so many of them are, which is perceptive and disgusted.
Olbermann's liberals have been marketing fear for years now: fear that Trump was working for Putin; fear that 1/6 was worse than 9/11; fear that the Russians stole the election; fear that Russia paid bounties on American invaders; fear that sonic weapons were causing headaches in Havana; fear that the Green Party might actually appear on a ballot somewhere. Now, all of a sudden, fear is a bad thing?
As ugly as Olbermann's rant was, just imagine the millions who must have watched it and nodded, thinking he'd hit the nail squarely on the head. Horrifying.
Christ, that Olbermann video was disturbing. That man needs to get on meds.
"THEY'RE AFRAID!!!!"
No, you're afraid buddy. I can see it in your wide, desperate eyes, your heaving chest, the spittle flying from your mouth...projection is a powerful psychological phenomenon.
I think a good step would be a real, genuine appreciation of true diversity, including diversity of thought and action (power), rather than superficial diversity such as race, gender, sexual orientation etc in the service of tyrannical unity. Allowing for diversity of thought and power requires rejection of top-down hierarchies. It allows for a multiplicity of power centers rather than a unipolar world, and ultimately requires voluntary belief and action at an individual level. It places faith in the wisdom of multiple individual decisions rather than the arrogant demand that the collective and all individuals within it accede to one's own solution to a problem. It requires respect for the individual, be he named Dirk, Otto or Mahmoud.
We have no right to throw him under the bus even if it might save five others. We can persuade him to take action through discourse and action, but must never coerce. If we throw our own weight into holding the trolley back and encourage him and others to do the same, perhaps we can stop the trolley and save six lives instead of five, while sacrificing none. If Dirk decides the only way to save them is to throw himself under the wheels, that must be his decision and his action.
This requires a leap of faith that neither Russia nor China nor Iran will decide to commit collective suicide by attacking the US or any other sovereign nation, and that top-down entities such as the WHO, the CDC, the FDA or various corporate employers of individual doctors and nurses must not interfere in the voluntary relationship between a caregiver and patient.
Flattery will get you nowhere. Never read him, but his ideology must have permeated our schools 60 years ago, without him being "taught." Much as CRT does today.
I really didn't think you were trying to flatter, I rather thought it was a subtle accusation that I was stealing his ideas without attribution. Nor was I "dismissing" John Stuart Mill "out of hand" or in any other way. What exactly is your problem?
But how do we get to what you suggest -- genuine appreciation for diversity -- when its exact opposite is what's being incentivized by our governmental and media institutions? Just look at the liberal media (as exemplified by the bowel-evacuating clip that Caitlin posted) howling for conformity and censorship for just one example of the task we face. To work in corporate media means to sign on to at least the contours of this skewed design.
One erstwhile friend at a time, I suppose. And pointing out the lies and contradictions. Just saw a Jimmy Dore clip that exposes the lie that all vax hesitant people are Trumpsters and Republicans. Not only did Trump advance Warp Speed, but the vast majority of black NYC residents are vax hesitant.
Painting your adversaries as fearful rednecks not only allows you to ignore them, but also bestows an attractive sheen of moral superiority useful for dinner parties and Internet posts.
That and TDS. They really believe he's the fount of all evil, that anyone who criticizes unfair attacks on him is a supporter, no matter how insane the attack is, and that because Trump spoke supportively of HCQ, anybody who goes against whatever Fauci says is evil as well. It's totalitarian mass formation: https://ratical.org/PandemicParallaxView/EyeOfTheStorm-ProfMattiasDesmet.html
I wish you wouldn't use the establishment terminology "hesitant" (it gives them even more power over the narrative). It makes us sound like we're just making up our minds and that we can still be persuaded. I'm not "hesitant," I'm determined.
The death rate for Covid is 1%, and most of those had pre-existing conditions. If you get it, you have natural immunity, which is better than the vaccine.
The whole vaccine caper is built on profits. The US government paid to create Covid and now their pharmaceutical industry donors get to capitalize (pun intended) on it.
You are spot on. I'll try to remember to use "resistant" or maybe "rejectors." Those of us formerly consumed with events in Syria came to recognize the use of "regime" in the same way to subtly create a frame of mind.
How do we get there? One way is to join forces with others who agree, and another way is to make friends with those who seem "unlike" you.
Luckily, we still do have the Internet, even while it's being used against us, and you can find other outlets which help cheer you on while you work against the machine.
Do you watch Jimmy Dore, Redacted Tonight, Real Progressives, Moment of Clarity, or the many other channels that are trying to stand up against the machine? See you there!
I really enjoyed the insights of this article, Caitlin, even though my hardwiring still finds joy in placing frothing sphincters like Keith Olbermann firmly in the other category.
Therein lies my dilemma: I find I still want to maintain an us vs. them framework, only shift it from the one the elites are currently pushing to one that focuses on them as a party to be rightfully loathed.
If that small miracle could occur on a national basis, I'd call it untempered progress and would be OK that my Buddhism pretty much sucks.
For what it's worth, Caitlin does 'they' thinking constantly when she talks about psychopathic elites. She even says that 'psychopaths are not like other people'. She really does. They might very well deserve it, it might very well be true (I think so) but it's certainly there in her writing. (I'm still a huge fan of Caitlin!)
Plurality voting not only leads to two-party duopoly which by itself is extremely useful to rulers who want to divide and conquer, it leads to a *highly polarized* duopoly (plurality voting tends to favor extremists). Although this extremism tends to make a circus of relatively unimportant issues, it still helps divide. Other voting methods don't have this problem: rangevoting.orgelectionscience.org
Caitlin! Thanks for responding. I'm sure, I know with 20-20 hindsight (of course) that Solzhenitsyn won the Truth battle. I'm for America pre-New Deal, that's my ideology. The Administrative State has been a complete debacle and has become our real rulers. At least we still have our guns in America though..., and I guess I don't agree that it comes down to, in a sense: Are you with Olbermann or Carlson? Olbermann is even pretty far out for most Leftists, and Carlson, he is speaking out without support from his own over-run, fake news network. He is also in grave danger, Olbermann not so much, he's doing his part though. I just didn't like the analogy, but I do know what you were trying to get at..., and I know how hard it is to write something and of course then the readers get to pick the bones and chatter on... No matter, I like your stuff, you exercise what's left of freedom of speech (you have to walk a line too or you will be Alex Jones'ed). Cheers, j
"Pre-New Deal" puts us squarely in the "laissez-faire" economy, where corporations got to run everything as they liked and the workers had no rights. I know that the Edwardian Era looks idyllic from our dystopia Era, but I encourage you to learn something about the history of those times, or of the labor movement. Try Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States." Or "The Bully Pulpit."
Unless you are a corporate owner, you wouldn't benefit from living in the Edwardian era.
You miss my point. After the New Deal, the slippery slope started where our US Congressional 'Representatives' stopped making and debating law on a particular subject (they were too busy, it was too much, that was the rehtoric), but instead began to make huge omnibus laws, that they then turned over to the Administrative State to enforce by making, "all needful rules and regulations". This also then affected Due Process of Law, and it became Administrative Due Process of Law (a huge loss of personal freedom under the Constitution), because now the Judge's were from the same 'agency' even, and were to give all deference to the Government Agency 'employees' who often had 'power without limitation'. None of them are elected. From then on the Administrative State has grown in numbers and edicts by leaps and bounds, rules and regulations are out of control, and they do it in league with the Corporations. Get that? Over the years the bureacracy has made sure to eject all who aren't on board or Left enough, or compromised enough, or who won't take the bribes, ...this has happened. Additionally, Congress became the money lenders (launderers) to the agencies (budgets) through these Committee's, but the bureaucracies now basically can ignore the Committee's and the President, because they never die, are unelected and they control the actual law. The Supreme Court also gives the Agencies deference and passes the buck by saying, Congress needs to change the law. Oh really? That rarely happens even when needed, in fact it is usually made worse if anything. So, if you like this situation, and read thorough the 'narratives' of the Progressives of the past, we are now back to 'taxation without representation' and that scheme has filtered down to every level of government State and County in America. They know how much power they have... So, all the do-gooder arguments aside, we lost the Separation of Powers Doctrine that was so important and now we have this fake Magic Paper/Constitution (ever-changing narrative) and Socialist government that rules with an iron fist: You must Comply. And all of the Bill of Rights is on the line... Guess you see what's happening to Freedom of Speech? We basically in America right now have only two recourses: Civil Disobedience and/or Arms. Thank goodness for the Arms or we are without defense.
But are you sure that these developments are connected to the New Deal? You may be placing the blame where there is none. Remember that that's a favorite tactic: place blame on a popular program so that people unthinkingly scapegoat it, while other forces are actually at work.
There were many developments in our country after the Great Depression: WWII, the beginning of the Special Services that morphed into the CIA after the war; the connection between the military and the corporations that created "the military-industrial complex" that Eisenhower warned of; the takeover of the wheels of government by an overactive Executive branch (read the book Uncommon Sense); the flight from the rural areas into the cities; and others.
I would choose to say that WWII was a big a force for those changes you list as the New Deal.
I agree with much of what you say. I just today argued for the return of war declaring powers to congress where it rightfully belongs. I do question however your term socialism to describe what seems to me to be classic fascism.
We don't have representation, or even a government that follows the Constitution any more. What I question is your attribution of these developments to the New Deal.
It sounds as though some ideology has taken hold of your mind, and you have either not realized it or you haven't challenged it. Did you hear the adults around you when you were a child complaining about "the New Deal"? Did you unconsciously absorb the idea that it was bad?
I notice that you didn't respond to my comment about all of the other things that have happened since then that have also caused the situation we are in now.
And I can add to the list the rebellion of the 60s/70s, which (I'm sorry to say) brought about a deliberate backlash from the right, and the fact that the American public fell asleep for a few decades, since life was comfortable and we thought that we could let the government roll on and do its business without oversight from us.
I wish someone in the comments would have addressed Solzhenitsyn vs Tucker, as a balance to Goebbels/Olbermann. Solzhenitsyn came to America after the Communist Regime fell, and told US we were on the wrong (Socialist/Government Bureaucracy) road. He saw it. He wrote about it. He was a giant. Tucker can't touch him but, Tucker never had to go to a Gulag either, but make no mistake Tucker is in danger for his life, family, job, etc.. for speaking out. Remember Drudge? No one really knows what happened, that he disappeared from the scene after being a Bad Person and exposing the truth?
Yes, we are wired for us vs them. Even after enlightenment we still have a body and are still subject to it’s survival programming which includes in group vs out group reflexes.
After awakening, however, we spend much less time in our unconscious survival programming and we readjust quickly ( most but not all of it becomes conscious programming that need not be acted upon) and know when we are seeing absolutely clearly and when we have been briefly pulled out of conscious awareness.
It is a difficult balancing act to point out the cruelties of ‘the other/ the them’ without “othering” /dehumanizing which activates our most primitive programming.
We wish to shake people out of their complacency and stop their autopilot sleepwalking toward the cliff and so we have to emphasize with great passion what is happening. But in doing so we activate or increase the us vs them programming which deepens our unconsciousness and enables further manipulation by our own cognitive biases and by others who support the current human hierarchy wittingly or unwittingly.
So what can we do? Something I have suggested here previously: greater or meta transparency. The same way we have “trigger warnings “ and “ viewer advisories” for adult content we could let people know that we are trying to induce a sense of urgency to increase awareness. But that in doing so we are triggering their us vs them programming. We literally say this. We literally provide the meta context. So we course correct with a reminder that the “others” are also in unconscious autopilot, that they are part of our human tribe and ultimately they are literally One with us.
In the short term we try to stop their madness with equanimity not because we’re trying to pretend we love them ( even though their essence is just as much Love as ours is) but because our own unawakened state means we get caught up in the hierarchy/ dominator/ subservience brain as much as they do and this makes our actions ineffective.
And we remind our readers that at this moment we are analyzing the world / the issue of the day through distorted lenses due to the overactive tribal/ survival brain which in turn is a result of the egoic condition.
So we go meta more often, we step out of the issue, whether it’s oligarchy or narrative control etc. and describe to readers what is happening right now as we read this....what is being distorted right now in each of us as we read, as we try to inform ourselves.
It appears to me that this also means humanity will require new social media in order to interact in a healthier way. Humans need to see each other more often in order to correctly read the context. Written battles on twitter or lengthy journalistic replies feel quite different when people can discuss face to face their fears and grievances. Common ground is more easily reached and those that are more interested in manipulation and don’t care as much as they pretend are more easily revealed.
Jackie, Life is One. There is no they. Now, we can subdivide infinitely, creating as many 'theys' as we like. Doesn't effect this truth one bit. We are one. Here together in Life. There is no they...
I've spent my entire life working hard to overcome fear, now find myself having to give up my freedom because of the irrational fears of people like KO. I got vaccinated and the reaction was intense, including heart palpitations that lasted 6 weeks. I wasn't afraid of the virus, I was attempting to cater to the fears of others like Olbermann (had no idea he was still around!) Astonishing that he's so out of touch he doesn't realize his rant and so much else that's going on is purely about irrational fear.
What I find most reprehensible about his rant -- and choosing just the one is daunting -- is the blatant falsehood of its premise. It's the exact same dumb-on-purpose way participants in the ruse embodied by our two party system characterize our non-voter majority as apathetic instead of what so many of them are, which is perceptive and disgusted.
Olbermann's liberals have been marketing fear for years now: fear that Trump was working for Putin; fear that 1/6 was worse than 9/11; fear that the Russians stole the election; fear that Russia paid bounties on American invaders; fear that sonic weapons were causing headaches in Havana; fear that the Green Party might actually appear on a ballot somewhere. Now, all of a sudden, fear is a bad thing?
As ugly as Olbermann's rant was, just imagine the millions who must have watched it and nodded, thinking he'd hit the nail squarely on the head. Horrifying.
Watch The Academy of Ideas for some excellent videos on conquering fear and other ideas for escaping the matrix.
P.S. Dr Gene Sharp said "fear breeds submission."
Thanks!
Christ, that Olbermann video was disturbing. That man needs to get on meds.
"THEY'RE AFRAID!!!!"
No, you're afraid buddy. I can see it in your wide, desperate eyes, your heaving chest, the spittle flying from your mouth...projection is a powerful psychological phenomenon.
I think a good step would be a real, genuine appreciation of true diversity, including diversity of thought and action (power), rather than superficial diversity such as race, gender, sexual orientation etc in the service of tyrannical unity. Allowing for diversity of thought and power requires rejection of top-down hierarchies. It allows for a multiplicity of power centers rather than a unipolar world, and ultimately requires voluntary belief and action at an individual level. It places faith in the wisdom of multiple individual decisions rather than the arrogant demand that the collective and all individuals within it accede to one's own solution to a problem. It requires respect for the individual, be he named Dirk, Otto or Mahmoud.
We have no right to throw him under the bus even if it might save five others. We can persuade him to take action through discourse and action, but must never coerce. If we throw our own weight into holding the trolley back and encourage him and others to do the same, perhaps we can stop the trolley and save six lives instead of five, while sacrificing none. If Dirk decides the only way to save them is to throw himself under the wheels, that must be his decision and his action.
This requires a leap of faith that neither Russia nor China nor Iran will decide to commit collective suicide by attacking the US or any other sovereign nation, and that top-down entities such as the WHO, the CDC, the FDA or various corporate employers of individual doctors and nurses must not interfere in the voluntary relationship between a caregiver and patient.
Sounds exactly like John Stuart Mill's essay "On Liberty."
Flattery will get you nowhere. Never read him, but his ideology must have permeated our schools 60 years ago, without him being "taught." Much as CRT does today.
Don't flatter yourself: I wasn't trying to flatter you. Even a blind pig finds a truffle once in a while.
I went to school 60 years ago, and I don't recall his point of view being used then; quite the opposite. We were expected to conform.
And maybe you should try to read his work (or any other) before you dismiss it out of hand.
JFC Why are you all so cranky! Is there anyone here under 60? Go take your bedtime magnesium and try giving each other the benefit of the doubt!
Hey, I'm 75! And while I can be cranky, I'm not here.
I really didn't think you were trying to flatter, I rather thought it was a subtle accusation that I was stealing his ideas without attribution. Nor was I "dismissing" John Stuart Mill "out of hand" or in any other way. What exactly is your problem?
Your words: "flattery will get you nowhere." The word for stealing someone else's ideas is "plagiarism."
I responded to what you wrote, not what you intended. Mind reading is not my long suit.
But how do we get to what you suggest -- genuine appreciation for diversity -- when its exact opposite is what's being incentivized by our governmental and media institutions? Just look at the liberal media (as exemplified by the bowel-evacuating clip that Caitlin posted) howling for conformity and censorship for just one example of the task we face. To work in corporate media means to sign on to at least the contours of this skewed design.
One erstwhile friend at a time, I suppose. And pointing out the lies and contradictions. Just saw a Jimmy Dore clip that exposes the lie that all vax hesitant people are Trumpsters and Republicans. Not only did Trump advance Warp Speed, but the vast majority of black NYC residents are vax hesitant.
Painting your adversaries as fearful rednecks not only allows you to ignore them, but also bestows an attractive sheen of moral superiority useful for dinner parties and Internet posts.
That and TDS. They really believe he's the fount of all evil, that anyone who criticizes unfair attacks on him is a supporter, no matter how insane the attack is, and that because Trump spoke supportively of HCQ, anybody who goes against whatever Fauci says is evil as well. It's totalitarian mass formation: https://ratical.org/PandemicParallaxView/EyeOfTheStorm-ProfMattiasDesmet.html
I call that reaction BlueAnon.
I wish you wouldn't use the establishment terminology "hesitant" (it gives them even more power over the narrative). It makes us sound like we're just making up our minds and that we can still be persuaded. I'm not "hesitant," I'm determined.
The death rate for Covid is 1%, and most of those had pre-existing conditions. If you get it, you have natural immunity, which is better than the vaccine.
The whole vaccine caper is built on profits. The US government paid to create Covid and now their pharmaceutical industry donors get to capitalize (pun intended) on it.
You are spot on. I'll try to remember to use "resistant" or maybe "rejectors." Those of us formerly consumed with events in Syria came to recognize the use of "regime" in the same way to subtly create a frame of mind.
How do we get there? One way is to join forces with others who agree, and another way is to make friends with those who seem "unlike" you.
Luckily, we still do have the Internet, even while it's being used against us, and you can find other outlets which help cheer you on while you work against the machine.
Do you watch Jimmy Dore, Redacted Tonight, Real Progressives, Moment of Clarity, or the many other channels that are trying to stand up against the machine? See you there!
I've "leaned Democrat" all my life, but I've recently been turned on to Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingram, Kate Dalley and even Alex Jones.
I really enjoyed the insights of this article, Caitlin, even though my hardwiring still finds joy in placing frothing sphincters like Keith Olbermann firmly in the other category.
Therein lies my dilemma: I find I still want to maintain an us vs. them framework, only shift it from the one the elites are currently pushing to one that focuses on them as a party to be rightfully loathed.
If that small miracle could occur on a national basis, I'd call it untempered progress and would be OK that my Buddhism pretty much sucks.
For what it's worth, Caitlin does 'they' thinking constantly when she talks about psychopathic elites. She even says that 'psychopaths are not like other people'. She really does. They might very well deserve it, it might very well be true (I think so) but it's certainly there in her writing. (I'm still a huge fan of Caitlin!)
Plurality voting not only leads to two-party duopoly which by itself is extremely useful to rulers who want to divide and conquer, it leads to a *highly polarized* duopoly (plurality voting tends to favor extremists). Although this extremism tends to make a circus of relatively unimportant issues, it still helps divide. Other voting methods don't have this problem: rangevoting.org electionscience.org
Comparing Keith Olbermann to Carlson? Really? Similar to trying to comparing Joseph Goebbels to Alexandr Solzhenitsyn.
Nobody knows which one's which for you unless you specify what ideological "us" team you identify with, which illustrates my point here quite nicely.
Caitlin! Thanks for responding. I'm sure, I know with 20-20 hindsight (of course) that Solzhenitsyn won the Truth battle. I'm for America pre-New Deal, that's my ideology. The Administrative State has been a complete debacle and has become our real rulers. At least we still have our guns in America though..., and I guess I don't agree that it comes down to, in a sense: Are you with Olbermann or Carlson? Olbermann is even pretty far out for most Leftists, and Carlson, he is speaking out without support from his own over-run, fake news network. He is also in grave danger, Olbermann not so much, he's doing his part though. I just didn't like the analogy, but I do know what you were trying to get at..., and I know how hard it is to write something and of course then the readers get to pick the bones and chatter on... No matter, I like your stuff, you exercise what's left of freedom of speech (you have to walk a line too or you will be Alex Jones'ed). Cheers, j
"Pre-New Deal" puts us squarely in the "laissez-faire" economy, where corporations got to run everything as they liked and the workers had no rights. I know that the Edwardian Era looks idyllic from our dystopia Era, but I encourage you to learn something about the history of those times, or of the labor movement. Try Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States." Or "The Bully Pulpit."
Unless you are a corporate owner, you wouldn't benefit from living in the Edwardian era.
You miss my point. After the New Deal, the slippery slope started where our US Congressional 'Representatives' stopped making and debating law on a particular subject (they were too busy, it was too much, that was the rehtoric), but instead began to make huge omnibus laws, that they then turned over to the Administrative State to enforce by making, "all needful rules and regulations". This also then affected Due Process of Law, and it became Administrative Due Process of Law (a huge loss of personal freedom under the Constitution), because now the Judge's were from the same 'agency' even, and were to give all deference to the Government Agency 'employees' who often had 'power without limitation'. None of them are elected. From then on the Administrative State has grown in numbers and edicts by leaps and bounds, rules and regulations are out of control, and they do it in league with the Corporations. Get that? Over the years the bureacracy has made sure to eject all who aren't on board or Left enough, or compromised enough, or who won't take the bribes, ...this has happened. Additionally, Congress became the money lenders (launderers) to the agencies (budgets) through these Committee's, but the bureaucracies now basically can ignore the Committee's and the President, because they never die, are unelected and they control the actual law. The Supreme Court also gives the Agencies deference and passes the buck by saying, Congress needs to change the law. Oh really? That rarely happens even when needed, in fact it is usually made worse if anything. So, if you like this situation, and read thorough the 'narratives' of the Progressives of the past, we are now back to 'taxation without representation' and that scheme has filtered down to every level of government State and County in America. They know how much power they have... So, all the do-gooder arguments aside, we lost the Separation of Powers Doctrine that was so important and now we have this fake Magic Paper/Constitution (ever-changing narrative) and Socialist government that rules with an iron fist: You must Comply. And all of the Bill of Rights is on the line... Guess you see what's happening to Freedom of Speech? We basically in America right now have only two recourses: Civil Disobedience and/or Arms. Thank goodness for the Arms or we are without defense.
But are you sure that these developments are connected to the New Deal? You may be placing the blame where there is none. Remember that that's a favorite tactic: place blame on a popular program so that people unthinkingly scapegoat it, while other forces are actually at work.
There were many developments in our country after the Great Depression: WWII, the beginning of the Special Services that morphed into the CIA after the war; the connection between the military and the corporations that created "the military-industrial complex" that Eisenhower warned of; the takeover of the wheels of government by an overactive Executive branch (read the book Uncommon Sense); the flight from the rural areas into the cities; and others.
I would choose to say that WWII was a big a force for those changes you list as the New Deal.
What's the matter, Susan? Aren't you up for returning to the wonderfulness of the Guilded Age, or the happiness that was the Hoover Administration?
What's the matter Riff? Aren't you up for the new 'what we got now'? See my reply to Susan above. We either have representation or we don't. We don't.
I agree with much of what you say. I just today argued for the return of war declaring powers to congress where it rightfully belongs. I do question however your term socialism to describe what seems to me to be classic fascism.
We don't have representation, or even a government that follows the Constitution any more. What I question is your attribution of these developments to the New Deal.
It sounds as though some ideology has taken hold of your mind, and you have either not realized it or you haven't challenged it. Did you hear the adults around you when you were a child complaining about "the New Deal"? Did you unconsciously absorb the idea that it was bad?
I notice that you didn't respond to my comment about all of the other things that have happened since then that have also caused the situation we are in now.
And I can add to the list the rebellion of the 60s/70s, which (I'm sorry to say) brought about a deliberate backlash from the right, and the fact that the American public fell asleep for a few decades, since life was comfortable and we thought that we could let the government roll on and do its business without oversight from us.
Hahahahahaha! Thanks for that! #LMAO! See my answer to Susan above so you can 'keep and eye on me'.
Wouldn’t want to disappoint you….
I wish someone in the comments would have addressed Solzhenitsyn vs Tucker, as a balance to Goebbels/Olbermann. Solzhenitsyn came to America after the Communist Regime fell, and told US we were on the wrong (Socialist/Government Bureaucracy) road. He saw it. He wrote about it. He was a giant. Tucker can't touch him but, Tucker never had to go to a Gulag either, but make no mistake Tucker is in danger for his life, family, job, etc.. for speaking out. Remember Drudge? No one really knows what happened, that he disappeared from the scene after being a Bad Person and exposing the truth?
Yes, we are wired for us vs them. Even after enlightenment we still have a body and are still subject to it’s survival programming which includes in group vs out group reflexes.
After awakening, however, we spend much less time in our unconscious survival programming and we readjust quickly ( most but not all of it becomes conscious programming that need not be acted upon) and know when we are seeing absolutely clearly and when we have been briefly pulled out of conscious awareness.
It is a difficult balancing act to point out the cruelties of ‘the other/ the them’ without “othering” /dehumanizing which activates our most primitive programming.
We wish to shake people out of their complacency and stop their autopilot sleepwalking toward the cliff and so we have to emphasize with great passion what is happening. But in doing so we activate or increase the us vs them programming which deepens our unconsciousness and enables further manipulation by our own cognitive biases and by others who support the current human hierarchy wittingly or unwittingly.
So what can we do? Something I have suggested here previously: greater or meta transparency. The same way we have “trigger warnings “ and “ viewer advisories” for adult content we could let people know that we are trying to induce a sense of urgency to increase awareness. But that in doing so we are triggering their us vs them programming. We literally say this. We literally provide the meta context. So we course correct with a reminder that the “others” are also in unconscious autopilot, that they are part of our human tribe and ultimately they are literally One with us.
In the short term we try to stop their madness with equanimity not because we’re trying to pretend we love them ( even though their essence is just as much Love as ours is) but because our own unawakened state means we get caught up in the hierarchy/ dominator/ subservience brain as much as they do and this makes our actions ineffective.
And we remind our readers that at this moment we are analyzing the world / the issue of the day through distorted lenses due to the overactive tribal/ survival brain which in turn is a result of the egoic condition.
So we go meta more often, we step out of the issue, whether it’s oligarchy or narrative control etc. and describe to readers what is happening right now as we read this....what is being distorted right now in each of us as we read, as we try to inform ourselves.
It appears to me that this also means humanity will require new social media in order to interact in a healthier way. Humans need to see each other more often in order to correctly read the context. Written battles on twitter or lengthy journalistic replies feel quite different when people can discuss face to face their fears and grievances. Common ground is more easily reached and those that are more interested in manipulation and don’t care as much as they pretend are more easily revealed.
There is no 'they'
There's always a 'they' or you are a complete Communist in ideology, or you can no longer resist you have been overrun by the 'They'.
Jackie, Life is One. There is no they. Now, we can subdivide infinitely, creating as many 'theys' as we like. Doesn't effect this truth one bit. We are one. Here together in Life. There is no they...
Jim, Life is Life. That's all I'll say and that is truth.
She sure does...