Wednesday, March 23, 2016

As you know, I have friends all across the political spectrum, some of whom are liberal, some of whom are conservative. Sometimes, they call me names because I express viewpoints that they find objectionable. Note that I am including both sides in that statement, and not addressing it at either side specifically. To be blunt, I find it mildly amusing that simply stating a conclusion I have personally drawn based on observation and evidence can generally provoke extreme responses from all sides depending on whether that conclusion comes down in favor of one political "ideological certainty" or another. People who will laud my observations because they support their ideological views one day can be calling me every vile name in the book the next when another observation points out that a different ideological view is based on half-truths, extremely shaky evidence, or just completely at odds with observed reality.
So, in general, I ignore the usual attempts to browbeat me into conforming to any given ideological herd, no matter how nasty those attempts usually become.
Right now, there is a very nasty political shakeup in progress. Some of you might recall I predicted the overall course of this shakeup in
and in
In summary, that there is a war going on between two very different economic models. The old economic model, based on scarcity, is dying. It hasn't failed, but its success has been so enormous that it has basically eliminated the very scarcity that it depends on to exist. Those who created vast fortunes in this economy are now beginning to realize that those fortunes are rapidly becoming valueless. In a desperate attempt to prevent that loss of value, they are seeking to collect ever greater a percentage of the total value of all resources in the entire world in an effort to try and restore scarcity by making those resources unavailable.
Against this "Old Guard" of established material wealth, there is a "New Guard" who's fortunes have been made through a very different economic model, that of Abundance. Their fortune derives value not from how scarce their product is relative to demand, but on how large that demand actually is, because their product is effectively in infinite supply.
Which bring us to the current political situation. And let me be absolutely clear here. If you think this election is about Republican vs Democrat... you are not paying attention to reality. This election is about the disintegration of both parties and the political status quo.
You've got your reasons for why you support Hillary, or Cruz, or Trump or Rubio. You see those reasons as valid, whatever the evidence might actually be. That's fine.
I support Sanders, but the reasons I do have very little to do with Bernie himself. It has everything to do with the economic war I see occurring. It has everything to do with my historical observations about the stresses that societies suffer during periods of extreme change, and how they have always reacted to accelerating levels of inequality.
You can defend inequality all you wish. I don't dispute that not everyone is exactly equal. I have pointed this out time and again. In truth, humanity would have died out long ago if every human was exactly identical. The rigid absolute exact equality of a herd of clones is an evolutionary dead end. That is not what I am discussing when I talk about equality. I am discussing Legal Equivalency, the concept that Person A has the exact same rights, privileges, protections, and standing before the law as Person B, without exception. Person A being rich doesn't automatically grant them a pass, Person B being poor doesn't automatically ensure they are penalized, etc. In other word, on the legal stage, neither has an unfair advantage. In the eyes of the government, Person A and Person B are interchangable in regards to the Governments duties and obligations to them.
Yeah, I know. That's a hard concept for some of you to accept. We've grown up in societies that deify the wealthy and demonize the poor. We get taught to penalize the different, to look down on those that don't meet the Clone Herd mentality, and to enforce conformity. We are taught to look for means to divide us from one another, and to automatically assume non-conformity is a threat.
But... we are going to have to get over that. It's been a semi successful survival strategy until now, but it's one that is not going to remain advantageous to humanity in the near future. As I discussed in we are heading into a future in which almost every aspect of a person's physical and possibly mental makeup could be changed on a whim. Additionally, this future is going to be one of inescapable accountability, where no-one can avoid accountability for their actions to society at large, as I have discussed in and one in which most labor is done by software or robotic labor forces…/watsons-descendants-will-make-y…/
What this breaks down to is that what I see occurring in the current election is the fulfillment of yet another article.…/how-transparency-will-end-tyra…/ The rocks are getting turned over, and the roaches are scuttling. The police violence, BLM, the Clinton emails, everything everywhere is adding to the disruption that is being caused by veils of secrecy being lifted all around us by increasing ubiquity of surveillance technology. And that is inescapable, as I point out here:…/vr-integration-requires-total-…/
Neither Trump nor Sanders are legitimately "Democrat" or "Republican". They are both outsiders who have hijacked the political ideology of the two parties, but are not actually "part of the herd." And this has lead to some of the most overwhelmingly visible acts of political corruption in history. The GOP is desperate to rid itself of Trump, the DNC is desperate to rid itself of Sanders, because in both cases, the "Herd" knows that these outsiders are devouring them.
The difference is which direction they are both going. Trump is staging a coup. He has no intention of changing the status quo, he just plans to replace who is "in charge" by dethroning established leadership and crowning himself "King of the Hill." He's doing quite well so far in this coup attempt, but it's still just a desperate attempt to buy a few more years of existence by the Old Guard.
In other words, Donald is the 7th son of the king, trying to take his older brothers throne so he can be king. At no point does he want the kingship to change, he merely wants to be the "head honcho." Regardless of what he might promise, any "change" that might shake up the established ruling order, other than those which promote consolidation of power to himself, will be empty words. While some of those shakeups might indeed benefit the public, like a complete shakeup of Wall Street, the Fed, etc. His reasons for doing such actions would be for personal benefit, such as eliminating the "competition" for his "throne". His campaign slogan itself shows the direction Trump wants to go... backwards, into a dream of a golden age that never was, built from the illusions of a thousand TV shows.
Hey, I understand the strategy, and the appeal to many people. That us and them mentality we've lived in for our entire lives makes "Us" fear what will happen when we become "Them." Deep down, we know that we all will have to pay the piper, and are afraid of what will happen when the jackboot is no longer on our foot, but theirs. Trump is singing that siren song of avoidance of accountability, at least for just a little longer.
So when I look at his laundry list of things he would do to "Make America Great Again", all I see is a pathetic series of bad jokes that solve nothing, and are merely desperate attempts to delay the piper just one more day. That anyone can actually take them seriously makes me cringe.
In contrast, no matter how unrealistic some people think Bernie's ideas are, what he shows is that he appears to have grasped the concept that you cannot prevent change from happening, but you can build pathways to smooth out the journey along the way.
As noted above, I don't see any means to prevent a collapse of the current economic system. It IS going to occur, because it's been underway for decades. All the efforts of the old guard to prevent the collapse has done is slow the fall by a few years. But it's not enough to bridge the valley between our current economic model, and the rising model of Abundance. There's still a cliff coming on fast.
Donald's response is "Let's turn the car around and look at the past so we won't see the cliff approaching!" while Sanders, to me at least, is saying "Hey! There's a Cliff coming! We need to build a bridge!"
You want to discuss Sanders economic policies with me? Then show me evidence that you are examining the complete failure of the current economic model, and the rise of the new, and are taking those dynamics into effect. Because any claims made based on the assumption that the economy is stable and will remain so for the foreseeable future is delusionalism. The house is on fire, and you're screaming about how much it would cost to put out the fire because you are worried about repairing the leaky roof three weeks from now, while I am telling you that not spending the money now to put out the fire makes repairing the leak in the roof a moot point BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NO HOUSE, and you are looking at me like I'm an idiot.
Yeah... best analogy I came up with. Deal.
But this is basically what I am seeing in this election. Those who deny change and are turning their back to the wrecking ball heading right at them, and those who accept it and are trying to make it hurt less when it hits.
Trump sees the wrecking ball. He just thinks he can control what it hits. The GOP and the DNC are trying hard to convince themselves that if they can't see it, it doesn't exist. Only Sanders is bracing for impact.
You don't have to agree with me - doesn't matter if you do or not anyway. Your agreement will not alter the evidence I have examined to reach the conclusions I have. I'm not a supporter of CONSENSUS, regardless of whose. It's all just logic and reason.