Originally published at “The Bern Report” on April 22^nd, 2018 by Daniel Crawford

When I first started composing this commentary it began as a review of tribalism spanning from its origins to how it infects modern day life in America and beyond. While I still intend to share that particular article with each of you in the near future I feel that it will take a bit longer for me to finish and be satisfied with the final product before I offer it for your collective review. In the meantime, I want to focus on something else which is somewhat related to the issue of our tribal separation from one another: our culture of distrust.

Not long ago I overheard a discussion on television which covered the divisions in our society along racial lines and how this impacts the relationship between law enforcement and communities of color. Back in 2015, I participated in a series of “race discussions” held in my hometown of Newark, Ohio. It was hosted by the Freedom School of Licking County and brought together a number of community members of various racial backgrounds. During these candid talks we openly discussed our feelings about race relations, exposed whatever racial bias we may have harbored throughout our lives, and even discovered bias that we may have not realized existed.

Each part of this discussion series encouraged us to contemplate historical documents and review them together. One of the documents we reviewed was an excerpt of a Social Studies primer from a school in New England during the late-1800s (shortly after the Reconstruction Era). Though this textbook was from a part of the country which had long outlawed slavery and which had fought as part of the Union, there were still deeply unsettling references to certain humans as “subhuman” and assertions that skin color – and region of origin – indicated a degree of savagery and a lack of capacity to thrive independently as the shade of skin grew darker.

There were highly emotional moments for each of us as we shed our shell of vulnerability and allowed our diverse brothers and sisters in attendance to respond and counsel. We maintained our civility throughout the experience and many potential doors to continued collective growth were opened to us. It is one thing to harbor your fears about the “other” when you are among others who look and act like you, but it is a truly liberating blessing to share those internal struggles with a room made up partially of those whom serve as the focus of such. Why is this not an experience duplicated more broadly and more frequently?

Racism largely still exists and thrives in this country and all around this planet because we have not made it a point to bust down those barriers to coming together. It is fueled and perpetuated by a cultural mindset which discourages a sense of collective identity. We have maintained a de facto system of segregation in every aspect of our society because it makes us feel more comfortable to mingle with the familiar. One doesn’t typically fear that with which one has become accustomed. The same goes for the relationship between members of separate communities.

For instance, take the troublesome relationship between law enforcement and communities of color. Over time, both the authority figures and the minority populations they are charged with protecting – alongside the rest of us – have been guided by a mutual sense of distrust. With the police, there is a dominant fear of entering a neighborhood that they either know or feel has an engrained hatred of law enforcement. Regarding the communities of color, a long history of abuses leads them to avoid contact with the police whenever possible for fear of becoming another statistic.

Either way, both the police and the minority populations fear for their safety when reality forces them to interact. On a day to day basis our sensationalized media and certain divisive political forces convince those in blue that they are targets. So, when a fellow officer abuses their authority the first instinctual reaction of the police community is to protect their brother or sister in uniform from those calling for blood. In essence, this is where we see a bit of overlap with tribalism. In the interest of shielding the institution and thwarting a societal assault on one of their own, the police “tribe” coalesces and deems an attack on one of them – irrespective of that individual’s deeds – as an attack on all of them.

With the communities of color, one need only possess a modicum of understanding for basic American history as it relates to race relations. Minority populations have always been treated either overtly or covertly as second class citizens. Yes, there have been exceptions over time, but the bigger picture has portrayed an image of a lopsided application of justice. From being hosed down in the streets protesting segregation and seeing their sons incarcerated for life largely related to drug “crimes” to a seemingly endless stream of dead black men and women whose uniform-wearing executioners have yet to be held adequately accountable, it shouldn’t be too difficult to comprehend where the distrust originates.

Still, not all minorities hate or distrust police and nowhere near all police officers hate or distrust minorities. A cancer exists in our society, and that cancer – which we must root out – is present in the form of the break down of community. Distrust – in any scenario – can only be dealt with in a two-step process: communication and verification. In other words, distrusting subsets of the community must come together and communicate their issues with one another and then work to secure concrete actions for a resolution which suits everyone. Neither side can resolve this alone. This has to be done collectively.

This isn’t something which can be fixed overnight. We are talking about massive and deep wounds which have festered for centuries. It is a long, ongoing – possibly even never-ending – process. If we want to see peace and equal justice, then our obligation is to mend the divisions within our societal family. If we ignore this necessity of working as one, we will continue to see these tragedies and the subsequent social unrest unfold on our televisions and computer screens. “No Justice, No Peace” rings true, but justice can not thrive when there is no unity to begin with.

Originally published at “The Bern Report” on March 8^th, 2018 by Daniel Crawford

Our economy is going to experience a radical transformation in the very near future. By “our economy” I’m not just talking about the economy of the United States, but rather the globe’s economy. Historical trends and critical analysis of current economic conditions foretell a different revolution which can foster either mass progress or crippling setbacks for the whole of humanity. We will soon face a choice that many of us never before wanted to consider about whether or not we are ready to adapt.

The arc of human history has portrayed a story of a species which is never content with stagnation. Our ancestors were always persistent in exploring new ways to conquer the elements and bend nature to our will. This fact about human ingenuity remains the case today. There is nothing wrong with our spirit of exploration and problem solving, per se, but we are increasingly facing a risk where our previous mastery of the art of adaptation – which has been essential to our evolution in societal and biological terms – will be confronted with a refusal to accept our collective responsibilities to facilitate such this time around.

From the primal state of humans as small groups of hunter-gatherers to the advanced state of civilized humanity we see now, we did not leap from using sticks and stones to a reality where we can visit neighboring worlds by refusing to largely abandon obsolete tools and methods along the way. Much work that was once highly labor-intensive has been reduced to a simple task performed by a single person operating a machine. For the past two centuries – at least – the onset of automation has been forecast by economists and politicians alike. Each successive generation has been warned with increasing urgency that a world without the need for labor is looming, because doing more with less effort has been the underlying pursuit of our species from the beginning.

With the advent of capitalism this trend towards easier production took on a new role: maximizing profitability. The industrial revolution magnified human potential beyond what we had accomplished before and it made possible the goal of automation in certain segments of industry. With the technological revolution in the Twentieth Century, a world where labor is unnecessary became probable. In fact, these dual revolutions in conjunction with capitalistic intentions have made the realization of a world of total automated production inevitable; so long as we stay the course.

So, what’s the choice with which we are faced? Truthfully, it is a set of choices with the first (do we adapt?) opening the path to the next (how?). It may be too simplistic to suggest a purely binary set of options, but the reality is that it will ultimately come down to two possible paths forward. On the one side, we – the people – can stand up and demand that this trend be restrained. We can rise in total opposition to the automation of production and insist on a permanent preservation of the role played by human labor. This approach is not impossible and it can be accompanied by a partial automation wherein machines continue to act as a complementary piece of the production pie.

On the other side, we accept the inevitability of total automation. This seems out of whack, for sure, especially when many of us – myself included – actually enjoy working. However, if we are able to fulfill this goal of removing the obligation of humanity to toil for the things we need then the only thing left for us to figure out is the satisfaction of those needs via an equitable system of distribution. In essence, getting out of the way of automation and letting it take our place requires that we adopt a “universal income”.

None of these options are possible or permissible whilst preserving laissez-faire capitalism (which doesn’t exist right now, anyway…but I digress), but maintaining our present course wherein profit is the only thing which matters to the economy’s chief benefactors will certainly bring about the collapse of the entire system. This is because automation – which, again, is currently being promoted for the purpose of creating an easy profit – is depleting the consumer base. With the present trend, the working class (including the so-called “Middle Class”) is set to lose all economic clout over time all across the globe. Not even the laborers in the Third World – which are exploited by First World multinational corporations for their inhumanely cheap cost – will be safe in the long-term. Honestly, the trend will not even have a chance to replace humanity’s poorest workers if we don’t adjust soon because a failure to adapt collectively in the world’s wealthiest nations will result in a monstrous crash.

How can I say that? Well, think about it: the United States and the rest of the Industrialized World are the leading consumers of goods produced on this planet by our global economy. Eventually, if all working class jobs in the advanced parts of the world are automated then the ability for the wealthy nations to consume the cheap products from the exploited nations will be extinguished. It shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what that would mean for the economy.

Between the aforementioned choices, the most sustainable is the adoption of a universal income. Reason being, that while social democracy can maintain a pseudo-free market wherein partial automation exists alongside a workforce with living wages, this will prove to be unstable over time unless no individual is permitted to amass the economic power and political influence necessary to undo or circumvent the reforms. Basically, the only way to ensure that the trend doesn’t resume towards consolidated economic and political power is to decentralize economic (and political) decision-making from any one person or faction and to spread that authority democratically to the entire community.

A universal income is a utopian fantasy. Let’s just say that without hesitation. Yet, not every fantasy is unattainable or should be dismissed. Liberating humanity from the necessity of labor is a possibility, but that objective is not the driving force behind the present push for automation. Instead, the oligarchs of the world are using automation as a “nuclear option” to threaten workers organizing for better treatment, benefits, and pay. The corporate executives like to dangle this possibility of replacing workers with a machine to remind us that we should be grateful to even have a job. It is an attempt to silence dissent across the board and to influence unquestioned obedience to the regular order.

They don’t want us to realize that our fates are one and that automation without societal adaptation is not possible lest we are willing to descend into total chaos. Of course, the smarter ones among them with the ability to think long term realize the unsustainable nature of the future the oligarch class envisions. In the twisted imagination of those serving the top 1%, the future consists of a third additional option to what I listed above: where the working class relinquishes all claim to economic and political power, works as long and for as little as we are told, and consumes whatever crap we are told to consume.

Realistically, this horrid nightmare view of the world can not survive because humanity – like all animals – can not be easily restrained. Force naturally produces rebellion and struggle is the feeding ground of desperate actions. The world where profit of the few predominates – the reality in which we live now – is a world devoid of hope. To automate for the purpose of controlling the masses and accumulating wealth is a crime against humanity. If we are to automate, then it should be to enable all of us to realize our full potential as a species.

The choice before us is not one between accepting and rejecting automation, because that is coming whether we like it or not. Our obligation is to choose between adapting and ignoring the need to do so. If we elect to adapt, then a second set of choices on how we should adapt – as enumerated earlier – will be placed at our feet. If we say that we would rather ignore the responsibility to adapt then we will be ill-prepared for the economic turmoil that our futile resistance will precipitate.

Accepting impending changes empowers us to get ahead of it and to navigate such in a productive way. Dismissing what we need to do plays into the hands of divisive figures ready and willing to use our fears so as to create wedges and weaken our collective resolve for justice. Before you roll your eyes and walk away from this plea for action, ponder something for a second: there is not a single job – especially where intensive labor is required – which can not conceivably be replaced by a machine. Depending on when and where you were born, it is probable that you will live to see a time when most of the people working today will see their jobs become obsolete.

For the time being, automation has its limits. The economic laws of supply and demand look as though they insulate the system from an overload of machines replacing consumers. Yet, the corporate world – with its extreme emphasis on statistics and profit margins irrespective of the living, breathing people involved – is constantly contemplating a means to boost those positive numbers with as little investment as possible. In the big picture, it appears as though the need to maintain a strong base for consumption will protect us, but our economy operates on a company by company basis with each boardroom making decisions which seemingly work out best for their bottom line.

Turning our collective backs on the reality that automation is coming means giving the power to determine the terms of its arrival to the few looking to utilize it for their enrichment. If we act together and accept the inevitable, then we can begin to plan how we adapt and collectively benefit from it. Otherwise, the only benefits from this will be reaped by the few and it won’t last. Alas, this choice is fast approaching.

The great age of automation looms on the horizon and we can either ride this wave together or drown in its undertow.

Originally published at “The Bern Report” on February 19^th, 2018 by Daniel Crawford.

I recently sat and half-watched an episode of “Undercover Boss”. There is an unnerving fact about this show which is obvious to just about everyone paying attention amongst the working class: the men and women sitting at the top are detached from the men, women, and children who make their wealth possible. Yes, I said that WE make THEIR wealth possible. Keep that expression in mind as I will revisit it later on.

In this series – which I am sure all or most of us in possession of a television or a computer have heard of or seen at least once since its creation -, a top executive of a business is encouraged to leave the bubble of their corporate headquarters to put on an act as some new applicant for the company over which they preside. As someone who works in the service industry I know from experience the usual complaints from average workers about “Corporate”. The people in the comfort of their board rooms are often maligned – quite justifiably from time to time – for the lack of appreciation for the goings-on of day to day work on the “ground”. From hours getting cut – seemingly indiscriminately – to increased expectations for productivity; the detached decision-making of those with power in the business world in more than demoralizing…to say the least.

Never mind the ridiculousness of cameras and a staff for the purpose of documenting events being present, the premise of each episode of the show is that the employer must trick their employees into thinking they are equals so that he or she can learn the truth about what is going on. You may love, like, or hate this show, but the disconnect in our society is on full display – genuine or not – for all to see. In the workplace, workers are often entertained and/or annoyed by the announcement by lower management that “the suits” are en route either that day or sometime soon. Upon the revelation of the impending invasion from headquarters all employees are directed to put on a masquerade presenting the illusion that everything is working out just fine…even when that isn’t the case. This is not out of respect for the “powers that be”, but a product of fear for the consequences of not being up to par.

This popular dislike of “Corporate” isn’t just confined to the opinions of the underlings, but rather shared and even led to some degree by the general public. Customers see right through the reckless or even selfish decisions made in the interests of maximizing profit. You lose many of them to more productive, higher quality options when they feel that your services are being compromised in the long-term for the short-term benefit of those few. More often than not, the only ears to hear and eyes to see this degradation of the customer base are the employees on the bottom rung and their immediate supervisors. These are the first targets of the ire of a disgruntled customer when the quality of service has taken a hit directly as a consequence of short-term thinking.

As anyone paying attention and living this knows, the decisions made by the business community have had a direct impact on the lives of their subordinates. In a workforce increasingly dependent – by design – on temporary or part-time labor (due to the weakness of their labor power and the ease of exploiting them), the workers are expected to remain forever on-call as they desperately seek more opportunities to make money. Instability is intentional to tame the forces of change and we are all force-fed the standard message of “at least you have a job” or “be thankful for what you have”. Your condition could always be a lot worse, so just shut up and do your job.

Of course, by the end of each episode the executive apparently learns their lessons from the interaction they have with the people at the bottom of the totem pole. No, they don’t learn that “greed is bad”, nor do they conclude that they must truly start treating their workers as equals. Rather, they take up some token good-feeling actions which helps their favorite employees from the experience. The show does more to improve the public relations of corporate executives and to humanize them than it does to address the root problems: inequality in economics and politics. Yes, you will tear up as you watch individual working class folks showered with life-changing opportunities, but the inherent injustices of the system remain intact.

The primary lesson that one ought to learn from this show and others like it is that inequality is a product of the gap of societal empathy. We have long become detached from the conditions of our countrymen (and countrywomen). It is easier for us to dismiss the suffering of a some bum on the streets when we no longer see ourselves as having a destiny intertwined with theirs. This division of our collective conscience and the perpetuation thereof by all facets of our cultural instruction is perhaps the greatest victory of the oligarchs. Until we resolve to unwind this shroud of artificial separation we can not adequately confront the persistent demons of our existence.

Do not be fooled by the temporary good deeds of an executive presenting an act for the cameras. Even if these actions have legitimately positive results for a handful of regular people, the roots of their former predicaments remain and require bold action by the whole. We have permitted this condition by training ourselves to believe that it is either inevitable or necessary, but it isn’t. The wealth that WE have created through the fruits of OUR collective labor is only THEIR wealth because WE permit such. This world belongs to all of us, not just a few of us.

In the near future I will delve deeper into this issue, for sure. Peace, and take care.

Originally published at “The Bern Report” on January 29^th, 2018 by Daniel Crawford

Resist!! That’s the message we seem to hear from the Democratic Party and its most devout loyalists on a near-daily basis in the wake of Trump’s election. The question, though, in relation to the referenced “Resistance” is “what are we resisting?” Is it just Trump? Is it the Republican Party? How about the oligarchy? If it is just Trump who draws the ire of this supposed rebellion then I have to say it is barely a resistance worthy of our attention.

Why? Isn’t Trump a fascist hell-bent on destroying everything and everyone standing in his way; including the rule of law? Well, yes, but Trump is merely a symptom of a societal cancer which has been growing and spreading for quite some time. Resisting Trump alone is tantamount to removing a single tumor in a stage 4 patient. Today it is Donald John Trump, but in the near future it could be someone far worse with a superior and more effective grasp on the political process.

Do we need to make sure that Trump is held accountable so as to preserve the rule of law and maintain the fragile stability of our Republic’s checks and balances? Absolutely, and the same was the case for the numerous abuses of power which expanded the authority of the presidency for most White House occupants since –at least – the Civil War. This gradual usurpation of power by the nation’s chief executive officer accelerated in the past 50 years, and now we are on the cusp of a total transition to authoritarian rule.

Let’s just focus, for a second, on one of the more recent examples of an opportunity missed for reining in on the presidency to restore the regular order: George W. Bush. I know, many across the political spectrum are falling in love with Dubya all over again because he seems like the standard of decency in politics compared to the toddler with nuclear arms we have now, but let’s not forget one important fact (of MANY enumerable damning facts), which is that Bush Junior LIED this nation into a war. The war that Bush started without provocation enriched a few and cost the lives of thousands of Americans and even more Iraqis. It was also the first domino to fall which later produced – as PREDICTED by the war’s opponents in 2003 – the regional chaos that itself gave rise to ISIS.

Where was this resistance when American soldiers were being sacrificed for the agenda of neoconservatives, and which profited Halliburton and the Oil Industry? Oh, I remember now, those of us who took the time to speak out were marginalized as being on the “extremes” even by the so-called opposition party. Furthermore, when the Democrats were given full control of Congress for the first time in 12 years after the 2006 Midterms, the cowardly incoming-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said “impeachment is off the table”, and when then-Congressman Dennis Kucinich used a privileged resolution to force the then-Democratic House of Representatives to vote on numerous – well-studied and thought out – articles of impeachment against Bush, Cheney, and others for their subversion of the rule of law…the Democrats laughed it off and swiftly killed the serious measure by tabling it.

What the hell happened when we needed the checks and balances to provide some balance with a check on the powers of an imperial presidency? I will tell you what happened. This system of ours is in danger, because it is broken at its foundation. The Democrats in 2007 and 2008 didn’t act on the evidence which existed regarding Bush’s egregious and literally deadly abuses because they were afraid of losing the support of their donor class.

Oh, wait, you thought that the Republicans were the only ones suckling from the teat of the oligarch cow? No, they are merely the only ones who aren’t afraid to openly admit their servitude to our aspiring plutocratic overlords. Republicans in the post-Nixon era are increasingly subservient to one cause alone and that is the unyielding pursuit and preservation of power. In that power-centered pursuit they know that they must satisfy their base – while distracting them with the politics of cultural division – as well as please their wealthy financiers with policies which rob the safety net, weaken democratic rule, and facilitate an atmosphere which permits an uninhibited concentration of wealth into the hands of the few. This incarnation of the Republican Party will NEVER take any action which endangers their claim to power, never.

With the Democratic Party, they started to abandon their creed of fighting on behalf of the working class when a few corporate-friendly members determined that Reagan won and Bush Senior won because the Democrats were too anti-business, thereby suggesting they were too close to the interests of the working class. Because, you know, the working class wants socialist things like guaranteed healthcare, a strong safety net, and fair labor practices.

After this turning point, the Democratic Party started to play the part of an ally for working people during campaigns, but then governing in ways which largely pleased the 1%. Each successive election cycle from Bill Clinton’s 1992 victory through to present day has seen the Democrats shifting further and further into the arms of the oligarchs. Using language such as “middle of the road” and boldly stating that “the era of Big Government is over”, the party’s leaders led the way for NAFTA’s implementation and advocacy (yes, Bush Senior and Reagan started pushing for this, but the Clinton-Gore White House AGGRESSIVELY promoted it), they sold out the impoverished with so-called “Welfare Reform”, they established a corporate-backed acceptance of China’s “Most Favored Nation Trading Status” under Clinton, and abolished financial protections for the working class via the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

That was far from it. Despite screaming for years about the policies of George W. Bush, Congressional Democrats helped start his illegal war, helped fund the damn thing – even when they took control of Congress -, and even voted (on numerous occasions) to sacrifice our Constitutional protections (think/research the 2006 Military Commissions Act and the 2008 Protect America Act). When Democrats took total control of the Government in 2009, they refused to even vote on the proposed Employee Free Choice Act – which would protect workers seeking to organize and make it easier to do so – they passed corporate-friendly and seriously watered down restrictions on Wall Street, and – the biggest kicker of all during the Obama years – they “reformed” healthcare with legislation written by healthcare lobbyists.

Don’t forget, they also largely voted with the Republicans to grant a monstrous bailout to the wealthy criminals which collectively brought the Great Recession upon us. This one particular vote should help instruct us as to what is afoot. It is telling that BOTH parties feature candidates with massive donations from the wealthy, and BOTH parties had the support of the oligarchy at their conventions in 2016. Why? Why are we resisting Trump when he is a symptom of the people of this country increasingly divided by and fed up with this falsehood of partisan politics?

People are in pain, and the reason their pain is not being addressed is because NEITHER party is willing to take a stand against the forces responsible for said pain: the oligarchy. The resistance, the TRUE RESISTANCE should not be singularly focused on the latest product of this broken system. No, the resistance must focus its attention on the system itself.

So, yes, RESIST! Resist Trump, resist the Republican Party, resist the Democratic Party, resist the partisan system, resist income and political inequality and – most importantly – RESIST THE OLIGARCHS!

This is not a resistance for or of the Democratic Party. It is a resistance of the masses against the degrading, debilitating, and disastrous agenda of the few! WE – all of us yearning for a restoration of our collective power over our government and our destiny – are the resistance. Now, get away from your phone, your computer, or whatever device you are using to read this and get ready to organize. Your services are needed, because our time has come.

Resist!

Originally published at “The Bern Report” on January 4^th, 2018 by Daniel Crawford

2017 was a rough experience. We don’t need to give a run-down on everything that took place, because if you are reading this I can almost guarantee that you are well aware of the turmoil. It is natural to feel bitter about why we had to endure the inauguration and resulting policies of Trump’s administration. If you are a visitor to this website, the odds are that you would have preferred that Trump had faced a certain Senator from Vermont as opposed to the highly-polarizing former Secretary of State and First Lady. Our collective contempt for what transpired in 2016 encompasses everything which happened from the primary campaign through to the general election debacle. If the opinion polls throughout the period of late-2015 to mid-2016 had been accurate, there is a legitimate reason to believe that Trump would not be our president right now had he faced his true counterpart in the populist revolution which swept him into power.

The revolution had more success in the Republican Party than in the Democratic Party. In part, this was because the Democrats had stronger protections against populism. Yes, Trump faced solid opposition across the board of virtually every party leader, but they were incapable of stopping him because none of his primary opponents wanted to hurt their ego by giving up and uniting behind a single viable candidate in a timely manner. On the Democratic side, there was most certainly an organized effort to prevent the revolution from achieving its objectives. These safeguards in the Democratic presidential nomination process had stood for decades after the 1968 and 1972 primary debacles, but they were undeniably abused and exposed for their corruption in 2016.

Yet, the Democratic Party’s nominating rules were not the only hurdle that the leftwing counterpart of the revolution had to confront. Only one side of the uprising benefited from having a household name celebrity serve as its champion. The media’s fascination with the story of a conman entertainer who played a billionaire on TV running for president while co-opting half of the revolt ensured that the people heard his message of change (no matter how vile his message was). On the reasonable and collective end of the spectrum, our revolutionary efforts received minimal exposure to the general public, because the media – with an agenda to promote a story so as to boost consumption of their product, thereby satisfying their advertisers – saw it as more appealing to create a narrative that the Democratic nominee could not possibly be anyone other than the one whom had long been portrayed in popular culture as the logical choice for America’s First Woman President.

Trump hijacked the revolution not because he was better at leading it, but because the established order – driven largely by capitalist lust for profits in conjunction with a fear of empowering the people – put its thumb on the scale for the conman and the quintessential and safe politician over the promise of a true people’s champion. 2016 represented a collapse of the American political order, where every assumption of what’s normal crumbled. Trump was not supposed to win. Rather, he was the comic relief of an otherwise depressing election cycle where we already “knew” who was going to win (at least, this was arguably the way our entertainment-based media saw things). Nothing was supposed to change, and the rigging of the system on behalf of the few while lulling the many to sleep regarding this backdoor theft of our power was supposed to persist. Yet, the unthinkable happened on Election Day 2016, as the American public soundly rejected any attempts at allowing the establishment of this country to dictate to us what the expectations of our future should be. On that fateful day, no matter how horrifying the result of Trump’s triumph, the American people spoke out and demanded that they be given the steering wheel.

No, Trump did not win the popular vote, and yes he won via the outdated and very (intentionally) undemocratic Electoral College. Still, every vote not cast for his establishment-minted adversary was a vote cast to reject the order’s dictation on its vision for us all. A revolution had attained its greatest victory to date, and the reason Trump won had less to do with him and more to do with a public fed up with being ignored. The problem with how 2016 turned out is that the lack of a genuinely democratic process – that is, one unfettered by nomination gimmicks or media bias towards sensationalism – produced a false populist (or, more appropriately, a fascist) as the benefactor of this revolution. 2018 represents an opportunity to reset the revolution so as to reject the regime which has poisoned its mandate.

This is deeper than and must be separate from any partisan consideration. The political parties – ALL of them, not just the main two – are part of the problem and distract us from the goal of a populist revolt. Supporters of the revolution must resolve to consider every potential candidate, regardless of their label or lack thereof. Any viable revolutionary candidate ought to earn your support, and if you see a lack of such candidates then it may well be imperative for you to run yourself! Attention to the issues of the long-ignored working class, a willingness to hear the people out, and a backbone in taking on the failures of this system should be the primary litmus tests of said candidates.

Regarding the media, the arduous objective of the revolution is to force a change of the narrative. Right now, the media – still obsessed with the sensationalism of all things Trump – is peddling the notion that the “Resistance” to Trump will likely tame his dangerous, unstable tendencies by forcing a reversion back to the preferred regular order: just as the establishment wants it. The problem with this mindset is that it is accompanied by a continuation of the propaganda insinuating that the populist demands of the collective are out of order and will be intolerable as part of this “resistance”. Our job is to assert our will and loudly proclaim that the revolution is far from over and that the progressive changes we demand will be realized.

Penetrating the wall erected by the media will not be easy, but the internet makes this attainable. This is why the regular order is really not all that disturbed by the recent developments with respect to Net Neutrality. They don’t appreciate much that a truly free and open internet empowers the people to circumvent the obstacles and mainstream our revolution. Changing the narrative must become one of our central focal points in 2018 and beyond, and we have to do so using every form of media and social interaction. We have to be opportunistic here and take advantage of every opportunity to shine a light on the uprising’s renewal.

Partisanship needlessly divides us, but if there is a realistic shot at reforming a section of any party in a way that truly empowers the revolt then it would be nonsensical and counterproductive to ignore such. Likewise, if it seems as though a nonpartisan/independent approach can be exploited to the benefit of the revolution, then that should be pursued. In truth, this must be determined in each community on a case by case basis. In future articles, you will see more discussing what I mean with respect to this particular aspect of the objectives we must achieve.

Finally (for now), we must avoid – at all costs – the temptation to engage in hero worship and succumbing to the cult of personality such as what we’ve seen with President Trump. Yes, we have a list of potential leaders at every level of government, but these leaders are all human and are naturally fallible. If they prove their worth and maintain their dedication to our cause, then they will be popularly chosen to help lead the way. No one person created this revolution; rather the revolution has – over time – adopted its warriors and that should continue to be the case.

Never relent in your tireless advocacy for a better tomorrow. Do not despair in the wake of setbacks. Hope is on the horizon so long as we maintain the flame of our movement for justice. WE will win in the end…if we want to.

Onward fellow revolutionaries, the reset has begun.

A friend of mine who runs the website "The Bern Report" (where I've been contributing since January) informed me that the website will become an archived site soon. So, in addition to having my contributions there, I have decided to double them on this; my longest-standing blog (since 2005). So, the next few posts will be me effectively doubling the archiving of what I have offered at that website. I want to thank my friend and everyone at "The Bern Report" for all that they have done and continue to do. Looking forward to what our next step will be!

• July saw 157,000 jobs created but we also are seeing inflation rise at its fastest pace since September 2008; placing the value of working class wages back to where they were 44 years ago.

• Trump’s EPA reversed an Obama-era rule which had required that coal plants act to reduce carbon emissions. The new rule allows these plants to continue business as usual so long as they pursue “efficiency”.
• Trump reportedly was seriously considering privatizing the occupation of Afghanistan – placing it in the hands of the man in charge of Blackwater, who also happens to be the brother of Education Secretary DeVos – and having the privatized force report directly to him.
• Despite Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal struck and signed under President Obama, the Trump Administration moved forward with sweeping sanctions on the country with such restrictions as prohibiting the use of U.S. Dollars, banning the sale of planes to Iran, and cutting off purchases of Iranian oil.
• After being criticized by a number of people with security clearances, Trump has decided to start revoking said clearances for his critics – creating his very own “enemies list” – and picked as the first victim the former Director of the CIA, John Brennan.
• Trump came out and mocked the “Russian hoax” at a campaign rally within hours of a number of his own appointees heading intelligence agencies revealing their report that our democracy is still in danger of meddling from the Russians.

• Following his former Fixer/Lawyer Michael Cohen pleading guilty to illegally using campaign funds at his direction to cover up a sex scandal, Trump suggested that he later found out about the payments, but he insisted that they weren’t illegal.
• Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer – after being granted immunity - began cooperating with the investigation in Trump lawyer, Michael Cohen (who plead guilty – at the same time that former Trump Campaign manager Paul Manafort was found guilty - on 8 felonious counts, including at least one violation of federal election laws while implicating Trump).
• The Trump White House pressured and succeeded in blocking legislation via the Senate which would have protected our elections from interference. The proposal would have required audits for election systems and improved communication between the federal government and the states; including giving security clearances to the top election official in each state.
• A Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Arizona – to replace Jeff Flake – suggested that McCain’s family statement about him discontinuing cancer treatment (which was revealed a day before he died) was timed to hurt her campaign.
• Trump suggested that he may micromanage the FBI to ensure that they shift focus from him to Hillary Clinton after he hinted that the agency’s investigation of him was ignoring Clinton’s email non-scandal.
• The ombudsman for student loans at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau resigned. A few months ago, his division had its mission changed from investigating claims to merely “information-sharing” with the institutions it was charged with overseeing. Secretary of Education had also weakened oversight over higher education standards, allowing private colleges and universities to escape ratings based on student graduation and performance after graduating. Also, the acting head of the CFPB had supposedly buried a report showing how students were getting increasingly ripped off by these institutions.

• I missed this one last month, somehow. As part of the Republican tax law, they helped pay for their extreme tax cut for the rich in part by creating new taxes on so-called fringe benefits for employees; including on nonprofits and previously-exempt religious institutions.
• The jobs report showed that 213,000 jobs were added in June and unemployment increased back up to 4%, but for a good reason as more people reentered the workforce. Still, wages remained stagnant. Additionally, the economy grew at 4.1% in the most recent quarter.

• After a tumultuous summit with NATO allies and on the eve of a one-on-one summit with Russian President Putin, President Trump called the European Union a “foe” of the United States.

• Trump hinted in an interview that Roe should be overturned and the question of abortion left to each individual state.
• President Trump nominated Conservative Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Anthony Kennedy, which risks making the Court a solidly pro-business/anti-laborer Court for a generation.
• Embattled by his numerous scandals, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt was fired.
• The Trump Administration started to gradually purge its military ranks of aspiring Americans with very little notice to the victims that their service to our country had come to an end and their application for citizen through this process had been rescinded.
• The MGM Grand – which owns the hotels in Las Vegas – sued about 1,000 victims of the Las Vegas shooting last year, claiming that they had no liability whatsoever in the tragedy.
• When asked by the Mayor of Annapolis, Maryland to lower the national flags in honor of the fallen reporters at the hands of a gunman, President Trump refused.
• A number of families of the separated migrant children are being forced to pay up to a few thousand dollars for their young loved ones to be escorted back to them.
• Evidence came to light that the Trump Administration had been planning the separation of migrant families since around the time of the inauguration as a form of crackdown on the number of people applying for asylum.
• Baby Formula Manufacturers recently saw an ally in the United States as our country fought a proposed UN resolution supporting breastfeeding as the best option for babies and condemning deceptive advertising which suggests that baby food is a worthy substitute. As part of the American strategy to defeat the measure opposed by the baby food lobby, our government threatened countries supporting such with withdrawal of vital military support and the imposition of punitive trade policies. Ultimately, Russia stepped in and sponsored a slightly weaker version of the proposal.

• Poland has been experiencing an extreme rightwing takeover of their government and the latest attempt at purging the Supreme Court of any dissenting views was just the most recent instance of the country’s descent into tyranny.

• Trump lashed out at the Federal Reserve for raising interest rates and even criticized the strength of the dollar, claiming that both hurt our supposed “competitive edge”.
• Considering a regulatory trick that was rejected by President Bush 41 back in 1992 – because it was deemed illegal after they reviewed it -, Trump’s Treasury Department is looking at cutting capital gains taxes (which mostly helps the wealthy) by way of reinterpreting what “cost” means and allowing those with such income to adjust for inflation. If successful, this trick would cost the federal treasury $102 Billion over the next decade.
• When speaking to a crowd at the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Trump insisted that his supporters not believe anything that the media tells them, remarking that the things they see and read are not reflective of “what’s happening”.