Identify Yourself (A Message To Fellow- Progressives)

By Mark Sashine (about the author)     Permalink      

OpEdNews Op Eds 12/9/2012 at 09:09:25


"Dear deputies, we should not always consider a malicious intent whenever we are faced with the evidence of failure. We should entertain the idea that the intentions were good, as they usually are. But bad logic, ignorance and sloppy execution had destroyed most of very perfect endeavors'

Pierre, Le Cont, the deputy of the French Revolutionary Convent, 1793, France

Sometimes it is paramount to listen to your enemies.  There is a reason why progressives do not even seem to exist in the MSM_ driven environment. When they are mentioned, they are considered a nuisance at best, some pesky people who really have neither influence, nor power but are very noisy and need to be called to order.  As MSM is a sellout by default we should rightfully assume that there should be a reason good enough for them to discard us entirely. And yes it is. It is in the way we are described in the discourse. Perception is everything, so here it is.

( Sidebar. Progressives rarely sell themselves to the common public as the movement which will lead to higher chances of the individual success.)

"The so-called progressives is a bunch of degenerate people which consists primarily of two groups:

Group #1 - the losers. Those are people who, due to the weakness of character of other degenerative qualities had lost in the everyday competition within the current framework of values. and had been pushed to the fringes of the society. They are either poor or dissatisfied or their personal life is a total disaster. Thus they are full of bitterness and petty feeling of envy towards hard-working people who embrace the American dream. Many of them also live on entitlements. Thus due to the fear of losing those entitlements and also because of low-level envy they blame everyone and everything but themselves. They are at best the useless whiners and at worst - the people who hate American values and want to make everyone as miserable as they are.

Group #2 -the irresponsible bored liberals. The typical case of those kind of people is shown in the movie "The Aviatior," where Howard Hughes visits the rich relatives of Katherine Hepburn. They tell him that "we are all Socialists." Howard Hughes accurately states there that those people do not care for money because they always had it. They can afford to play with socialism. The reason is primarily boredom but also the sense of guilty conscience because the money they bask in is not earned but rather inherited, or had been a lucky grab. Such people want to feel good all the time, so they feel obligated to massage their paranoia by playing a liberal card. They do that because they are weak, lazy but lucky bastards who are not worth their luck. Within the current system of values such people are an abomination of capitalism, the ones who bite the hand that feeds them. They are cowards too. They would not like the nuclear bombardment of Japan, for instance, but they would not mind those 100000 Japanese    be killed in 100000 different places separately. They just abhor the pileup; not cool for their nerves.'

( Sidebar. The above is what happens if you do not define yourself who you are. Someone else will do it for you.)

In all fairness the scathing definition above has some truth in it. It is also a total lie. Yes, many people among progressives struggle in their everyday life. And yes, there are people among progressives who spend their fortunes on liberal endeavors; just consider the Hollywood celebs. But if we look at the ultra-right we would find much more losers, ignorant, lazy and weak individuals, the whole gallery of disgusting rich parasites, their slaves, perverts, and all kinds of unfortunate characters. Within the current framework of values those people do not call themselves losers. They call themselves the salt of the Earth. That is because they unequivocally accept that current framework of values. That simple.

If we go for a nutshell though we should admit that there is one important clue: yes, the success-oriented people, like professionals, small-business owners, career bureaucrats, civil service people, and military are rarely seen among active progressives.  Something turns them off. What is that?

( Sidebar. Yes, within the current framework of values the progressive movement is good in showing what is wrong, but it cannot provide an individual the alternative path to success, the way it is defined currently.) 

Interesting. That revelation above is very sobering. People usually resist any changes unless those changes offer them some kind of a better future. Within the current framework of values (Notice, how many times I repeat this mantra?-MS), the progressives line up the problems but the ways  they propose to solve those do not seem to have a goal of bringing an average Joe closer to the three- bedrooms' house with two cars and a monster TV. It does not seem that the path the progressives want to take   leads to an individual wealth. Not even close.

And boy, that seems to be truthful. Take energy conservation for instance.   Progressives are all for it. If we follow them, then one person who lives in a four-bedroom house, or, God forbid, has two houses is not a successful role model but a target for energy police. He or she should be punished for success, mercilessly taxed for his unfortunate "carbon footprint." If he/she     wants some fun and buys a yacht or invests in the strip clubs - the whole Hell can break lose. Of course, the Average Joe does not have any of those things. But he would love to have them. If we, progressives want to take away that dream, we should offer at least something similar to pursue. What is that, I wonder?

Within the current framework of values, what is that we can offer that will attract the person who wants to live in his house alone?

(Sidebar. It is not really true that the progressive agenda cannot offer   the path to the individual success, it is rather that progressives, for some inexplicable reason, prefer not to appeal to selfish interests of the very people whose hearts and minds they target.)

How about an interesting twist? Let's say we offer an Average Joe the same kind of the house or whatever he/she wants plus all those environmental unfortunate taxes he/she is so afraid of. But at the same time we promise the following:

-No mortgage payments ever. The prices of the houses will drop -- they will cost the real money and not the mythical "market' money because all locations will be equally attractive.

No property taxes because the education will be free, subsidized by the federal income tax.

-No education expenses.

-No medical expenses because there will be a national medical coverage for every citizen.

-State pension after 65 with adjustment to the cost of living.

-Decreased utilities bills and clean air and water of higher standards in all parts of the country.

-Bonus- free gym membership for life :)

If you were an Average Joe, wouldn't you become interested? I would. Why then we do not offer that? Why don't we offer at least part of that?   Here's why - we are ourselves operating WITHIN THE CURRENT FRAMEWORK OF VALUES.

If we look at the list of perfectly reasonable goals I had listed above, we quickly realize that to achieve those or even some of those the people seemingly would need to drastically change that very current framework of values. Mortgage industry will have to go. It though is a baby of the very fabric of the US financial system whose primary driving force is the credit game. Credit is that "invisible" hand which replaces in the US the real world by the illusion of grandeur; houses cost about 4 times their real value, locations are more important than the houses, property taxes are a lucrative bonus for the loaner and mortgage -- backed securities are the backbone of the infamous derivatives market. Wow! I just touched one small point and the whole spider-web starts to vibrate. That list above can easily make me a Satan. Good I don't believe in all those things. I believe in the truth: nothing in my list contradicts the current framework of values - I just interpreted those values in a drastically different way. The proper way if you want to ask me.

The main difference here is the redefinition of the power of the citizen.

( Sidebar. It is an unfortunate truth that current progressives en masse sort of care about America but don't really like Americans. The rich and powerful do not like them either but they have much more money to buy the cohorts of slaves whose only assignment is to flatter the public and make it eat the status -- quo. Progressives do not have that luxury - thus their collective disgust, so to speak, results in the inevitable meagerness and ultimate high odds of defeat.)

Power is more important than money. Progressives, if they really want to see at least some fruit of their good intentions have to find and firmly state a powerful alternative to the mythical financial independence, the actual lie which is funded by thieves. This alternative is power. Average Joe should imagine himself without all those financial burdens he/she now endures. Consider how easy it would be to start a small business if there is no issue of medical care. Consider how good it would be to enjoy the same high standard of living anywhere you want without breaking your back. Consider the perspective to have enough time to become a powerful voice in the community. Consider the job market to become a seller's market. How?   I am pretty sure that Average Joe would be the first to offer a barrage of ideas on how to do that. But you have to love him.

Everybody knows that the boat is leaking

Everybody knows that the captain lied
L. Cohen

Everybody knows but there is no hope. Progressives can invoke hope as soon as they themselves start to believe in it. They should, in fact identify themselves as a real force which WANTS SOMETHING.

( Sidebar. "There is one very important addition to the scathing picturing   of the progressives above. Using the same language we can say that one of the most unfortunate features of the progressives is that those two groups also hate each other. Progressives are notorious for an inability to cooperate, coordinate and help each other. They betray each other all the time. Moreover, they are so desperately afraid of somehow being exposed as extremists, that they spend enormous efforts to disengage themselves from all national, religious, youth and race movements, which obviously   only confirms the conclusion about them as being a bunch of weaklings.')


I am sorry to say but the message of the above sidebar is very much the truth. It is especially shameful in the light of the staunch loyalty and discipline of the right-wing-nuts and their machine. Whatever we can say about them, they care for each other. Do we?

OWS was a grass-roots youth movement in the Y2011-12. I watched the development of that fascinating movement, the real glory of our future and I was appalled by the passivity and even hostility among the various progressive-called and democratic groups to any possibility of OWS becoming a truly progressive political movement with demands, goals and ideology. On the contrary - the majority of the progressives effectively undermined any attempt to expand the OWS, to call for the racial and student groups to join, to actively involve the parents of the kids in the support net, to use the movement as a startup ignition fire for the new political party, to really fight for the goals those people came out for. The counterparts mobilized like an army, crushing the movement with the massive media barrage, slander and vicious deceit, portraying your children, our children as a bunch of lazy freaks. The Dems betrayed them the first. What a contrast to the way the Tea-Party was and is treated by the powerful elite. Just go watch the excellent documentary "The Billionaires."

(Sidebar. The OWS story had proven with painful clarity that the self-proclaimed progressive movement failed to fulfill its obligations as soon as real life stood in front of it. Progressives neither developed their own, new set of values, nor did they make any attempt to use the current framework of values to meet the OWS opportunity. It is a cruel irony that the Tea Party, an artificial to the core entity, a money- lubricated hate machine, a total lie - had successfully fulfilled its purpose and pushed the ultra- right people into Congress. At the same time, OWS, the pure truth, the real vox populi, was immediately undermined by the very people who were supposed to take a leadership. Instead of asking the best and the brightest of the OWS to start the process of future political leadership and commit to helping them, our dear liberals seemed to seek approval from the people like Rush Limbaugh. We could not handle our own truth.)

The absolutely unique endeavor of OWS died out ABSOLUTELY due to the betrayal on the part of those who were supposed to become its leaders. We, the progressives had been weighted and found too light.

This lightness of ours is most evident on OEN, which is sort of our virtual home. I was always wondering why our level of tolerance had not developed much although the site exists for already a rather long time and had become a very fruitful source of knowledge. Still, we do not value the alliance much. You can easily predict the pattern of the comment thread; if the article is somehow personal, like about women or a personal experience, or animals, or an ethnicity, or about, say, libertarians - you can expect a significant feedback. If the article makes an attempt on explanation of the phenomena (whether war or some act, or the process of election, etc) from the positions of a particular ideology, sort of establish  a parametric surface - that article rarely gets more then 2 or 3 comments; people do not like to be lectured. Some very powerful authors get no comments at all for months. This is not whining -- I am sincerely concerned; we do not cultivate allies. Our behavior on OEN still resembles the billiard balls - we collide but do not get dents. We behave like an ideal gas model. Why?

I think it is because of the lack of the goal. Imagine an engineering company with no product. People come to work every day, they discuss technical issues, make calculations, write reports - all of that for nothing; no final product, no hardware, no machine. I think we on OEN are in exactly that stage - we sit in the same room, know what we are and why we are there, but there is no sense of the common goal and our energy dissipates in hitting each other.

I am a former chess player and I remember a story about a famous genius   Jose-Raul Capablanca. He once watched a group of people analyzing a game. He approached and asked what they they were seeking. They told him that they were trying to find a way for the White to win.

"That's easy," said Capa, "You have to put these pieces (he had shown which) into these places for the final position."

"Yes," said the folks, "But how do we achieve that?"

"Oh that," said Capa, "You will figure that out yourself."

The progressive cause is just, so the goal should be easy. Turns out it is not that simple. It cannot be a goal of survival - never works. It cannot be a goal of restrain - never works either. Nothing can be turned back and a person with a cell-phone will never return to the rotary ring. The goal must be a new opportunity, something which promises a better life for EVERYONE approaching. It can be within the current framework of values but promising a new approach to it. It has to feel better for (sorry to say that) petty, selfish interests of the people. What's the goal then?

I would dare to state that the definition of that goal is the MAIN AND URGENT task standing in front of the progressives for them to stop being a crowd and becoming a movement. Here's how I see it, IMHO:

The goal of the progressive movement is the development of the power structure for the truly qualified and honest to rule.

I sincerely believe that truly qualified and honest are actually the power for the people, of the people and by the people; I believe I personally will prosper under the power of the qualified and honest and I believe that those monumental problems of Humanity could be easily solved if those qualified and honest exercise that power. And I believe that qualification and honesty transfigures the otherwise natural human qualities towards the service of good. It is just the matter of the proper standards.

"Insurmountable obstacles seem that way to us because we stay on our knees.  Let's stand up"

Karl Marx

And here is where the progressives are invaluable. Whoever starts on that road has an obligation to self-identification. The ability to see clearly the problems of the society   makes a person exceptional. It also imposes a responsibility.

Nobody has a right to squander such gift on petty bickering and cheap shots; you have to define a common goal and seek allies. You have to acknowledge the truth and make it known. You have to

"Bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;"
( IF, by R. Kipling)

IF.   If we   do not want to look like a   bunch of weaklings   worthy only the mockery by Rush Limbaugh and similar characters we should establish our goal and make it known. Then the true weaklings, the SOBs, they will get afraid. Let them. It will show their true colors. Progressives are in fact the last and only hope for the people of this country at least. If they do not define the future and make sure it happens we risk a very real confrontation with the Mankind, the one in which a defeat is imminent. We love this country and its people. We don't want that to happen. None of us wants that. The Y2013 is the YEAR OF THE SNAKE.   Let its venom be the agent of cure, not the agent of death.
Our cause is just. Let's define the goal and go for it. And let's take all the others with us.



A writer is a rogue goose. All other gees fly in a flock formation; every goose knows his place and time for honking. The rogue goose is undisciplined. He leaves the formation indiscriminately to have a look at it from aside. He roams back and (more...)