The Left Column

Politics for Poets

politics of the here and now

Summertime

The level of the lie.

are they really villians? These bankers? These socialists? Are they really?

Web Search for 'Victims of Socialism', and see if there is a comprehensive list.

I didn't find such, but a lot of people echoing that same sentiment.

Of course, as in an 'cause', the rabid-blooded Socialists will (only the rabid blooded ones, the other ones will do something else) may target you for even asking the question . . .

Or they might (and I don't know any, for real, but hear rumors of it . . . ) decided to go on a semi-hysterical, pseudo-historical rant of and long winded litany of the evils of . . . . whatever they think you are. So if you are a Jew, you know the bit. Or if you are a Catholic you've heard their bit. Or if you are a business person, the flock that comes squawking for 'La Equalidad'. But we are.

Or 'La Libertad'. Ya, we got that, too.

The holy people know that the light shines in all directions however some people use shiny objects to use it as a form of intimidation. You aren't allowed to talk about [topic ZEE of interest] (topic of interest: some exact topic of interest) because they have conditioned generations of people to to ab-react when ever the subject gets broached.

Now let's deconstruct our own fallacies, and recognized why I always put in the caveat: who really don't even exist.

or

exist only as a literary creation of mind, and yet presented as if there are really a 'they' there.

or

exist only as a fallacy of mind imagined from observing the effects of random collective behaviors, efforts, or endeavors of real people, yes, but without any coordinated group-think plan to craft a nefarious scheme.

And so, when we hear anyone talking with seeming certainty in phrases such as 'the [some group]' or 'the [some national identity]', using the bracketed idiom to show a class of statements that exists conceptually, and can be seen in the wild, but the objection to using such a quality of clause, (phrase or idea) is that just the use of the grouping of people to be put into a single word (now people are being put into words).

"you, get in-dare. You. You. You are all now 'the [some aggregate noun of imagined social, political, ethnic, national, transnational, trans[what-evv-ahh], or familial of some clan, class, social category, gender, age group, demographic of targeted group].' all of you, into the word.

I have a new word. It's all about you. I've made it into a prison. You are the [cute short gutteral derisive of very few syllables.]

It's not the [some bad word], its the some bad word user.

So, there it is, succinct. It's the name callers. And name calling, in general, that's the real cause of all of the putricity of this generation. Some of this generation. They go on with their constant litany of derisive categories for others, we all assume they must delude, to be their lessers. Aggregate of idea, they lump them up. They name-call. And we, we all, listening, sometimes we close our ears. We go and dance over here (somewhere away from them.). We shun them

We never say that we shun them. If they come up to us we aren't rude to them. We give them water if they really need it, careful not to share their germs . . .

"Germs. I hate them. I hate them I hate them I hate them."

A giant germ comes to him in his dream, attacking him as if it's a mob creature from a video game mod. "We do a lot of different things. We make a lot of different things happen, none of which is really done with full disclosure."

"you've been calling us names, asking people to use too much disinfectant. Don't you know that in some ages the product that gets produced is edible by other creatures? Yogurt, cheese. Most bacteria are benign."

Name calling. It's feeding the pile of unknown festering gew, that gets stuck onto things, sometimes put there. Name calling. It's like putting gum on someone else's nose and then saying 'look at him, hate him, he has gum on his nose.'

Who is it, really, that may more likely get the look of hate; if a look like that does exist, or is that more name calling, tale-telling, making things up. Making things up that are not even true because you feel some kind of hollow ringing is making too big a sound and causing you harm in your every day, walking around, wondering why life can be so . . . fallow and empty, the fields to play in filled with refuge from somebody else's day, in the long ago. And what to do but break up the shattered things even more? Looking for answers when no questions have been asked? Needing a single word explanation for why you, as awesome as you are, and coming from such a great and heroic past, why are you walking around in this limbo, fallow fields of weedy toxic noxious left over wasters of the past having polluted this whole place . . . and turned it into a no man's land. Who knows what else?

But isn't that a lot of the known world anyway? We try and not linger where the landscape's gone fallow.

It's easy to ignore the obvious nature of climate change. I remember back in 1982, there was a mountain (I need to look up the year) and it blew to smithereens. And a lot of people were like 'the gobbermint is trying to get us off our claim. We've been squatting out here in this forest and we ain't leaving because we think it's ll just a lot of scary stories, and that we really don't have to worry about a little bit of manna from heaven ash coming out of a part of the landscape that's given over to getting hot and bothered anyway. We don't believe in geology, and we don't trust govb-mint 'so-called' scientists. And we certainly don't believe anything that the forest service guys says, or any of dat.'

See, I'm making up a character. Someone who was too stupid to leave when Mt. Saint Helens was churning and ready to blow. No such real person probably exists. And many of the victims may not have understood that the mountain, way over there, was going to blow in a lateral direction. It' wasn't going sky high. It was going to burst out the side, like a steam jet from a freight locomotive, turbine powered by a diesel steam combination and capable of great harm if out gassed wrongly. Like words that we use to label broad swaths of populations: they are like that kind of steam in some sense.

But still just words. So it's not the words. And it isn't steam, in general, that's the problem. It's the directed out-gassing of it, a pointless and senseless event with out purpose to be done around people. So if you need your cute new words to describe those who you blame for the evils of life that just are, and no one can say they aren't, and we aren't sure if it's caused by anyone, it's like a bad flue, where did it come from? What causes it? Why are people sick? And when they are sick with delusions, they use those words, those terse put-down words, to describe the people who they blame for the evils of the world, which might just be in their imagination. And that's sad because the only thing wrong is that they are out-gassing hateful vindictive derisions concerning delusions of demographics, and they seem ready to start a war about it.

Other people can pretend that isn't happening. They can go against the ranting idiot, without going against the narrative that they use in the sense of crafting their hateful screes of blame against others.

OK, so we see it lately. We see some who go on about the 'some ethnicity' or 'some nation'. We see them with their 'It's the [some nation]' who caused the bad things to happen. It can be anything. The Temple Mount, the American Presidential election, the fate of Socialist nations, anything: there always seems to be a giant chorus of people who go on about said topic. And paint all of History as if it hinges on that small part.

And here is the sick part of it in terms of the government: the socialists, who call themselves Democrats, they demanded over the years that the government tax to excess to fund what those socialists thought were the worthy causes. Meanwhile with a limited process for auditing. And the real flow of capital and into whose hands.

Collectivization, doing away with the efforts of private people, the 'charity' serves as a landing pad for any of that moiety to go and run it, use it, be the 'leader' and fund their own lives from the coffers of what is deemed a 'charity'. Because they know what is right and good? Outside of taxes.

And then they bully for the cause, shill and shame for donations. They might be yumming it up to the pill-fueled party town, cha cha cha. I'm making her up. She's got a giant appetite. She's ready to mingle. Get her back to her flight so she can make the early roll-call at the state house. But, really, her heart is back in Boca. Cha cha cha. She's a fantasy girl and she's got the keys to five agencies. She sets the very many budgets and they all bring her favors. She's a fantasy girl.

So meanwhile real people, who need, really do need. And no one is going to not help them. That is why there are service industries actually dedicated to real service, outside of the conga line. And outside of the 'save the world, win parTy-favors' mentality of cha-cha-cha phat-girl power freak dimbulb-matrix.

Yes, such a person doesn't really exist but we almost wish she did to explain the ridiculous way that, after having solved the vexing problems of poverty and low wages, and the whole culture of welfare, with all of it's satellite private businesses that feed off of the welfare crowd, we aren't just helping the truly needy, we always knew that. But now we prop up a whole free-lunch mentality for all of the office holders in all of those for-profit for them with their paycheck 'charity' that 'helps' the 'poor'. And they weren't making enough off of it, and it is now considered an entitlement, and each participant means money in the bank for these people, represents a profit, so the more on the roles the merrier. And thus do they open the flood gates, and bring anyone from anywhere. Flood the roles with names. Let's register them all to vote. If anyone says not to it, we will bully them and name-call them. And we'll think of cute reasons to hate those who we blame and be bold about saying it and promoting our own fallacies as real thought, and actual helpful ideas, fist bumping, or thumping?

And it's all made up. There aren't any people really like that? Are there? No one would ever profiteer off of the welfare system, would they? No one would flood the roles so as to collect more profit from all of the associated vouchers?

The fact of the failure of socialism world wide is evidenced by the huge numbers of 'refugees'. The real questions that should be asked are to look for those who decided that the events that lead to the refugee problem would need to go-down in the manner as such.

The question: why are there so many refugees? Why so much turmoil in the world? Could this have been prevented?

And we get an answer: nations don't do what benefits their populations but do what the thralls, owned by . . . . and we don't have a proper nominative . . . owned by fallacy? . . . the nations do what the nation-holders want them to do. In our case we have what I call the 'brain-dead-tocracy' who, suffering from what I term 'Institutional Dementia' decided that an all out war against various factions would suffice it for the next generations. So they went after those who they felt were 'threats': Kahdaffi, Assad, and others.

If this were a science fiction novel this is the part where the author disclouses as follows:

"

They were totally under the sway of leftist oriented global governance mongering jelly-feeding submissives of the pill-pot scrum, some of whom may have already gotten the implaints . . .

"

So the real truth? About world socialism? No, about the banksters? no? About the banker bankers? No?

The real truth is the profiteering. The real truth is the power mongering. If it were banking or socialism, both of which are necessary in parts, the real truth: the people must be fed. The socialists say: we must be the ones, and the only ones, who feed the world. Anyone else is counter revolutionary.

And so, getting back to the point of today's scree: the Democrats because they don't like the president, hold the whole process hostage. And after demanding that only the government can help the poor, and only their programs be installed, and only they be the ones who profit: they hold the whole process hostage like petulant children, and they've gotten away with doing that for a few generations, by now.

In 1975 when the democrats had a secret coup, they got away with installing socialist policies, and running schools and governance like an arm of the Stazziu. They may have been taking their orders from them.

What makes sense? Or is it jut delusional conjecture?

the Stazzi installed their system here. They installed Merkel in Germany, and they are puppets/puppeteers of what they delude to be international socialism, a failed ideology but still existant in zombie form. SI. And that is why things in the world these last 20 or so years all went to shit. And these puppets/puppetmasters are total failures.

Is this true? I have no way of knowing, for real.

and you not going to have that fight. If SI were real, and actually as bad as events seem to indicated, if you met an actual person who deluded to be on that side would you ever explain to them that you know all their shit, and you see how they've tricked the world, and that most of the violence and hunger, of the world, can always be traced back to them meddling in things that already work? And trying to collectivize things that will fall to ruin when collectivized?

And if they were real they'd have a counter narrative about the bankers and the capitalists. And they'd say that all fo the evil stuff that you say about them, which are lies, lies, damn lies, they wills ay that it's the bankers or the banksters, or the capitalists.

You might then cutely ask 'your relatives? is that how you know so much about them?'

But why? Why engage peopel so deluded. If you think about it you've know perfectly nice bankers in your life. And you've know perfectly nice socialists, or socially forward and community oriented pepole. And then the aggrigators for cause, they come stompting thruogh. Whatever delusions they envision in you, they weave a web of lies to draw you in to their sphere of control. If they are of the kind who delude to be the rulership class, if they feel overly important and omnipotent, as if it is they, they who rule, and you, you are the neophyte without a clue: you must bow to them and service them or . . .

who would deal in such a transaction? Why would yu give authorty to someone who is a creep and abuses their power? There will always be bankers, because the robbers will still be out there lurking, and there will always be socially conscious people trying to shame others into doing the right thing. Its the ones who farm that kind to do wht is desired by the moiety of unknown causes, to be a cog in an unknown machine, churning through the sod of other people's lives wtihout regard for the needs of the individual. It's the ones who try to horde it all for themselves, and no one else gets a piece or has a say. You might label such 'supremicists'.

So I've found a cute word to tag them with. Let's hope that people don't start making that word a prison, or a gulag, and concentrating all of their enemies into it. Magical thinking? Is it magical thinking that makes people become power mad and delude to their supremacy?

And to answer the question: are they villains? Not from just being a socialist. Not from just being a banker. It's the one who looks for villians, who is supreme in the delusion of this vision, and then performs mitigation against their opponents: that is the one who might be the one who . . . needs to be given another look. If they can't see a person and just see a fallacious archtype in some other, and they want to fight . . . that is the one who needs mitigating.

Oh, no, you've stepped in it now, using the term 'mitigating' to suggest that a truculent political bully needs to be dealt with in some reasonable way that makes them comprehend that their name-calling and story telling is causing problems.

But I can make a general rule, and I don't require that you follow it: if you are causing problems and being forward and truculent against people for whom you hold destain or feel loathing, then you are the one who needs to stop. You put your self there with them, in a fowl mood, and you accost them with your own delusions: you need to stop. You need to put yourself somewhere else.

We give in to the understanding that some people are like that, will not back down. We give into this by having police and security who can bounce someone into a cell or out the door. And so, my suggestion, and it's rather easy, take yourself out of the conflict that is just unnecesary chest thumping.

Now if your job is provokator or revolutionary and you have an obligation to act? Get another job? But you have no choice, the battle is on going? I walked over here. I started talking about these things. I have no explanations about why some people do what they do.

In conclusion: look at the person and judge them as a person, meaning, WTF do you know about them, really? Unless you are on a real jury, or a real prosecutor, you have no right ot confront strangers about their political ideology and get violent with them, or disrespect them and their families. Be they banker or socialist or both or neither, neither do you know anyway, or even about your self, your own selfishness, your own wicked self-dealing and nepotism. Slay that dragon. Lead by example. Stop labeling others. It might be all a rouse they do just to enlighten you. How could you ever know if this is real or if this is bardo, who you should love? Everyone. Who you should hate: no one. What you should hate? Their sins, your own sins worse. Stop judging to condemn. Discerment doesn't have to include hell for your foes and those of whom you disapprove. The heaven that you make for them is the heaven you might end up with your self. Don't cast them to a hell of your own creation. If you make a hell for anyone you've built it just for yourself. Stop trying to understand eternity, what will be some time in the far future, when we are really all back together, as if that ever will or has happened? If it does, you know it does. And you know, then, not to hate anyone. Or to say 'I hate your sin', when you have so much of it yourself as shown by your quick focus on what you see as being wrong with others.

The other side of it

The other side of it: when people decide to no longer put up with wickedness.

How are they eer really sure? About that?

It's complicated. You don't have to live within the rules of someone else's disfunction. You really can make new rules that are better for you. Don't expect anyone to follow them. So it has to be done in a way that they must agree to your terms. Or you don't deal with them. So does that leave you in a limbo of lonliness and without friends?

Yes, we must weigh the difference between being ecumenical and being a patsy. And err on the side of being ecumenical. But if you think you can swim in the same pool as somoene who likes to urinate their often? Should you frequent the coke bar? Should you go where the junkies go? Hang out in a place where people shoot up? Are you 'judging' them if you choose to not hang out there? Should you throw away all of the title that you own from an old favorite author who, now that you found out some more things about him you kind of disrespect? Burn them in your fire place? Sell them on ebay? Give them a thrift store? Sell them to a stoner? What do you do with them? You don't want them. You won't read them. They aren't for you. He was your favorite author. Now you think, oh, well, whatever. Never mind. Give it away is my guess. Or put them in a box and leave them in an attic some where. The publishers still have title to it all. It's not like your throwing away the last copy of that book? Like if you were thinking 'oh, the legacy of it', why is it your responsiblity to keep up a tainted legacy of a discredited sot of a dead writer who, once, so loved, now seen so differently, in your eyes, these many years later. The portroit of the man as a young street hustler has fallen from the wall and lays skewed, on the floor, an example of how idolatry always fails. Fame is manufactured. People do things when they are young just to survive. Yes, some of them were very immoral and very much users and takers, the giving, it never happend. It was all just a deal gone later over, bring me, take me, have me, let me be your idol. Just tonight. Now don't bother me anymmore. I must move away. I see this place as haunted, this town, this whole coastline, those high mountains, why do I need to travel there? What will I find? Who will I meet? Just fools on the road to nowhere?

So a mad season of feeling anger towards your dead idols? You can symbolically do whatever you want to their artifacts. Nothing good or ill will come. Maybe if it's valuble people will question your sanity in tossing away the artifacts of a passing age. They will question as to how this beautiful, signed, first edition of such a famous and well respected artisan of the literary craft had ened up in a markdown bin at a Savers in P{awtuckaway New Jersey? All of these first edition . whoever he was, and these orginal hand signed prints, all still in plastic, and a beavvy of collectible material. Groupy stuff from the 1960's. Old copies of famous underground newspapers, coveted by a certain kind of literary creature, who loves the dust.

Like deleteing 12 years of a blog. Why not? No one reads it. Who cares? It's stale, by now. No one cares. Delete and repeat delete.

That is what you can do to your own stuff, your own collection of schlock from the past, or what you deem to offend you. When you dictate that to others, confisating and burning their collections, you've crossed a very sad line and become a social asshole who, quite honestly, has lost his way (her way? whose way? in the weigh?). So, I'm all for social awareness and sheding the old skin. But making a big display and saying "see how holy I am. I shed that past and now and free and clean.": even that is a distateful display of fetish behavior.

Most people? They'll donate the books that no longer interest them, and not make a display of the behavior of shedding the fallacies of their past. Heroes? It's whoever works out for you at the time, what you percieve to be the righteous way, that works for you. You get more information? People become less important? the famous who you once admired you now see as pitous, for whatever reason. Have you become jaded? Have you lost your way? Why can't you keep it up, this fan-boy behavior, into your fifties and sixities? why can't you stil have those idols? As long as it is not idolatry, what does any of it matter. If you understand what it is, and why you ahve whatever it is that you collect, than so it is. But when it's time to shed, don't wait. Don't ask the question 'why don't I still care about old author whoever?' why do I not want his books clutering my shelf? What should I do with them?

Put them in a box. Sell them on line. Donate them to a store. Whatever. Just don't put any more thought or condemnation upon it, and move on with your life. Simple?

July 25, 2017

 
dunt 

dun


dunttt

blah blah blah blah

You never know what delusions are on tap at the Amillia Pub.

Sean!

  

Love
People!

    
    
🖐morning
clover🖐

these can get you banned from school?!:
🔫 🚀 🚙🚤🚣c🍀⚜⏲⏱⏰🚣🚣🚣
🚣🚣🚣  🚀  🚀🔨🔨🔨⏲⏱⏰🚣🚣
🔨 🚙 🔨🔨🔨🔨🔨🔨🔨⏲⏱⏰🚣🚣
⏲⏱⏰🚣🚣⏲⏱⏰🚣🚣⏲⏱⏰🚣🚣

spinfont unicode-isms
🍀 Praise God! 🍀
🍀⏲⏱⏰⏲⏱🔫⏰⏰⏲⏱🔫⏰⏰🍀
🎠 
🎠 
🎠 
🔫
🔨🔨 
🍀 Praise God! 🍀

 

🚀 🚙🚤🚣c🍀⚜⏲⏱⏰🚣🚣🚣
🚣🚣🚣  🚀  🚀🔨🔨🔨⏲⏱⏰🚣🚣
🔨 🚙 🔨🔨🔨🔨🔨🔨🔨⏲⏱⏰🚣🚣
⏲⏱⏰🚣🚣⏲⏱⏰🚣🚣⏲⏱⏰🚣🚣
🖐

🖐🖑 🖑🖐

Here is today's pretty poem:

  

fallen idols
fret not over them

    

🖐 🌙 🖑
🖑🌛 🌜🖐
   
 🖐🖑

🖐🖑 🖑🖐

 ♥♥?
Blathertational


 🖐🖑
🖑🖐


glossary of what's next
 ♥♥? : 

Be nice to yourself and others. What other choice?

What we have done
What we have failed to do.

Wake up!

 
 
 

wake up

♥♥ Praise ♥♥ the ♥♥ Lord ♥♥ !!

end of column