BOOK REVIEW: “Macro Cultural Psychology: A Political Philosophy of Mind” / Carl Ratner

Posted on 01.30.2013 by AlwaysQuestionAuthority

Society—especially capitalist societies, but also some earlier types such as feudalism—is divided by class, with a minority constituting a ruling class that lives by exploiting the direct producers. Thus, the majority is exploited and hence oppressed.

[…]

. . . [O]ne of capitalists’ favorite ideological ploys: individualism. We are the masters of our own fate, not society and its culture. If we fail, it is our own fault. We simply did not try hard enough or follow the right path. Individualism favors self-blame and a refusal even to look for social causes.

[…]

Enforced subordination calls forth coping reactions and leads to identities grounded in how well we manage to cope.

Examples of this kind of coping include what can be called “the good soldier” and “the sexy woman.” In the former, a person prides him or herself on the ability to demonstrate undying loyalty to a superior. In the latter, a woman prides herself on her ability to manipulate men in a world where men are dominant.

Read more . . .

I’m not proud of ‘my’ country – it isn’t mine (morningstaronline.co.uk)
Be ruthlessly free of society psychologically (teachingsofmasters.wordpress.com)

HISTORICAL REVISIONISM: Chris Hedges / “White Power to the Rescue”

Posted on 01.29.2013 by AlwaysQuestionAuthority

[…]

Memphis, on the eve of the Civil War, was one of the biggest slave markets in the South. After the war the city was an epicenter for Ku Klux Klan terror that included lynching, the nighttime burning of black churches and schools and the killing of black leaders and their white supporters, atrocities that continued into the 20th century. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in Memphis in 1968.

[…]

[Black journalist Ida B. Wells] investigations revealed that lynching was fundamentally a mechanism to rid white businessmen of black competitors. . . . [T]he lynching[s], she wrote, was “[a]n excuse to get rid of Negroes who were acquiring wealth and property and thus keep the race terrorized and ‘keep the nigger down.’”

[…]

The steady rise of ethnic nationalism over the past decade, the replacing of history with mendacious and sanitized versions of lost glory, is part of the moral decay that infects a dying culture. It is a frightening attempt, by those who are desperate and trapped, to escape through invented history their despair, impoverishment and hopelessness. It breeds intolerance and eventually violence. Violence becomes in this perverted belief system a cleansing agent, a way to restore a lost world. There are ample historical records that disprove the myths espoused by the neo-Confederates, who insist the Civil War was not about slavery but states’ rights and the protection of traditional Christianity.

Read more . . .

ECONOMICS: “Extortionists Versus Con Men” / Paul Krugman

Posted on 01.18.2013 by AlwaysQuestionAuthority

One faction basically wants to use the party’s power of obstruction: threaten to provoke a crisis over the debt ceiling — in fact, do this again and again — and thereby force Obama to implement the GOP agenda.

The other faction wants to achieve the same goals by stealth. Pretend that what you’re really concerned about is debt and the fate of our children; cultivate the Very Serious People and the deficit scolds; impersonate a budget wonk; and smuggle the agenda in by dressing it in fiscal responsibility camouflage.

Read more . . .

CHRISTIAN BIGOTRY: “After Louie Giglio Bows Out, Some Ask If Conservative Evangelicals Are Welcome In The Public Square” / Jaweed Kaleem

Posted on 01.11.2013 by AlwaysQuestionAuthority

Now that the Rev. Louie Giglio, the Atlanta pastor who was going to pray at President Barack Obama’s inauguration but came under fire for an anti-gay sermon he gave in the mid-1990s, has bowed out, some conservative Christians and evangelicals have began to ask: are they welcome in the public square?

[…]

The inaugural committee says that Giglio’s comments on gay people “don’t reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this Inaugural” and is seeking someone else to deliver the benediction. Who should it choose?

POLITICS: Amitai Etzioni / “The Conservative ‘Party’ Dominates”

Posted on 01.11.2013 by AlwaysQuestionAuthority

There is a very widely shared myth about “Washington.” Accordingly, there are two camps, the right-wing GOP and the left-leaning Democrats, who are more or less matched. Each control one house of Congress, and command about half of the electorate. Hence, the gridlock.

Actually, much of American politics over the last four years or longer should be understood as a contest between the conservative “party” (most of the GOP and good part of the Democrats) and a liberal minority party. . . .

Gridlock exists when one party pulls east and the other party pulls west and, hence, nothing budges. This is not the case in Washington. Here, most times, one party wants to move east and the other wants to stay put. Thus, what appears as gridlock is actually one conservative blocking victory after another. The fact that the last Congress passed only half as many bills as most previous ones does not trouble the conservatives one bit.

OP-ED: Thom Hartmann and Sam Sacks / “The Founding Fathers Versus The Gun Nuts”

Posted on 01.11.2013 by AlwaysQuestionAuthority

Sorry, gun nuts, you’re on the wrong side of our Founding Fathers.

For example, in a tirade against CNN’s Piers Morgan, Alex Jones argued, “The Second Amendment isn’t there for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government.”

It’s an argument that’s often echoed by gun nuts – as though their fully-loaded AR-15 with 100-bullet drum will keep them safe from Predator drones and cruise missiles. If indeed this is the true intent of the 2nd Amendment, protection from the government, then here’s the newsflash: you guys are woefully outgunned. And the 2nd Amendment would have allowed you to own a cannon and a warship, so America today would look more like Somalia today with well-armed warlords running their own little fiefdoms in defiance of the federal government.

But luckily, this was never the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the Fist Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

Continue reading . . .

CHRISTIAN MISOGYNY: Matt Dillahunty and Tracie Harris / “Atheist TV host boots ‘piece of shit’ Christian for calling raped girl ‘evil’”

Posted on 01.09.2013 by AlwaysQuestionAuthority

If I were in a situation where I could stop a child rapist, I would, that’s the difference between me and your God.
~ Tracie Harris

Read article and watch video here . . .

h/t: Kenny in Pacific Grove, CA
h/t: AlterNet.org

ATHEISM: “In Good Company”

Posted on 01.06.2013 by AlwaysQuestionAuthority

h/t: The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science

NDAA: Chris Hedges / “The Final Battle [Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)]”

Posted on 12.24.2012 by AlwaysQuestionAuthority

Over the past year I and other plaintiffs including Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg have pressed a lawsuit in the federal courts to nullify Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This egregious section, which permits the government to use the military to detain U.S. citizens, strip them of due process and hold them indefinitely in military detention centers, could have been easily fixed by Congress. The Senate and House had the opportunity this month to include in the 2013 version of the NDAA an unequivocal statement that all U.S. citizens would be exempt from 1021(b)(2), leaving the section to apply only to foreigners. But restoring due process for citizens was something the Republicans and the Democrats, along with the White House, refused to do. The fate of some of our most basic and important rights—ones enshrined in the Bill of Rights as well as the Fourth and Fifth amendments of the Constitution—will be decided in the next few months in the courts. If the courts fail us, a gulag state will be cemented into place.

[…]

[T]he NDAA is not about protecting us. It is about protecting the state from us.

Read more . . .