Archive for Politics

Income, Health, Peace

Posted in Ethics & Morals, jobs, Medical, Politics, Sustainability, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 24, 2019 by Drogo

SCOD Political Points – Income, Health, and Peace

These 3 political topics are connected.

INCOME – is the way capitalist that most people in the world sustain payment of bills for the basics of life (food, water, shelter), whether by employed work (jobs), market earnings, sales price pay, or grants for being who you are and a living human. Inadequate income leads to zero savings, debt, and homelessness; unless another economic sub-system solves that problem of modern life. Jobs require good health, otherwise they will not be able to do the job, not even be hired, or simply be fired.

 

HEALTH –  includes Environmental Health and therefore Ecology. Health Care services require income. Maintaining a person’s healthy body depends on how dangerous their environment is, and how much stress they have (both of those factors are peace related).

 

PEACE – means peace of mind and physical non-violence in larger proportion to war or disturbance, for more happiness and love. Peace of mind or psychological health depends on enough income to feel that responsibilities can be met, and physical health (of course). Many of us feel that although death may bring ultimate peace, some aspects of life can too when we reduce fighting and promote more tranquility.

 

*

Advertisements

The Truth About the Green Party

Posted in Ethics & Morals, Politics, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on June 29, 2019 by Drogo

Regarding the main-stream corporate propaganda lies –

Despite corporate conspiracy theories, the Green Party does not like Putin or other terrible leaders like Trump. Hillary and every corporate politician was up the ass of corporations and Putin lackeys more than Stein was, which actually makes sense because Putin is Capitalist and his associates did business with Trump and Clintons. The example that comes to mind is the uranium deal, but im sure with international business there are plenty other examples. Jill Stein never even met with Putin, but did attend a well covered diner that other leaders were invited to for diplomacy. Corporate politicians would be way more influenced by Putin’s corruption than Jill Stein for Gaia’s sake.

It is by default that RT and Aljazeera (sp?) other foreign media outlets allow non-corporate American opinions more than main-stream US corporate media does. I have been studying this for years. Our own government tends to label environmentalists as extreme terrorists, and corporations have no interest in supporting us, because the Capitalist economy is not green enough yet. If Green Party people were biased for people or groups it would be environmentalists and naturalists.

As a member of the green party who has been studying active environmental leaders in our movement, I have never found ANY true evidence that we are unpatriotic or take support from foreign leaders. From what i can tell, our budget and foreign influence are both very small. Our influence on the 2016 election was smaller than those liberals who voted for Trump or wrote in Bernie, or stayed home because the system is so rigged in favor of the two party system. Some of us even voted for the hope and change of Obama. We wanted the first female president to be Jill Stein, not a corporate tool.

Regarding the Russia-gate hysteria conspiracy theories pushed by Clinton (see Wikileaks emails which were real where she said “Let’s push the Russia story”), and the corporate DNC and media (Maddow), that is covered in essays about that distraction from the real reasons that Hillary Clinton could not beat Trump, and how the DNC rigged the primary. That whole distraction, which wasted hours of my research time, was ended by the FBI report on Trump and Russian “meddling”; which concluded that the only evidence of foreign influence on our elections was feeble propaganda that does not compare to our own efforts to over-throw other governments.

Concerning real democracy and the right to vote for more than 2 choices, that is covered in essays about civil rights and popular vote elections. Do parties have a few bad apples? Sure, but I am sure that most environmentalists and Green Party members do not agree with the Unabomber or other terrorists, or wanna-be dictators like Trump or Putin anywhere. Would I take Green-Peace money to run for office? Sure. Peace-out.

– Drogo H.F. Empedocles

Why Bernie Sanders is the Only Choice Left in 2020

Posted in Economics, Environmentalism, History, Politics, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 29, 2019 by Drogo

Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders is the only choice Left to be president in 2020 because his record is so consistently close to the philosophy of FDR and MLK; sorry corporate DNC. The DNC got to run their corporate candidate last time, and Hillary Clinton (a corporate brand name) lost against Donald Trump (WTF?). The DNC blamed Russia and Environmentalists, and called fellow liberals evil “russians” just like the Republicans did during the Red Scare, with all of the blacklisting and pinko bigotry that came with it during the Cold War; but they found out that some of us are sick of that crap and the brain-washing does not work on us. Those of us resistant to the dictates of authority, prefer the intellectual chaos of real democracy over submitting to the fake rhetoric and lies of corrupted power.

So yes the DNC has been running fake progressives using their corporate money, but the false hope based on lies is fake enough to see through for anyone who studies political ethics even as a hobby. As Killer Mike, Nina Turner, and Cornel West have been saying “The proof is in the pudding.” Sanders may be truly as far left as lesser known candidate veterans like Kucinich and Gravel, but Sanders has proven tougher and has had more popularity than any other politician since 2016. Sanders is so much closer to MLK than anyone else running, and for so much longer. I love some of the others too like Tulsi and Yang, but they do not have as many decades of experience in politics. Bernie is documented as being involved in the 1960s Civil Rights movement, like perhaps most famously in photos and film taken when he got arrested for chaining himself with blacks in a 1963 protest. In economics and environmentalism Sanders is very scientific in his policies [Green New Deal]. Sanders is on record working with Bill Nye the Science Guy to explain to people that the science of climate change is real, and in the Senate Sanders actually forced companies like Walmart and Amazon to pay their workers more. There is no doubt that Sanders can do what he says when he has enough support.

All the other candidates for president in 2020 (including Biden) are imitating his Social Healthcare platform basically in the main aspects, and some can do it better than others. Biden really cannot because he is too corporate crony, and the worst kind of two-faced politician. Sanders pulled the entire DNC more left for sure, along with grass-roots social movements like ‘Black Lives Matter’ and environmentalism (both tending to embrace the non-violent methods of MLK and thus also represent a surviving Peace Movement). The DNC is rigged, and both parties will try to rig the national election again in favor of their corporate donors, but Bernie may have enough support it wont matter, because he certainly has even more support than last time. Corporations and rich ducks have to decide who they want to negotiate with before mobs are sick of yelling, and do not want to talk anymore.

The fact is that Plutocracy can use their money and power to take out any politician or citizen they want, and get away with it legally as they have done before with the assassinations of JFK, JFK’s brother, MLK, and potentially others that are hard to prove due to the nature of the system. Our own Oligarchy usually uses other less lethal means to rig elections (using the electoral college, supreme court, gerrymandering etc); and character assassinate using blackmail and the corporate News Media. However there is only so much the CIA, NSA, HLS, SS, and FBI can do, even including assassinations. They may have to buckle down and allow corporations to negotiate with Sanders, or risk worse violence against their profits from mass movements like Occupy or Yellow Vest (working class of France). This happened with FDR. FDR came closer than any other world leader during WW2 to satisfying labor rights, even those who claimed they were socialist. FDR was not assassinated because plutocrats must have seen him as a way to keep the system from collapsing; yet FDR made the New Deal which taxed the rich corporations heavily and created a prosperous 1950s middle-class who could actually afford to buy products and property.

With FDR our Oligarchs (big business, plutocracy, and MIC) must have realized they were not going to get another leader sympathetic enough to both the poor and the rich to allow the system to function and stop a complete revolution (as in Russia or Germany). Somehow the powerful leaders allowed FDR to win and distribute wealth fairly enough to allow the middle class of the 1950s to buy their crap. Let’s see if industrial corporations, rich aristocrats, and militant bigots figure it out again this century.

By the way, violence is not the only thing that can bring the far Left and the far Right together. The wings of politics merge at the ends of Civil Rights aka Individual Liberties. Populism works politically because it draws support from both the Right and the Left. Sanders is certainly the most proven populist, as his popularity proves; and not even time-tested scary propaganda about evil communists can stop true populism. Trump won as a fake populist, but his record as a con-man was there all along. People want a real populist now more than ever, since MLK and even FDR.

– Drogo H.F. Empedocles

*FREE Audio recording of me reading my essay onAUDIOMACK!!!*

*

Environmental Populism

Posted in Economics, Ethics & Morals, Military, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 5, 2019 by Drogo

Green Populism and Socialism in Politics

For Victorian pre-world-war historic context (1800s) please study the rise of Capitalism, Marxism, and the writings of Charles Dickens to understand the reactions to industrial pollution and corruption. Real conversation about terms like ‘socialism’ and ‘environmental’ are way over-due in our corporate media world, and they are scared the truth will affect their cold war industry. The truth is while military corporations benefit from new ‘Berlin Walls’ both physical and psychological to feed the war machine selling arms to all sides, the truth will also come out if Sanders is allowed to debate Trump, and they know that. The only way corporations will allow a debate involving a real progressive populist (not fake like Trump) is if the people push them to do it. it is true that the old generation of corporatists will use the term socialist that Bernie embraces, and communism against him, but for those of us that see through it we want to come out of the closet and fight. when working people can actually understand the terms and know who fights for them, i think that will be the change.

The best leaders reflect popular causes for peace and populations as a whole. Gandhi, MLK, Sanders,,, I voted for Jill Stein as a politician reflection environmental protesters. The main environmentalists in politics currently are Democratic Socialists (Social Democrats*) like Sanders, Gabbard, and AOC, they have taken up the Green Party progressive mantle with the Green New Deal and are serious because they fight the MIC corporate cronies. Personal habits which are part of micro-trends do affect systemic change when they reach critical popular mass and directly affect the laws we make the way we conduct business; but it is not just bottom up, because top down also happens like how federal laws arrest people for pot; so more people catch on to something popular when it is also legally supported, like recycling for example. The more government supports recycling, the more people would do it and the more businesses would help people to do it.

One of the hardest things is to explain main-stream corporate and popular propaganda to people who have a million other things to do; but that should be the job of an ‘honest politician’ (a term considered an oxymoron). People should actually know what cultural terms are affecting the World, like ‘progress’, and how their own lives are affected by who they allow to be in charge, either by their activism or by their apathy.

*[see Kyle Kulinski’s Secular Talk shows where he explains the history of the terms Democratic Socialist vs Social Democrat]

aoc 4

What most conventional corporate party members do not understand about new Progressive Populism, is that it includes people on both the left and the right; thus Trump’s lies resonated, and they said they would have voted for Sanders but not Hillary. Progressive populists are for the Green New Deal and Universal Health Care and against the elites of the DNC and RNC. Some Populists are more conservative, but they want jobs and health care so they will vote for the candidate that convinces them they will give them security. Economist Mark Blyth contributed to a conference where experts in several fields unanimously concluded that our political paradigm will shift left and right, back and forth, but increasingly more towards Progressive Populism (AOC Green New Deal) where if successful it will lock into a new political structure.

2 Climate Change Theories

Posted in Artificial Chemical Products, Climate Change, Commercial Corporations, Critical Commentary of Civilization, Military, Science & Math, Technology - Vehicles, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 3, 2019 by Drogo

Scientific vs Corporate

The main climate change theory i will call the Scientific Climate Theory presented by the majority of scientists is that artificial CO2 and other man-made (in addition to natural) factors are primarily contributing to overall global warming, which causes climate change in various ways, sometimes temporarily cooling during warm seasons (which seems like a contradiction but is not because the overall trend is warming according to annual temperature averages). This consensus in Science is supported primarily by Centrist Left Wing and Radical Liberals politically, who believe that the time for debate is over and it should not be a political issue because it is true and not just an opinion.

The minority climate change theory i will call the Corporate Climate Theory, supported by extreme skeptics of science and government (deniers), is that environmentalists are lying about the data evidence to hide that most of it is naturally either being caused by Solar irregularities or Geo-tectonic magnetic seismic shifts and volcanic activity or both. This is the side that defends those totally uninterested or ignorant in climate science as well, who doubt there are any problems with pollution that can affect global conditions. One of the issues they bring up is that storm flooding (cold) and (heat) droughts are opposites, and should not both be results of global warming. This proposed paradox does not take into account the melting of the polar ice which raises sea level, and the chaos that can result from this regarding flooding and more severe storms, freak cooling periods in some areas, but overall prolonged intense heating of the global atmosphere. Minor theories are usually supported by Radical Right Wing Conservatives and Libertarians (Corporate Centrists tend to pay lip service and not want any action on it), who believe no one should interfere in the rights of corporations to pollute, and are currently dismantling the EPA, NPS, and other branches of the government under Trump.

So to summarize, both agree that there will be more severe climate chaos like weather that is out of season. The Scientific Climate Theory says that artificially caused CO2 pollution from industry and agriculture is mainly to blame, as it can clearly be shown to increase during the Industrial Age of civilization, and not anytime in human history before this. It does have some similarities to pre-historic massive volcanic periods, but other chemical evidence and current factors rule out volcanoes as the main cause in CO2 levels currently. The most extreme Corporate Climate Theory is our government is lying to us to hide that our Sun is growing closer or more intense; which can be debunked by talking to actual scientists who observe the Sun independent of the government, and that it would make no sense for the branches of the government like the EPA or NPS or Pentagon to give false support for environmentalists, because most of the government is controlled by Corporate interests, and they do not benefit by belief in environmentalism. Corporate Green-washing is not what interests people who care about quality of life for all animals and humans, nor the military who takes the threats of Climate Change seriously due to the causes of wars that are tied to natural conditions like resources, property, shelter, and all the economics related to environmental issues. The money being made by Scientists or environmentalists currently, still pales compared to the profits of fossil fuel polluters, so the theory of profit motive causing scientists to lie about climate data is bunk as well. The debate is over for rational thinkers, but the corporate socialism vs democratic socialism debate is just beginning for a world run and terrorized by capitalists.

The Problem of Real Science and the Bias of Money

Posted in Artificial Chemical Products, Climate Change, Commercial Corporations, Ethics & Morals, Legal / Laws, Sustainability, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 31, 2018 by Drogo

Regarding Corporate Science Corruption

 

“How do we find out about the real science behind corporate chemicals?” is a great question. There are major court cases that are on-going and are finally exposing how scientists (not just politicians) are affected by where they get their funding, as other historic cases have shown before. Activists are attacked by people claiming to be the voice of scientific reason who defend corporate science, although they seem to know less about the corporate details involved with how the business world affects science and our environment (not just politics). It is very difficult to get people interested in large scale safe environments above immediate MONEY to supply specific food, drink, and shelter for individuals and loved ones…. until those things are taken from us; but then without money we lack much power within the system, and we are accused of emotional bias, as though corporate lackeys are objective. ‘Ring of Fire’ on Youtube has lawyers involved so they are covering the news about these issues, with a bias that is dedicated to exposing how corporations function by using science for their profit as the structure of their power. It is not true that companies use science for purely objective reasons, or that they would allow themselves to be subjected to ‘objective’ science if it did not benefit them, and in fact they do everything within their power to make sure that they can control studies in their favor.

Is there any way to know if the ‘peer-reviewed’ information has filtered out any bias towards the company? This is the best way to ask the question about our most ‘objective science’ regarding company neurotoxins and carcinogens. No offense to scientists, but it happens like with the Oil and Tobacco companies, pay-checks often come first for families. It does not benefit employed scientists to admit to bias, it just simply affects their way of interpreting data and conducting tests. Nuclear scientists are more prone to be in favor of things that cause nuclear radiation by down playing the risks which are acceptable costs for them in favor of ‘advancing science’ and getting their funding. Every profession is subject to this problem of economics, so i am not picking on scientists, i am an architect and many of us are rational and brilliant too, but profit influence happens in our field as well because it is the system that hires us that is on trial when it comes to environmental science ethics. Environmental peer review for Climate Change seems to be large enough to have not been as corrupted in the favor of companies as much as specific chemicals that companies produce to sell.

With so many billions of dollars at stake for corporations like Monsanto (GMO and Glyphosphate Science), our courts and scientists may not even be aware of how to be objective when their own family members have bought into the propaganda that allows them to pay their bills and provide and protect their loved ones. As with Oil Companies and Tobacco Companies, we should assume that toxins can affect us and our environment, and those that produce them should perhaps be more responsible by being held accountable. Few people will not be biased in one way or another, but real science should be the goal, not corporate greed. If it sounds like I am describing a fictional dystopia, perhaps the reader should be more realistic about how Capitalism actually works in reality (our EPA is in ruins in 2018). The larger problem of real science and the bias of money that affects us all will continue to exist so long as we allow our government to be influenced by corporate money at the highest levels, more than they are influenced by environmental ethics and a desire for more ethical science which means being more objective than the influence of money (which is asking a lot). People are innocent until proven guilty, but if a provable crime needs to be investigated we need to let the evidence decide if people are using corporations as tools to corrupt politics and science, and harm humanity in favor of profits for the few.

As an architect i take rationality and logic about designs very seriously, so i do not believe scientists are alone in wanting to take credit for knowing how we interact with our environment and how we can make technological innovations for improving humanity by using ‘facts’. “Peer reviewed” does not mean scientists do not all have their own human biases regarding how data is interpreted; that is part of my point. “Purely objective” as a philosophical ideal is worth talking about for the sake of science and law enforcement and ethics etc… This issue of the influence of money on science (and every profession and field of study) will not go away, but it is one we should deal with honestly in studying the sustainability of civilization. Peer reviews are not exempt from being reviewed over decades, with new conclusions drawn.

 

 

 

Philosophical Anarchism

Posted in Cooperative collaboration, Critical Commentary of Civilization, ecovillages, Legal / Laws, Sustainability, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 29, 2018 by Drogo

Anarchy is absence of supreme government leaders, company authorities, or laws. Anarchism is rejection of central state or group hierarchy for collaborative democracy and independent freedom. Anarchy does not mean ‘let chaos rule’, but can be messy as individuals express themselves voluntarily. Lack of direction from a boss can be scary for many who prefer to be told what to do. Another problem is the political vacuum of anarchy allows despots to use charisma and power to shatter the ideal potential of anarchy and democracy, and create populist structures of obedience to corrupt state systems.

Anarchy is a natural feeling for many people who have an intuitive reaction to any perceived authority over them; which maybe related to our pre-history. Civilization is considered new and brief compared to thousands and thousands of years when humans must have lived more or less like other wild animals with no writing, and no language rules, in primitive anarchy. This anti-authoritarian type of human nature can manifest in complex egalitarian cultures, and thus can create advanced anarchy systems based on cultural capacities. Proudhon considered anarchism to be a political philosophy for “stateless societies based on voluntary associations”. Having no desire for authoritarian companies or governments, anarchists often try to organize and maintain voluntary institutions (like SCOD).

Labor unions (aka trade unions) are groups or collectives of workers, organized to represent their job interests within capitalism. Unions are similar to trade guilds, except they are often employees of companies that need to negotiate with bosses using social pressure and collective protest bargaining, with threat of striking vs lay-offs to enforce contracts. Safety standards, living wages, and benefits are labor themes.

Philosophical anarchism often relates to democracy, communism, socialism, and labor unions because they all are systems to empower workers to control leaders, companies, and governments by the people being responsible for their power. The term ‘worker’ (proletariat) represents the bulk of citizens or their families, and therefore the masses of society. When the workers have to power to vote directly and frequently on their bosses, companies and governments become decentralized and depend on social networks and sub-cultures.

anarchy

[see also Mondragon, Mother Jones, Emma Goldman]