4 comments on “PROLES – OCEANIA – AND NEWSPEAK

  1. “…that any nation worth it’s salt is one composed of individuals who in their individuality find a common language and common goals – not Unpersons who can be ignored and written out of history or the national dialogue.”

    If that is true, has any nation been worth it salt?

    • I could respond by saying “This raises many issues that would take considerable time to
      discuss or debate and even simple yes or no answers could need further explanation “, but
      I believe the answer is fairly obvious.
      And that would be as this particular blog implies, a nation, or nations, that in the majority prioritizes the common welfare.
      Among the indigenous nations of this country even though intertribal warfare was common
      among each individual nation the common welfare was the priority, especially among matriarchal nations like the Six Nations Confederacy whose leaders were appointed by or removed by the women.
      A model given by Deganawida the peacemaker that worked so well it was lauded and portions of the Constitution modeled after it.
      The Hopi would be another example as would the Dineh, though there is a post European influence leading to an erosion that has created divisions between traditional and progressives.
      Whether a nation is worth it’s salt is subjective and depends on a number of things such as culture.
      The way China is governed for example might be acceptable to a majority in China but wouldn’t be here, and their nation is beyond the continental boundaries and the influences of the diversity that exists here,I don’t believe China lays claim to being a representative democracy either.
      Leadership requires at the least the pretense of being receptive, we’re not seeing that here – what we’re seeing is a flagrant abuse of power that will attack any dissent and more than willing to denigrate anyone or any demographic who doesn’t tow the line and sing Hail to the Chief.
      The bombast that worked for Trump during the campaign isn’t working now and rather than “pivot” the response has been to push the envelope.
      In the blog Half Mast you spoke of what you considered an unwarranted anxiety arising within a 48 hour period of time post inauguration – do you maintain in the face of an increasing amount of “prima facie examples” that they are insufficient cause for anxiety and alarm?
      You also said America has just gotten fed up with politics as usual – I’m assuming that includes cabinet and advisory positions going to Wall Streeters and a privileged upper class, if so, and if you voted for Trump on the basis of being fed up with business as usual can you point out an example of the swamp being drained?
      The global perception among allies has been America was worth it’s salt, but with these allies being kicked to the curb and the Trump isolationist agenda the anxiety level is not only well founded but prevalent in the bargain.
      “Rogue” sites populated by current and former employees of government agencies are emerging, one said to be created by WH staffers providing a behind the scenes view of the current administration isn’t exactly confidence inspiring if true.
      Undoubtedly they will be branded as heretics – I would say the opposite, that they are patriots who believe in an informed public and transparency when the welfare of a nation becomes the issue and escapees from the cuckoo’s nest have overrun the seat of power.

      https://bgr.com/2017/01/30/donald-trump-vs-white-house-rogues/

      In addition there has never been nor will there ever be a perfect people or perfect society, a reality that fails as a mea culpa when it comes to deliberate intent, and so the metric becomes the degree of imperfections – how many and how much is acceptable?
      How many rotten apples does it take before the contents of the barrel become tainted?
      How many imperfections are relatively benign and how many are destructive?
      In the end if it becomes a matter of majority rule then it also becomes a matter of what
      constitutes a majority – is it a disembodied entity like the Electoral College or the popular vote?
      I’d say a shining moment for this country was the Marshall Plan and made it worth it’s salt, but then one could say if making a tally that the invasion of Iraq based on the fabrication of having WMDs and the U.S. being the only nation to employ nuclear weapons and in doing so opening the gateway to an arms race tends to dull the shine.
      One could say that the civil rights movement and subsequent act were shining moments, but if making the same tally would have to address defunding Planned Parenthood that targets the most vulnerable placing them at risk tends to take the shine off as well.
      Voting rights acts were shining moments but the gerrymandering of districts and ongoing
      conservative efforts to create obstacles for exercising that right are designed to negate it and only shine with a glow in the dark toxicity.
      It always seems to be that if a positive step forward is taken it must be followed by one
      or more steps backwards.
      Ultimately this is a nation mired down in conflict and a lack of seeking common ground,
      the result of ideological differences between political parties that does not prioritize the common good.
      The word patriotism has become synonymous with blind allegiance to a political party – I
      submit as I always have that patriotism has a deeper meaning and responsibility.
      That it is a patriots duty to acknowledge and address imperfections that exist and actively work to remediate to them rather than make excuses or bristle at the mere calling of attention to them – the taking of an oath in and of itself is not enough, nor is pledging allegiance to a flag, any flag.
      Whenever patriotism has failed to do so the results have been predictable and often catastrophic.
      Shining moments and salt as a measure of integrity or business as usual and salt as an irritant to rub in wounds?
      The choice seems obvious and yet apparently difficult to make.

  2. I was referencing globally but you are right that historically the Nations were worth their salt before the post-european influence and also recognizing that between the Nations there was enough bloodshed and conquering before the European invasion.

    I didn’t suggest that the anxiety was unwarranted, just the opposite really, “It’s barely 48 hours and there’s anxiety over things that have not even happened. Deep breaths, and let’s see what develops…the failures will then be apparent and have some teeth.” The anxiety is justified, just a little premature and over-reactive, notwithstanding that there’s no question we’re in unchartered territory.

    I’m in a bit of a conundrum about the past eight years and would have very little positive to offer, however, at the very end the President did the right thing, so for that reason I’ll temper and measure my opinions and remain grateful over that action.

    One thing that does get me fired up is Hollywood…I could care less what some over paid progressive-leftist-actor with a platform has to say, and when Fonda (we’ve talked about her before…and for the life of me I don’t understand why she wasn’t prosecuted for treason or providing aid to the enemy…but then there’s Bradley Chelsea Manning). The hypocrisy is untenable as they are so far removed from everyday people.

    Curious you mentioned the bomb. After some recent research; we didn’t need to, or have to drop them. So, we live with that. Truman and Leslie Groves can take the majority of the blame there.

    Thankfully there are those in the middle and right who are speaking up, but perhaps without enough strength to slow down the momentum. Time will tell.

    • The Fonda Viet Nam thing was before my time though I’ve read some about it which led me to discover that the French had been fighting the same battle for twenty years and then pulled out.
      In kind of an expansion related to that I read about the Korean War, then Iraq and Afghanistan, what struck me was that following WW2 the U.S. arguably hasn’t been able to claim a clear cut victory in conflicts it’s been engaged in.
      Viet Nam was as much a fiasco for the U.S. as it was for France – and that “peace with honor” thing Kissinger presided over looks suspiciously like cutting losses and getting out.
      The North began overrunning South Viet Nam before the exhaust fumes had dissipated from the airlift so what was accomplished?
      I doubt there is a military solution to terrorism unless it’s a scorched earth policy, which in Trump’s twisted mind with Bannon his Rasputin whispering in his ear may be the approach that’s taken.
      I don’t have a problem with Fonda’s anti Viet Nam activism- it was activism that brought the nation back to it’s senses and led to the withdrawal.
      But I would draw the line when it came to going to North Viet Nam and doing the photo op thing.
      As far as celebrities there is a plus side and down side, but the mere fact that they are a celebrity neither validates or devaluates their opinion.
      If a celebrity can garner more attention to an issue we might share that’s a good thing in my opinion, but I find it laughable when someone like Miley Cyrus trolls the internet claiming they’re going to become an ex pat if Trump wins and doesn’t follow through.
      For me it’s like Miley Cyrus, does anybody actually care?
      A contributing factor to the problem in ndn country besides the more obvious is that as nations we’ve been coerced into modeling tribal governments after the very government that has created the problems we’ve endured – a model that lends itself to corruption, nepotism, and cronyism.
      I’m not a revisionist in any way, shape, or form, and while there are those who don’t like it I’ve never had a problem acknowledging that intertribal warfare was a fact of life, we didn’t learn it from foreigners.
      During the “wars” atrocities were committed by both sides – but I would also ask if we fought against an invading force why is that any different than the European countries who did likewise during the world wars? How is it any different than any other country that has?
      It wasn’t my intention to imply that the nations are no longer worth their salt, and that wasn’t what I said – I mentioned that the euro influence has been a corrupting one and pointed out differences between traditionals and progressives.
      A lot of the communal problems we face would disappear if we all adhered to our traditions and the manner in which they shaped us as a people, and I believe as people of the nations we are no less obliged to speak frankly about the issues in our communities and confront them just as I’ve said “patriots” should when it comes to problems in this country.
      I guarantee you that if our system of government was tradition based, there would be no gangs, no drugs, and crime would be all but non existent.
      As to the bomb, Eisenhower was opposed, said Japan was on the verge of folding and using it would lead to a nuclear arms race and a loss of global prestige.
      That coupled with his remarks about the attack on the veterans bonus camp and his industrial military complex speech indicates that he was a Republican cut from a different cloth than those who call themselves conservatives today.
      And I suppose it is for those reasons conservatives seldom speak of Eisenhower and fixate
      on Reagan.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s