To the Table of Content / List of All Posts
There were three main reasons for me to move from Russia in the US.
Well, to stress my frustration with the actions of current politicians on both sides of the political isle. Because the actions of the current politicians will greatly affect my own living 15-20 years from now, and most probably, in a negative way (I have another post on this matter).
Thinking is a mental process requiring the host to be able to manage and navigate his/her thoughts in a specific direction. In order to enact thinking, the host needs to be aware of the broad context, of the informational landscape, of the map (so to speak) of the relevant knowledge, and also has to be able to operate with a large set of mental entities ("juggling several mental balls at the same time").
Nowadays, we could paraphrase Marx's approach by saying, that the reason for a social change is a large and growing disconnect between the way wealth is being created and the way wealth is being distributed. For example, in the last 30 years the large portion of wealth creation has been shifted from manufacturing to financial manipulations (this is not the only shift, but one of the most visible). However, the structure of the wealth distribution has not changed (only a very limited number of people can participate in this type of wealth creation), and as the result of that, a vast portion of newly created wealth has been funneling to a tiny percentage of a population. When all financial gains go only to the top, but all the losses are spread over the working folks, no worker will really care about fundamental theory of economics. Instead workers will be looking for the "Savior", a.k.a. Trump (and someone needs to tell this to the Democrats). Infamous “income inequality” is not the actual problem, the actual problem is income insufficiency, i.e. when a large portion of a population is poor and - which is much more important - has no real opportunity to change it. For the Republicans, true people are only those who look and think like them. The Republicans base their policies on the assumption that most people (not them, though) are lazy and stupid and need to be guided through life by a strong shepherd. But the Democrats cannot offer anything better because they simply don’t have any philosophy about human behavior except “people are nice”. Hence, the only idea the Democrats came up with is "redistribution of wealth via taxation". But the majority of big donors to the Democrats do not feel good about redistribution of wealth. Money talks louder than the ideals, especially if those ideals are very vague, not specific.
For decades, using its enormous economic power America has been able to attract the best and brightest minds from all over the world. Clearly, the world is very different today than it was about 70 or even 30 years ago (the "runners" are not so far from each other anymore). But WMAE does not want to accept this change as a fact. Hence, all decisions WMAE makes are based on the models which do not describe the current state of the world. Hence, the results from those decisions will inevitably contradict the original goals those decisions had been made for.
What the Republicans should start doing for their own sake is making sure that people who will eventually come to the power will be educated enough to use that power for the benefits of all, including them, the Republicans.
BTW: the best thing what the retired President Obama and his foundation can do for the Country now is to initiate and run a deep investigation into why millions Republicans, and them millions of Americans selected voting for Trump over all other candidates. Of course, if he is brave enough to face the results.
But the most important lesson from the "wall situation" is that the Democrats refuse to see how important the problem of immigration is, even for many liberally-inclined voters. And the majority of Americans want to make the immigration policy tougher. For the Democrats it is a chance to present the policy which is tough but humane (in contrast with what is happening now).
"Republicans say America is for Americans! We, the Democrats say that America is for ALL Americans! Many people who came here illegally have become Americans and deserve the path to the citizenship. But only after we close the doors for future illegal immigration. And we don't need a wall for that. We may block the parts of the border by a wall, or a fence, or anything our border patrol will recommend us to do. But our weapon will be our humane approach to people seeking entering our Country. We will not separate families. But we will return them back to the country they cam from. And we will give them a chance to apply for refuge legally, in their own country. For that we will boost our embassies, we will work closely with the governments of those countries to ensure that no one returned back would be harmed. We will significantly increase our media presence, we will make everyone in those countries know that the only way to enter America is the legal path through our embassies. It will take money, it will take resources, but those resources are nothing compared to how much "the wall" and refuge camps and ICE intensification would cost to us, to the U.S."
I already said that the Democrat have no idea about political machinery. Otherwise they could win all the tight races. They should have embraced independent candidates. "We, Democrats, out country ahead of us! Our mission in these elections is to defeat Republicans, if independents could do it better than us, so be it. But we will also fight tooth and nails. We make an agreement with all non-Republican candidates, that two weeks before the election day we all turn to support the candidate who has the most chances to be elected, to beat the Republicans". If they would have started this strategy a year ago by now people, the supporters of the other candidates, would have get used to the idea to vote for the Democrats, and would give them the edge. BTW: that is what the third party really IS for! Democrats have political advisers who hvae no knowledge of political history at all.
10. The Russia card is being played by the both parties, and both parties do it in the stupidest way possible.
There are many parameters used by economists, sociologists, politicians to assess the overall state of the society. For me, the society is in a good state when the majority of its people feel themselves more or less happy. In the end, the missions of the government - from my point of view - is to help people to feel happy about their life, because that means people feel fulfilled, successful, confident in the future. And the simplest way to assess the general state of unhappiness is to look at the rate of a suicide in a country. According to data, since 2001 the total number of suicides in the U.S. has been steadily growing.
Hence, from my point of view, everyone who says that the country lives better and better is a liar or an idiot. Period.
We live in the degradation phase.
Why is it happening?
Everyone who still has this question should re-read this post.
Or read this book: https://youtu.be/tPk9HSLagVg
I hope you understand, I have more examples. Some additional are on this political blog: http://www.the3dforce.us/ - lots of posts and the matter.
Some Shorties (a.k.a. tweets):
It sounds like tautology, but simple things are simple.
2 That's an exaggeration
1 Better be ready to the worst-case scenario and be happy it does not happen than hope for happy ending and be crashed
2 Nah, too much work
I don't get NO PACs. Shouldn't it be? "You want to give me your money and help me to win? Go ahead! But know, it is on you. I owe ANYTHING to you. Not now, not ever".
After the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh
By electing Donald Trump America marked the end of the era of American exceptionalism. There is nothing new - from the point of view of human history - in electing an opportunist who rides a wave of populism addressing emotions of an angry mob. This process has a name "elite degradation".
I know that calling Democrats "gutless idiots" is not nice, and may even be not polite.
So, why do I use strong language?
To make a point. To stress the striking difference between how Chuck Schumer, et. all, represent themselves ("smart and fearless fighters") and what their actions actually tell about them.
Of course, I do not use such language in my everyday life, I follow general social conventions. But I believe that many people confuse what means "being polite" and "being nice".
On February 21, 2017, I wrote an open letter two four top Democrats, where I laid out the strategy for countering out Donald Trump. If that strategy would have been adopted, we would not have to push Democrats for an impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice. In followup publications I explained why my strategy has not been adopted.
I still hope that in November Democrats will take the Congress back. However, I am positive that if that happens, they will make a very wrong conclusions from that victory. They will think that people again love Democrats more than Republicans. In realty, it would only mean that people finally hate Democrats less than Republicans. And this is why I predict that even if Democrats will take back the Congress, they will not be able to demonstrate to American people anything positive - action-wise (remember the Bush-era?). And because of that, they will be crashed in 2020.