Human Rights, On Oppression, On Structure, On Transphobia, On Violence, Social Science

On the Resurgence of Trans Hate

Leave a comment

A couple weeks ago, Peter J Reilly of Forbes published an article about the O’Donnabhain V. Commissioner case that went before the IRS a few years back.

The article references the article in the Michigan journal of Gender and Law by Professor Kathryn Platt regarding the case, where she analyzes and examines the particulars of the case itself — and it is this that I am focusing on for this post, because of a recent event:

The confirmation of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General.

The rise to that position of a racist, homophobic, and transphobic person bring these arguments to a new forefront, and especially the way in which the arguments noted by Professor Price were used in court — because these same sort of arguments are almost certainly going to be used again.

This has bearing for the legal and advocacy word, in particular the USPATH (United States Professional Association for Transgender Health), because of the fact that the same groups behind the attacks made in that case are now behind Sessions, and he has long had a close association with them and used these arguments himself.

One of the hallmarks of those who argue against human rights, in this case, the specific human rights of trans people, is that they prefer to argue in areas where fact, truth, and science are not held in high esteem — the court of public opinion, where they can capitalize on fear, anxiety, aversion and animus to win over people who make laws.

These arguments do not always work in court, unless the judges themselves are  part of that group — the recent decision by U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor is an example of this sort of active, intentional bias contrary to fact on the part of a Judge as a consistent and enduring act of opposition to human rights.

This judge was intentionally sought out on that basis for the ruling — just as he has been actively sought out in similar cases of opposition to human rights, destruction of human decency, and the use of structural harm. Bodily Integrity and access to health care are just two other cases where this judge was hand picked for his subservience to a source outside the law.

The three primary angles of the legal argument that are liked here all stem from the writing of the incompetent, dishonorable,  and pseudoscience supporting views of one Dr. Paul McHugh.  In his writings,  McHugh asserts that

  • Persons who “claim” to be transgender are delusional,
  • Transness is deviant “behavior,” not a condition of being or disease, and
  • Gender confirmation surgery (“GCS”) should be prohibited as “collaborating with madness” and a moral “abomination.”

The judge so chosen actually cites the ideas so prevalent when he blocked the legally requiring of states to cover surgery for trans people who are subject to the treatment of the state.

So these attacks are on the very systemic medical and scientific basis of transness as a whole.  The playbook, if you will, or those who oppose human rights contains many variations on this kind of foundation attack.

McHugh is of the camp that trans people “need their minds fixed” — that is, that this isn’t an issue of physiology, but rather of mentality.  He is, then, promoting the same ideas that held sway for several decades among many practitioners, and ideas which are consistently proven false through actual sceintific study.

It is worth noting that his ideas are, under the current treatment protocols — or Standards of Care — unethical and without any scientific basis.  These ideas appeal to the layman, and provide fertile ground for animus, aversion, and anxiety to flourish, though, and so despite their lacking any real basis in truth or fact — including ontologically — they continue to appeal, and judges do not always give credit or value to experts in the field in large part because of his work to discredit the entire field.

This becomes key, because as AGUS, Sessions has to deal with the legal ramifications of Transgender people and the law.  This despite Sessions’ own faith not having an issue with Trans people, per se given that Transgender Ministers are ordained within the church.

Gay and Bi people, however, are not so fortunate, and expressly denied much of this. As Sessions is suggested to see Trans people in the old “really gay, but pretending to not be” vein. this bodes poorly, especially given the action taken this week regarding the aeal of the stay on the Trans restroom in colleges issue.

This is brought up because it may provide us with a means by which we can urge local Methodist leaders to counsel Sessions in to supporting trans rights, but even then it is unlikely to have an effect, given that most of the folks he hangs with are of the “men in women’s rooms” variety.

However, there, Sessions is subject to the reality that their complaint does so, and as AG he has to acknowledge, in court, both  that by ordering trans men into restrooms he is indeed  putting men in women’s rooms, as well as having to ind a way around the argument that he ihimself has made previously about concern for those who are not trans using being trans as an excuse.

He is, then going to have to argue that one should treat one group of people poorly in order to deal with a completely separate group.

And make no mistake, the restroom issue is where much of this will find ground, and the focus will be on the inclusion of Trans people under title IX, and the idea of sex as being inclusive of trans people.

“Sex change” will become a term that is most likely going to be involved — and here the move away from the somewhat pejorative description has a chance of weakening the arguments in public.

His record, then, is decidedly anti-LGB — and for reasons that are thoroughly based not in law and justice, but in religious convictions that are immoral and anti-christian.

(The devil’s greatest trick was not in making people stop believing in him, it was in taking over the churches that opposed him)

His racism and misogyny are also well established, and with the understanding we have from sceince that such things are well linked, it will be very incumbent on trans men to be actively involved int he fight, as he will discount any trans woman, and in particular any trans woman of color who happens to be bi or lesbian, outright.

 

American Ideals, Constitutional Crisis, On Agency, On Elections, On Fundamentals, On The Resistance, Progressive Ideals

Reprise: 25 Hours a Month

Leave a comment

(Download this post as a pdf: 25 hours)

One of the things I like to point out is that the changes we seek to achieve in the sociopolitical world can all be done by a concerted effort of 20 or so people in each legislative district devoting only 25 hours a month to the effort.

That includes transportation time, btw.

If, of those 20 people, 5 do a little more, all the better.  If those 20 people are joined by however many who lack transportation, even more so.

You need either a phone or the ability to get somewhere — only one of those is necessary.
Can’t go anywhere?  The phone becomes your tool, and it is especially great since with the upcoming limitations on voting. So what are the 25 hours?

First, there is homework, so you know how to spend those 25 hours.  The homework consists of finding out the following information:

  • Your Precinct
  • Your City councilman
  • Your County representative
  • Your State legislators (both chambers)
  • Your Justice of the Peace
  • Your School Board
  • Your judgeships (where they are elected)
  • Your Congressmen: House and Senate
  • Where the offices for all of these people are.
  • What the phone numbers for all these people are.

All of this should be put into a single sheet of paper, laminated or whatever, and keep it handy.  You will, for the next several years, need it.  Be prepared to change it when elections happen — elections you are seeking to influence.

Now, for the last bit of homework, you meet with as many people from your area as you can — with the goal of making that group into about 20 people, by any means you can.

When you meet, you pick 10 issues that all of you care about. Talk about it.  These are the things you are for.

They need to be specific issues — you don’t need to focus on how to do them, just that they are things you think need to be done. These issues should apply at the city, county, state and federal level.

Then you begin planning your efforts out.

So, for the 1st hour: Go to the office of your city councilman or alderman. Get to know the staff. Don’t worry so much about meeting the Councilman or whatever — you are there to get to know the staff. As people.

When you visit an office, do 3 things:

  1. Ask for an appointment to sit and speak to the Representative. You will, most often, be directed to a staffer in charge of that area of interest.
  2. Get the names of everyone you speak to. Take pictures. Ask them how their families are doing — get to know them as people.
  3. Be clear that you are a constituent. That you are someone they represent, and that the way you are treated will reflect in how all of you in your group will vote.

These are key things because they need to know that you are a voter for them, not someone who is just basically threatening them.

A group of voters is always a very visible and startling sight: especially one that takes names and photos and has written questions, concerns, and points of what they expect. So bring along with you other people in your area — another reason to go to your Precinct meetings, but also reason to join indivisible groups in your area.

The photos, if they ask, are for a “group newsletter”. Because you are a special interest group — the most important one, if not the most moneyed one.

Also, be sure to get any position paper you can from them.

These things will be done when you visit any office, every time you go.

Basically, you are going to make friends with the staffers.  You want to make friends with the staffers because then they will give you both more import and your voice becomes louder.

Which means it is really important when your Council person is not of the same political party as you.

That is one hour a week, in general, and you’ll be doing that for a few years — not gonna lie, this is the long game.

Do not go and bother city council people for other districts.  They don’t give a damn about you unless you are doing some event that will benefit them and you have an issue that they consider part of their whole platform.

After about 3 visits, you start with the requests.  Remember, it is important that you be *for* something, not just against something. You need both a carrot and a stick.

So we are now at 4 to 5 hours a month (we’ll call it 5). Now add travel time: couple hours for the month. So this is 7 hours a month.

Next up, is your County people.  30 minutes a month, unless they double as city (some places do).  30 minutes of travel time.

Same rules as before, same goals.

That’s 8 hours a month.

Next is your State Representative(s). Once a month, one hour, unless they are in session in which case it is weekly.

We’ll make that another 7 hours, so up to 15.

Then you have your State Senator. You can often hit them up in the same visit, but, just because, let’s add two more hours a month.

You also have your governor — once a month. Two hours — one travel — for them.  That’s 20.

Then you have your federal Representative. Two hours a month here — and some of that is making phone calls or writing handwritten letters that you actually mail. With stamps and everything!

Do not email. Do not post on social media unless they are really big on it and very active (and if they are, they likely aren’t doing their job).

That’s 22 hours.

Then you have your Federal Senators: three hours a month, one hour for each.

That’s 25 hours a month.

That is it.

Now, if a group of you — 3 to 20, all of them actual constituents, do this, believe me, they will start to pay attention to you when you show up because holy cow, that *never* happens, and when it does, the media is usually around.

But that’s another reason for all the photos.

IF you get treated poorly, you make damn sure the media — your local television stations and local newspaper — hear about it.

If you get treated really well, you do the same thing. This is important — they love good press.  Its like butter on a biscuit.

Now sometimes you will not be able to go to some office.  So use that time to go to a different one.  Do not stop, do not give in, do not give up.

And encourage others.

Others who cannot go out themselves?  have them call.  Don’t use a script, just give everyone certain points and let them say them for themselves.

Write those handwritten letters — don’t tell sob stories unless you are dealing with one, specifically, as part of your 10 goals (remember them?  use them, all the time).

Doing this over the next several years is a daunting thought — but assuming that you don’t get bit by the bug, lol, you will be able to make a change to the way that even hostile legislators operate, and if we do the rest of the work — agitating, voting against bad folks, running candidates even if they might lose both in primaries and in generals — we can make a change in everything that will be amazing.

Do this for six years, and we can change the world.

The entire world.

We can undo anything thrown at us.

So it really is a matter of being persistent.

Of forging forward even when we are warned and we are explained to, we will persist.

And still be able to have a life — one that we are making better.

 

On The Resistance

Flashback: The Tunnel, The Train, & The Hand

Leave a comment

(Dyss Says: This is another older post — this one from 2009 — found on a different site and returned here.)

Hi friend

We saw each other tonight, I believe, and I’ve come home to find this outpouring.

I’m Dyss. Its been a long road to get here, and earlier I was talking to someone during the meeting about how its really a lot like the whole tunnel deal.

It is a tunnel. When you start out, the light is still at your back, and its comforting, and you can still see it and know that you can always turn around and run back.

You are, right now, still there. Still at the opening really.

As you go on, it will get dark, and just before it gets dark, you will notice the railroad tracks leading into the darkness, and feel the ties beneath your feet, tripping you a little sometimes. You’ll fall, scratch your palms or elbows or knees, too. IT will get so dark you can’t see anything, nothing behind you and nothing ahead of you.

You can see that part of it from where you are now, the light still at your back.

Its pretty damn scary.

And as you go along, you will enter that really scary part, and it will be too late to turn around without getting lost. You’ll have gone too far to make it back.

And then, into that darkness, you’ll see a light come into being.

and the first thing that will cross your mind is “here’s the train”.

Then you’ll wait for it, and it’ll still be there. And you’ll think, “oh, wait, no…

That’s the light at the end of the tunnel.”

And you’ll start to welcome it, this light in the darkness.

And then you’ll realize that it is indeed the train.

At that moment you’ll have a choice — to step aside and let it pass, to turn and run back, trying hard to get back to that comfy arrangement, or to stand there and let the train hit you.

I’ll be horribly blunt. That train hurts like a son of a bitch when it hits you. IT will seem to cripple your soul, break your heart, shatter you sense of being.

It will take from you everything you love and cherish and need and want.

And it will leave you feeling mangled and bruised there in the dark, the rough stones around the ties in your wounds, the cold steel of the tracks against ya.

Then you can get up, dust yourself off, and walk a bit further, and then you will see the real light at the end of the tunnel.

And as you get closer to it, you will get back everything you lost — and then more and it will all be better — but all of it will be different as well. Not the same, but there nonetheless.

That’s transition.

And when you finally walk out of the tunnel — maybe after some surgery, maybe not. This isn’t physical; this is spiritual, emotional — this is heart and mind and soul and spirit, not flesh and bone and blood.

When you walk out of it, you will find that the land isn’t milk and honey, but it sure as hell beats the grit and grime of the other side. And you will have, as I noted, more than you started with, if you can stop long enough to look around you and see it.

Transition isn’t about what *is*, or what *was*. It is all about what *will be*. The future is what matters — the end of that tunnel. Not the past, not the present. Not now, not then.

But you know what’s really great about transition?

You aren’t alone in that tunnel.

All of us are in it with you.

So pardon me while I wipe the dirt off my hand and reach it out to ya.

But ya look like you could use it 😀

On The Resistance

Flashback: One Little Girl

Leave a comment

(Dyss Says: This post is originally from January of 2010, and recently rediscovered on a different site, but it belongs here, and so here it will return.)

So I get this email, see.

I get a lot of email. One of the benefits of being as open as I am that I am purposely so — my email address is fairly simple to get.

This email came from someone who does not comment on my blog, but reads it.

She reads my other writings as well — including some arcane stuff that predates my present life, much to my surprise.

And in it, this email, this soft and kind and pleasant missive that is really quite inspiring (for, like anyone else, I do like to hear — nay, need to hear — that what I write helps or inspires or creates positive effect, and it keeps me going), she asks me a question that comes from reading so much of what I’ve written.

Why do I always posit myself as a little girl?

It’s a good question. Really good, as it goes deeper than people might realize, although the source of it is still quite surface based, seemingly inconsequential, until you look at the way it resonates with me.

I would be surprised, of course, if most of you have not heard of the film the Matrix.

I mean, as a piece of cinematic art, it’s not exactly the greatest story ever told, but in terms of the behind the scenes effect and the way it changed the focus on how to make money with movies, it is, singularly, one rather important film.

It is not my favorite film. Indeed, I resisted seeing it for a great many days, as it was too popular, too strongly beloved, and the only reason, in the end, that I actually did see it is because I was fixing computers and it happened to be a hell of a good way to test out DVD drives and software at a time when the underlying changes in the architecture were being done.

So, over time, I got to see bits of it, and then, finally, I ended up watching it.

In the film, there is a line spoken early on. The heroine of the piece (later reduced to a sad pastiche of tough damsel that does little credit to either the actress or the series) is Trinity.

I am under no illusions, nor do I have fantasies of being akin to the woman in skin tight, shiny black leather.

She is in a room, and there are police outside, and the police are getting ready to raid the decrepit building she is in. Agents show up.

The lead cop and the lead Agent exchange words, as the Agent wants him to pull people back and get them out, and to this request the cop says some stuff and then ends with…

“I think we can handle one little girl.”

To which the Agent responds “No, Lieutenant, your men are already dead.”

One Little Girl.

The correct view, then, is that I do not see myself as just a little girl, but rather as One Little Girl.

When the line is spoken, the Lieutenant, an older man, who using the reference as a sort of shorthand for saying “she’s lesser, she’s weak, she’s unimportant and not a threat”, does not know what he is dealing with.

He is acting from a position of ignorance and unenlightenment, thinking through things on the basis of what he has been taught and has observed, a strange conglomeration of belief and illusion and reality.

It is so strong, that even when in the presence of someone who has authority, he laughs off their warning. He denies the possibility of his being wrong because she is what he thinks she is, not what she actually is.

His men die.

That one little girl is, herself, trapped between the world that is enforced on her, and the truth, the reality she knows. This conflict exists at the heart of the very film itself — the struggle between what the world around you sees and shows you, what your own senses and feelings and ways of knowing the world around tell you and what is, in fact the reality of it all.

The hero of the piece, of course, must find this. It’s spoken of later in the film, when a teacher asks a student “do you think that’s air you are breathing?”

The reality (in the film) is that it is not. And that by reaching beyond the *apparent* reality to the greater truth and reality, you gain great powers.

But the one little girl has trouble with this. She cannot, wholly, reject the world around her. And it is a weakness that places her in danger — for Agent’s are not bound by the same rule, having a privilege, an expectation that is outside that world.

And so, rather than fight, she runs. By the end of the whole series, of course, she has overcome this to an even greater degree, but nevertheless lacks the inner strength to step entirely out of it and gain the powers that her boyfriend has gained as a result.

But she comes pretty damn close.

Now, it’s possible that I see some of these deeper things in the development of the character of Trinity because I personally find Keanu to be about as worthwhile watching as a wooden stick in a grass field.

It’s good as a reference point that lets you actually see the grass growing, but outside of that not much real value.

Since I’m the horrible sort that completely deconstructs the entire story premise of a film or show usually within the first 30 minutes in my head (I’ve learned not to do it around others), the value of the character played by Keanu is pretty negligible, and that means I can enjoy the deeper subtext of the rest of the film.

Now, on the other hand, put someone I do like in the role, and things get challenging (I’m only lately able to watch Matt Damon and the delicious Daniel Craig films without being lost in the actors, lol).

Not that there’s a lot for most people in a film like the Matrix, but that one line, and the things surrounding it, meant a great deal for me.

This is all rather boring for most. Trans folk do this sort of thing all the time.

At the time of release, however, I was not in transition. Indeed, technically, I was still in denial.

And all of that meaning and depth was still there for me. Indeed, I like the films more for that than the incredibly cool visuals that accompany it and are responsible for its success.

The pressure was mounting, of course. About the same time as the film was in theaters, I had just had a rather ugly incident with my ex, where she presumed that “Elle” was another woman with whom I was having an affair, having found the first thing I’d written openly and expressed regarding my being trans in at least 10 years.

Yes, it’s true. I was my own Other Woman. Which, if you track my habits prior to my marriage, has a really cute irony to it that fits well with an exchange from a recent Bond film:

“You aren’t my type.” Bond says. “Oh, too smart?” He’s asked. “No, single.”

(yes, I was a bad person as a guy. I say that, but not sure people really get that. Given how I feel about bad people, well, now you know why I say “past life”. That person is dead, and I’m rather happy about it.)

So I managed to get through that with an interesting chunk of deceptive actions and using her own denial of what was actually fairly plain and allowing it to become a case where she thought I was cheating on her. It was better, at that time, than the alternative.

But it didn’t exactly do me much good in terms of the actual issue, and so, when I began really diving into the online escapism I used about that time, I became a woman online.

And I used that description then.

One of the quirks to me, that is somewhat different froj many, is that I had the privilege of losing my male privilege long before I actually lost it, because there was nothing I did online that wasn’t as a woman. Indeed, I had some great issues with it early on, and there will be some problems associated with it in the future, but that’s how it goes. That’s what happens sometimes.

We make mistakes.

In any case, I started using one little girl way, way back then, and still use it today, as it’s kinda a part of me. It has a strong resonance in me, as one little girl is always easier to underestimate, and one tough chick is always easier to overestimate, and that gives me a sort of power, a form of privilege over those who would, otherwise, have privilege over me, as it allows me to use their own weaknesses against them.

In this case, it the weakness of not knowing enough about me, and yet they decide they want to act based on what they think about me already.

I am aware of it, just as Trinity was when the men surrounded her. And I usually feign some sort of surrender or allow them to feel as if their idiocy is justified and valid before, like she did, I demonstrate that the power of one little girl is never something to fuck with.

One little girl can change the world. You don’t need to be an adult, you don’t need to have power or authority or be of importance or be heard; the act itself of being one little girl who stands up for herself is all that’s needed.

One little girl. Singular, unimportant, nonthreatening, invisible in the greater scheme of things, and yet…

One little girl is hard to beat.

After all, it was one little girl who pointed out the emperor’s new clothes.

On The Resistance

On The Task of The Moment

Leave a comment

There is little in this world that cannot be achieved through a concerted effort.

If you doubt me, let me remind you we are in this situation right now because of a concerted effort.

Some people are still allowing the bitterness of the election affect them. Which does not change the results, does not make any candidate better than any other, does not make any candidate worse than any other — and if your focus is still on how *your* choice of a candidate “really is” better or worse than some other, you are precisely the person I am taking about here.

That is part of the tools used to divide us, the bullshit excuses that work to undermine our ability to realize that we cannot keep dwelling on what was, and remain mired in the neoliberalism of all the candidates that ran this last time.

Yes, all of them.

We need to move to a different paradigm for the purpose of liberty and freedom, and I want you to be focused on that.

If you disagree with me about that, well, fine — you go on and disagree and when you are ready to stop bitching about what we should be doing when we haven’t been in a position to have those fights since Truman was in office, and certainly not when the Red State leadership is just shy of the two thirds needed to pass a constitutional amendment that strips women, people of color, lgbt, disabled, and otherwise “offensive” sorts of any rights.

Oh, yes. That isn’t just possible — if they achieve that goal within the next two years, it is a certainty. Because the money behind those who are rank and file in the states is money that supports the big wealthy companies and people, yes, but also is the funding that has supported anti-abortion, anti-lgbt, and worked to undermine civil rights protections since 1980.

They are more than the religious right — they are the tea party, the gamer gaters, the white nationalists, the anti-feminism/pro-meninism, reddit bating, site trolling sorts that draw *anyone* who hates a group to their shores just like the way they drew lesbian separatists that hate trans women to their side.

And all of them have something they want, and so they will do what we tend to have a hell of a hard time doing — “saying ok, sure, why not, let’s fuck *all* of them over”.

There are “men’s rights activists” that will tell you “no, no, that’s not true”.  I swear it.  If you think that people couldn’t possibly be a certain way, then you are underestimating human beings — in both their capacity for being really awesome, and also their capacity for being really awful.

That isn’t smart. That’s like thinking that socialism or capitalism or agrarianism is going to solve the worlds problems — utopian and while noble, bereft of serious understanding of human successes and failures.

I happen to be absolutely certain that we can, over the next four years, essentially strip the current Regressive party politicians out of power at the local level and majorly dent (and gain a majority in the senate and close to it in the House).

I also am pretty certain that we can then conduct redistricting in 2021 to benefit us for the next decade, complete the take over of Congress in 2022, and over the next 8 years, maintain that control and make significant changes to the social liberties and economic freedoms of every day people that will have as much if not more impact on the future of the US than the WPA and related efforts from FDR & Truman.

And do so without really worrying about which of the currently seated federal level people is a good candidate for President because if we achieve the other goals, then it won’t matter.

The right has been focused on a constitutional amendment since 1985. The “moderate” republicans that we used to know of in the 1980’s, 1970’s, and even 1990’s are gone — they went independent.

The Republican Party — by platform and by general membership — is currently occupied at the rank and file level by people who are from either the Old Guard of Nixonian Politics (nearly all of whom are old, and in the Federal Senate), Anti-Tax Corporatists of the 80’s, The Religious Right, The Tea Party, or the Alt-Right.

There crossover between those three groups is enormous — we would call it the intersectionality of those three groups is enormous. iDJiT belongs to three of them.

They are, collectively, Anti-American — and by that I mean that the values they espouse are not american ones, and the goals they have are, by and large, illegal or detrimental to the well being of every population but white men with money.

I call them Regressives because they seek to Regress the nation to a point that the gains for minorities over the last 80 years are practically undone.

And among their goals is a constitutional amendment that affects marriage when they talk about it, but goes much, much deeper when they get down to the brass tacks of it.

Right now, the Regressives control 33 Governorships.  They need 34.

That is short one. They have 7 chances in 2018 to get that one.

They currently control enough state Legislatures to give it a shot — 34 of them.  They only need to increase their hold by about 300 seats overall to make it pretty much a given if they get the governors on board.

That’s how important the next two years are.

They are so close to being able to pass an amendment to the Constitution of the United States without us having even a chance of stopping them that the powers behind the Party are freaking salivating.

A lot of us will believe we can stop such a thing.  Just like a lot of us believe that by some magical cpacity to do so that Senate Dems will be able to stop a given nominee of iDJiT‘s from getting through.

Here’s the bad news: there is no chance in hell that they will be able to do that. That is entirely up to Republicans, who have enough votes and the power to kill any sort of effort to stop Gorsuch.

Which they *absolutely* will use, given the way McConnell just treated Warren in the Senate.

They can slow the process down, but they cannot stop it like McConnell did.

There are only 8 Republican seats up for re-election in the Senate in 2018.  If we can take all of them, we erase that — but there is another problem…

There are 23 Democratic Senators up for election in 2018.  Which means we cannot lose more than 5, even if we win all 8 seats away from the Republicans.

Ok, yeah, I know, I know, what about the other parties.  The Green party! Do you know how many elected Green party candidates occupy any legislative office anywhere in the United states right now?

Zero. On top of that, they are the second largest Liberal bloc of registered voters, and they are the 4th largest political party in the US, but they are not present in 6 states and most territories. SO they do not count.

The Libertarians are a conservative wing — Right — and they have more people elected at both federal and state level and are present in all 50 states and are bigger.

So, right now, when it comes to liberal politics, there is only one party that matters: The Democrats.

Which yes, fucking sucks, and that’s why the leadership needs to hear from us and why *you* personally need to freaking be down at the local precinct meeting. Because it makes a difference that you can see once you lift the blinders of cynicism off your face.

ok, ok, so maybe of the few dozen other poitical parties, the greens could grab the other liberal folks and they could all gang up together!

They still wouldn’t equal the Libertarian vote. There are three times more Right side parties than there are left side parties, for one, and membership in left side parties is very low outside of the Dems –but the Dems have more registered voters than the Republicans do.

So the linkage here is Green + Dem, and the effort goes to Dems on only one condition: they have the chance at winning where we need to win.

That’s facts. GO look it up if you must, but understand that I am not saying to be partisan about party, I am saying it because we need to win 8 senate seats without losing any and we need to win 10 governorships without losing any.

Remember the rule of the Hero: they have to fight overwhelming odds.  They have to achieve mission:impossible.

This is just mission:improbable; should be a walk in the park for us if we stop bitching about the little shit and get down to making it happen.

Which is really unreasonable of me, I know. I should be more concerned about the quality of the people that we nominate and all that. Well, I would be able to do so *if* there wasn’t around 8 decades of history of Liberals cutting their own balls off everytime shit hits the fan.

Just sayin. This is why I say we need to focus and base our pushes in Human Rights — and specifically human rights like in my line.  We have to stop breaking up into our little private bubbles and operate with the default understanding that we are going to do all those things at once, and that we need to be able to discuss how  only after we have the power to do that.

So yeah, sorry for being a bitch about it, but right now fighting about how we do something is pretty fucking stupid when what we first have to do is get the power to even do it.

And to get that power, we have to start at the bottom, for a simple reason:

That’s what the bad guys did.  That is why the bad guys have that much power. And we can do it — because we can run local candidates on small campaigns really easy.  City Council, school board, county leaders, JotPs, and, yes, State legislatures.

We need to own those. And because these are very local and people can see the people running and get to know them, we can do it easily even in Republican zones because, once more…

we are way better at organizing than they are. We are better at being nice and listening to people than they are.  And, we give a shit.

They don’t.

So get your ass into the dem Precinct in your area even if you are a die hard Greenie who hates everything about the Democrats.

Please. Because if you don’t, being a Green just means it will be easier to find you when they round up the liberals for concentration camps.

That isn’t that great a reach, either.

Most of this, as well, falls entirely on the shoulders of White People.

Are you white or light skinned?  This is your fight. I am light skinned, and I know damn well that this is the time I am needed the most by my brothers, sisters, and siblings.

And I know that even though many, many times I am accused of having privilege that I do not have, and even though many, many times I have been shit on by my Black and Native brothers and sisters and siblings as a mixed person.  Almost as many times as I have been shit on by white folks.

Do you know why it is mostly on us? No, it isn’t because of having to make up for centruies of racism. Or centuries of misogyny. Or centuries of anything.

It is because over the next two years, the opposition will do everything in their power to deny everyone else the right to vote and to make it as hard as possible for them to vote.

We have to change the minds of other white people — people who this last time voted for iDJiT or didn’t vote because it was a sure thing or didn’t care to vote because it was already too hard or they didn’t want to be called for Jury Duty or whatever the fuck else they said.

We have to do more than march. More than Protest. We have to make nice with mean as fuck, immoral, unethical nasty ass human rights hating people and bring them over to our side of things.

By any means necessary that doesn’t involve coercion or enacting violence.
When you visit an office, do 3 things:

  1. Ask for an appointment to sit and speak to the Representative. You will, most often, be directed to a staffer in charge of that area of interest.
  2. Get the names of everyone you speak to. Take pictures. Ask them how their families are doing — get to know them as people.
  3. Be clear that you are a constituent. That you are someone they represent, and that the way you are treated will reflect in how all of you in your group will vote.

These are key things because they need to know that you are a voter for them, not someone who is just basically threatening them.

A group of voters is always a very visible and startling sight: especially one that takes names and photos and has written questions, concerns, and points of what they expect. So bring along with you other people in your area — another reason to go to your Precinct meetings, but also reason to join indivisible groups in your area.

The photos, if they ask, are for a “group newsletter”. Because you are a special interest group — the most important one, if not the most moneyed one.

Also, be sure to get any position paper you can from them.

Next up: A Reprise on 20 hours a month, and something less annoying.

American Ideals, Constitutional Crisis, Economics, Human Rights, Liberalism, On Agency, On Fundamentals, On Harsh Truths, On Oppression, On Racism, On Structure, On The Resistance, On Transphobia, On Violence, Pretendent iDJiT, Progressive Ideals, Social Economics, Social Psychology, Social Science

On Why Human Rights is the Path Forward

Leave a comment

So I have harped on this a lot, but this particular post is important because I am specifically calling out Representative Keith Ellison, who, to my eye, seems to have the right ideas in sterms of leadership of the Democratic party.

But I am also calling out anyone who wants to argue that there is something else to focus on, because, bluntly, whatever you think is the path forward, mine includes it, unless you are a regressive or a supporter of the fascist party calling itself Republican right now.

Libertarians generally oppose human rights in this basis.

Once again, the point of reference I am using is The Line — my collection of human rights and the line in the sand that I draw.

When I say “The Path Forward”, I do so from a basis of the cultural aspects that underlie much of American Idealism and, bluntly, Exceptionalism, because, whether folks like to admit it or not, what we people of minorities have to deal with is white folks buying into going along for the ride.

The overwhelming majority of disabled people, women, trans people, LGB folks, non-Christian Religions, people of color, and similar minorities are Liberal in their outlook and approach — and I say that in the sense of Traditional Liberalism as well as the sense of Social Liberalism.

At the heart of these ideas is the understanding that our job, as a nation, is to take care of each other in a combined effort — not a collective one — to give everyone a better chance and greater access to the ideas we have about what is a great life.

With the majority of people under 25 supporting socialism and communism, that’s an enormous voting bloc that also is built on the fundamental basis of opposition to economic inequality — which human rights (and specifically The Line as I have it written) eables while also dealing with the things that addressing economic inequaity does not deal with: racism, misogyny, transphobia, homophobia, islamophobia, etc.

Because a fundamental truth that people who argue primarily about economic inequality to not want to accept (or at least, that I can tell, given the constant defensiveness and evasion I get when I point this out) is that it is talking about wealth, and wealth inequality itself is not actually an underlying form of Oppression.

It is indeed still a form of oppression, and yes, it does have an intersectional impact, but, truly, as we have already learned, simply making poor people less poor does not in fact change or reduce any of the other issues that are in play.

The 80’s were a fairly recent “great time”, and it wasn’t the wealth that changed racism and homo/transphobia during that time — it was efforts to address systemic inequality that did that.

Back even more, we have the 1950’s, which were an absolutely horrific time to be a person of color, woman, or other minority.

The history of our ability to address those things has been, without fail, one of incremental and patchwork progress that is stalled, pushed back, and then has to pick itself up again and move forward.

This is the “long arc” or history we hear talked abut, and I am here to tell you that if you genuinely want to make that change to economic inequality, then you need to ste it up a notch in how you adovcate, not abandon it.

Because it is a part of the overall effort, and, now, more than at any time in the last 80 years, we are in a situation where if we link arms behind a central, core, fundamental issue and abandon the notion of a piecemeal, this bit and that bit approach, that we can make a change that when combined with the focus on the city, county, and state elections will enable us to achieve something nearly everyone I talk to says is impossible: Run the board even more than the fascists are right now.

Because when you *do* listen to the white folks in the rural areas that changed the electoral vote equation, you do hear concerns and worries about jobs, about standard of living, about the way the the world around them is changing, and they are scared that they are being left behind.

But, beneath all of that, if you pay attention, what you hear is “we are worried about being made unequal in a world that is changing in terms of the economic levers and foundations (the shift from manufacturing to consumer that was begun in the age of deregulation under Reagan) because the support system of these people has been pulled out from underneath them.

They are worried about health care and a minimum standard of living, and hunger and being poor and because most of them do not have a higher education and are focused on the things they know far better than the more esoteric crap about global and national economic interdependence and the structural efficiency of resource trading and the importance and functional development in countries left behind initially during the industrial revolution that are being penalized for the mistakes of the nations that were not, they simply want to hear that they are going to have the ability to make life better for themselves and not fall apart while doing it.

Which human rights allows them to do far better and more successfully than the Regressive Fasicst plan currently in place does.

The thing is, we have to sell them on it  The way that people sell cars, homes, and the whole idea of it being Morning in America.

Because if it was Morning in America in 1984, then this, right now, is Evening in America, and we had damn well better have a productive night before the new dawn comes.

So the question that people often wonder about when I talk about these things, selling Human Rights to them as a panacea for hunger, poverty, racism, misogyny, etc, is how the hell do human rights do that?

The reason most people ask that question of me is simple: while they think they know what human rights are, they do not understand human rights and the way they work, or the structure that I am proposing around them, and so never really take the time to examine it.

That is what I propose to do now for you.  To make sure you understand what it is I am talking about.

As for the hoped for Staffer of Rep Ellison who is reading this, I realize that my particular attacks on the Right are not friendly — but at this point, as a mid life mixed race trans woman widow with Hispanic children and issues of poverty who needs a freaking job and until then doesn’t have to worry about anyone knocking her for speaking her mind, I really don’t care about their feelings.

Since the populist (which factually means it appeals mostly to white people, btw, in a dogwhistle remnant of older ideas) sentiment is economic empowerment, I will spend some time on that, but I am not going to sell it to you.

I am just going to tell you how this works.

So let’s start at section one.

1.2. The Government has an obligation to undertake and ensure to all citizens within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction these rights without distinction of any kind, such as

Ok this is part of the secret power behind the The Line. It reads conventionally.  The government’s job is to ensure that all it’s citizens get these rights.  But the job is also to undertake to make sure they get those rights. I need to tweak the wording (lifted it whole cloth from the UDHR), but the idea here is more than merely that they are passive in their efforts around this.

The idea here is that the government is an active participant in the making sure that all citizens get their rights.

This is somewhat different than at present, where we have a passive approach. You have to stand up for your rights, and you can petition the government to do something but it is not the focus of their efforts.

1.3. The Government will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of these rights.

1.3.1. The Government, recognizing the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger, shall take the measures, including specific programs, which are needed:

1.3.1.1. To improve methods of production, conservation and distribution of food and water by making full use of technical and scientific knowledge, by disseminating knowledge of the principles of nutrition and by developing or reforming agrarian systems in such a way as to achieve the most efficient development and utilization of natural resources;

1.3.1.2. Taking into account the problems of both food-importing and food-exporting countries, to ensure an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need.

1.3.2. The Government, recognizing the fundamental right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, shall take the measures, including specific programs, which are needed:

1.3.2.1. The provision for the reduction of the stillbirth-rate and of infant mortality and for the healthy development of the child;

1.3.2.2. The improvement of all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene;

1.3.2.3. The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases;

1.3.2.4. The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.

Now, this changes things up a bit. There we have hunger and health care in a nutshell, and those are among the first rights and the government’s job is to make sure that no one  goes hungry or is sick.

Now some would argue that we achieve that through such things as medicare and medicaid and WIC and SNAP and the assortment of programs related to those things.

But what about that 25 year old black lesbian who doesn’t have kids?

“Get a job” is the neoliberal, conservative, libertarian response. It is the inhumane, immoral, unethical response.

It is those things because all you know about the 26 year old black lesbian is that she is a 27 year old black lesbian who is aging before your eyes while you argue about whether you should be helping her.

She is capable of taking care of herself, many will say.  There will be prompts — well, is there something that stops her from doing it?  I she ill, does she have a disability, does she, can she, will she…

These are all distinctions.  They should not matter when we are talking about human rights.

And that is the first lesson.  That 28 year old has now aged 3 years while we try to come up with a way to *not* fulfill our obligation to make damn sure she doesn’t have to worry about hunger or health care.

This is the next secret to my Line — the Without Distinctions Rule.  Go look for it. It is in there at the top.

What that means is that we cannot use those things as reasons to make adjustments for people — so even if they can take care of themselves we should have the government capacity to make damn sure that she never goes hungry and has decent healthcare.

Now my example applies to white folks, as well.  And that, of course, is how we would sell it. And those on the other side would get caught up in that idea that someone needs to deserve it on the basis of some distinction in order to justify the whole thing and guess what…

Right then they are arguing against human rights. Because human rights are not something you get only if you are needing them or i there is some sort of distinction that separates you from others.

That person, now 29 years old, has continued to age while we argue about whether or not we should be doing something for them.

That is the problem, and it comes from a form of thinking that was first promoted during the Post War world as a result of how we have sold Civil rights and LGBT rights and women’s rights and the rest.

Now that she’s 30 years old, and has gone for 5 years with us bitching about should we do something, can we start actually doing something now that we understand it is our job to so something?

Today we have the capacity to ensure precisely that, provided we maintain our international responsibilities and linkages and further the goal of human rights worldwide.

So why are we still arguing about it?  Because of the forces within the Liberal sphere of influence which have come over to us from the conservative side — voices which are important to hear in terms of deciding on how we achieve these goals, but not in the act of setting these things as goals or determining that we must do them.

This is a key.

So the trick, of course, is to make these rights a matter of law. to make them an active part of the goal of Law and of Justice.

That is what is meant by making Law and Justice work in service to Human Rights. Currently, Law and Justice operate in service to property and wealth far too often.

By focusing law making on the act of dealing with human rights part of the law, it undermines the efforts of others to interfere with that effort. This is another reason that it needs to start at the city, county, and state levels.

Let’s back up a sec and look at how that is achieved:

1.1.3. The State shall, as Agent of the People, look to Human Rights first when making laws, and no law shall abridge a human right unless there is a compelling purpose that is demonstrable for all persons under the Jurisdiction of the State, and;

1.1.3.1. That such efforts be narrow and specific to the need being addressed;

1.1.3.2. That such efforts be the least restrictive means by which the goal can be achieved;

1.1.3.3. That the goal not be based in the interest of and benefit to only a given segment of private enterprise.

So we have a structure by which laws — all laws, really — have to be made under what we think of as Strict scrutiny as a matter of law itself.

That is scary, though — but it is part of the sales pitch.  It effectively frees up the space created by the argument of overreach and expense, by requiring laws such as regulations to achieve their goals in the least restrictive manner possible.

Which means people have to get creative in determine how to achieve a goal in a way that applies to everyone, while also doing it in a manner that does so with the least impact.

That is the small government sales pitch, really.

Next we get to address poverty.

3.11. All Citizens shall have the right to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their family, including

3.11.1. adequate food,

3.11.2. clothing and housing,

3.11.3. and to the continuous improvement of living conditions.

3.12 All citizens shall have the right to personal bodily integrity, without interference from the Government, in such a manner that what is within the confines of their body is their property

3.12.1 This grants a right of privacy for one’s self, and

3.12.2 Ensures that persons cannot be compelled by Government to submit to invasive actions on their person without due process and cooperation.

This one allows for that.  Indeed, when you consider that the State (government) must actively and willfully ensure this for all persons within its jurisdiction, it becomes an even greater deal, since that means that the State must find a way to make sure that everyone has the ability to provide these things for them.

The most obvious solution here — and one which can be made to appeal to those who oppose  medicaid and the rest — is a universal basic income.

But the solution itself is something that we can figure out later — first we have to make it clear, and a matter of law, that we have to do something about it.

This is a theme I will talk about a lot — first, establish that we must do something, as a matter of law.  Then we can fight about how to do it, instead of should we even bother. And that includes the other side. IF, by law, they cannot argue Boo, then they can either be silent, or argue about how to do something positive.

That’s a pretty powerful and very radical concept then, if it forces your opponent to take your side.

Now a lot of folks will say “well, how do we pay for this?  To which I say “cart before the horse. ” This isn’t about how we pay for it or how we do it.  This is just about us getting to the point that we have to, must, need to do it, and also setting forth these multiple human rights as such — because we need to do that.

Enforcing these human rights is another thing we can get to after we make it a part of the law that laws must be in service to human rights.

Now, we can build our argumetns for paying for these things and for enforcing them through the human rights as a basis as well, but when you shift the argument from one side being “we don’t do that” to “we have to do it this way” you effectively shut off and shut down an entire set of opposition, and you shift from speaking about fearful things to speaking about hopeful things.

This is the other thing — to steal from another civil rights politician, you gotta give them hope.

We are giving people hope — hope that these rights, which include rights of work (and will eventually include rights of small business, but not corporations) and rights of income, can be used to make their lives better — if only those people who have been opposing these rights for years will get out of office.

Because let’s be real here: The opposition is built, almost entirely, on two basic broad standards: business is the focus, and human rights get in the way.

They oppose LGBT rights, women’s rights, bodily integrity rights (heh, see how I got that in there after including it above), civil rights, voting, and a host of other things and they are actively trying to dismantle the systems by which the half assed efforts towards those rights have been achieved so far

They are promising to do that.

While they are doing that, they are depending on tax dollars from states where the most successful of them are the very ones that have been actively working on building on human rights in this manner, if not this brazenly.

oh, you want to help kids get an education and make sure that college is lower cost? It’s in there.

You want to make sure Unions can organize and protect there members, its in there.

You don’t like the idea of being a member of a union if you don’t have to? Its in there.

What isn’t in there is the stuff relating to Corporations. Including Banks. Those are a ball of wax that I will write about again shortly, and the solution to them is also within the ideas of human rights, and making sure that they do not have the power and sway they do now.

That, however, is for next time. At 3k words I think I have explained enough for now.

Read The Line.  Make suggestions.  Take it as a template.  And go out and let’s make it the law of the land.

(oh and my fave part?  No more secret slavery! Yep, its in there…)

 

 

Constitutional Crisis, On Fundamentals, On Harsh Truths, On Structure, On The Resistance, Pretendent iDJiT, Social Psychology

On Subversion & Resistance

Leave a comment

To fully grasp the power of Subversion, you need to understand some o the aspects that go into what it is you are subverting, and where subversion lies in the mess of tools useful in resisting a fascist regime powered by wealth and hiding behind the pretense of meritocracy.

There is an old, old saying — used even by that “newer” agitator, Frederick Douglass — about how there are Four Boxes of Liberty. The use of it goes back hundreds of years, and even those on the other side are fond of it because of the truth in it — although they tend to ignore the first few more often than is necessary.

To that I like to add a quintuple of my own, and it starts with two of the better known ones: The Carrot and The Stick.

“There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Please use in that order.”

Soap Boxes

The Soap Box.  That tried and true standard  You take the box, set it out in a public area, step up on it, and expound in the tradition of the ancient orators of Democratic Greece, swaying with the word and the arousing passion and sentiment in the hearts and minds of all that can hear you.

This is a soap box.  Blogs, Editorials, Opinion and Analysis, Critical Theory, etc — these are the tools of the Soap Box.  Essentially, getting your voice out there.

It is the first Box by which Liberty is defended, and the most important one.  When done right, it is the Carrot — the bribe and the treat that awaits should the unwieldy creature bow to our will.

There is another part to the Soap Box, however, and that is why it is the first choice, always.  That part is the Stick. The thing that sits behind the unwieldy creature and provides a smack. For the Stick can be applied across multiple areas.

The Stick in the Soap Box is the Protest, the March, the Blockade, the act of Civil Disobedience and defiance of Authority for the cause of freedom.

Journalism covers this, and in turn, influences the opinions of those for whom the Carrot is not always enough.

The Ballot Box

The Ballot Box is the second of those four boxes. Calls to Senators and Representatives, visiting and befriending the staff that work for various city, county, and state legislators and councilmen, these are all the forms of the Ballot Box — but the most important one, of course, is the vote itself.

Despite the Electoral College, a single person’s vote can be enough to sway even the Presidential election . Ultimately, when you look at the Electoral Map, the difference here was less than 10,000 votes, such as, so the Electoral College, which was literally designed to make some votes count more than others is doing what it was designed to do.

In all other races, a single vote can absolutely turn the tide and decide the winner — so a vote is one of the most powerful tools — which is why so much effort is put into limiting the number of people who can vote, in the name of protecting those votes.

Remember that any limit on who can vote beyond citizenship is a limit on democracy, and an abridgement of Human Rights.

This is the other part of The Stick, as well — call it the blunt end, while the other side has a leather thong to it that cracks like a whip. When people are elected, votes become currency, and that gives power to the people only as long as they use it with force and conviction.

Voting is one of the most key social constructs we have, and it can be broken easily, if it is not tended to or looked at as a waste.

Now here, I will stop on the Four Boxes and talk about two of the ones I use.
You know the carrot and the stick, so let’s get to the Crier and the Gossip…

The Town Crier

Newspapers, television shows, films, talk radio, documentaries, — the many and varied forms of communication we have are all part of the Town Crier role.  They are the Fourth Estate, the People’s check on the power of the corrupt and the malfeasance of the despot.

I just call this one the Crier because, well, these days they spend an awful lot of tie crying over lost revenues and all that stuff. They shift from Print has damaged some very important, very critical organizations because they do not want to shift, and the internet culture has only very recently begun to spend the money necessary to enable them to make the shift towards digital format efforts.

But, they serve the role of the Town Crier not in the literal sense (though some often do — now Fox News is doing that, for example), but the metaphorical one  They are the ones who keep people who do not have time, inclination, or facility to go to school or put effort into learning about things to speak to them clearly.

These days, far too many people confuse opinion and journalism and entertainment — something FOX News is fond of doing, but they, in turn, took their cue from other efforts throughout the years and the trend that began in the 1980s with the deregulation of the communications industry, enabling massive buyouts of the major news organizations and the consolidation that leaves us with the Mainstream Media we have today being so limited in terms of diversity and diversity in ownership.

They are the folks who, in this sense, wander about shouting the news and information of the day — they let us know not just what is going on around us in terms of politics and business, but also in terms of fun and community.

They are joined by their close cousins, most of whom are, as you can guess, disreputable…

The Gossip

The gossip is all the tabloids and entertainment stuff — not always fluff, but not always really key.  And, like their name, they are the gossips — the folks who tell the tales that are neither fit for nor serious enough for the Town Crier, who takes his job and himself way too fuckin seriously — men, am I right?

Think “human Interest” without the substance. Entertainment Tonight is widely credited with giving the modern incarnation its boost, but there is always Hedda Hopper in the more distant past, and those before her who may not have met Benjamin Franklin’s standards for publication in Newspapers, but surely influenced his Almanac.

TMZ owes their whole existence to the Gossip.

So that covers four of the elements I noted, and half the traditional ones.

All of them affect the next two of the Four Boxes, though…

The Jury Box

One of the reasons that a lot of people do not register to vote, surprisingly, is that voting is often tied to Jury Duty.

Yes, really, for those scattered few of you who still believe (rightly) that Jury duty is a solemn duty and honor. Most of those that still believe that most likely have a somewhat conservative background, as well. Statistically speaking.

But as a job, the inconvenience of it is part of the price of having a justice system that actually works — and a part of the responsibility that every citizen has to protect their vote.

However, in this case, the Jury Box is actually more about The Court system — the very same one that Pretendent iDJiT is now rather upset with for doing its damn job.

Juries of various sorts are used — especially in lower courts — to decide all manner of issues, including some governmental ones. It can be rather impactful.

The previous elements all actually affect the Jury Box, though — be it Judges or Jury Members. So they are important and crucial.

The last box is the one people think of usually before the Jury Box, though.

The Ammo Box

“Ammo” is a more modern construction of this one, which was also called a “cartridge” box, and “bullet’ box as well to drive the point home with even more force.

This, of course, is an allusion to the idea of warfare and violence.  Rebellion, Revolution, Civil war, armed conflict of various sorts and means.

It is, especially fo anyone who actually gives a damn about human rights and does so honestly and truthfully, is not merely the last measure, it is the measure of extremity and finality.

Because it starts with the very central premise of denying other people their right to life. That is what killing someone does, if I still need to spell it out.

So we don’t want to do the while Bullet box thing, but the other three are not working or not working well or fast enough for us.

There is another option. One I think more than a few of you will get a kick out of.

The Spy

This is the last of the five I talk about. The Spy is the rogue of all trades, the mistress of seductive subversion and psychological warfare.

The spy operates *everywhere*.  Which means both in the streets, on the soapbox, in the newsrooms, in the ballot and Jury boxes, among the gossips and the criers, the whole kit, kat, and caboodle.

The Spy is the other way.  The way that doesn’t follow the rules set forth by the opponent, and undermines them, weakens them, sabotages their efforts.

Spies, however, have to be very, very knowledgeable about a few different things.  Not just the politics, or the way the Regime being resisted operates.

They need to know people.  There is a reason that the CIA classified the work of a woman who wrote at length about the ways that hackers would pressure and confuse and get people to do things that allowed them access to major sites.

It is part of spy craft.

Subversion is part art form, part science, and a whole lot of being quicker than the people around you. Another way of looking at it is like the work of a con artist — it is an art form built on the sciences and skills of understanding and manipulating people and social systems (which are made up of, you guessed it, people).

In my last post, I mentioned something called a “whisper campaign”.  I said “look it up”.  thankfully and merrily, some readers did just that and more than a couple wrote me to say “um, hey, Dyss, that’s kinda unethical.”

And it is.  In an open society.  And when you are not struggling to gain your human rights. And when you are afforded equality and equity.

When you are stuck between a rock and a hard place, though, you get creative, and you use tools that the Master might be able to get his hands on, but that he doesn’t control or own.

Whisper campaigns have been used for longer than the US has been around, but among the most famous of all whisper campaigns is the Thomas Jefferson having kids with his slaves one.

yes, really — John Adams’ followers took a secret truth and spread it through gossips and while it took a few hundred years to pan out as evidence and truth, it was still a great example of the kind of subversion I am talking about.

As opposed to the kind that Goebbels employed, where people would just walk up and say “hey, those people are jews, and they are nasty and dirty and you should kill them” — which is pretty much the same thing white supremacists say.  Modern day folks just do it less obviously, using all sorts of “in jokes” and “code phrases” like multiple parentheses on twitter.

This is key — using the truth is absolutely essential. For example, when I say that iDJiT looks tired, I am being honest — looks tired is a subjective concept. He may not look tired to everyone.

The other focus is to keep your eye on the target — you have to have a very specific goal in mind when doing subversion.  For example, I tend to work very hard to subvert oppression — in part because I have to just to survive, and in part because, well, I cannot help it — i cannot stop people from making a mistake regarding me, and plenty do.

I use it to my advantage whenever possible — which usually means not letting them get to know me very much.

Good spies will use neurolinguistic programming that relies on social constructs and socialization to manipulate people’s thoughts, opinions, and ideas in a manner that either fools them into thinking something they wouldn’t otherwise, or to get them to do something that they do not realize they are doing.

It is a form of psychological warfare — and a far more subtle and nuanced form than that employed by the Ggaters and White supremacists and Tea Partiers in the rank and file (all of whom have had it done to them by those further up the food chain.

It has not real scientific value, to be honest — it is, effectively, the act of conning people. Really — check it out — NLP of this sort (there are other things called nlp) is basically pseudo-science that relies on aspects of deceptive attention deficit manipulation and psychology.

This psychological subversion is often accomplished through things like whisper campaigns, genuine social engineering (not the conservative blowhard sort about passing laws to make people do something, but the actual literal concept of social engineering, which is the more sceincey name for being a confidence artist.

As opposed to the not so sciencey but better sounding name of “neurolinguistic programming” that if you didn’t loo it up, you wouldn’t know was a bunch of bullshit unless you had already encountered it.

Because I just subverted you — unless, again, you already knew this about NLP.

That is how easy it is. And the best part is that when you let people know you have, they will deny it. its like an absolute given.  They will do the opposite of what they should do, but because of their biases, they are more easy to manipulate, even when they know it is coming (it gets me, too — usually when I am hungry and I want a snickers bar.  Because for some reason they just sound really good when you are hungry, right?).

good subversion takes something that your given audience accepts as an idea, and then uses that idea against them, in simple terms. It has been used for centuries, though we never really called it that when Columbus came here and used an eclipse to scare the hell out of the pissed off islanders he was taking advantage of.

The point of subversion is not to actually win a fight, though.  This is the thing a lot of people do not understand — they think of it as the tool to do that, and it isn’t.

That’s what the other three boxes and the other four tools are — especially the first two in each case.

But well done subversion can turn the tide and make those things far more effective.

Right now, the federal government has thousands of subversives in it — folks who are resisting the push of this interminable damned fool.

We can make a difference through these basic tools.

Unless that’s too subversive for you…

 

 

 

On The Resistance

On Freedom of Speech at Colleges & Universities with public funding

Leave a comment

So there is a lot of recent talk on the Liberal side of things (and this includes, to be blunt, Democrats, Greens, Socialists, and Communists, in terms of party) about Olim, the gay white supremacist fascist that has been roaming around the country getting no platformed, with a recent bit of violence surrounding his arrival at one University.

There are folks on the right who condemn him, wholly, and they tend to be in the majority, but there are also those who condemn him but argue that he has a right to spread his speech.

The really long title here is important — because, when it comes to human rights like freedom of speech, that little bit on the end there is really, really important.

Colleges & Universities that receive federal, state, county, or city funds all absolutely must allow him to speak, under current law and the core principle of the Human Right to free speech.

The reason for this is really simple: under current law, a University that does deny him after having invited him in the first place is acting as an agent of the State, and so in doing so is violating his freedom of speech.

But — and here’s the great part — most Universities, these days, do not invite people such as him in and of themselves.

Read that again: The University doesn’t invite him. So, factually (and the law is pretty big on facts most of the time — go figure), the University is not the problem.

The University or College does have the ability to decide who is and who isn’t allowed on their campus as a matter of security and safety of the students — with a real and actual meaning of *all* students. Especially including the ones Olim has had a habit of inciting harm towards.

So that isn’t them denying him freedom of speech.

The schools that he is going to are all schools where he has been invited (and often paid, but not always and not always the same amount) by students.

Now, those students are not the ones who are having their freedom of speech harmed by his being no platformed.  They do not have a right to use the school facilities for them to have him speak.

These same groups can, readily, rent a local movie theater or other venue and have him speak there.

The same thing applies to someone in opposition to olim — the same rules.

So when it comes to the arguments around this whole issue, keep one thing in mind — something key and critical and important as the basis of your argument:

The University isn’t the issue. It is the independent group that brought him that is the issue.  The University cannot stop them — it is ultimately part of the university job to do so, in the interest of promoting different and competing ideas and personal growth blah blah fucking blah.

But, the University doesn’t want a damn thing to do with picking people like that who might get it sued for actual freedom of speech encroachment.

So this is all about the group that brought this twit there. And that group is the problem, because they are supporting someone who is opposing human rights (which means they themselves oppose human rights, including the right of free speech, by giving him their support).

So when arguing, be sure to stay in that lane — do not go towards the Uni, because then you are falling prey to a trap argument, and one you will lose (the freedom of speech argument about an agent of the state) versus what we really have: a freedom of speech argument about a group of assholes.

The assholes do not have a freedom of speech point there, because the issue is not one of the human right. the human right only applies in relation to and regarding the government.

In short, one does not have a right to be a complete asshole in public without being challenged or no platformed.

This is why nuance and those little things are so important. If your argument is with a person who is not engaging using that nuance, then what you are dealing with is not a debate or a discussion or anything that has real and general value or meaning.

Because they are already operating in bad faith. And, as I point out in my post on conversations, this means you are wasting your time because you are never going to be able to change their minds.

This also applies to those who are arguing that he has some inherent right to freedom of speech without regard to the government, because he factually does not, and, more important, if he did, that right was not abrogated by his being no platformed in terms of the space.

The group that brought him there (and is bringing him back) can still do it — just off campus. more importantly, if they were to do it on Private Property, then they can block, stop, and deny the access to that event by people who comes to protest, because those people do not have a right to do so on private property.

They do on school property. And they do not have to be polite about it.

SO those making that kind of an argument about him having a right to freedom of speech outside of that are also not arguing in good faith — or they are trying to change the argument to the larger idea of people being free to say things.

If that’s the case, and you want to go there, feel free — but ask them about responsibility.

The reason I wrote this was something that Bill Maher said.  I find Bill Maher to be right of center, though he likes to disagree with anyone who characterizes him that way, and his argument is about the larger question — because he sees such thinking as a threat to himself, and he has good reason to do so — he makes his living by offending people.

He does have a right to do that.

Westboro Baptist Church pushes the line really hard — far harder than he or olim do. I will defend their right to do so, but only so long as they do not cross that line.

Not the moral line that I see their entire existence as having crossed, but their right as human beings to assemble and to protest without interference or abridgment of their right of free expression.

Which sucks, because they really don’t like me, but also doesn’t suck, because, as people, they deserve the same human rights as any other person.

Interestingly enough, the protests against him, and the no platforming that is being engaged in, are, themselves also acts of expression and the government cannot step in and make rules or laws against them, either — or their right to freedom of speech is being attacked.

This is the argument, btw, that most people forget to make.

When two rights of free speech collide, who wins?

The answer is both — but the place itself, well, that’s another thing.

Liberalism, On Fundamentals, On Harsh Truths, On The Resistance, Pretendent iDJiT, Progressive Ideals, Social Psychology, Social Science

On the Grinding while we Shift the Gears

2 Comments

It is time.  The Pretendent has managed to wall himself off from criticism while also hunkering down and figuring out what the hell it is he inherited since it appears it wasn’t a kingship, if the rumor mills about him throwing tantrums are true (and we know they are, if history has anything to say about it).

The time has come to shift gears from the “hoping they will impeach him” and the “Hoping he will man up” and the “hoping he will die from an apoplectic heart attack seeing the millions marching against him” over to the “well, its gonna be a while”.

That doesn’t mean we stop protesting.  It will happen — such is inevitable, I am sad to say.

It does not mean that we stop calling — we can do that while on our daily commute or our working out in the gym or waiting in line to get tickets to “Hamilton”.

It does mean we have to start shifting down, if you will excuse the car terms from a woman who is often insulted by calling her a transmission, and set this whole thing into a steady, ongoing, rumbly effort as we lumber uphill towards the 2018 mid-terms.

No one beats Liberals at organizing. No one.  It is the historical strength of the free — the reason we have a freedom of association and a freedom of speech that are rather broad and potent.

But we do have to start the pacing of ourselves — not the compromising that will be done in the halls in DC, but the more scheduled, methodical, and powerful forms of protest and determined resistance that allow us to still have the energy come Spring of 2018.

Its only about 18 months.  Hell, a lot more than half of us have carried, delivered, and nursed a baby in less time — and that’s *way* harder.

One of the more intersting things we can do – besides the invaluable advice in the Indivisible Guide, is to make forays into the dark space of support for him and to ask a simple question.

“Doesn’t he look tired?”

or one of several variations on the same principle — “doesn’t he look ill?”  “Doesn’t he seem distracted?”

He seeks to undermine our nation’s very system of government — imperfect though it may be — and the trust and faith of the American people in it.

He is doing it intentionally — unlike Nixon, who did it without being aware of what the hell he was doing when he betrayed us.

And his base values virility, stamina, outspokenness, and, of course, all the forms of oppression that human rights are all about opposing.

We don’t want to get into arguments about it — we aren’t here to attack him.  We just noticed that ya know, he looks kinda tired.

This is subversion.  It is something that someone like me has had to learn just to survive — and I have, as a result, become rather good at it. Not awesome — I tend to rely on truths (he does look tired!) or subjective constructs when capitalizing on my opponents preconceptions and prejudices, whereas the truly amazing are more like Conway and Spicer — capable of spouting laughable lies out as if they were the god’s honest truth.

Subversion is sneaky, and it is not something we can use on those who oppose him — they already see these things, and a good leading question like this will always lead them to its conclusion.

But those who support him all have one major problem.  They eat up whisper campaigns.  They will whisper about *anything*.

Oh, yeah, that’s what this is called.  A Whisper campaign.  Look it up.  Common tactic — why do you think Benghazi and emails were such a big deal?

What do you think  the Russians did?

iDJiT is especially vulnerable to those that appeal to his vanity. While a lot of people see him as pathological in his narcissism, I do not, because in orde to make that adjudication I would need to have him available for consultation and well, that would mean I couldn’t.  Because diagnosing someone who is not your patient is unethical.

But his vanity need not be pathological to be useful here — and it is his weakness as surely as his illiteracy and gullibility are such.

He is, then, very much the perfect candidate for this kind of campaign, because it will consume him once it reaches a pitch within his base — and we are just asking the question, after all.

Doesn’t he look tired?

Some will chortle at this, and say things like “watching a little too much BBC, aren’t ya Dyss?” — ignoring a simple fact: this works.

Indeed, it has been employed, for real, using this same thing, in the UK in the past against cabinet ministers.

Not just in “silly little tv shows”.

The key to it is the leading question, as I noted before.

There are other things we can do as well, and chief among them is further our creation of groups — especially Legislative groups, who actively go to the offices and get to know the staffers.

We must put effort in at the local level as well — not just the national one, because, really, there are not enough votes to stop most of the cabinet appointments.

And even if some dems do vote for them, it isn’t that big a deal, since they could *all* not vote them and still lose.  It takes 51 votes to kill a nomination for a cabinet post.  And odds are it will end up taking 51 votes to kill a Supreme Court nomination, because McConnell wants that seat for his side, despite the seat not really supposed to be about one side or another.

That’s the math — they can slow it, they can hold it up, they can use procedures to keep it from happening a long time — but not four years.

Probably not even two years.

And that means it is up to *us* to make it possible for them to deny this — by electing Democrat senators.

Unless there is a left party in your state that has more registered voters than the Dems, in which case, hey, go for them; but it if not, then leave the federal to the Dems for now, and focus on getting that third, fourth, fifth, and sixth party candidates into office locally to develop a great pool of people that we can turn to starting in 2020.

Because what we are looking at, right now, is *everything*.

The 2018 and 2020 elections are crucial — more important for us now than the 2008 and 2010 ones were for the Regressive Party Elephants.

Those elections determine who gets to draw the districts.  They use this last decade to take control of nearly enough states to pass a constitutional amendment without *ever* asking the people.  They need only a couple more.

We can do the same thing. We can take control of the States and shut them down and bury these supremacist asswipes so deep they will have to pay long distance rates to call home.

Ok, yeah, that dates me, but, well, eh — you know or will get it eventually.

But we have to be working on it *now* — in small groups in every single precinct in America.  It only takes five people in each precinct to change the outcome.

There are more people than that protesting at airports this last weekend.

So we can do it.

You can do it.

And isn’t the future of your children, your grandchildren, your retirement, their ability to have happiness and find love and peace in a tough world worth 20 hours of your time a month?

It should be.

I think you agree that it is, and are, hey, come back!  I wasn’t done…

Oh well.  You go get them.  I have to talk to Patty at my state  Senator’s office anyway…

 

 

Uncategorized

On The Trans 100 for 2017

Leave a comment

So a few of you may know that I have this project I started a few years back that is going forward after some slight restructuring and with a plan in place for the future.

It is called The Trans 100, and it seeks to recognize excellence in service to the community. Three years worth of members of this group have shown us some of the brightest stars in the US, and we are, this year, expanding that to an international base.

When I started the project, an amazing gal you might have seen on TV or an amazing web series named Jen Richards joined in, and with her incredible energy and ability to focus on it and the production of an event, and the surprise began.

Jen has moved on to other things (though I hope to have her back one day as a curator again!) and while I was dealing with the issues surrounding my late husband, the just as amazing duo of Rebecca Kling and Crispin Torres stepped in and put togetehr a phenomenal effort that was just amazing as well.

Then, we went dark for a year.  This is, wholly, my fault, and I have talked about that in the past.  But The Trans 100 is back, and is just as dedicated to recognizing excellence and displaying the diversity, breadth and wonder of Trans people.

Only this year, we are doing it internationally as well.

There is more coming, as well, but given this task, this is the first thing.  Nominations for work done in 2015 and 2016 are open right now.

Nominations for North America are here!

Nominations for the International Trans 100 are here!

There are over 200 nominations right now, and I personally hope to see lots more nominations made before the deadline of March 1st comes. Since past members can be nominated as well, that is a big deal.

The basics are still the same — a group of curators are already combing through the nominations and doing research, even as they come in.  After the deadline, they will vote on the nominees, and the list will be structured and then set up in a downloadable document for printing.

There will not, sadly, be an Event this year.  To ensure that there is an event next year, however, The Trans 100 will begin accepting donations and doing campaigns, as the basis of The Trans 100 — its mission and focus, is to lift up Trans people, and, well, it has become pretty obvious that we cannot stop at just doing the 100 folks featured each year.

With your hoped for help, we are going to embark on a series of additional projects that seek to raise awareness of,  bring notice to, uplift and empower trans people across the world.

Among the various projects:

The Trans Rating project, where you can take an episode of a TV show, a web series, a film, a novel, a comic book, and more and rate it for the way it represents Trans people, and in the process creating what will be a searchable database of media that we can use to help guide the way that trans people are portrayed in the media and represented to the public in many different formats.

The Vanguard Awards, to recognize and honor those who have passed on, but left to us a legacy of Excellence in service to community — the men, women, both, and neither on whose shoulders those of us stand as we strive for authenticity and recognition and rights.

The Trans 100 Event, which, starting in 2019, will begin traveling around the country to a different city each year, where the Trans 100 itself will be broadcast live over the internet worldwide, both within  North America and also around the World where it is possible.

There is more as well, still in early stages and often dependent on funding, but the overall objective of the Trans 100 is to ultimately provide support to those projects, organizations, and efforts which serve to empower, enrich, and uplift the Trans community in all its diversity.

Watch The Trans 100 website closely as it closer to the International Trans Day of Visibility on March 31st, when the 100 is released.

http://www.thetrans100.com/

The Anti-Tomi. Yeah, that one — the one that *they* have nightmares about.

%d bloggers like this: