Thursday, February 23, 2017

NEW OLD BUBBLE


News comes from the elite of the Democratic Party. A raging battle there over the corpse of the principles of that party. The scavengers fight over the bones, a.k.a. the DNC. 

The blatant corruption of Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the last election when they colluded to torpedo Bernie Sanders speaks volumes about the Democratic Party elite. The putting up of a militaristic hawk for POTUS who took millions from the global sponsor of Islamic terrorism totally eroded any posture of moral superiority in the DNC. Given that corruption of our national electoral process by the Saudi Arabians, not the Russians, is there any question why Keith Ellison, one of two Muslims in Congress, is in the top tier of candidates to lead that party going forward?

The Democrats are the party of the Regressive Left, the nanny brigade, the welfare-state lovers, who wish to collect from it but not pay into it by actually working for a living. "Sure!" they yell, "Bring in everyone who shows up at a border or an airport! How dare you vet people? How dare you enforce the law on our streets? How dare you practice skeptical judgment on anything?" These welfare enthusiasts are not limited to housing projects. They thrive on Wall Street as well. The Democrats became the party of white-collar welfare in the last eight years of a Democratic administration.

The specter of the Bilderberg globalists, personified by George Soros, hangs over the Democrats in the opened eyes of the working class and dying middle class. The obsession of Democrats with sanctuary cities, pro-Islamic rhetoric, undermining the rule of law by promoting every narcissistic cry of victimhood, currying favor with Hollywood, and demonizing anyone who stands up for more traditional American values, like free speech, has killed its appeal with American workers, the people who get up every morning and get on with it. Yes, those people are the taxpayers who feel ripped off and condescended to by the federal, state and local governments they pay for. 

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

STOP STIGMATIZING GAY MEN.


The recent uproar in payback media against Milo Yiannopoulos, the gay provocateur and free-speech advocate, comes unsurprisingly after Milo's national cable-TV appearance on Bill Maher's Real Time show on HBO. I have to congratulate Bill Maher for being true to his stated commitment to free speech and diversity of ideas. However, the same dark reactionary forces who would gladly undermine Bill Maher, if he were not a popular national voice of Liberals with a bully pulpit, have decided to single out a gay man who dresses and speaks provocatively in the abrasive tradition of Lenny Bruce.

An edited video of a stoner talk show from the internet was released by The Reagan Battalion, a Center-Right PAC which backed independent Evan McMullin for U.S. President in the last election. Evan McMullin is a former CIA operative, investment banker, a former Republican-Party consultant and Mormon, born in Utah. He is anti-gay-marriage and anti-choice. He has been vocal against Donald Trump after losing his own bid to become U.S. President without any previous elected government experience. In fact, he has proposed a popular movement to remove the elected President Trump from office. It is unclear to me how he plans to do this without sparking a populist revolution with himself at the head of some mob. Perhaps his tactic with Milo is a preview of how he plans to demean President Trump out of office. 

The spurious attack on Yiannopoulos' personal character with inference that he is a pedophile or pro-pedophilia is frankly reminiscent of McCarthyism, that peculiar Congressional madness of the 1950's in which Ronald Reagan himself reveled. McCarthy was homosexual, closeted, Roman Catholic and a Democrat. He vented his insane fear of Communism by victimizing U.S. citizens, many of them Jewish, who supported Leftist ideals. Perhaps Evan McMullin is a reincarnation of Joseph McCarthy who died in 1957.

I grew up with consciousness of my own homosexuality in working-class America of the 1950's and 1960's. My mother was a first-generation Russian-American. My father's mother was descended from a Jewish family which converted to Catholicism to avoid Prussian persecution in the 19th century. Listening daily to hatred of Russians, hatred of Jews and hatred of homosexuals in all aspects of media and society has shaped my view of the world. It certainly has given me radar to perceive a real creep when I see one. My radar goes off with a blast whenever I see Evan McMullin sanctimoniously railing against Donald Trump. I am fairly certain that time will tell his true story.

I have published some statistics above from the U.S. Department of Justice website. Why? The Reagan Battalion's obvious attempt to use ignorant prejudice against gay men to silence Milo Yiannopoulos is aimed at an age-old erroneous assumption among the ignorant that gay men are all sexual predators. I grew up around this ignorant prejudice.  

My decent, devoutly Catholic father, who blushed at the word "sex" and never used a word of profanity, warned me about homosexual predators in the first grade. He actually took me to a local alley and said, "If a man ever tries to pull you into an alley like this, never go with him. Run away. And never let a man take off your clothes." This conversation totally puzzled me at the time. A few years later, my father stopped our car in our city's shopping district. He pointed out a man walking along the sidewalk. "See that! Never talk to anyone like that!" Again, I had no clue what he was talking about. Later, when I was years older, I saw the man and realized he was a local hairdresser. 

In light of today's LGBTQ+ sensibilities, my father was paranoid. And his hateful indoctrination of his homosexual child could be considered child abuse. He was trying to teach me to be self-loathing, in other words. Luckily for me, other people in my childhood provided me with the antidote to this mental poison. 

The 2012 U.S. D.O.J. statistics at the top of this essay (click on it to enlarge) tell us something interesting. Of the 1,800,000 adolescents sexually abused in the U.S. in this sample, only 324,000 (18%) were boys. 1,440,000 (82%) were girls. In other words, heterosexual pedophilia is a far larger problem than gay-male pedophilia by the numbers of victims (4.4 times greater). But gay pedophilia remains a powerful red herring in politics and religion. It is a surefire method to demean or devalue an opponent ... just the inference that that gay male opponent 'supports' pedophilia is enough to gather sharks. Ask John Podesta, Dennis Hastert or Barney Frank.

(Note: The statistics cited are not broken down by declared sexual preference or gender of perpetrator. These variables would most likely increase the ratio of heterosexual-bisexual sex crimes against underage males vs. homosexual male sex crimes against underage males. In other words, even fewer cases may well be classified accurately as gay male pedophilia.)

I am 67 years old. I was never sexually approached by an adult homosexual male when I was a child. As an adult, I have never sexually approached anyone under legal age for sex. Yet I have endured the indignity of being told to stay away from the children of my own family members after I came out as a young gay man. I taught high school for two years in the early 1970's. I later saw one of my better students ten years later in a gay bar. He exclaimed, "Mr. Creeden, what are you doing here?" I laughed, but I also saw that his Catholic indoctrination had left its mark. 

I think Milo Yiannopoulos is a poor standard-bearer for most gay men by any measure. He is no more representative of all gay men than the loony self-loathing gay men who fawn over man-hating feminists and Muslims. That bunch are overly representative of us in gay politics and mainstream media. They are sell-outs to the globalist agenda. They do not realize how dispensable they will become when the global elite have managed to subvert nation-based democracy in favor of global totalitarian oligarchy. But, Milo Yiannopoulos does not deserve to be tarred and feathered with ancient prejudice against gay men which is founded in myth and sexual repression. I would see him openly debated and proven wrong in some of his views. That is the way to gain support in a truly civilized society.

Addendum, 02.21.2017: Milo Yiannopoulos held a press conference today. He apologized for offense to fellow pedophilia victims who may have been offended by his remarks in the released videos. He admitted to saying things off the cuff which were irresponsible. However, he asserted clearly that he had not and would never condone nor advocate for pedophiles. Frankly, as a gay man, I feel his apology more than satisfied any doubt that he was indeed misunderstood. Nonetheless, the fact still remains that the attempt at smearing his reputation was a deliberate political act, perpetrated by people who are not concerned for victims of pedophiles or the damage their act could cause to the general perception of gay men by the public. If Milo were a heterosexual celebrity in a similar circumstance, I suspect the mainstream press would have dealt with the story very differently, if at all. 

Sunday, February 19, 2017

LOGIC, COMPASSION, ACCOUNTABILITY


I am writing about this because of the current social crisis in the U.S. after our presidential election. President Donald Trump has become the brunt of hatred by those who claim some of his policies lack compassion. How someone can spout hatred at an individual from a position of compassion eludes me. What is compassion really? English dictionaries tend to define compassion from the standpoint of Judeo-Christian charity. Words like "sympathy" and "empathy" are seen as synonyms. The Asian perspective on compassion, based in Buddhism, is somewhat different. I refer to this compassion when I write about it.

Buddhist teaching is based in a concept of generalized human suffering. Rich people suffer as much as the poor if they do not liberate themselves from the hunger of material need. In other words, Buddhist compassion is a much more sophisticated view of what it means to relate to any form of human suffering. I suspect Jung and Freud were both strongly influenced by this Buddhist concept.

You see, just handing a dollar to a drug addict at a traffic light may well satisfy a Judeo-Christian sense of compassion. However, it can be poisonous in Buddhist terms. The Buddhist would see this as potentially enabling the drug addict to increase his suffering by providing money to fuel his addiction, which is at the root of his suffering. The ignorant Western mind might confuse the image of Buddhist monks extending their begging bowls with the addict knocking on a car window. These are very different actual events.

The original itinerant Buddhist monks renounced material possessions in support of their quest for liberation and enlightenment. Offerings were given by those lay people who admired that quest, but who were themselves not able to make that commitment. Their sacrifice, in many cases, to nourish the monks at their own expense was seen as participation in the Buddhist ideology. In that sense, the monks felt they were extending compassion to their benefactors by begging and reminding their benefactors of the Buddhist ideals they, the monks, represented.

There is logic in this form of giving, unlike the mindless giving of affluent Westerners to a myriad of dubious causes from food relief campaigns to politicians. Few affluent benefactors in the The West seriously consider the greater implications of the charities they support. They increase suffering in many impoverished parts of the world by bloating the indigent with surplus GMO grain, for example. This is leading to a rise in diabetes and obesity in the developing world. A Buddhist-oriented charity might fund organic gardening methods, community planning, sex education and birth control. This approach is supportive of the liberation of the poor from charity, as well as poverty.

The much misunderstood Buddhist concept of karma is inextricably linked with logic and compassion. I relate karma in my Western mind with accountability. The Japanese, with whom I spent some time studying, speak of cause and effect. The Western concept of charity is nearly polar opposite to the notion of karmic accountability. It is also a convenient rationalization for personal greed within capitalism as it coexists with relative poverty among the majority of human beings. 

Judeo-Christian charity is based in "sympathy" which is more often a kinder semantic substitute for "pity". In Buddhist ideology, this kind of charity is seen as narcissistic arrogance, because each individual is seen as master or slave of his existence. Those who master their lives take up the quest of liberation from insatiable hunger. Those who are enslaved are those who give way to egoism and constant hunger for fulfillment by material success or popular adulation. 

Each capable individual is accountable for his choices and actions. The Buddhist view does not include the Western myth of fairness. Buddhist ideology does not accept that there is fairness in its Universe. The Universe may demand balance, but it is up to the individual's choice to think and act for his/her own sake in this regard. Those who choose not to should be afforded respectful avoidance. Those who are truly incompetent by birth deserve respectful assistance. Doting on the capable who choose to be incompetent is disrespectful, or infantilizing in clinical parlance. 

The current "social justice" activists among feminists and militant anti-fascists are like any cult which worships any mythology. From a Buddhist perspective, this explains the tortured, enraged and violent nature of so many of the participants in these groups. Like the addict at the stop light, they are knocking at the window of a metaphorical limo containing a non-existent population of untroubled and privileged people, whether they are perceived as White men or corporate oligarchs. 

They are operating from the Judeo-Christian perspective of compassion and feel deprived of charity from those who are not suffering because they are "privileged". The resulting tantrums are simply a way of absolving themselves of any accountability for their own state of suffering. They are making the choice to externalize their own inability to practice true compassion for themselves by working harder, thinking harder and peacefully creating change in society by creating change within themselves.

As Dalai Lama has suggested, the world does not need more Buddhists but it does need more compassion. Unfortunately, Western capitalism as it exists and its inevitable materialism stand in the way of the kind of compassion which can liberate lives from suffering. The top-down economic theories which are used to rationalize greed in The West are simply illogical from the position of Buddhist compassion. Wealth as a hedge against accountability at any cost is diametrically opposed to the concept of liberation from karma which leads to enlightenment. 

Monday, February 13, 2017

LIBERATION, NOT ACTIVISM.


The word "activist" in relation to gay social issues has always rankled me. It is like these endless new gender-free pronouns which the narcissistic are trying to get legislated into law. It can mean anything. And that is the whole idea for those who arrogantly use the word "activist" to describe themselves.

The older I get, the more annoyed I am by revisionists of social and personal history. Why? Because they devalue the credibility of those of us who are honest about our histories. The same jerks who sat in the shadows while some of us dodged bricks and bottles for being out in the earliest days of Gay Liberation now call themselves "gay activists" or, worse, "LGBTQ-whatever activists". Really? Getting legally married and grinning on Facebook after people suffered for that right with actual effort going back decades is not activism. It is opportunism.

I became disillusioned with political-movement groupies some time back. I marched for peace during the Vietnam war. I participated in a civil rights march after the King assassination. I marched in Gay Pride parades for decades after they began.  I attended the Gay March on Washington in 1979.  I've done AIDS walks. I've had my fill of looking up at stages and podiums at the aggressive and self-satisfied who often rise to the tops of movements. Some of their spouted ideology is so undemocratic and self-serving that I have often been tempted to boo in protest of their protest.

In the latter years of Gay Liberation (1978-1982), I worked as a state-funded psychiatric nurse in a largely volunteer-staffed gay/lesbian community mental health center, one of the few nationwide. Dr. Richard Pillard and Dr. Jalna Perry, both psychiatrists, were major forces in getting this up and running for their Boston community. They were community and professional activists in every legitimate sense of the word. They were out in their profession at a time when homosexuality was being hypothesized as a disorder among psychiatrists and psychologists. 

Eventually volunteer therapists, who also had private practices, exploited our low-fee clinic for private-practice referrals: Clients who could pay higher fees or had health insurance with therapy benefits. They cannibalized the clinic by insisting it meet the standards of a hospital outpatient clinic for private insurance certification. In other words, they eliminated it as competition by driving it out of business. There was no way it could meet the salaries of the health and business professionals needed to pass the private insurance standards for a medical-model clinic. It closed soon after.I myself was forced to leave my low-paying job as clinical director because my position had to be filled by a doctoral-level professional. The clinic lost its state-funded position as well. 

Leaving that job was actually good for me personally. I was working long days and the stress was showing in my personal life. I had not seen myself as an activist there. I was a nurse, a gay man, a community member. I had skills for which I was willing to be paid little. The activism, if I were to consider calling it that, existed within my profession of nursing. Few nurses were out at the time. Fewer in the state system, where I had been out since my first nursing job. And to keep my job at the clinic, I had to work night shifts on demand at a local state in-patient hospital in the heart of a poor neighborhood. I was the only RN on duty for two packed psychiatric wards, approximately 100 acute patients, locked in due to the nature of their diagnoses. The nursing director of that hospital, through which my position was funded, made it clear that she was doing me a favor by letting me have a job in the gay community as a gay man in exchange for being at her disposal. 

Liberation isn't following any ideology in goose-step. Liberation is the opposite of submission. I will not submit my mind or my speech or my body to any set of rules or ideas that are against my principles, rooted in mindfulness and compassion. This is what I consider being liberated. The Liberation movements of the 1960's and 1970's, Women's Liberation, Gay Liberation, Men's Liberation, were invitations to join the ranks of self-liberated individuals. Today's LGBTQ activism is not that. It is a command to respect and obey. This, I believe, is why today's LGBTQ and Antifa activists resemble ISIS more than their Gay Liberation forebears. It is no wonder to me that many of them support Islamic ideology rather than protest against it. 


Thursday, February 9, 2017

GAY LIBERATION: A MOVEMENT WITHOUT HEIRS


Gay Liberation was a grassroots populist movement. It occurred against all odds. It started from small focal points in Boston, New York and San Francisco. Each cell had a nucleus of dedicated few. They mimeographed flyers and ran fundraising dances in church basements. Most were too young to realize that what they were trying to do was impossible. That was a major element of their success.

Within the 15 years from the Stonewall riot of 1969 and the death of Patient Zero from AIDS in 1984, Gay Liberation had spread globally through new gay publications, mainstream news coverage and gay travel. It was like a good virus which was devastated by the bad virus to follow. The viral nature of Gay Liberation is thought by some to have led to the intentional ignoring of the AIDS epidemic in its early years. It may have seemed to the more conservative and homophobic that AIDS was an answer to a prayer. We now know how mistaken they were.

I lived Gay Liberation and the AIDS epidemic. At 21, I distributed mimeographed flyers around Boston to announce various community actions and events. The first Gay Pride Parade in Boston was one of them. At 34 in 1984, I was infected with HIV. Those 13 years in the warm sun of the Gay Liberation movement sustained me as I worked on in health care through the AIDS crisis. 

My parents were blue-collar people. They had gone hungry at times during the Great Depression. They had suffered through World War II. My father traveled across Europe in the U.S. Army from Normandy to Germany. My mother was a munitions inspector in a U.S. Army arsenal. Yet, despite privation and little appreciation from people with money and power, they managed to build a fairly happy life after the war. They were sober, mindful people. I honor them for that. I try to carry on their legacy as an heir to their sober mindfulness.

Gay Liberation has been all but forgotten by gay men in the U.S.. Liberation in the post-AIDS world of consumer technology has been replaced by lobbying and digital hook-ups. The hedonism which was once a celebration of survival and defiance by gay men of sexually active age has now been reduced to just plain hedonism, an extended adolescence. It is gay cruises and trekking holidays in exotic places for those with the cash. And gay media is one huge infomercial for the commercialism which has replaced community activism. Middle age for gay men now offers legal marriage and financial planning.

Gay men who seek higher education are now free to become bourgeois. Rather than pursuing political science or social work degrees, they may seek MBA's, JD's and MD's. Those with a deeper social consciousness may get seduced into the social justice milieu where they will be bullied by lesbians, asexual feminists obsessed with rape and transgender folk. None of these options is liberating. They are just another form of seeking acceptance or special treatment, respectively, from a vastly heterosexual world, which has always cared less about us than we have assumed. 

So, as one of the decimated ranks of American gay men my age, I identify with the dodo bird, the elephant and the blue whale. We men of Gay Liberation are dying and will be gone soon. The death throes of my generation are unpleasant to observe in today's various digital media. We are considered trolls by both Right and Left on the current political spectrum. We are expected to get weepy over Hillary Clinton's denigration. Why?  I cannot figure that out. She did little for us. And she enabled a husband who displayed himself to be a lying sexist pig. 

We men of Gay Liberation will pass without heirs. But this has always been the way of our kind, until modern gay men decided it would be cool to produce IVF clones of themselves with surrogates. Will those heirs be heirs of gay men in their minds? Or will they be heirs of men who were married in the suburbs and happened to fall on some endless gray scale of modulated sexual identity?  Our kind, the likes of Edward Carpenter, Walt Whitman, Henry Hay and Harvey Milk, have been fine with being set apart and leaving a legacy to be picked up by whomever chose to do so. Perhaps movements cannot have true heirs, but the ideas they leave behind in articulate form may have, in another age. 


Sunday, February 5, 2017

SOCIAL ENGINEERING


I recommend reading the Wikipedia piece on Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi (pictured above).

Count Coudenhove-Kalergi, an Austrian-Japanese aristocrat, managed to live through Fascism. He escaped pursuit by the Nazis and is thought to be the inspiration for the Paul Henreid character, Victor Laszlo, in the film, Casablanca (1942). 

Recently I wrote of the influence of financial class upon ideology. Coudenhove-Kalergi's ideology is an example of the influence of the ideas of the wealthy elite, who themselves do not live with the immediate consequences of those ideas when they are put into practice. In fact, they appear to receive criticism of those ideas as ignorant insolence. They point at their lower-class critics as "deplorables', in the words of failed US-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. 

There is nothing particularly odious about Coudenhove-Kalergi's ideas. In fact, his ideas on racial mixing and globalization are a prediction of the inevitable evolution of mankind on its current trajectory. Too many people on too small a space (desertificated and defoliated Earth) will obviously have to intermingle. They will eventually tap into survival instincts to use technology to unify against a common threat of extinction. 

The pace of that change, however, has been artificially accelerated by EU's open border policy. And that policy seems to be rooted in the Coudenhove-Kalergi elitist view of change by globalist government to accelerate evolution in the name of peace. One major fly is embedded in that ointment: Islam. Since Coudenhove-Kalergi's father was an expert of Semitic religions and Count Richard himself was biracial (Austrian aristocrat father and Japanese bourgeois mother), it is possible that he quietly anticipated Islam as the unifying force which would actualize a united global population of one human race in some fashion. His writings extolled post-war Jewish intellectuals and politicians as the evolved elite guides of society. It is impossible to deny the racist attitudes that were at the very core of his claimed anti-racist philosophy. It would not be an irrational leap to speculate that he saw the potential for the eventual Islamic subjugation of Europe to extinguish populist dissent there. He wrote of a wish to see all peoples become Euro-African, looking like modern-day Egyptians. 

The deep-rooted problem with the Coudenhove-Kalergi mindset from a secular-humanist's democratic perspective is obvious. It is Fascist, sectarian and racist. It is forced race-minded evolution by governments in league with capitalist wealth and hereditary aristocracy, overriding popular will. 

Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi grew up in the bath water of global Fascism, despite having to flee the Third Reich. He lived to be an old and influential political influence until 1972. He is suspected of committing suicide at 78. He passed his torch as President of the Paneuropean Union, the equivalent of an American PAC, to Otto von Habsburg, heir to the Habsburg dynasty which once consisted of Holy Roman Emperors. Von Habsburg's crown was appropriately lost as a result of WW I. Von Hapsburg had spent WW II in Washington, DC. The Paneuropean Union was banned from 1933 by the Third Reich and was resurrected in Austria after the war. It is credited with foundations of the the current EU, where von Habsburg sat as a member of European Parliament from 1979-1999, while also leading the International Paneuropean Union. In 2004, he was succeeded in the IPU presidency by Alain Terrenoir. Terrenoir served in Charles de Gaulle's cabinet. De Gaulle was an admirer of Coudenhove-Kalergi. It is notable that von Habsburg's political party in Bavaria is part of a united party to which Angela Merkel belongs. 

It is not surprising that anyone currently from Europe is labelled as a conspiracy theorist or Alt-Right when they refer to this history of conscious and deliberate social engineering by the aristocrats of Germany and Austria. This antiquated and autocratic (patriarchal) approach to social and racial evolution is hard-wired in the EU leadership. It  has brought Europe to its current crisis. I believe that these aristocrats, desperate to exert their undemocratic will upon the masses of the world, may now be exploiting Islam as a tool to achieve their goals. I also believe they do not care about the consequences for the working people from all origins whom these policies impact. 

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

ANTI-EVERYTHING?


A reactionary is someone who unreasonably resists any ideas or behaviors that are different from the status quo or his/her concept of what is ideal. For example, I am admittedly reactionary in response to gangster rap music. I can reason out its origins and its artistic merits, but I have a gut reaction against its drug culture, violent imagery, misogyny and homophobia. My reactionary distaste is mollified by reason. In other words, I would not promote a ban on gangster rap. I value free speech over my reactionary impulses. I just won't buy it or listen to it. 

Being reactionary is part of being human. There are good survival mechanisms involved in the reactionary response. The fight-or-flight mechanism is one of the most basic. This most likely explains why old people, small children and many people who become extremely ill are more reactionary than others. This interests me because I am older and have survived severe debilitating illness. I am also a retired registered nurse. So, I have been able to look at this issue from several vantage points. My hypothesis from my observations is this: Human beings resist change in direct proportion to their state of comfort or discomfort. 

Those who are extremely wealthy, like Bill and Melinda Gates, may become less reactionary. For example, they may give out some of their great wealth to promote global change. They may become more flexible politically. They may move from opportunism to philanthropic altruism. Those who are extremely poor may also be less reactionary. They have little to lose with change and perhaps something to gain, if they are presented with an opportunity to increase their comfort. They may move from impoverished stagnation to hopeful opportunism. This can be used for bad purposes by bad people, as we have seen historically. 

Those in society's middle have always been the roiling mass of both progressive energy and reactionary resistance. Their gravitation to either pole seems to be related to where they are economically in society. The most progressive seem to be those on the way up economically. The most reactionary seem to be those on their way down economically. Those most moderate in this middle group appear to be those, in capitalist society, who have capital enough to sustain a stable economic future whether there is political/social change or not. Excluding mental illness, education, combined with capital stability, promotes moderation in the face of either stasis or change.

Why is the current anti-everything-Trump mania in the USA seated in the progressive middle? In other words, why are those who are climbing up the economic ladder from the middle (for example, college students) the most hysterical reactionaries against the current government administration? I believe the vehement reactionary wave against anything Trump among progressives has little to do with the specifics of Trump's stated goals or with their loss of the 2016 election. 

The denial of its steady losses by the economic middle of the USA in the recent decades is obvious. Rather than conforming to the globalist goal to knock down their lifestyles in favor of wealth redistribution globally and wealth maintenance of capitalist aristocrats, many in the USA's economic middle have worked more hours, leveraged themselves to the hilt and gone on a spending binge on credit to compensate for the misery of their lives. The result has been a tenuous grip on their economic stability and an increase in their stress. One more stock market failure or banking failure could crack off the edge of the economic cliff from which they are hanging by their fingernails. 

Then why are the wild protesters against Trump generally younger? I speculate that the most vehement anti-everything-Trump protesters are those whose lives are most dependent on the status quo. This sounds counter-intuitive, since quiet conservatives are traditionally seen as guardians of the status quo. 

Consider the children of middle-income families who now medically insure them under Obamacare until they are 25. This is a wide swath of young Americans of the economic middle. Consider the high number of children from the lower level of middle income and lower who have been raised in the expanded food stamp program. Consider the children whose college educations come from the leveraged equity of their parents' homes or businesses. In other words, consider the possibility that these vehement anti-everything-Trump protesters are not social justice warriors. Consider that they may be understandably protesting change in the status quo from a position of personal entitlement. This is not progressive. This is understandably reactionary, but it does not represent some ethical superiority. 

If people in the USA continue to subscribe to capitalism as it now exists in The West and increasingly around the globe, they should catch up with the inevitability of Trumps and Putins. We do not live in a democracy. We live in a republic. Republics throughout history have been ruled by aristocrats. Being reactionary against everything-Trump is basically being reactionary to a system to which you have subscribed election after election for decades. In other words, ignorant conformity in any political direction, combined with operating on a basis of selfish capitalist individualism, will inevitably lead to authoritarian regimes. Bernie Sanders is an anomaly. Trump and Clinton were simply examples of the system progressing farther along to more power for the elite and less for the middle.