Critical Independence Theory

When I first noticed that the US was one of the few former British colonies to wage a bloody war of independence, while many other colonies in the empire figured a less bloody way out, I started to suspect something wasn’t adding up. Maybe the US founders were too hot-headed, as partially right as their grievances may have been. Maybe they sucked at negotiating a smarter way forward. Maybe the US was not the architect of democracy it crowned itself in 1776. But more disturbingly, maybe it wasn’t as interested in unalienable rights as it proclaimed in its declaration of independence. 

I mean let’s be clear about one thing: the monarchy in 1776 was far from perfect. In fact as ways to lead large masses of people go it was on thin ice and borrowed time. 

And yet as monarchies go, the House of Hanover with its four Georges was fairly savvy. 

Peeling back the onion:

The Kingdom already had a Parliament. America was not God’s gift to democracy, even if to be fair it did move the needle significantly to the left. Great Britain’s parliament dated back to 1707. And that parliament was actually a merger of two parliaments dating back to the 1200s (England and Scotland).

There were two houses in that parliament: Lords and Commons. As the names imply, the monarchy controlled the ruling House of Lords.  Commons had influence, but not exactly in control. And yet, wisely, they were allowed to exist. By a monarchy that understood it could not hold on to absolute power forever.

In 1832 the Reform Act in Britain turned the tables, and democracy experienced another seismic shift. Without a single shot fired. No fireworks needed, no PR stunt. The House of Commons roared.

Almost immediately the British Parliament, led by the House of Commons, abolished slavery. 30 years prior to the United States. Once again, not a shot fired. 

Unintentionally I’m sure, the United States Declaration of Independence was set up for a fatal flaw from the start. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” 

Not all founders of America were slaveowners. In fact less than you’d expect from the time. And yet the majority were. Exactly two-thirds. Makes you wonder about that “two-thirds majority” ratio inscribed from the start. Article V.

The cynic in my brain now believes that the mighty American Declaration of Independence was just another oligarchic tantrum in the history of human civilization.  No, we don’t want to play by anyone else’s rules. Look at all this rich land. We don’t need you anymore, go away. There’s a new sheriff in town. I’m the new king now. Er, president. 

And yet the fair-minded side of my conscience refuses to throw out the baby, when throwing out the dirty bathwater. The US has contributed amazing wonders to our world. Even in a parallel universe, without a bloody revolution, it very likely would still be a beacon of civilization. And as it flirts with fascism today, dancing with the devil it has never known, history will still remember it kindly. 

Progress is scrappy. Civilization is painfully slow. Evolution can only be fathomed as a freeze frame.

“When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

Take heed, Republican & Democratic parties: the course of human events is coming around full circle. 

Don’t Feed The Fascists

The progressive movement is often weak at messaging a cause. It’s like the definition of insanity for communication: speaking only among yourselves, expecting everyone else to accept what you’re saying. If it weren’t for the damage inflicted I’d say who cares, it’s all sticks and stones. But unfortunately the stakes are often too high.

The nazis, the soviets, Donald Trump, et. al. ad nauseam were and are naturals at power-messaging. Irrespective of the moral content of the message. In Trump’s case his super-power is dumbing-down hate.

The problem with political bumper-sticker ideology is that it can almost always be fixed (or derailed) by adding or subtracting a word. So while we spend the next interval in between mass shootings arguing over amendments and overreach, the next crazy fuck is reloading. The registered firearms in my house are not going to stop the next blood shed. Pretending and claiming they will is crazy fuckism at its worst.

Examples from The Marketing of Fascism vs the Meekness of Liberalism:

Problem: Black Communities at a social and judicial disadvantage.

Liberal Message: “Black Lives Matter”

Fascist Response: “ALL LIVES MATTER”

What the message should have been: BLACK LIVES ALSO MATTER (BLAM)

(Runner-Up: Black Lives Also Count - “BLAC”)

…

Problem: Homicide, especially with the use of guns. 

Liberal Message: Gun Control

Fascist Response: “2A”. “GUNS DON’T KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.”

What the message should have been: GUN ACCESS CONTROL.

Also, the liberal counter response to the fascists’ “2A” dog-whistle should be R2A (Real 2A) Meaning, STOP CHERRY-PICKING THE CONSTITUTION, FASCISTS. 2A clearly includes the words A WELL REGULATED MILITIA.)

…

Problem: Homophobia and related sexual identity bullying. 

Liberal Message: 2LGBTQ+

Fascist Response: WTFBTQ+

What the message should have been: ALL SEXUALITY MATTERS. 

By the way, a much smarter fusion of the classic HUMAN RIGHTS does exist, called HRC (Human Rights Campaign). While it encompasses all human rights causes it is driven by the LGBTQ community.

…

Problem: Unplanned pregnancy, for a variety of reasons, unsolicited or otherwise. 

Liberal Message: Pro-Choice.

Fascist Response: “PRO-LIFE”

What the message should have been: WOMEN ALSO MATTER (WAM)

…

The “Black Lives Matter” slogan was especially unfortunate. For a demographic that prides itself in its “inclusiveness” (liberals as a whole, not just blacks in this example), it sure did exclude everyone else there. As they do with LGBTQ. Dissonant messaging. 

Sure, fascism will always try to delegitimize everything that threatens its agenda. That’s what they do. But let’s take the Gun Control movement. If liberals had been more clear in their mission they would have forced conservatives to counter with, “they’re coming for your ACCESS.” Yes, their shameless propaganda machine (AKA the NRA, aka the firearms industry) will still shoot for “they’re coming for your guns”, no doubt. But logical dissonance soon enough finds a way to self-own. It’s the access, stupid. You can’t fool all of the people, all of the time.

So especially knowing that’s what they do, when you launch your message don’t make it ridiculously easy for them to twist and shout you down. For a message to be powerful it must stump the delegitimizing machine. You must severely limit their response options, speed-up their retreat. Poor messaging may not be solely responsible for long, drawn-out social injustice, but it has been instrumental. And when you lose sight of the struggle this is what ends up happening: one hundred years from Civil War to Civil Rights. It doesn’t get much more painful than that.

Dr. ML King, Malcom X, and Muhammad Ali all spoke truth to power in the 1960s, one-hundred years after the bloody civil war. They were clear as a cloudless day, straight as a bullet. There was no confused hesitation, no intellectually cryptic code. But it took another half a century for THEIR message to find their way into our mainstream today. Why? Certainly not because they weren’t clear. Perhaps because their followers botched and diluted one too many messages.

The latest message casualty the progressives just fed to the machine is “Critical Race Theory. “Theory”? Jesus Christ, who’s writing these messages for the progressive movement? Do they think that by making it sound like an advanced course at an elite university it will scare the undereducated? Good grief, snap out of it. It’s called RACE HISTORY. 

Urgently reconsider your compromised messaging, progressives, or you’re going to keep getting beat up in every street fight. We all know you’ll win eventually, but why the masochism? One hundred years the first time around, fifty the second, what are you shooting for, a Christ complex? Why are you sacrificing the message through either half-baked or cryptic messaging? Weakness in what you say and how you say it feeds the fascist machine.

The Twilight Boarding Zone

When the Wright brothers first took off on an airplane 121 years ago, their boarding time took 10 seconds. It would have taken 5 but Wilbur stopped Orville and demanded he check his oversized bag. Orville flipped his brother off and they both had a good laugh.

That was the last time the world saw an efficient boarding process. And it has little to do with passengers shortcomings, as much as they obviously exist. That excuse is simply setting travelers up for failure. 

If you ask an airline employee / manager, they will point the finger at the FAA, TSA, and the M-O-U-S-E for good measure. Some of that blame is well deserved. But not all of it. 

There are a couple of videos on YouTube that show how an efficient boarding process would / should go, according to science. Of course without traveler shortcomings, profit-maximized operations, elitism & politics. 

Is waiting to board a plane such a big deal? Within reason, not really. But that presupposes a nominal amount of mutual respect. It assumes you’re not telling a passenger that they need to be somewhere when it’s not necessary. “Boarding time” is one of the most disingenuous promises in free enterprise. 

The aircraft I’m in at this time has 38 rows, 1 aisle, 3 seats on each side of the aisle. So 6 seats x 38 = 228 souls on board. “Pre-boarding” (see George Carlin for a definition of what that means) started at 10:09AM. Departure was scheduled for 10:49. It is now 10:48, and we’re pulling back. So far so good, textbook boarding for 228 spinal cords. 

So is 40 minutes really that bad, especially for that number of people? Not really, with one exception: half of that time was spent having the aisle passengers sit down, only to be asked by a middle seat passenger to get up or pay up for a lap dance. Rinse and repeat for window passengers. Also, the example above is the airlines’ best case scenario. And their best case already takes twice as long as science says it should.

There is zero common sense (and as much common decency) in not boarding a plane from the rear to front first. They used to. What they din’t try was perfect logic. What does science say? This: special assistance first, in a section of the plane that their own. The rear of the aircraft actually makes perfect sense for them, for a number of reasons: closest to the bathrooms, and on longer trips closest to flight attendant assistance. Then window seats, then middle seats, then aisles. Every passenger is given a boarding number, so that last row window seaters are passengers #1 & #2. The aircraft can be divided into zones, as it is now but for a logical reason, not for “classism”. Nor for “communism” either. To make it more efficient, period. So in our case that could be 8 zones of 5 rows each, 30 passengers per zone. Color-code each of the zone sections, to make it visually easier for passengers to see their zone up ahead while walking down the aisle.

Remember the feet outlines on floors during the pandemic, meant for social distancing? Airport gate areas can do exactly the same. So based on your boarding number, which is based on your seat location on the plane, you find your number and stand on those happy feet. Then off you go, when the nice person herding cats waves you on. 

The whole elitism of “boarding first” has to be the dumbest thing ever concocted by corporate yahoos. And that’s coming from someone who flew and still flies on first often enough. You want to cater to Mr. and Mrs. busy-wealthy? DON’T MAKE THEM COME TO THE GATE SO EARLY. I would rather be the last to board. Close the door and let’s get this candle lit. 

Thirty passengers that don’t have to play musical chairs with each other can board in about 2.5 minutes. Tried and tested. That’s a 20 minute board for 228 passengers. 

As for the busy and the wealthy? Tell them they have 15 more minutes to sleep or sip on their mimosas at the VIP lounge. So in my flight, pre-boarding (zone 0) would have been asked to be at the gate by 10:20, zones 1-7 would have been asked to be ready to board at 10:30, and the beautiful people could have been asked to not bother showing up till 10:45. Steerage all strapped in, practically no wait for the chosen ones. And not to mention they’re already the first to get off. What better advantage is there? How fragile are their egos that they have to go in AND out first? C’mon. Let’s all grow up a little, shall we?

For those wondering what about those passengers who are delayed through no fault of their own, show up late due to their own poor planning, etc, there’s a simple response: since when do the airlines care about leaving people behind? Except this time at least everyone else would have a much better experience.

This is for the most part a “first world problem”, no doubt. But you know what part is not a first world problem? You guessed it: the elitist part. When elitism gets so dumb that they’ve cornered themselves into sitting down way too early, forced to wait for 200-400 passengers to shuffle past them, with steerage class looking down upon them with that smirk that says, “you know what? I’m going to take my sweet time.” And all the elites can do is just sit there and wait, while they get the Queen Elizabeth royal wave.