Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail in '72 - Hunter
Log In to post a reply

13 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
phallus dei
390 posts

Re: Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail in '72 - Hunter
Feb 09, 2017, 14:16
Sin Agog wrote:
Were Hunter alive today, aside from the stocks of grapefruits and Kentucky Bourbon suddenly going up, he'd bloody loathe this trend of manipulative millionaires/billionaires gaining power by telling the poorest to direct their ire at other poor, rather than the people who have the most to gain from an angry rabble. He'd have thrown in his chips with Bernie Sanders, whose beliefs were totally in line with George McGovern (except, I'd say a McGovern type is more electable now than back then, despite what we're told). He was always butting heads with capitalist schweinhund, be they Aspen tourism bureaucrats or Jann Wenner. No way he would have got behind the idea of businessmen barging their way into power so they can change the laws to suit their monetary interests. While he appreciated privacy like few others, a libertarian he was not. Hunter was, essentially, a more fiery beatnik. I wonder if he and his ashes exploded in the sky at just the right time.


I'd like to think that if Hunter had any human decency, he'd be overjoyed at watching the established American political rats flee their sinking ship.

You write "No way he would have got behind the idea of businessmen barging their way into power so they can change the laws to suit their monetary interests" as if businessmen dictating law is a new policy. Businessmen have controlled everything in US politics for the past 40+ years. Goldman Sachs picked out Obama's cabinet for him before he even came to office.

You hold up Bernie Sanders as if he was a hero. Sanders is a sell-out. He should have gone third party. At the very least, once wikileaks made it absolutely clear that the primary was rigged (which everyone with common sense already knew), he should have rescinded his support for Hilary Clinton.

The two options with Trump are : 1) he is a typical lying politician who somehow pisses off all the other lying politicians (in which case it's a lot of fun seeing the rats turn on each other); or 2) he is a legitimate change.

American politics is so completely fucked that the only way there can be an independent voice is for that voice to already be wealthy enough that it can't be "bought." If the person's not already a member of the 1%, all talk of "change" is a a fairly tale. I fell for the fairy tale with Clinton '92 and Obama '08 (and even Obama '12) but not again.

The other option to bring about change, aside from relying on a "leader", is to build a genuine mass movement of millions of people that has no desire to enter the establishment. Such a mass movement is impossible to build in America at present due in part to the corrosive influence of identity politics (among other things).

So, those of use who really want to see the establishment burn are stuck with Trump.

U-Know! Forum Index