Yesterday was the deadliest in U.S. history, a situation created by Republican leadership, who continue to actively fight against any remedy, while our media covers the president's unlawful attempts to overturn an election as a "gambit"

I see the cause of our "political divide."

The idea astonishes, that there still exist opinion pieces suggesting those directly responsible for a rolling series of the deadliest days in U.S. history should face no consequence. The belief that a few people matter and the rest do not has never been more nakedly exposed.
Killing people because you want them dead is divisive.
Abandoning them to a virus when you could save them is divisive.
Making them die of cancer when you could give treatment is divisive.
Making them starve when you have food is divisive.

Yelling at the people doing it is not.
Lying is divisive.
Forcing people to live in your lie is divisive.
Convincing their friends and family that the lie is truth, until they no longer resemble themselves, is divisive.
Creating a media ecosystem to launder lies into truth is divisive.

Insisting on truth is not.
Corruption is divisive.
Profiting from your office is divisive
Breaking laws you still enforce upon others is divisive
Making law enforcement a profit center for the demolition of human lives is divisive

Seeking to punish corrupt actors and demolish corrupt institutions is not.
Racism is divisive.
Supporting neo Nazis is divisive.
Allowing white supremacists to infiltrate law enforcement is divisive.
Murdering Black people with impunity is divisive.
Promoting white supremacist language and neo Nazi slogans is divisive.

Refusing to accept it is not.
Corporatism is divisive.
Allowing the ecosystem to be destroyed is divisive.
Letting corporate interests consume human life is divisive.
Making profit the only metric of success and value is divisive.

Insisting on making the needs of human beings a priority is not.
Fascism is divisive.
Systemically disenfranchising millions is divisive.
Attacking free and fair elections on every level is divisive.
Supporting an authoritarian's attempts to overthrow an election is divisive.

Purging a fascist party by any means necessary is not divisive.
Thousands of citizens are murdered every day by their own government, who could do what other governments have to meet this challenge, but they don't, because there's no power and money or hate or harm in it.

THAT is divisive.

They should be destroyed. That's not divisive.
Anyone supporting this government is supporting the murder of thousands a day, the dissolution of democracy, the promotion of white supremacy, and the abandonment of millions of sick, hungry, and suffering people.

THAT is divisive.

They should be shamed. That's not divisive.
We know that we exist in a culture dedicated to abuse and enablement of abuse, because in a time of shocking abuse creating deadly divides, the only thing that is treated as "divisive" is any attempt to check an abuser, or any attempt to establish a healthy boundary.
And divisive shit like this (one example among many) should be jeered with such complete unity that any person daring to suggest such a divisive thing never shows their face again.

https://t.co/Ojkkjqmp49

More from A.R. Moxon

Observe: the lie that "government" is a monolithic entity, from which we are somehow separate.

Government is how we organize, manage and maintain our society, but to acknowledge that is to acknowledge society, and one's responsibility to organize, manage, and maintain it.


Government didn't close churches. Churches closed because people with something more than a childishly selfish view of the world understood their responsibility to the shared life of a society, and government is how that understanding was operationalized and delivered.

Nor does government militarize police. The police is militarized because people with a fearful, hateful or selfish view of the world understand a militarized police will operationalize & deliver that fear, hate, and greed through the mechanism of government.

Government is *us*.

Those who now align with a party actively working to dissolve and demolish democracy in our country do so not because they don't understand this, but because they do.

Democracy allows people they fear and hate to be government with them.

So they hate democracy, and government.

People who align with a party standing in the way of any solution, any maintenance, any governance, do so not because they don't understand this, but because they do.

Better to die of sickness, disease, and neglect than allow those they hate and fear to be government with them.
People have wondered why I have spent 3 days mostly pushing back on this idea that "defund the police" is bad marketing.

The reason is, it's an example of this magic trick, the oldest trick in the book.

It's a competition between what I call compass statements. And it matters.


There are a lot of people who think "defund the police" is a bad slogan.

But it's a directional intention. A compass statement.

The real effect of calling it a bad slogan, whether or not intentional (but usually intentional), is to reduce a compass statement down to a slogan.

Whenever there is a real problem and a clear solution, there will be people who benefit from the problem and therefore oppose the solution in a variety of ways.

And this is true of any real problem, not just the problem of lawless militarized white supremacist police.

There are people who oppose it directly using a wide variety of tactics, one of which is misconstruing anything—quite literally anything—said by those who propose solutions—any solutions.

They'd appreciate it if you mistake their deliberate misrepresentation for confusion.

The reason they'd appreciate if if you mistake their deliberate misrepresentation for confusion is, it wastes time that could have been spend on the solution trying to persuade them, with different arguments and metaphors or solutions.

Which they intend to misconstrue.
Imagine if Christians actually had to live according to their Bibles.


Imagine if Christians actually sacrificed themselves for the good of those they considered their enemies, with no thought of any recompense or reward, but only to honor the essential humanity of all people.

Imagine if Christians sold all their possessions and gave it to the poor.

Imagine if they relentlessly stood up for the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner.

Imagine if they worshipped a God whose response to political power was to reject it.

Or cancelled all debt owed them?

Imagine if the primary orientation of Christians was what others needed, not what they deserved.

Imagine Christians with no interest in protecting what they had.

Imagine Christians who made room for other beliefs, and honored the truths they found there.

Imagine Christians who saved their forgiveness and mercy for others, rather than saving it for themselves.

Whose empathy went first to the abused, not the abuser.

Who didn't see tax as theft; who didn't need to control distribution of public good to the deserving.

More from Politics

I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.


Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel

He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:

He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:

He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party

You May Also Like