Comments on: New Package: Old Contents http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/11/new-package-old-contents/ a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:26:27 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Gary Corseri http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/11/new-package-old-contents/#comment-31994 Gary Corseri Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:19:47 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/?p=4717#comment-31994 Frank Scott is very good about emphasizing the need for collective, substantive reform action over the massive doses of symbolism we've been subjected to these past two years (and, really, much longer!). I think his point here needs some clarification: "From 1979 to 2008 the top 1% income group in the U.S.A. gained $600 billion , while the bottom 80 percent lost that same $600 billion. That’s an average yearly gain of $500,000 at the top, while the bottom lost an average $8,000." If the top 1% enjoyed an "average yearly gain of $500,000," over 29 years, they would now be making over $14.5 million per year--a figure that does not square with the number of "liquid-assets" millionaires (i.e., excluding the value of their homes) in the US--now about 1 percent. Also, if the bottom 80 percent were losing an average of $8,000 a year, they would now be earning a negative income of over $200,000 per year. Some re-calibration seems to be in order. Whatever the actual figures, Scott's main thesis is spot-on: "These are much bigger numbers and more serious problems than any racial symbolism or choreographed celebration can solve without radical transformation of a system that Obama is sworn to serve, not change." That's something to underline: Whatever his rhetoric--and let's face it, his was a victory of soaring rhetoric, and the money to bring such flights of fancy to the public's wavering attention--, when he takes the oath of office in January, Obama is there to serve the coalition of interests that united around him. Once the cheering stops, those interests will appear much more divergent and quarrelsome than before. One other small point here: "Evangelicals who believe Israel was ordained by god are momentarily subdued, but zionists who see Israel as sacred homeland for europeans who believe they are semites — the way Nigerians are native to Sweden — retain control." It's an amusing and bemusing aside, but, of course, Zionists are not simply revanchist in staking an ancient claim for Eretz Yisrael in the name of European "Semites." The Semites-by-adoption-and-adaptation (including the converted Khazars from Central Asia--but that's another story) are engaged in global map-redrawing and wish-fulfillment, and if a few little countries (Jordan, Syria, etc.) are "wiped off the map" in the process--well, as they say in Madrid, Asi es la vida! All in all, Scott gives us a lot to think about. His asides and ironic tone are provocative in the best sense. Frank Scott is very good about emphasizing the need for collective, substantive reform action over the massive doses of symbolism we’ve been subjected to these past two years (and, really, much longer!).

I think his point here needs some clarification:

“From 1979 to 2008 the top 1% income group in the U.S.A. gained $600 billion , while the bottom 80 percent lost that same $600 billion. That’s an average yearly gain of $500,000 at the top, while the bottom lost an average $8,000.”

If the top 1% enjoyed an “average yearly gain of $500,000,” over 29 years, they would now be making over $14.5 million per year–a figure that does not square with the number of “liquid-assets” millionaires (i.e., excluding the value of their homes) in the US–now about 1 percent. Also, if the bottom 80 percent were losing an average of $8,000 a year, they would now be earning a negative income of over $200,000 per year.

Some re-calibration seems to be in order.

Whatever the actual figures, Scott’s main thesis is spot-on:

“These are much bigger numbers and more serious problems than any racial symbolism or choreographed celebration can solve without radical transformation of a system that Obama is sworn to serve, not change.”

That’s something to underline: Whatever his rhetoric–and let’s face it, his was a victory of soaring rhetoric, and the money to bring such flights of fancy to the public’s wavering attention–, when he takes the oath of office in January, Obama is there to serve the coalition of interests that united around him. Once the cheering stops, those interests will appear much more divergent and quarrelsome than before.

One other small point here:

“Evangelicals who believe Israel was ordained by god are momentarily subdued, but zionists who see Israel as sacred homeland for europeans who believe they are semites — the way Nigerians are native to Sweden — retain control.”

It’s an amusing and bemusing aside, but, of course, Zionists are not simply revanchist in staking an ancient claim for Eretz Yisrael in the name of European “Semites.” The Semites-by-adoption-and-adaptation (including the converted Khazars from Central Asia–but that’s another story) are engaged in global map-redrawing and wish-fulfillment, and if a few little countries (Jordan, Syria, etc.) are “wiped off the map” in the process–well, as they say in Madrid, Asi es la vida!

All in all, Scott gives us a lot to think about. His asides and ironic tone are provocative in the best sense.

]]>