Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
16. It is not complete bullshit. The media's version of it is. They don't want to promote class warfare,
Mon Jan 16, 2017, 03:11 PM
Jan 2017

so they are pretending that we paid attention to social issues rather than what matters to these white rural Christians, and in-fact that the former contributed to their alienation. And of course this is how the media would mangle the point.

Religions actually have to change with the times or die. Yes, the bigger churches are often regressive, because their power comes from the status-quo, so they tend to try to hold onto that power or to even deepen it, by controlling and even devolving their constituency's independent thinking...so they are a force to be reckoned with, but again, at the end of the day, they are as much a reflection of the times and attitudes as they are the progenitor of them. The question to ask is why is that regressive message appealing? What are they giving people with it?

The big ones are always safety and security. It is true that some people will hear nothing. They are far too committed to their world-view to either be the first or second wave of change, or to change their way of thinking at all. But even if this is true, how many? Would you say 33% of the voting public? If we assume 33% are entirely unreachable(and I don't really), that would still leave 13% of last elections voting public that we can reach with the right messaging. And that messaging is economic, for a reason. I don't care what people say on a form. I don't care that they don't understand the nature of their belief system or their vote, the right economic message can change their paradigm.

One of the key components to inciting revolution is to get people to realize they are getting less than they deserve and could have. For instance, revolutions do not happen in places of abject poverty very often when that abject poverty is what the people have always known.

The language of class warfare can change that, and what's so significant about it is that it can do so by undermining the propaganda that scapegoats people of color and immigrants.

Oh yes, I know that people can be entirely unreceptive to hearing. Particularly so when they need to justify what they have and why others have less. That's all loss avoidance oriented. They've invested their lives into this belief system, and on top of that they have the misguided impression that if they get empathetic to immigrants or people of color that they will have a hard time justifying to themselves their better circumstances, or that they may actually lose that edge...that the government is going to come and take from them in taxes and distribute it away.

I say focus on getting them to justify why they don't have more. I say focus on getting them to explain to you why the media, wholly owned by corporations, has a librul agenda that is trying to get the government to tax corporations more and make immigrants into citizens so that they have to pay living wages rather than to bring down the market value of labor. I say ask them to follow the money. Do the immigrants have it? Does welfare account for it? NO! But guess who has 80% of the world's wealth? Guess who is playing us for fools.

Lets take away their defense mechanisms already...stop making it dangerous for them to reconsider their racism and make it imperative to their own economic well-being to do so.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Great article on the rigi...»Reply #16