Featured

Sanders Family: Quid Pro Quo and the GOP Machine

By J. Eller @SDzzz  SandersGuide 2016 YouTube


The Polluted Political Trail to Sierra Blanca

Bernie Sanders is a 2016 presidential candidate claiming a strong anti-corporate, pro-environmental record. This research began as a simple search to verify that claim. As the search progressed, the man behind the curtain revealed himself in a story of environmental racism, political partnerships with major GOP operatives and a Texas tycoon, a famous lead polluter known as the King of Superfund Sites costing US taxpayers $4.4 billion. This research touches on the history of Sierra Blanca, TX since it was the victim of an insider plot to make millions, possibly billions by dumping nuclear waste on a Latino community, 2.6 times below the state poverty level.

Bernie Sanders and his wife, Jane O’Meara Sanders are part of a twisting story that crisscrosses from a GOP mega-donor, to foreign policy with Mexico culminating with a former Goldman Sachs superstar. As you read this, keep Sanders’ campaign focal points in mind; wealth, corporations, corporate welfare, tax breaks, banks, investors, Goldman Sachs, Citizens United. You’ll see it’s all here in a spider’s web of greed holding the hypocrisy together. Is it just too “complicated” for citizens to understand, as Sanders says? I don’t think so, we’re a pretty clever lot down here on the ground.

BS-sierrapic

FAST FACTS – TEXAS-VERMONT-MAINE Nuclear Waste Compact

  • Pro Sierra Blanca: Tycoon Harold Simmons, owner. Gov. George W. Bush R-TX. Gov. Rick Perry R-TX . Rep Joe Barton R-TX. Rep John Fields R-TX. Senator Bernie Sanders I-VT.
  • Opposed to Sierra Blanca: Citizens of West Texas. Paul Wellstone D-MN. Lloyd Doggett D-TX. NAACP. LULAC. Sierra Club. Government of Mexico.

Influential Texas billionaire Harold Simmons owned the Sierra Blanca waste site, doing business as Waste Control Specialists or WCS.
2016 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders was a leading proponent and co-sponsor of the Texas-Vermont-Maine compact legislation, H.R. 629 (1998) and its predecessor H.R. 558 (1995)

  • WCS bought the site (1995) even before it had performed a proper environmental study of it. Immediately, H.R. 558 legislation was introduced in congress that year and failed.
  • 12 million shares of Titanium Metals Corp., another Simmons company, provided financial assurance for the dump. It was a highly unorthodox arrangement that critics panned as a “polluters’ dream.” Titanium Metals’ stock plummeted not long after the deal was sealed. Eventually, in November, another company purchased Titanium Metals for $2.9 billion. Simmons then used 9.8 million shares of Kronos, another Simmons company (also sold). Texas Observer
  • Another Simmons company National Lead Industries had already poisoned communities. Dallas’ Most Evil Genius
    • 1998-H.R. 629 was a private compact between Texas, Vermont and Maine. Vermont sends its nuclear waste from the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant to Texas.
    • Sierra Blanca was mentioned 58 times in the committee debate as the designated site, a fact Bernie Sanders rejected.
    • Sierra Blanca is located in an earthquake zone 16 miles of the US-Mexico border.
    • The Sierra Blanca nuclear waste site did not have to be built.Gov. George Bush said if H.R. 629 did not pass, the Sierra Blanca site would not go forward.
    • H.R. 629 opened the door to national waste storage and expansion of sites in Texas, one of Simmons’ goals.
    • In 1999, WCS opened a second site in Andrews County, Texas, northeast of the Sierra Blanca site after allegations of fraud, environmental record tampering and unethical political influence eroded legislative support for the Sierra Blanca site.
      • Three commissioners resigned from TCEQ rather than accept the commission’s approval of a nuclear waste license for WCS.
      • WCS is the only private company in the United States licensed to import class “B” and “C” low level waste from other states. The term “low level” is a catch-all classification that does not mean it’s safer or less dangerous; it simply means it’s radioactive waste that can’t be classified as spent fuel from reactors, which is often termed “high level” waste. Another waste source called “greater than class C” is a more highly radioactive version that must be kept away from human contact for many thousands of years.
        • WCS’ second site in Andrews County threatens the water supply of nearly a third of America’s farmland- Ogallala Aquifer.
        • MIT says that at present rates of use the Ogallala Aquifer will be drained within this century due to pollution, drought and poor management.
        • Studies show only 14 feet of separation between the site and the nearest groundwater.
    •  WCS shelved the Sierra Blanca site after intense debate and significant and ongoing efforts by local residents, environmental agencies, groups and the government of Mexico ended a twenty year  battle for survival. Still, AFCI Texas, an Austin-based company approached Sierra Blanca residents with a proposal for high-level radioactive waste as recent as 2011. Sierra Blanca residents, their shoulders already laden with years of indignities are forced to spend their lives fighting for the safety of their community.
    • 2004, Maine pulls out of the compact citing too many delays with the Texas site.
  • 2012,  Jane O’Meara Sanders, wife of Bernie Sanders,was appointed Vermont compact commissioner.
  • In 2011 the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission (TLLRWDCC) passed a rule allowing WCS-Andrews, licensed since 1997 for radioactive storage, to accept out-of-compact waste expanding the Texas-Vermont-Maine Compact to a national waste facility near Andrews, 120 miles NE of Sierra Blanca.
  • In 2012 Vermont sent its first shipment of nuclear waste to Texas.
  • In May 2013, Energy Capital Partners II, LP and its parallel funds acquisition of EnergySolutions, Inc. purchased WCS from Simmons’ Valhi, Inc. ECP is a leading global provider of nuclear services to government and commercial customers holding 27 energy related companies. EnergyCapital Partners
    Starting in 1983 and prior to co-founding ECP, Senior Partner Douglas W. Kimmelman was instrumental in developing the Constellation Power Source concept as the initial entry point for Goldman Sachs as a principal into electricity markets and spent 22 years with Goldman Sachs in the firm’s Pipeline and Utilities Dept within the Investment Banking Division.The Team

Oli Oli Oxenfree! Jeanette Johnson-Jing

This isn’t about positively promoting your candidate or suppressing your freedom of speech. It’s about using a scorched earth technique of lies and deception to destroy an opponent and the American progressive democratic party at a very dangerous time in U.S. political history.

Welcome to the globetrotting world of the nouveau riche of designers, fashionistas, musicians, DJ’s and photographers from around the world who need free healthcare. Don’t dare call them immigrants, they won’t be around that long, but they want to tell Americans how to vote. They want to destroy Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party because Bernie is so cool and like, so is socialism, and anyway,  look at all the new followers and fans you can scoop up in that Bernie Bros market! Business is booming. Let’s all astroturf the hell out of this Bernie thing and promote our skills, services and products! Viva la revolution, don’t forget to post those pics… here we are part of the American revolution, sipping drinks in Singapore. Here we are eating exotic food far, far away from America. Here we are at a party, on a plane, in a club, just hanging on a beach, another beach, all the beaches of the world, Australia, Bali, Indonesia, London, Tasmania, Norway, Germany, Singapore, Canada, and more we forgot if not for the selfies. Would you just look at us! Sigh. Time to shuffle back to America and Bernie where we will convince you to hate everything the Clinton family represents and democrats in general, because the scrapbook will be fabulous and Bernie can’t succeed without us!

oli-mural
A talented group and professional photographer feeling the bern.
oli-bern mural
The Bernie mural tweet.

How shall we do it? Let’s channel them for fun…

First we’ll go here and get a nifty composite face, make her just a shade darker so we can tweet Black Lives Matter with authenticity, but not so dark as to offend our white friends. None of us are African American (only celeb AA’s allowed near our group to “inspire” us), so give her “white” features. They’ll never catch on.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Next we need to make videos. We’re multimedia artists so let’s brand it “guerrilla video” for that cool marketing bounce we’ll be hoping for.

It won’t be hard, there are thousands of far right-wing hate videos on Hillary, Bill and Barack Obama. Let’s cobble those together with our really cool production software we use at work and call them “compilations” (screw that copyright, we’re rebels).  Oli can do the music, maybe even the videos, too. We’ll cross-market  everything! Monetize dozens of videos, then branch out and post to every social media site we can find. AdSense the f*ck out of it all.

We will astroturf until exhaustion (or boredom), take the money and jet off to an exotic locale, laughing at those idiot BernieBros left behind with those Yankees we told them to trash. Don’t call us hypocrites, we’re too cool for hypocrisy.

Karl Rove would experience nirvana viewing the @jeanettejing timeline and youtube accounts.

Come out, come out wherever you are Jeanette Johnson-Jing, fake persona that you are, purveyor of right-wing hate. Media would love to interview you, and you could use a little vetting since you’ve built yourself into a public figure and social media celeb. Surely, you have a fascinating background.  Think of the pop in revenue! Let’s expand on that vetting thing a little. Why hide?



EXPOSING JEANETTE JOHNSON-JING

As coincidences go, there’s quite a basketful with this one.

Twitter users @exposingjing   @alltehmonnies and must read The Story of How Bad Pupper, Esq.@alltehmonnies Exposed the Tomfoolery and Shenanigans of “Jeanette Jing” have already noticed a few things wrong with the Jing Scheme. I thought I’d follow up on their fine work and flesh this mannequin out, so to speak.

The post by Johnson-Jing that started the search was this January 24, 2014 post:JJ

Below: The guy on the right is Oli Chang, sibling to Ari and Adam.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

After this was brought into question, the @jeanettejing account quickly deleted the ari-Adam post. Why? Because it leads to an interesting Australian family, apparent Australian Green Party loyalists and pro-immigration activists. They seem to be nice enough people, educated and attractive.

The man presumed by others to be behind the account is Adam Claridge-Chang, a scientist who runs Claridge-Chang Lab in Singapore, @adamcchang, but it seems like Adam would be too occupied with his research. Also in Adam’s selfie is his sweet activist sister, Arianna Claridge-Chang, @ariannapila, her LinkedIn. Obviously, Jeanette Johnson-Jing is very close (insert sarcasm) to the Claridge, Claridge-Chang or Chang family.

The third sibling, not shown in the post, but documented via his facebook and twitter accounts as being personally involved with media production for the Jing account, is Oliver Claridge-Chang, or as he’s professionally known, Oli Chang, @olichang composer, musician, videographer and DJ, member of the band, High Highs (two albums) @HighHighs, working out of Brooklyn, NY and Australia, with global gigs. He was initially known for remixes and clever viral videos published across the web.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

After reviewing Oli’s twitter, instagram, facebook and the many trails across his business social media accounts too numerous to mention, there is one glaring omission in his vast collection of self and entourage pics; African Americans, and of course, the always invisible Jeanette Johnson-Jing. When he visits his brother in Singapore or his sister in Australia, or when they get together in one location on the planet, there’s a surplus of photogenic white friends (other than the Claridge-Changs who are Asian Caucasian) in pic after pic, but no cocoa skinned beauties like Jeanette Johnson-Jing (although she bears a resemblance to Arianna), so it’s very curious that a Claridge-Chang sibling selfie sent nowhere else traceable on the internet should be posted by none other than Jeanette Johnson-Jing aka Jeanette Sandernista aka @jeanettejing on January 24, 2014. Jing and Oli openly tweet each other, credit each other, why panic over such a simple picture?

The family favs or re-posts each other’s videos across their individual youtube accounts, including those of Jeanette Johnson-Jing. It’s nice to stay bonded.

The Claridge-Chang siblings divorced parents are Leonard Chang, who lives in Norway and mother, Fabia Claridge-Chang @fabiari remains an immigration, refugee activist in Australia where the kids were born. Fabia’s special interest is Nauru refugees, something both  Jeanette and Oli have tweeted about.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

After you check out Oli’s anti-Hillary twitter feed, if you want to reach out to Oli for info on his good friend, Jeanette, you can message him on twitter, facebook or instagram, or just catch him at a gig. Maybe he’ll invite you over to feel the bern:houseoli-housetwt



Since there was already an expose by Project Veritas on Australians from the Australian Labor Party paid to help the Bernie Sanders campaign, I’ll reluctantly (Project Veritas is a deeply conservative anti-democrat operation) link to it here: Australian Labor Party Assisting Democratic US Campaigns in Violation of Campaign Finance Laws 

Let’s explore what astroturfing is and the laws of Australia and America that frown on it. Wiki:  Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by a grassroots participant(s). It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations credibility by withholding information about the source’s financial connection. The term astroturfing is derived from AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to resemble natural grass, as a play on the word “grassroots.” The implication behind the use of the term is that there are no “true” or “natural” grassroots, but rather “fake” or “artificial” support, although some astroturfing operatives defend the practice (see Justification below).”

Is it legal?

United States:

“Many countries have laws that prohibit more overt astroturfing practices.[7] In the United States the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) may send cease and desist orders or require a fine of $16,000 per day for those that violate its “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”[7][8] The FTC’s guides were updated in 2009 to address social media and word-of-mouth marketing.”

Australia:

“In Australia astroturfing is regulated by Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law, which broadly prohibits “misleading and deceptive conduct”. According to the Journal of Consumer Policy Australia’s laws, which were introduced in 1975, are more vague. In most cases, they are enforced through lawsuits from competitors, rather than the regulatory body, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.[7] There is also an International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network (ICPEN).[12]

There’s big money in politics and of course, both Johnson-Jing and Oli believe all Hillary supporters are paid, so here’s a word from both sides on that:

“Currently, Barrier Breakers 2016 distributes positive messages in support of Hillary Clinton for President, not anything else.” Correct the Record’s communications director Elizabeth Shappell. Project: $1M

Revolution messaging is credited with fundraising efforts.

A Sanders campaign official told The Daily Beast that the money paid ($16M+) to Revolution Messaging was spent on “online ads, email fundraising, web development, graphic design, photography and videography.”

(This doesn’t include millions to campaign strategist Tad Devine’s company for television ads.)

Politics is a profit venture, even in and under the grassroots.

So, an enterprising group (or even one person) hell-bent on taking down the Clintons jumps in the fray. What the Jeanette Johnson-Jing venture produces is a steady stream of Clinton attacks, some so vile and vicious the account was recently temporarily suspended for posting a vicious video depicting bombings, dead children combined with photos of Hillary meeting world leaders as the cause of all the death and destruction. I doubt singer Dionne Warwick would appreciate use of  her hit, “That’s What Friends Are For” as the soundtrack for this sick piece. She should be informed of this infringement. Johnson-Jing friend and @NYDailyNews Senior Justice Writer, Shaun King posted the video for Johnson-Jing while the account was briefly suspended. It’s a nasty piece of work, but then, most of the Jing posts are repulsive..shaunking1

 What is the problem with the Johnson-Jing Scheme? It uses the politics of destruction and obstruction, not progression.  It claims to be pro-liberal, yet it relies exclusively on extreme right-wing content posted and paid for by groups funded by the Koch Bros, Sheldon Adelson,

sheldon Karl Rove and the 30 year old attack machine that have relentlessly targeted the Clintons and every democrat in office or running for office. Even if the Jing-Scheme finds raw footage, it twists it into a right-winger’s wet dream of rabid anti-Clinton ecstacy. The GOP professional slander machine shapes the news, it crafts the message and in today’s world, that means countless blogs and social media accounts citing the same salacious information in a never-ending  revolution of vilification. It won’t hesitate to shout Benghazi!, or recycle the Clinton email scandal (that wasn’t a scandal), or accuse the Clinton’s of pedophilia, rape, murder and genocide.  It doesn’t spare President Obama either, and neither did Johnson-Jing early on…

jj-obama

The machinery brought us George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, it sold the Iraq War, it’s invested heavily in every media format with tendrils so well disguised they can appear as left-wing lifelines. Experienced democrats are painfully aware of this.

Bernie Sanders shouting Koch Bros! is meaningless unless you understand what Koch influence means and how it really works. When the Koch Bros offer up almost a billion dollars to stop progressives, it doesn’t mean they intend to play softball or plan to share how they’ll do it. Getting you to do their dirty work is a money saving option for them.

If you’re new to politics and enraptured by Bernie’s message, you probably use anti-Hillary topics without comprehending the content, context or its original source. It all appears to be breaking news never before seen. The same politics of destruction brought us the Tea Party, which then set its sights on fracturing the conservative party via extreme ideologies and religious fervor, not that conservatives were ever society’s helpers, but they weren’t this insane. It became the OWS of the right-wing, later boasting it co-opted many of that movement’s tactics. Today, it brings us Donald Trump and the politics of fear and hate. Newcomers to the political scene don’t realize how easy it is to become a useful  idiot,  regurgitating the politics of derision and division they claim to despise in the system. By forwarding right-wing conspiracies on Clinton, congratulations are in order…you are now an unpaid resource of the extreme right-wing.  If you don’t feel victimized, you should.

Bernie Sanders is not a democrat, nor was he ever a democrat. He compromised his independent principles to use the very influence, power and money of what he professes to hate. He has never liked the two-party system, but show me a country with a one-party system that is not oppressive.

Under Bernie’s leadership, his surrogates and followers have reveled in a hatred of democrats (only now after more than a year is Sanders under pressure to at least mention the GOP and Trump).

Will the Jing Scheme’s inner circle revert to its adoration of Snowden and Glenn Greenwald and allegations of American Imperialism or dive head first into the #NeverHillary campaign and come out showing their support for Trump, which is only thinly veiled at this point?

Only time will tell. Meanwhile, the fleecing continues…G’day mate!

jj-bystander

By J. Eller @SDzzz  SandersGuide 2016 YouTube


Sex and the Single Girl Part Two

Transcript is as originally printed and published, intact, without correction of grammar, spelling, typos, etc.

Bernard Sanders 1963. Chicago Maroon, student newspaper GadFly

The purpose of this paper is to challenge the right of the Administration of the University of Chicago to forbid, by threat of disciplinary action, the students in the College to engage in sexual relations — this demand for sexual abstention being, of course, the motivating factor behind the four year residence and hours regulations impose on the women, and the two-year regulations imposed on the men. Under these regulations no woman is allowed to live in an off-campus apartment. Then, having been forced to live within the dormitory system, she is subjected to various rules concerning the time which she may spend outside her room. These regulations, plus various subsidiary rules such as not allowing men into women” rooms, and vice and vice versa, have he total effect of prohibiting sex in the college; that is, if the rules are obeyed.

The administrators of the University do not believe that students should engage in pre-marital sexual relations. The housing system which they have created, and the regulations which they have imposed make this fact so obvious that we needn’t go into this question at any length. It is perhaps enough to mention that when fires drills are held in women’s dormitories at six-o’clock in the morning in order to check attendance. and that when “room checkers” are assigned the task of eliminating the privacy of the couples, we can assume that the University is attempting to prevent sexual intimacy.

The administrators of this university have the right to BELIEVE that unmarried students should not engage in sexual intercourse, or in any kind of sexual relationship for that matter. They have the right to BELIEVE that for unmarried people sex is dirty, sinful, criminal and unhealthy. They have the right to BELIEVE all of these things, and as parent they have the right, and perhaps the obligation, to tell their children how they feels about sex.

However, it is inconceivable and intolerable that these men should have the right to forcibly impose their moral, religious, social, and sexual beliefs on the 2000 students of the College. Disregarding for the moment the stupidity of their particular approach to sex, that of forced virginity, it must be  stated in the strongest possible terms that no group of men should be given the power to believe that they can “regulate” one of the most important aspects of human life: the right to develop deep and meaningful relationships with other human beings.

Not only must the administrators not be allowed to forbid students who desire sexual intercourse from being able to have it, but they must also not be allowed to prevent a man and a woman from spending a night in conversation, or from simply studying together, alone. Who is to measure the value that a group of people, or two people, can receive as a result of a night’s conversation. How are the administrators so knowledgeable that they can say that one long and intimate conversation, which might extend beyond one o’clock in the morning, is not worth more to people who participated in it than a year of academic education? What do the administrators know about life? Are they serious in believing that anything important can come out of four years at a university if students do not have the freedom to talk together at two o’clock in the morning?

The latest restatement of the University’s policy of forced sexual abstention can be seen in the recent announcement of Assistant Dean of Students, James Newman, where he discussed the question of “women’s hours.” The immediate purpose of the statement was to inform various dormitory councils, student government, and the student body in general, that the Administration had refused the student request to ease up on the hours system regulation which govern student life in the dormitories. The deeper meaning in the statement was the reiteration of the Administration’s belief that it has the right to dictate, upon punishment of disciplinary action, a particular code of social and sexual behavior to its students.

Mr. Newman, in his statement, says that the Administration will retain “the current hours rules (which) allow women living in University residences (which will soon be all women) to use at their discretion, a certain number of hours after midnight each week, with a limit of 3 am on any night. Such a system is REASONABLE (bold face mine) and we see no reason to abolish it. To do so would mean wither a rigid curfew for all or an admission that a University address did not necessarily mean that a woman “lived” there, but only that she came in occasionally to pick up her mail.”

I would agree with Mr. Newman and his fellow administrators that it is an intolerable situation for a woman to have a University address if she uses it only to pick up her mail. But it is intolerable, not because she refuses to stay in the dormitory, but because she has been forced to live there in the first place. It is obvious that she should have the freedom to live where she pleases.

What do Mr. Newman” and his cohorts mean by a reasonable system?” On what scientific and intellectual basis (the only basis acceptable in a so-called “institution of higher learning”) is a system “reasonable” if it prevents people who would like to spend the night together from doing so? Is this system “reasonable” for people who do not accept the code of virginity before marriage, or is it only “reasonable” for some administrators who refuse to accept the fact that love and sex exist, and that here is nothing shameful, sinful, or “unreasonable” about it. Is it a “reasonable” system for two people who might simply want to spend some hours, alone, talking together; or is it “reasonable” for some administrators who are so afraid of sex, that they must prevent ANY sort of meaningful relationship from developing between students of the opposite sex.

The administrators are attempting to force the student body to accept their dogmatic beliefs on perhaps the most sacred and important aspects of life….Through their various regulations they have drawn up a code of social and sexual  “rights and wrongs” which they feel are “reasonable,” and are forcing their students, on pain of disciplinary action, to conform to them.

An analysis of these regulations leads us to believe that at the present time the University Administration considers the sexual activities “reasonable.”

(2) Petting, so long as all clothing remains on. (The fact that “room checkers” are not assigned to watch EVERYTHING that a couple does, but are only supposed to report cases in which clothing has been removed, seems to imply that the Administration will tolerate limited petting.)

(2) Making out or Necking. (In this case the Administration has no alternative. It is very difficult to stop people from kissing.  Also, I suppose that they are not really against it so long as they can prevent it from going “too far.” In the cold weather they can do just that. By not giving any privacy to couples, they can keep the activity in the open. As a result, we see couples performing in dormitory lounges, hallways etc.)

In respect to sexual intercourse, the University, of course, does not consider this “reasonable” for students. However, at the present moment, the University is caught in an uncomfortable position. As much as they would like to enforce their policy of sexual abstention, they are unable to completely do so as long as student apartments (and the apartments of friends) exist. All that the University can do in respect to sexual intercourse, therefore, is to limit the times when it can take place. At the present moment, the University can do no better than forbid sexual relations from occuring after midnight on six nights a week, and after 3 o’clock am once a week.

It is of vital importance to understand that the College is currently undergoing a radical transition in social and sexual habits. In a few years, when all the students in the College will be forced to live in dormitories, and when student apartments will be eliminated, students in the College are going to be in a desperate way in order to find privacy to do ANYTHING. If the situation is bad now, it will be infinitely worse then. Although the doing away with all student apartments will have a marked effect on the sexual life of the College, it will also have a most serious on those students who want nothing more than to be able to talk in privacy within the confines of a room, or perhaps to attend an occasional closed party.

The very important relationship between the University’s sexual code and its social code is not difficult to see. The simple, but sad, fact is that because the administrators  do not believe that any students should engage in pre-marital intercourse, everybody, including those students who have no intention whatsoever of engaging in pre-marital intercourse must suffer. The fact that women are shuffled off into their rooms at the compulsory bed time in order to prevent them from having a sexual relationship, regardless of whether or not they want one.

The question must now be asked: What is the intellectual basis on which the social and sexual codes of the University lie?”…

Have they gone to the psychology department in order to get a scientific opinion? Have they gone to the psychiatrists at Billings to see whether or not sex is “reasonable.” or what the effects of forced chastity might have on people of student age? Have they consulted these authorities about the problems which guilt feelings can cause for young people who have been made to feel guilty, and abnormal because of their sexual needs? In short, if the Administration’s decision in favor of forced chastity, and the right to punish violators of it, based on scientific and rational opinion (the only kind of opinion which students should accept), or is it simply based on a combination of the Bible and Ann Landers?

In my opinion, the administrators of this university are as qualified to legislate on sex as they are to mend broken bones. One can best use an old saying to describe their actions; that their ignorance of the matter is only matched by their presumptuousness. If they dislike sex, or if they think that it is “dirty.” or “evil” or “sinful” that is their misfortune. It is incredible, however, that they should be allowed to pass their attitudes, or neuroses, on to the student body.

it is a well-known fact that a large part of the student body does not agree with, or ACCEPT, the social and sexual codes of the University . Despite all their various rules and regulations the Administration is not, nor will it ever be, successful in its attempt to ban sex from College.

No matter how hard the University tries, it just can not legislate it away. Love, and the need and right of students to do what THEY consider current wil (missing text) ever; university regulations not withstanding.

However, it must be admitted that if the University does not accomplish its main purpose, it does accomplish its secondary purpose. If it canot legislate away natural and human needs, it can convert them into “sinful,” “criminal” and “dirty” activity. If people can not be prevented from expressing themselves honestly, as THEY see fit, then they can at least be made into sneaks and criminals and made to absorb all the mental punishment which goes with “criminal activity.” If the beauty and joy which love and sex is composed of can not be totally eliminated, then it can be severely maimed by the need to “catch sex” when the University isn’t looking. If people can not have the privacy to do what they think is good, and right, they will do it without privacy. They wil do it in motels, in cars, on the Midway, or behind the Chancellor’s house, but they will do it.

In short, if the Administration can not do away with sex as they would like to do, they can take pleasure in adding to the tragic harm which comes from the archaic, barbaric, and oppressive “code of morality” of the society at large; that code which shouts out so loudly that there is no such thing as sexual need. Our University, following its long tradition of leadership in society, feels compelled to shout loudest.

How did the College of the University of Chicago evolve into the state in which it is now? Ignoring all the other changes which have taken place in the College over the past ten years, how did a free college, where students were allowed the freedom to live where they pleased and to determine their own social life. gradually evolve itself into a high class house of detention? How did a great college become transformed into a place where men and women are not allowed to talk to each other after one o’clock in the morning?

The answer to this question is not a single one, but we can say that at the core of it lies the simple fact that the faculty, he men who are responsible for the fact that students come to the University, have grossly abrogated their responsibility. The administrators do not intentionally mean to be harmful. It is just that they don’t know any better. But by now, because the faculty has remained quiet for so long, the situation is beyond their control. How a psychology teacher, or a doctor in Billings, or any rational member of the faculty could have allowed the administrators to seriously develop a policy of forced chastity, with all the harm which it implies, is beyond comprehension. If they could take a forthright and honest position on sex, they should have at least prevented this. But they have not. Bernard Sanders

Transcript is as originally printed and published, intact, without correction of grammar, spelling, typos, etc

Bernard Sanders 1963. Chicago Maroon, student newspaper GadFly

The purpose of this paper is to challenge the right of the Administration of the University of Chicago to forbid, by threat of disciplinary action, the students in the College to engage in sexual relations — this demand for sexual abstention being, of course, the motivating factor behind the four year residence and hours regulations impose on the women, and the two-year regulations imposed on the men. Under these regulations no woman is allowed to live in an off-campus apartment. Then, having been forced to live within the dormitory system, she is subjected to various rules concerning the time which she may spend outside her room. These regulations, plus various subsidiary rules such as not allowing men into women” rooms, and vice and vice versa, have he total effect of prohibiting sex in the college; that is, if the rules are obeyed.

The administrators of the University do not believe that students should engage in pre-marital sexual relations. The housing system which they have created, and the regulations which they have imposed make this fact so obvious that we needn’t go into this question at any length. It is perhaps enough to mention that when fires drills are held in women’s dormitories at six-o’clock in the morning in order to check attendance. and that when “room checkers” are assigned the task of eliminating the privacy of the couples, we can assume that the University is attempting to prevent sexual intimacy.

The administrators of this university have the right to BELIEVE that unmarried students should not engage in sexual intercourse, or in any kind of sexual relationship for that matter. They have the right to BELIEVE that for unmarried people sex is dirty, sinful, criminal and unhealthy. They have the right to BELIEVE all of these things, and as parent they have the right, and perhaps the obligation, to tell their children how they feels about sex.

However, it is inconceivable and intolerable that these men should have the right to forcibly impose their moral, religious, social, and sexual beliefs on the 2000 students of the College. Disregarding for the moment the stupidity of their particular approach to sex, that of forced virginity, it must be  stated in the strongest possible terms that no group of men should be given the power to believe that they can “regulate” one of the most important aspects of human life: the right to develop deep and meaningful relationships with other human beings.

Not only must the administrators not be allowed to forbid students who desire sexual intercourse from being able to have it, but they must also not be allowed to prevent a man and a woman from spending a night in conversation, or from simply studying together, alone. Who is to measure the value that a group of people, or two people, can receive as a result of a night’s conversation. How are the administrators so knowledgeable that they can say that one long and intimate conversation, which might extend beyond one o’clock in the morning, is not worth more to people who participated in it than a year of academic education? What do the administrators know about life? Are they serious in believing that anything important can come out of four years at a university if students do not have the freedom to talk together at two o’clock in the morning?

The latest restatement of the University’s policy of forced sexual abstention can be seen in the recent announcement of Assistant Dean of Students, James Newman, where he discussed the question of “women’s hours.” The immediate purpose of the statement was to inform various dormitory councils, student government, and the student body in general, that the Administration had refused the student request to ease up on the hours system regulation which govern student life in the dormitories. The deeper meaning in the statement was the reiteration of the Administration’s belief that it has the right to dictate, upon punishment of disciplinary action, a particular code of social and sexual behavior to its students.

Mr. Newman, in his statement, says that the Administration will retain “the current hours rules (which) allow women living in University residences (which will soon be all women) to use at their discretion, a certain number of hours after midnight each week, with a limit of 3 am on any night. Such a system is REASONABLE (bold face mine) and we see no reason to abolish it. To do so would mean wither a rigid curfew for all or an admission that a University address did not necessarily mean that a woman “lived” there, but only that she came in occasionally to pick up her mail.”

I would agree with Mr. Newman and his fellow administrators that it is an intolerable situation for a woman to have a University address if she uses it only to pick up her mail. But it is intolerable, not because she refuses to stay in the dormitory, but because she has been forced to live there in the first place. It is obvious that she should have the freedom to live where she pleases.

What do Mr. Newman” and his cohorts mean by a reasonable system?” On what scientific and intellectual basis (the only basis acceptable in a so-called “institution of higher learning”) is a system “reasonable” if it prevents people who would like to spend the night together from doing so? Is this system “reasonable” for people who do not accept the code of virginity before marriage, or is it only “reasonable” for some administrators who refuse to accept the fact that love and sex exist, and that here is nothing shameful, sinful, or “unreasonable” about it. Is it a “reasonable” system for two people who might simply want to spend some hours, alone, talking together; or is it “reasonable” for some administrators who are so afraid of sex, that they must prevent ANY sort of meaningful relationship from developing between students of the opposite sex.

The administrators are attempting to force the student body to accept their dogmatic beliefs on perhaps the most sacred and important aspects of life….Through their various regulations they have drawn up a code of social and sexual  “rights and wrongs” which they feel are “reasonable,” and are forcing their students, on pain of disciplinary action, to conform to them.

An analysis of these regulations leads us to believe that at the present time the University Administration considers the sexual activities “reasonable.”

(2) Petting, so long as all clothing remains on. (The fact that “room checkers” are not assigned to watch EVERYTHING that a couple does, but are only supposed to report cases in which clothing has been removed, seems to imply that the Administration will tolerate limited petting.)

(2) Making out or Necking. (In this case the Administration has no alternative. It is very difficult to stop people from kissing.  Also, I suppose that they are not really against it so long as they can prevent it from going “too far.” In the cold weather they can do just that. By not giving any privacy to couples, they can keep the activity in the open. As a result, we see couples performing in dormitory lounges, hallways etc.)

In respect to sexual intercourse, the University, of course, does not consider this “reasonable” for students. However, at the present moment, the University is caught in an uncomfortable position. As much as they would like to enforce their policy of sexual abstention, they are unable to completely do so as long as student apartments (and the apartments of friends) exist. All that the University can do in respect to sexual intercourse, therefore, is to limit the times when it can take place. At the present moment, the University can do no better than forbid sexual relations from occuring after midnight on six nights a week, and after 3 o’clock am once a week.

It is of vital importance to understand that the College is currently undergoing a radical transition in social and sexual habits. In a few years, when all the students in the College will be forced to live in dormitories, and when student apartments will be eliminated, students in the College are going to be in a desperate way in order to find privacy to do ANYTHING. If the situation is bad now, it will be infinitely worse then. Although the doing away with all student apartments will have a marked effect on the sexual life of the College, it will also have a most serious on those students who want nothing more than to be able to talk in privacy within the confines of a room, or perhaps to attend an occasional closed party.

The very important relationship between the University’s sexual code and its social code is not difficult to see. The simple, but sad, fact is that because the administrators  do not believe that any students should engage in pre-marital intercourse, everybody, including those students who have no intention whatsoever of engaging in pre-marital intercourse must suffer. The fact that women are shuffled off into their rooms at the compulsory bed time in order to prevent them from having a sexual relationship, regardless of whether or not they want one.

The question must now be asked: What is the intellectual basis on which the social and sexual codes of the University lie?”…

Have they gone to the psychology department in order to get a scientific opinion? Have they gone to the psychiatrists at Billings to see whether or not sex is “reasonable.” or what the effects of forced chastity might have on people of student age? Have they consulted these authorities about the problems which guilt feelings can cause for young people who have been made to feel guilty, and abnormal because of their sexual needs? In short, if the Administration’s decision in favor of forced chastity, and the right to punish violators of it, based on scientific and rational opinion (the only kind of opinion which students should accept), or is it simply based on a combination of the Bible and Ann Landers?

In my opinion, the administrators of this university are as qualified to legislate on sex as they are to mend broken bones. One can best use an old saying to describe their actions; that their ignorance of the matter is only matched by their presumptuousness. If they dislike sex, or if they think that it is “dirty.” or “evil” or “sinful” that is their misfortune. It is incredible, however, that they should be allowed to pass their attitudes, or neuroses, on to the student body.

it is a well-known fact that a large part of the student body does not agree with, or ACCEPT, the social and sexual codes of the University . Despite all their various rules and regulations the Administration is not, nor will it ever be, successful in its attempt to ban sex from College.

No matter how hard the University tries, it just can not legislate it away. Love, and the need and right of students to do what THEY consider current wil (missing text) ever; university regulations not withstanding.

However, it must be admitted that if the University does not accomplish its main purpose, it does accomplish its secondary purpose. If it canot legislate away natural and human needs, it can convert them into “sinful,” “criminal” and “dirty” activity. If people can not be prevented from expressing themselves honestly, as THEY see fit, then they can at least be made into sneaks and criminals and made to absorb all the mental punishment which goes with “criminal activity.” If the beauty and joy which love and sex is composed of can not be totally eliminated, then it can be severely maimed by the need to “catch sex” when the University isn’t looking. If people can not have the privacy to do what they think is good, and right, they will do it without privacy. They wil do it in motels, in cars, on the Midway, or behind the Chancellor’s house, but they will do it.

In short, if the Administration can not do away with sex as they would like to do, they can take pleasure in adding to the tragic harm which comes from the archaic, barbaric, and oppressive “code of morality” of the society at large; that code which shouts out so loudly that there is no such thing as sexual need. Our University, following its long tradition of leadership in society, feels compelled to shout loudest.

How did the College of the University of Chicago evolve into the state in which it is now? Ignoring all the other changes which have taken place in the College over the past ten years, how did a free college, where students were allowed the freedom to live where they pleased and to determine their own social life. gradually evolve itself into a high class house of detention? How did a great college become transformed into a place where men and women are not allowed to talk to each other after one o’clock in the morning?

The answer to this question is not a single one, but we can say that at the core of it lies the simple fact that the faculty, he men who are responsible for the fact that students come to the University, have grossly abrogated their responsibility. The administrators do not intentionally mean to be harmful. It is just that they don’t know any better. But by now, because the faculty has remained quiet for so long, the situation is beyond their control. How a psychology teacher, or a doctor in Billings, or any rational member of the faculty could have allowed the administrators to seriously develop a policy of forced chastity, with all the harm which it implies, is beyond comprehension. If they could take a forthright and honest position on sex, they should have at least prevented this. But they have not.

Man and Woman

The text of a essay written in 1972 by Bernie Sanders in Vermont Freeman, an alternative newspaper.

Man and Woman,  By Bernard Sanders

*Bernie’s choice of the word “pigness” in “Man and Woman” was originally used in a study of construction workers and the industry in the 1968 publication of Working Construction: Why White Working-Class Men Put Themselves and the Labor Movement in Harm’s Way – Kris Paap


“A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy. A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused.

A woman enjoys intercourse with her man — as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously.

The man and woman get dressed up on Sunday — and go to Church, or maybe to their “revolutionary” political meeting.

Have you ever looked at the Stag, Man, Hero, Tough magazines on the shelf of your local bookstore? Do you know why the newspaper with the articles like “Girl 12 raped by 14 men” sell so well? To what in us are they appealing?

Women, for their own preservation, are trying to pull themselves together. And it’s necessary for all of humanity that they do so. Slavishness on one hand breeds pigness on the other hand. Pigness on one hand breeds slavishness on the other. Men and women — both are losers. Women adapt themselves to fill the needs of men, and men adapt themselves to fill the needs of women. In the beginning there were strong men who killed the animals and brought home the food — and the dependent women who cooked it. No More! Only the roles remain — waiting to be shaken off. There are no “human” oppressors. Oppressors have lost their humanity. On one hand “slavishness,” on the other hand “pigness.” Six of one, half dozen of the other. Who wins?

Many women seem to be walking a tightrope now. Their qualities of love, openness, and gentleness were too deeply enmeshed with qualities of dependency, subservience, and masochism. How do you love — without being dependent? How do you be gentle — without being subservient? How do you maintain a relationship without giving up your identity and without getting strung out? How do you reach out and give your heart to your lover, but maintain the soul which is you?

And Men. Men are in pain too. They are thinking, wondering. What is it they want from a woman? Are they at fault? Are they perpetrating this man-woman situation? Are they oppressors?

The man is bitter.

“You lied to me,” he said. (She did).

“You said that you loved me, that you wanted me, that you needed me. Those are your words.” (They are).

“But in reality,” he said, “If you ever loved me, or wanted me, or needed me (all of which I’m not certain was ever true), you also hated me. You hated me — just as you have hated every man in your entire life, but you didn’t have the guts to tell me that. You hated me before you ever saw me, even though I was not your father, or your teacher, or your sex friend when you were 13 years old, or your husband. You hated me not because of who I am, or what I was to you, but because I am a man. You did not deal with me as a person — as me. You lived a lie with me, used me and played games with me — and that’s a piggy thing to do.”

And she said, “You wanted me not as a woman, or a lover, or a friend, but as a submissive woman, or submissive friend, or submissive lover; and right now where my head is I balk at even the slightest suspicion of that kind of demand.”

And he said, “You’re full of _______.”

And they never again made love together (which they had each liked to do more than anything) or never ever saw each other one more time.”


 

Cancer, Disease and Society

(Transcript is as originally printed and published, intact, without correction of grammar, spelling, typos, etc.)

MISCELLANY VERMONT FREEMAN WEEKEND DECEMBER 19-22, 1969

Cancer, Disease and Society by Bernard Sanders

Is it possible to disassociate civilization and the way we live from the causation of disease? Can disease be understood solely by looking into test tubes and microscopic slides, while ignoring the emotional lives of the people who succumb to them? Is disease just a tumor, or an ulcer, or a headache, or are those merely and manifestations of a persons whole state of  being? And if this is true, can a lasting cure be brought about by dealing with the symptoms alone, while leaving the basic cause untouched? Why is it that A comes down with a disease and not  B?  Does a germ “just happen to hit A and not B, or are there deeper reasons than a chance as to why some people are able to resist disease and remain healthy, while others fall sick?

And, related to the above. and, most importantly,  how will the future battle against disease be fought? Will drugs and surgery continue to be used against symptoms,  or will society,  and the way we live, undergo radical  change so that the human organism can flourish on this planet. In short, will society be changed so as to fit the needs of the human organism,  or will the human organism continue to be adapted, molded and crushed to fit into basically insane and disease provoking patterns.

The following paper deals with the problem of cancer. In 1952 a study entitled  “A Psychosomatic Survey of Cancer of the Breast” was published in the medical journal,  Psychosomatic  Medicine. The authors. three Chicago physicians , were Drs. Bacon. Renneker, and Cutler. Their study attempted to determine whether or not it was possible to observe some characterological patterns in patients who had developed breast cancer. In other words,  did women who developed breast cancer have certain similar traits which might lead one to see a connection between emotional health and cancer.

The study states;  “Thirty-nine of the group (out of the 40 women who were studied) received no sexual information from their parents. Thirty-three of the group were virgins prior to marriage; 5 unmarried members of the group remain virgins. Twenty-five have never experienced orgasm, did not enjoy intercourse, and considered it a distasteful, wifely duty. The 5 virgins are not included among these 25. Only 5 women were freely capable of orgasm;  5 more experienced rare to occasional orgasm. It is interesting to note that the ages of the sexually adjusted patients were 68, 67, 67, 59 and 41; whereas those of the partially adjusted group were 54, 55, 55, 57, and 61. This means that of the 14 patients 51 or more years old, 9 had some degree of orgasmic ability, whereas OF THE 26  PATIENTS BELOW 51, ONE WAS SEXUALLY ADJUSTED.”

The authors concluded their study by citing 6 characteristics which they feel were shared by the patients:

01) A masochistic character structure. (The patients will to live appeared not very strong. Many of them delayed  going for treatment despite the fact that they had noticed lumps on their breasts and were aware of what they could mean).

02) Inhibited sexuality – (as discussed above).

0 3) Inhibited motherhood

0-4 The inability to discharge or deal appropriately with anger, aggression, or hostility, covered over by a facade of pleasantness.

05) The unresolved hostile conflict with the mother,  handled through denial and unrealistic sacrifice.

.6) Delay in securing treatment.

In another article in the journal  Psychosomatic Medicine, Vol. 16 (1954), P287. entitled “Life Stress and Cancer of the Cervix,” it is stated that “sexual adjustment seemed to be very poor in those with cancer of the cervix were found to have a lower incidence of orgasm during sexual intercourse than patients in the control groups. Dislike for sexual intercourse, amounting to actual aversion for the act, occurred far more frequently in the patients with cancer of the cervix than in patients with cancer of other sites.”

In a book entitled “The Psychological Variables in Human Cancer”,  by Gingerelli and Kirkner,  an interesting  study is discussed. Two researchers, stationed in the cancer section of a hospital attempted to discover whether “there was a relationship between psychological factors and the growth of cancer” Thy  concluded that,  in fact  there was such a relationship.

“Characteristic of the fast cases are greater defensiveness,  more anxiety,  and less ability to release tension through motor discharge,  either verbal or physical when compared to the slow cases”. They also state that the “Patients with rapid growth were more inhibited in outward expression.”

In a book entitled “A Psychological Approach to Cancer”, by Jacob S. List, the author quotes Dr. James Jacobs to the effect that “the more the appearance of ‘goodness’ because of the inability to discharge these (hostile) impulses, the shorter the life span of the cancer patient”.

The author quotes another physician, Dr. Byron Butler, that the cancer personality “represses hate, anger, dissatisfaction, and grudges, or on the other hand, is a very ‘good’ person. who is consumed with self-pity and suffers in stoic silence.”

A three day conference sponsored by the New York Academy of Science on the Psycho-Physiological Aspects of Cancer was covered by the New York Times of May 23. 1968. Dr. Clauss Bahnson reported a study of 200 lung cancer patients with 200 patients suffering  from other disorders. “The results indicated that the cancer patients were less emotionally reactive and lacking in outlets for emotional release.”

The Times also reports of the conference that; “several  studies, among hundreds of cancer patients, were conducted by a University of Rochester medical team. These studies indicated that most of the patients contracted the disease when they were reacting to a loss or separation, with inner feelings of helplessness and hopelessness.

A study by a New York psychologist, Lawrence LeShan is also mentioned. LeShan studied 500 cancer patients concluded that “the cancer patients were characterized by early loss bringing pain and feelings of desertion,  loneliness, and often guilt and self-condemnation.”

Dr. Bahnson was quoted by the Times as stating that; “In the cancer patients’ background were parents and particularly mothers. who were “there” physically but not emotionally. As a result, the children learned to deny their emotions rather than to discharge them.”

In a book published in 1948 by Dr. Wilhelm Reich entitled “The Cancer Biopathy”, Reich is very definite about the link between emotionally and sexual health, and cancer. Although many of the following references deal with cancer in women. Reich felt that exactly similar processes took  place  in men.

He states that; “Up to now, the connection between disturbances in discharge of sexual energy and cancer have not been investigated.. Experienced  gynecologists are aware that such a connection exists. Respiratory disturbances and muscular spasms are the immediate result of a fear of sexual excitation (orgastic impotence). Organs with poor respiration, organs which are spastic and insufficiently charged, are biologically weakened,  thus, they are highly susceptible to cancer-producing stimuli, whatever they may be. On the other hand, organs which function biologically normally are not affected by these same stimuli. This is a necessary and logical assumption.”

“These clinically well-established facts deficient biological charge, muscular spasm and deficient external and internal respiration,  give the concept of ‘cancer disposition’ a tangible context. I shall now attempt to show how sex-economic clinical experience led to cancer research.”

“Sex-economic observation of character neuroses showed again and again the significance of muscular spasms and the resulting  devitilization in the organism. Muscular spasm and deficiency in bio-electrical charge are subjectively experienced as “being dead”. Muscular hypertension due to sexual stasis regularly leads to a diminuation of vegetative sensations; the extreme degree of this is the sensation of the organ “being dead”. This corresponds to a block of biological activity in the respective organ. For example, the blocking of biosexual excitation in the genital always  goes with a spastic tension of the pelvic musculature, as is regularlv seen in the uterine spasms of frigid women. Such spasms often result in menstrual disturbances, menstrual pains. polyps and fibronata. The spasm of the uterus has no other function than that of preventing the biosexual energy from making itself felt as vaginal sensation. Spasms representing inhibitions of vegetative current are seen particularly frequently whereever we find annular musculature, for example, at the throat, at the entrance to and the exit from the stomach, at the anus. etc.  These are also the places where cancer is found with particular frequency…”

“Many women who suffer from genital and virginal anaesthesia complain of a feeling that ‘something is not as it should be down there.’ They relate that during puberty they experienced the well known signs of biosexual excitation:, that later they learned to fight these sensations by way of holding their breath. “Later, so they relate in a typical manner, they began to experience in the genital a sensation of ‘deadness’  or ‘numbness’ which,  in turn, frightened  them.  As the vegetative sensation in the organs are an immediate expression of the actual biological state of the organs, such statements are of extreme importance for an evaluation of somatic processes.” (End of quote from Reich)

“Now,” someone may say, “this is all very interesting, but why isn’t it put into some cancer research journal or something? What does it have to do with me?” The answer, my friend, is obvious. It has everything  to do with you. The above references, in no uncertain terms, state that you might very well be the cause of cancer. “What!?” says the upstanding citizen and head of the P.T.A., “absurd, preposterous. I don’t know anything about cancer (except that aunt Millie died of it and that the Cancer Society will eventually prevent it). Ridiculous, me being the cause of cancer.”

 

Not so fast, my friend. Read the above statements by the researchers again,  this time more slowly, and bear in mind that the physicians who wrote the above (with the exception of Reich) are not social critics. They write gently and matter of factly.

What do you think it really means when 3 doctors, after intense study, write that “of the 26 patients (who developed breast cancer) below 51 (years of age), one was sexually adjusted.” It means, very bluntly, that the manner in which you bring up your daughter with regard to sexual attitudes may very well determine whether or not she will develope breast cancer, among other things.

How much guilt, nervousness have you imbued in your daughter with regard to sex? If she is 16, 3 years beyond puberty and the time which nature set forth for child-bearing,  and spent a night out with her boyfriend, what is your reaction? Do you take her to a psychiatrist because she is “maladjusted,” or a “prostitute,” or are you happy that she has found someone with whom she can share love? Are you concerned about HER happiness, or about your  “reputation”  in the community.

With regard to the schools that you send your children to, are you concerned that many of these institutions serve no other function than to squash the life,  joy and curiosity out of kids. When a doctor write that the cancer personality “represses hate, anger, dissatisfaction and grudges, or on the other hand, is a ‘good’ person, who hnd, is a ‘good’ person, who is consumed with self pity, suffers in stoic silence”, do you know what he is talking about, and what this has to do with children, parents, and schools.

It means this quite simply. A child has an old bitch of a teacher (and there are many of them) or perhaps he simply is not interested in school and would rather be doing other thing. He complains and rebels against the situation. which is the healthy reaction. When a person is hurt. no matter what age, he SHOULD rebel.

And what happens the child rebels against the adult world? Here he is, a little guy, complaning against a teacher who has been in the  school for 47 years, or maybe against the whole school system. Who listens to him, who takes him, and his feelings, seriously? Who demands that a teacher be fired “just because” she makes little kids miserable? Who demands that compulsory schooling be eliminated “just because” millions of kids don’t want to go to school

The child rebels but, because he is a child, nothing happens. His rebellion is impotent because, being a child, people feel that he doesn’t  know what is right for him and that the major decisions in his life have to be made for him by adults.  Some childens,  despite all the obstacles in their way, continue to rebel and assert their rights.

Others, in one form or another, give in and become resigned to the situation, and this is what the cancer personality as described above is all about. The child becomes resigned by repressing his natural anger and feelings about the situation he finds himself in. Outwardly ,he becomes a “good boy”, conforming to the rules and regulations of the system.  Inwardly, his spirit is broken, and his soul seethes with hatred and anger which is unable to be expressed. He has learned to hold back his emotions and put on the phony facade of pleasantness. Thirty years later a doctor tells him that he has cancer.

What the above research into the psychosomatic aspects of cancer shows us is that, in psychological terms, resignation is the other side of the coin to the somatic breakdown called cancer. Simmons, among other, in his short work entitled “The Psychosomatic Aspects of Cancer” cites several instances when famous personalities developed cancer after suffering serious emotional traumas or dissappointments and felt that their future was hopeless. When the human spirit is broken, when the life force is squashed, cancer becomes a possibility.

The cancer problem, like disease in general, poses an extraordinary dilemma for society. How painful it is to face up to the truth, and how easy it is to place a label on something, cancer, raise a hundred million dollars for research and give it to a handful of specialists to work on, “Go,” we say, “solve the cancer problem. Prevent cancer. Tell me about the little virus that causes it, invent an injection to cure it,  and everything will be just fine.”

“While you’re at it, tell you friends at the other laboratories to invent an injection to cure neurosis and psychosis, heart condition and ulcers, asthma and rheumatic fever,  sexual impotence and frigidity alcoholism and drug addiction, obesity and insomnia, etc., etc., and etc”.

Life is very simple. All we .need is lots of money;  well trained technicians and a steady output of new drugs.

Reflections on a Dying Society

Transcript is as originally printed and published, intact, without correction of grammar, spelling, typos, etc.

by Bernard Sanders WEEKEND VERMONT FREEMAN August 1-3, 1969

One scans the daily newspapers. (Reading them is a bit too overpowering). Cuts in welfare, medicaid, education, and the hospital care throughout the country. The new “liberal” governor of New york, who has hundreds of millions of dollars in personal wealth, represents the current political viewpoint when he says that there just isn’t enough money to balance the budget if the cuts aren’t made. Billions are spent on the continued construction of the Vietnamese people, and billions more are contemplated for S.S.T. planes and ABM systems. Taxes are up (although we read that the wealthiest people in the nation seem to be tax exempt) while government bureaucracy swells, in some places, to almost unmanageable inefficiency.

In the cities of the nation the process of gradual deterioration continues. The air is poisonous, the noise deafening, and the streets are dangerous to walk. The people are nervous. In the famous Midtown Study, conducted under the direction of psychiatrist Dr. thomas A. C. Roanie, 23 percent of a randomly selected population in mid-town Manhattan, “were judged to be impaired psychologically” — ranging from “marked symptom formation to outright incapacitation.”

The food that the population eats is generally unnutricious if not positively dangerous. (For example, at least ten chemicals listed as recently as 1956 by the National Academy of Science in The Use of Chemical Additives in Food Processing are currently suspected of being cancer causing agents. These include a cheese preservative (8-Hydroxyquinilone) a flavoring agent for root beer (safrole), a cheese stabilizer (carboxymenthyl cellulose), and several coal-tar dyes.

Ecologically, the people of the United States and the planet Earth are wreaking havoc on their home terrain. Without planning or foresight millions of acres of productive soil and watershed are being converted into urban use every year. Streams and rivers in America are polluted to such a degree that in many places water life is unable to be supported. In New york City with a population of of eight million people, it is almost impossible to find a clean swimming area and people regularly ignore the “danger-polluted water” signs. In Barre, Vermont, the people are told to boil their water before drinking sick last summer, a local it. Children were becoming doctor investigated, and it was found that the water was unclean.

The threat of nuclear annihilation or death by poison gas hovers close yto every heart. (Some thousands of sheep die mysteriously in Utah and the U.S. government is finally forced to admit, after attempting to lie its way out of it, that “the wind was blowing the wrong way” and perhaps a little of its fantastically lethal nerve gas did escape the laboratory.)

But, no fear. There already exists on earth enough nuclear bombs to destroy mankind many times over, so the fear of poison gas diminishes. This year, the President of the United States thinks nuclear war is a bad thing, but a few years ago he wasn’t so cautious and the next year, —?

In any case, China, according to Mao, is “capable” of absorbing a loss of tens of millions in nuclear war “for socialism”, while Herman Kahn, a “brain trust” advisor to the U.S. military, informs us that nuclear war is not unthinkable and that the United States, like China can also “survive” nuclear war even if most of the population is destroyed.

The stress of living in the modern world, and in America, is great, and it is taking its toll. Although the statistics show that our life span is longer than it has ever been, they also show that in many ways the population is sicker than it has ever been.

While modern medicines has made great advances in medical technology, it has made virtually no progress in coming to terms with the “soul sickness” of modern man. The hope that psychoanalysis might provide a cure for man’s emotional sickness has gradually petered out. We can surgically  put together people whose organs have been severed in accidents or war, but “post-natal depression” is so common in America that people almost think that it’s natural. Heart and kidney transplants provide life for those who would other wise be dead, but “mental illness” in the nation (a term which in the context of this society means next to nothing) is rampant, and half of the hospital beds in America are filled by those emotionally unable to cope with life on the outside.

While such diseases as smallpox, influenza, tuberculosis, malaria and polio have been greatly reduced by modern science, the so-called psychosomatic diseases such as heart ailments, common colds, ulcers, asthma, arthritis, alcoholism, and many others have resisted attempts the attempts at prevention by modern medicine and are on the rise. Research by such investigators as Drs. Reich, List, Kissen, Gingerdale, Kirkner and many others suggest that even cancer must be looked upon as a diseases of emotional origin, (which would not exclude there being contributing factors such as smoking, etc.).

The United States is the “best educated” nation on earth. State after state requires children to stay in school until a minimum age, and more of our young people attend college than in any other country on earth. Nonetheless, people have little confidence in themselves and are fearful of freedom. Mothers with twenty years of education are fearful of holding their children without “consulting their physician” and “experts” are assuming control everywhere. (It is clear that the people are not “expert” enough to control their own lives). Year after year the population receives more and more education, and year after year the people have less control over their own destinies.

In one study after another it is shown that Americans (who will die for “freedom”) think that documents such as our Constitution are far too radical, and when confronted with the writings and ideas of Jefferson think that he is an out and out anarchist. A study done in Sacramento, California, for example, (and discussed in the Vermont Freeman of April 5, 1969), showed that more than 5000 people out of 7500 contacted refused to sign a petition which asked for support of shortened versions of Articles 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Bill of Rights, as well as a paragraph of the 14th Amendment. Some people refused to sign for “patriotic” reasons.

Many forms of coercion, subtle and otherwise, are becoming commonplace. Respect for individual freedom in America is certainly not on the increase. If it is one thing to see on the screen of your television set Chicago policemen brutally beating on peaceful demonstrators, it is not a totally different thing for people to become accustomed to the fact that they can be stopped at anytime by the police who conduct “routine car checks.”

It is obvious that in the name of “public safety” the State is usurping the rights of free choice in many domains of life. To get an FHA loan one MUST build with specific lumber and materials; to drive an automobile one MUST have insurance and a car which has no rust going through; to run a farm and sell milk one MUST have a bulk tank; to drive a motorcycle one MUST have a helmet-to cite just a few examples. The idea that ALL children MUST attend school until 16 years of age, even if some would rather do other things, is now treated as as given a fact of life as the sun rise. The fluoridation of water and the giving of medicants to children in the schools are portents, perhaps, of many worse things to come.

Obviously, the point of all this is not that on specific issues the state position may not be the correct one, e.g.’ good brakes DO prevent auto accidents, and helmets do prevent head injuries – but that if democracy and a respect for individual choice is to prevail, coercion must not be the means by which “correct” policy is pursued.

In general, the American economy is, to a large degree, based on the production of goods which are useless, designed to breakdown, or used for the slaughter of people. Our military budget is currently 80 billion dollars a year, and due to go up. While millions of workers sweat their lives away in factories producing the cars, appliances, and the machinery of the nation, and engineers and manufacturers have designed them so that they break down in a few years or go “out of style.”

The function of the hundreds of millions of dollars spent in the advertising industry is to encourage people to buy what they don’t need, and the circle is complete when a worker, who spends his life in a factory making products designed to break down, feels guilty when he can’t afford to buy his child a junky toy advertised on TV’s Captain Kangaroo.

The general social situation, to say the least, does not look good. Wherever we look the merchants of death holds power, and our very existence is dependent upon people whom we have little trust in.

The depth of our plight is hard to ascertain. Fifty years ago Freud introduced the phrase “death instinct” into modern psychiatry, and the term still rubs hard on the mind. Although few now believe, as Freud did, that the impulse toward death and destruction in man is of biological causation (and hence, not subject to amelioration by improvement of the human condition), there can be little doubt that the human spirit has been crushed by the society in which it exists, that the general will toward life is not very strong. If we begin to interpret such death and pain producing phenomena as wars, psychosomatic disease, “accidents” (automobile and other), not to mention open suicide, as more or less intentionally willed (unconscious or otherwise) occurrences, the conclusions are frightening. We are forced to ask such questions as –How much do human beings really want to live? How much pain can the human organism absorb, and continue to prevail?

The circle is a vicious one. Society breeds misery, and the sone and daughters of misery give forth the new society.

In recent years we have seen exceptionally clear instances of the strong social impulse toward death – and the lack of concern for life. Seven years ago, the “Cuban missile crisis” brought the world to the brink of disaster. A whole planet stood on the edge of annihilation, with the nuclear war being averted only by a hair’s breadth. And today, seven years later, there are more nuclear bombs, in more countries, than ever before.

And the majority of people throughout the world seem not to care very much. (In America, those who do care are isolated and give the name “peaceniks” — a strange group of fellows who actually care whether they live or die. Odd bunch!). People seem not to be interested in the fact that if yesterday’s “Cuban crisis” is over with, that tomorrow a “Chinese crisis”, or a “Russian crisis”, or a this “crisis” or a that “crisis” will surely arise, and that one of these days the bombs will go off, and they and their children will be dead.

The Revolution Is Life Versus Death

(Transcript is as originally printed and published, intact, without correction of grammar, spelling, typos, etc.)

MISCELLANY

The Revolution Is Life Versus Death by Bernard Sanders WEEKEND VERMONT FREEMAN NOVEMBER 14-17, 1969

Mr. Sanders has written several other thoughtful pieces for The Freeman, lives in Greenboro Bend, from which vantage point he takes a penetrating look at the world around him.

The train pulls out of the 14th street in Manhattan at 8:30 in the morning. Sleepy people, miserable people, hold on to the overhead straps and each other. (The seats have been filled up since way back in Brooklyn). It’s another mass of hot dazed humanity heading uptown for the 9-5. Moron work, monotonous work, coffee breaks, office gossip, and 5 o’clock comes and the same train, the same mob of faceless people, turns around and heads the other way.

The train stops somewhere in Brooklyn, a crowd gets out, someone walks a few blocks into a 3 room apartment, family, dinner, arguments TV and sleep. Eight-thirty the next morning the train is back on 14th street.

The years come and go, suicide, nervous breakdown, cancer, sexual deadness, heart attack, alcoholism, senility at 50. Slow, death, fast death. DEATH.

And some people actually wonder why young people rebel, why there is a revolution taking place.

Lies, lies, lies, invasion, napalm torture bombings, annihilation o whole villages, body counts, and more lies.

“In defense of liberty,” “against communist aggression,” “to protect American interests,” empty phrases, dead words spoken by dead people, lies. “Democracy” is a United States Congress composed of millionaires and state legislatures controlled by lobbyists. (Does one American in a thousand know who represents him in his state legislature?). “Freedom” is an arm broken by Mayor Daley’s cops, while nobody’s choice for president kisses the television set as he is nominated in Chicago.

Somewhere in California, in Vermont, in New Mexico, in Colorado, and in everyplace, new things are happening. A revolution is tak- against strangulation and ing place, Life is fighting death, and Life will win.

Life is young (at any age), alive, open, and nonfearing. Life can take his clothes off and be naked with friends. He or she has nothing to hide. There is nothing prettier than the unclothes human body.

In Miami, the American Legion sponsors a “rally for decency.” Even Jackie Gleason attends. Ron Morrison of the Doors is arrested for giving a lewd performance. He is “immoral.” The President of the American Legion calls for more bombing of Vietnam. “Bomb them into the stone age”, the general says after cocming out of church. This is the morality that civilization is made of. The general is “moral”, Morrison is “immoral.”

Because they have been good little children, and because the judge this year is liberal, daddy is going to allow everyone who is ever 18 to see “I am Curious Yellow.” Yes, you can see naked people and even sexual intercourse right in your local movie theatre. And 300,000 people (over 18) lined up, like good little girls and boys, and saw it. Yes, son (age 90) that’s how other people do it.

In Vermont, at a state beach, a mother is reprimanded by Authority for allowing her 6 month old daughter to go about without her diapers on. Now, if children go around naked, htey are liable to see each others sexual organs, and maybe even touch them. Terrible thing! If we bring children up like this it will probably ruin the pornography business, not to mention the large segment of the general economy which makes its money by playing on peoples sexual frustrations.

The Revolution is coming and it is a very beautiful because, in its deepest sense, it is quiet, gentle, and all pervasive. It KNOWS. What is most, important in this revolution will require will require no guns, no commandants, no screaming “leaders”, and no vicious publications accusing everyone else of being counter-revolutionary. The revolutionary. The revolution comes when two strangers smile at each other, when a father refusese to send his child to school because schools destroy children, when a commune is started and people begin to trust each other, when a young man refuses to go to war, and when a girl pushes aside all that her mother has “taught” her and accepts her boyfriends love.

The revolution comes when young people throughout the world take control of their own lives, and whes people everywhere begin to look each other in the eye and say hello, without fear. This is the revolution, this is the strength, and with this behind us no politician or general will ever stop us. We shall win!

Image 

Bernie the Peter Pan Man and Pinocchio

By J. Eller @SDzzz  SandersGuide 2016 YouTube




BS-PP-P

Even though Bernie Sanders refuses to talk about his parents, he did say they fought a lot about money. “The lack of money caused stress in my family and fights between my mother and father. That is a reality I have never forgotten: today, there are many millions of families who are living under the circumstances that we lived under.” His homemaker mother died in her forties, a second heart surgery for a rheumatic heart was unsuccessful. She never got the home she wanted. His father was a paint salesman, employment  that only maintained a lower-middle-income status and small rent-controlled apartment. Bernie resented it all. Summers when he could go upstate to Boy Scout camp left him crying on the bus ride back to a place he hated, Brooklyn, and the angry household. His essays are full of Bernie angst and anger, snippets peeking between the doom and gloom from his childhood unhappiness into young adulthood.

Bernie Sanders always wanted fame and whether he admits it or not, wealth. He wanted to be a writer, but did poorly in English switching his college major to political science graduating with a BA in 1964 and grades he doesn’t want to publish. In his essays he’s the complainer, blaming the “bitch” teacher for the little boy’s unhappiness because he wanted to “be doing other things”, the young man who suffers physical damage and anguish because the college won’t let him have sex in dorm rooms. As a disciple of Wilhelm Reich, psychoanalyst and creator of the Orgone Accumulator, (also called the Orgone Box) which purportedly channeled sexual energy to cure cancer, death by cancer was inextricably linked to a lack of sex and orgasms in Bernie’s “scientific mind”, a belief he still has. (Reich died in prison, mentally incompetent, convinced the rich “Rockerfellows” had a conspiracy against him. He was put there by the FDA for selling fake cures for cancer). To Bernie, the college was clearly trying to kill young people or at minimum doom them to the possibility of cancer, which meant he needed to write much more on the subject of sexuality to educate the world about their deadly sexual inhibitions.

Sex and the Single Girl — Part Two — College Manifesto (2323 words) (sexual content)

The Revolution Is Life Versus Death (sexual content)

Man and Woman (sexual content)

Cancer, Disease and Society (sexual content)

Reflections on a Dying Society

Admittedly a poor student with a troubled history in school from elementary to college, he never valued education. It was something to get through to become an adult complainer and by then, 9-5 jobs oppressed and depressed him and threatened the sanity of us all, in his opinion. In college, his accent was said to be so strong it was difficult to understand him, “his accent now is 2% of what it was then,” It has become an asset and trademark of his famed shouting speeches.  Rules were bad, bad, bad. Sure they had some value, he noted, but not enough to endure them, and compulsory education was another evil, meant to socially control and inhibit both children and parents.

In congress he does what he has to do, enjoying the prestige of committee assignments handed him in a deal with Democrats (although wife Jane takes credit for writing his legislation) but any chance to complain on-camera is his real reason to get up every morning. He even published his “filibuster” that wasn’t an actual filibuster (symbolic since the deal was done) as a book, “The Speech”. His colleagues say he is loud, holier-than-thou and believes he’s the smartest man in the room with a penchant for alienating his natural allies. He has very few friends in the halls of congress, it must sometimes seem as if he’s back in the stacks in the college basement.

As mayor he would call press conferences (all filmed) to complain about the latest New York Times article, or preach incessantly about heroic dictators like Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, Fidel Castro in Cuba and the success of breadlines and free housing he admired around the world. Everyplace on the planet was better than America, mainly because America made the world so horribly miserable with its imperialism. But in Socialist Burlington, the only place in America where people knew how to really live and who to blame, Bernie was the “foreign minister of Burlington”, the “red mayor of Green Mountain”. Political life has allowed him to travel, TV appearances, speeches at whatever cause will have him, even if it’s foreign travel to promote socialism in socialist countries, again preaching to the choir. He traveled to Cuba, Nicaragua, USSR making sure media was there to greet him on his return, then used his position as mayor to call even more meetings to publicize his travels.

He tried to launch a couple of TV shows, so he could “educate” people on what he saw as the purity of his worldview. He appeared in a low-budget film acting out a rabbi parody that mirrored his brother Larry’s conversion to socialism (because the Dodgers team was sold and the wealthy owners caused so much unhappiness) sounding very much as crazy as he does now, with his billionaire rants. He tried documentary film making, choosing socialist activist Eugene Debs, another hero sent to prison. When it wasn’t a roaring success, he began blaming media as corrupt, demanding the government fund shows like his. This led to blaming evil corporations holding him down. Of course, they were owned by evil millionaires, all part of the stream of consciousness that is Bernie Sanders, presidential candidate. Whatever your problem is in the world, there are American billionaires at fault, according to Bernie. Even though he is rated as having the second highest media coverage (Trump is first) during the 2016 campaign, it is not enough and he complains media is out to get him, despite his favorable coverage. There’s always a conspiracy. When he loses a primary, it’s not the will of the voters, it’s a conspiracy.

How did Bernie Sanders ever get elected? Simple. Bernie was part of a herd of 35,000 big-city hippies, radicals, political idealists and leftists descending on Vermont during the 60’s-70’s in a back to nature migration (Vermont’s governor at the time even announced he did not invite them) when he moved to Vermont in 1967. They blended with rural Vermonters and Bernie found his niche. There he could preach to the choir without resistance, eventually building small Burlington into what he called “uniquely different”, since it was “America’s first and only socialist city”.

He had his inflated University of Chicago civil rights background and 1969 essays to prove his loyalty to a very long list of causes and complaints, and the Vermont Freeman alternative news soon became his mouthpiece. He was proselytizing to people who had fled the social upheaval across college campuses and the streets of America, keeping them in the loop, making them feel as if they were still part of the revolution from the enclave, although they were in reality society’s dropouts, like Bernie.

Once he realized he could get attention  blaming millionaires for all the world’s suffering and his personal failings (later upgraded to billionaires) he never stopped. His 60’s travel adventures to Israel, had him volunteering for Labor Zionists at an Stalinist kibbutz, “oldest kibbutzim.”  with an oppressive Socialist-Zionist history toward Palestinians and enjoying, not the field labor of growing vegetables, but the oversight and “planning”. This controversial location was kept secret by a rabbi friend in Vermont and Bernie (they just couldn’t remember), until Israeli journalists tracked it down. Brother Larry said he introduced Bernie to socialism early and the kibbutz showed him “you didn’t need big bosses, you didn’t need massive wealth” to live a decent life. Socialism was something “that could work.” He was also impressed that it required almost no skill, money or education.

Loving the sound of his own voice would later get him kicked out of a Vermont commune for all talk, no action. His future constituency  was all about communes, co-ops, counterculture, anti-Imperialist  America, welfare, food stamps, unemployment and dropping out. Soon Bernie’s fortuitous hook-up with the Liberty Union Party would launch his real political climb. There would be many failures, but eventually, by name recognition and constant self-promotion, he got there.

Bernie always wanted to be the leader, although now he claims he “isn’t into being a leader” as he runs for president.  No, Bernie is the bully claiming to be the victim, reinforcing victimhood among his followers, standing as their king of bluster, pointing the finger to damn everyone else. Meanwhile, he has become a millionaire himself with multiple homes paid for, but that was not his fault, either. His wife handles the finances and taxes (excuse after excuse  for not releasing them to the public), his campaign manager makes decisions and mishandles the 639 FEC violations, someone else handles his Senate Financial Disclosures, which may or may not match the income taxes, and his favorite slithery quotes, “You never heard me say that”, or after years of boosting Nicaragua, Cuba, USSR, he’ll say, “I’m not an expert on ______ (insert country here)”. Statements made during the campaign by Bernie and his handlers have earned a disrespectable stack of “Pinocchios” by media and dozens of blogs, but it’s Bernie’s “integrity” we should admire.

Along the way he became the establishment politician, latching onto Liberty Union, Rainbow Coalition, Democratic Socialists of America and Democrats, because the latter had the real money to back him. He has crushed them under his loafers since, discarding all of them except to mention his past association when it benefits his stance on something. He shakes hands with Jesse Jackson in a photo-op, therefore he supports civil rights. “I took a bus to DC” and his followers assume he was with Martin Luther King, Jr. . The only evidence of a bus trip to DC was to attend a nuclear proliferation protest.

Half-Assed Extremist

In many ways Bernie Sanders seemed to be sleep walking through the sixties and seventies, self involved, wanting to lead, never follow, but unwilling to put in the time or effort for real social change. It only took a very brief arrest and a $25 fine to end protesting for him, until now with photo-ops and assurances of no arrests. He doesn’t treat protesters kindly when it goes against his policies or plans, either.

Bernie wanted to be published, his voice heard above all others, proclaiming himself the smartest guy in the room. He was a dabbler in counterculture and social change, preferring his own company, alone in the university basement he describes as, “in the stacks”, reading Marx, Trotsky, Freud and his sexuality and anti-cancer hero, Wilhelm Reich.  He said he read everything except his course work resulting in his status as a “poor student”. Just a list of newsworthy social events, causes and shifts, riots, upheaval, deaths and protests of the 60’s would take several pages, but not even the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, would warrant Bernie’s interest.

He is a lifelong angry, faux-radical in search of a cause that wasn’t “owned” by other groups, politicians or authors. Never a Democrat, he dances in and out of the party using its resources and establishment power to propel his own career and wealth building…yes, wealth building. The man’s net worth in the U.S. top 3.5 % income bracket is not a slow climb compared to the low-income and middle-class people he claims to advocate for, including owning multiple real estate “rentals” rented at market prices, not to benefit those low-income voters he courts. He never mentions he’s still paid by taxpayers for nearly two-years of non-work, and when Bernie shows up to vote, it’s usually some bizarre purity effort that requires him to vote against the good of the people.

Bernie Sanders is a megalomaniac, hawking fake social cures and revolutions to honor himself, to secure his place in history. The ultimate coup would be turning America into a communist nation with a socialist economy, otherwise he remains a footnote in history as an establishment politician that lost another election with an unremarkable house and senate history.  As the campaign wanes, his rage is growing.

His silence and smirking approval as his followers become more desperate and violent, throwing chairs, screaming threats  at the Nevada Convention, bullying Hillary supporters entering events, disrupting a Trump rally and now threatening violence at the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia is Bernie’s style. Later he will say it wasn’t his fault. He’ll blame the anger of the people he has incited for over a year, but it won’t be Bernie’s fault. Nothing is ever, ever Bernie’s fault.