The Wrath of Grapes

Okay. Let's look at the whole picture here. And let's start with Don Cherry's age. He's 85. Do the math. Born in 1934. So when he was old enough to just barely understand what was happening, WWII was going on. (5-11 years old) In his most formative years Canadians were helping to win the war, remembering the war and in vast majorities, like almost 100% I'm sure, they were buying and wearing poppies.

You're not going to like this but I'm going to tell you another majority during that time. And the "N word" will be bandied about all willy-nilly. So if you can't endure that without being offended, skip ahead a paragraph. I need to do it for the purposes of accuracy and honesty. Until the early 70's, according to Stats Canada, 97% or more of Canadians were "European Canadians." This is the euphemism Statscan uses for white because it's just a helluva lot safer nowadays NOT to use that word in Canada when referring to people. But when those censuses were taken, I'm sure the box that was checked said "white." And I'm sure nobody considered that racist. I was alive in the early 70's. I said lots of racist things back then too. I didn't even know they were racist! I called Brazil nuts "nigger toes," I ate black babies candy, I picked sports teams by saying, "Eenie meenie miney moe catch a nigger by the toe," I even went out for Halloween as Aunt Jemima in blackface. In my peer group, when there was a fight (between ANY two people, and because there were only two non-white people in my neighbourhood, it was going to be between two white kids) a common chant could be heard: "Fight, fight, a nigger and a white." When somebody I knew saw me, they might greet me with, "What do you figure?" The clever answer was, "I figure nigger's lips are bigger." Then there was a song I heard my Dad sing once or twice: "Daniel Boone was a man - was a big man. But the bear was-a-bigger so he ran like a nigger up a tree." I'm sure if I thought really hard, I could come up with a dozen more normalized horrors as bad or worse than these. But when I was in elementary school I also had a black girlfriend named Anita. She was from Jamaica. Her and her brother Marlin were the only black people in my neighbourhood. (well, their parents too, but I mean the kids) Our next-door neighbours, the Bardy's, were native Canadian, which I think were the majority of the 3% non-white residents of Canada at the time. I couldn't believe my luck to have black kids living so close by! Close enough that I could walk to school with Anita. Every day. I think I was more fascinated by her difference than put off by it. She was very shy and quiet but I encouraged her to talk because I loved her cool, Jamaican accent. We sat together and held hands underneath our desks. One day I told her she was as sweet as an apple and she really dug that. So was I a racist kid or not?

A total of 619,636 men and women served in the Canadian forces in the First World War, and of these 59,544 were killed and another 154,361 were wounded. Of a population of approximately 11.5 million, 1.1 million Canadians served in the armed forces during the Second World War. In all, more than 45,000 died, and another 55,000 were wounded. Given the statistic of 97% European Canadians above, I need not mention, but I will, that almost all of these people who were wounded or who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country were white. Since the 70's the white portion of the Canadian population has dropped to around 70%. That is a very rapid decrease in a country that was almost completely white since confederation over 100 years earlier. This change in Canada was not handled well socially. It was dealt with in a most Canadian of ways: it was ignored, pushed down, hidden, covered up and replaced by statements of great multiculturalism that required the immediate support and action of the entire country. We were never a multicultural country until we were told we were, (not to say ordered to be). This was not universally embraced by Canadians.

In her New York Times article, Dr. Cheryl Thompson, an assistant prof at Ryerson University, says,  "In the month since the photos of Mr. Trudeau surfaced, I’ve had white Canadians share with me that they, too, performed blackface as a child, or that blackface was ubiquitous in their community. If my research has encouraged some white Canadians to stop fearing their own racist pasts, more of our public leaders could surely do the same. What we need is courage, not a polite, “Sorry about that, eh.”" Read the article and click on all the links in it you can. It's an enlightening account of Canada's past and how my country has downplayed and hidden its history of white dominance. It always pisses me off when Canada is hyperbolically characterized as a big, nice, polite, friendly country. That wasn't my experience, and I grew up there! People who insisted on being different got their asses kicked in Canada too, don't kid yourself. And the reason people were polite was because if they weren't - you guessed it - they got an ass kickin'. Drivers who drove like jerks - ass kickin'. Spelling colour, honour, or behaviour without the "u" - ass kickin'. Some of the schools I went to you could get your ass kicked for wearing uncool shoes for crying out loud.

And in the years when I was growing up in Canada, not wearing a poppy around Remembrance Day was behaviour that would be questioned. Wrong answers to those questions could be assumed to result in an ass kickin'. I'm not going to say that this was wrong or right. I'm not going to say that the soldiers who died in wars fighting for our Canadian way of life would be happy or unhappy with the rapid change in our cultural make-up. I'm not going to presume to say whether or not multiculturalism legitimately IS our Canadian way of life, or whether it's just one that has been fairly recently manufactured. What I am going to say is that this momentous change in our country was foisted upon us (or is it "foistered" lol) completely without instructions. We were expected to adapt socially on our own. I have mixed feelings about how Canada adapted to the biggest change in my country since I was born. I have blogged on it frequently. I believe it has forced many Canadians to quickly develop multicultural thinking and tolerance, even respect for other cultures and people. I also believe Canada overreacted and became the most reverse-racist country in the world in many ways showing unfair favouritism to new Canadians. I love the fact that we welcome refugees and poor people looking for a better life into Canada, but I don't like the fact that a lot of immigrants are the rich from other countries bringing the despicable tactics and business practices that made them rich in their countries into Canada. I believe most Canadians have dealt with it in an honourable, egalitarian manner, and this makes me proud of Canada. Mostly. But there are some who haven't done so. And we don't hear about them. We don't WANT to hear about them. I've blogged on THIS before too. Canada has become a nation of ostriches putting our heads in the sand when cracks in our culture appear. We don't want all that negativity! It's harshing our mellow! It OFFENDS us! And we have become offensively offended. This is part of Canada I am NOT proud of. Don Cherry is the latest of many examples. Nobody gets their asses kicked any more for not wearing poppies. But we can be fired for having the wrong opinion. We can be fired for having a baby. And we can be fired, like Don Cherry, for saying things in a way that is a little to politically incorrect for some.

This hypersensitivity, I believe, is one result of this monumental change in Canadian cultural diversity. The other is more alarming and it is lesser known due to its mellow-harshing nature. If you're a Canadian who thinks Don Cherry is bad, you're probably in for a rude awakening. Another cultural crisis in Canada is Don Cherry on steroids. From 80-100 white supremacist groups in Canada in 2015 to almost 300 today.

We can't deal with the results of such a large cultural change by simply pushing away the negative results of it. Celebrating well adapted Canadians and ignoring or hiding the others does NOT a multi-cultural country make! We can't just BE multicultural by calling ourselves multicultural! And it looks like we're about to learn this lesson the hard way because immigration is only going to rise. Again, I have mixed feelings. I am sympathetic to compassionate immigration, but I call bullshit on the stated reasons for a lot of Canadian immigration. "Skill shortages?" "Gaps in the labour market?" Are they just euphemisms for cheap and handy labour? Why can't we train existing Canadians to acquire those skills and fill those gaps? The corporations who run our country could so easily afford that! But they don't have to and we don't force them to.

And now we come to the bigger issue. In the NY Times article, I'm not sure what Peter Mansbridge meant when he said Canadian voters were not interested in the pictures of Trudeau in black face and would prefer a return to the "real issues," but I am one Canadian who would prefer a return to the real issues. To me the largest issue in Canada, indeed the world, is not racism, immigration or any of the minor issues causing bruised feelings and butthurt in my country. The largest issue hasn't caused anywhere NEAR enough outrage yet! I'm sure if you've read my blog you know to what I am referring. It's been called social pollution by business professor Nuria Chinchilla. It sounds like a fake name to be sure. Stanford professor Jeffrey Pfeffer explains it well. If you read one article or link from this post, that one would be a good choice. I have the health issues he described and others and I have always considered workplace stress to be at least part of the cause. For me the stress of changing jobs frequently due to one-year contracts, working in foreign countries, and being apart from my family, friends and culture that the Canadian soldiers fought and died for, is part of that stress. Add to this the highest tax burden in the world (read my blogpost if you have an issue with that statement) and the pressure to have kids, raise kids, AND work long hours at jobs we usually hate, put on every male and female in our country, and you have yourself the largest problem in Canada. But why don't we talk about this? Why is it pushed down and hidden away? It's like the white supremacy groups. It harshes our Canadian mellow. I've been blocked by many a Facebook friend for speaking honestly about it. A lot of my family probably consider me a raving lunatic and a black wind of ill favour bringing words of unwanted darkness into their artificially lit lives. But I gotta be me!

Canadians KNOW they're not supposed to be honest like me and talk about these downer topics. They KNOW they're not supposed to complain about their jobs and their long hours because it's not the Canadian way or some dumb axiom they've been prescribed by the billionaire class of Canada and have taken religiously like the Soma it is. They know they're supposed to pay their high rent, pay their high taxes, earn their low pay, and vote every four years for the people who made it that way. Why? Because the truth has been hidden and blocked. Things don't need to be this way. Canada has SO much wealth! We could be the envy of all countries if we didn't have such drastic income inequality. If we didn't work such long hours and so much overtime, our companies would be more efficient and we'd get more time off. It's been proved again and again all over the world. Even in Japan where they are infamous for working themselves to death. Canada doesn't need to be thrown up there on lists of happiest, freest and most multicultural countries in the world to make us APPEAR to be so, we could actually BE that country if we just solve this, our biggest problem. And not just the vast majority of Canadians - the middle and lower classes, but the rich would be happier too! Because they'd make even MORE money! It's a super easy problem to solve! But our rich and our government don't have the collective balls to enrich the 99%, spread out that wealth, reduce the workweek and raise productivity, job satisfaction and profit and solve our major problem.

So like I usually do at this time of year, I write another blog post about the largest problem in Canada. A problem that has forced me to move away from home. A problem that has caused racism, hypersensitivity, and a lot of other minor problems we squabble about in Canada. Maybe someday the people of Canada will realize this, force the government and big business to do something about it, work less and make those big businesses even richer, be happier people again and make our country into the country our war heroes died to create. Then I'll move back home and you can be absolutely sure I'll buy and wear a poppy!

Some, most or ALL of this most certainly is what contributed to the wrath of Grapes and caused him to be over-passionate about his country and those who died for it. I forgive him.

Trump Girls

I suppose this is where it began with Donald Trump. His first wife, Ivana.

I mean... you can see why Trump married her. Blonde bombshell. Forgive me but I've noticed a pattern. See if you can spot it.

Here's Marla Maples,

and now Melania.

 

Look at her classic Natalie Portman-ish good looks! She's a bit of a departure for Trump in that she's not a blonde.

Yeah, that's more his style.

 

YIKES!

But there have been so many other women in his life! Let's see now...

Here we have Ann Coulter and Kelly Ann Conway. Two of Trump's biggest supporters. In fact I can't tell them apart. Neither seems to know the meaning of overzealous support.

If you've never heard of a verbal blowjob, just listen to one of them talk about Trump.

Absolutely shameless Trump promotion that translates into self-promotion.

Almost like...













No, wait a minute, she's gone. Huckasand probably wasn't young, hot or blonde enough.

But the replacements are coming!

Pam Bondi, who he recently called in to help with the "witch hunt" impeachment proceedings. She said, "If the president calls out my name, I come," or something like that.

And this is the chivalrous president making certain Paula White's shapely, that is to say GODLY body is well taken care of.

I couldn't make it to the end of the video but... "To say no to President Trump would be to say no to God." Blonde, buxom, hot bod, how long before Trump is buying her a glass church with hush money? And speaking of hush money and scandals...

Summer Zervos.

Karen McDougal, and, of course,

Stormy Daniels. Make America horny again. HAH!

But what about...

NO! NO! NO! Absolutely not! Nononononononono! Young, buxom and hot, but too brunette, socialist and... uh... tanned?

Yeah, that's more like it!

Okay, her too. You may recognize these two gals from FOX. Tomi Lahren and Laura Ingraham. Two blonde beauties at FOX news who shamelessly defend Trump. It gets them on TV and it makes them money. After the whole Trump thing blows over, they'll be two of MANY who make a little bit MORE money writing books about these crazy days.

Heavens to Betsy! She has magically stayed out of Azkhaban. A self-proclaimed educator who is as evil as Umbridge from Harry Potter. Have you ever seen this Deatheater with her sleeve rolled up? No you haven't! I would LOVE to see her in orange!

And even...

She belongs on the list too! If not for her highly questionable rise to the top of the Democratic Party over the FAR more popular Bernie Sanders, Trump would never have become president. Sanders was WAY ahead! And since even Hillary got more votes than Trump, Sanders would have slaughtered him. American politics! She cheated to beat the guy with more votes, then was beaten by a guy who cheated to beat HER when she had more votes. Almost poetic!
Anyway, there you have it. The girls of Trump. Even Bond had less of a pattern. I'm sure you see it too. It can't be just me.

Pitchfork Economics

Here's a TED Talk. Please listen to this guy. Do you recognize him? You probably should. We ALL probably should. He's EXTREMELY rich! But we sometimes don't find out about these characters. By design. If you were a bank owner or a guy who made a multi-billion dollar sale to Microsoft IN CASH, or a guy who got in on Amazon stock from the very beginning, would you want people to know who you are? This guy is all three. And THEN some.

I'll tell you his name, but you STILL won't recognize it. This is Nick Neubauer. No, it's Hank Nickauer. Wait a sec, it's Nick Hanauer. Right! Ever hoid of him?

He is an unapologetic capitalist. He's a self-titled plutocrat in perhaps the largest (or most powerful) plutocracy in the world. He is a member of a family who was rich. Pacific Coast Feather Company made pillows and blankets and it doesn't sound like a huge conglomerate but who doesn't use pillows and blankets? He was born into money and that money was his power. The very definition of a plutocrat. He was CEO of this and founder or co-founder of that, even funder of this or that. I really should hate this guy. But I don't. I actually like him.

He has founded, co-founded, or funded  more than 30 companies. Some tiny, like a personal bar, some huge, like, oh the 13th hugest, and soon to be hugest, company in the world: Amazon.com. He basically underwrote Amazon. Funded Jeff Bezos at ground zero. So you can imagine the benefits that has wrought. He sold an internet ad company, aQuantive, to Microsoft in 2007 for 6.4 BBBillion in cash. 2007 cash! And he owns a bank with some of his friends. As a hobby I guess. His net worth is purposely unknown but if you or I could ascertain it, we wouldn't understand it. That's who we're dealing with here.

Here's another TED Talk he did. It was banned. By whom? Well his other fellow members of the upper 0.00001%, that's whom! Why? Because he said something that I have said again and again on this blog. He said something that makes conspiracy theorists conspiracy theorists. He said that rich people don't create jobs. Rich people (like him) don't create jobs. Only ordinary consumers create jobs. He then went on to say that tax benefits for the rich in the name of job creation don't work. All that happens is the rich get richer. If it were true that lower taxes for the rich lead to job creation, today we would be DROWNING in jobs. Now he meant in America but it goes for a lot of other capitalist countries around the world where the rich have never been richer. Canada is a prime example. But I know for a fact there are fewer and shittier jobs available in my country. The "trickle down" myth has been exposed for the crap that it is. So why is it still proffered as the succulent political steak it isn't? I dunno. And Nick Hanauer doesn't know either. Rich guys DON'T create jobs.

And he goes on to explain it in simple terms that are damning to every conservative/capitalist government for the last 50 to 100 years. Let's pretend he only makes a few thousand times what we make. I am pretty sure he makes a few thousand times what I make yearly in about an hour or two, but let's pretend. I have one car. He doesn't have a few thousand cars, he has three. I have like ten pairs of pants. He doesn't have 30,000 pairs of pants. This is the weakness in our present capitalist thinking worldwide. Rich people DON'T stimulate the economy by buying things, they save. They put their money in Switzerland or offshore anonymous accounts in the Cayman Islands to hide it from the taxman. This is literally trillions of dollars NOT being re-circulated into the economies of the countries in which they live. The Panama Papers illustrated this. Member? Member them? No, you may not. Because rich people downplayed them and flashed their MIB forget pens in our eyes and that story, which should have been the story of the century, just faded away.

Here's why they made us forget that story, AND why they banned Nack Baumhauer's first TED Talk: because they're damaging to the state of control that plutocrats have, only because of their money, over the world today.

Jack Boomhauer doesn't pull any punches. He says about himself that he's not the smartest guy or the hardest worker you've ever seen. He can't write code and he's not very technical. He's not a genius, he was a mediocre student. So what sets him apart? What has made him so rich? He credits three things: luck, a kind of intuition that allowed him to see the future sooner than others, and a tolerance for risk. Well let's start with the last one, shall we? A tolerance for risk, investment-wise, is fucking easy to have when you're rich! You invest in a risky investment, it tanks, you still have lots of money. Where's the risk? So don't think of this guy as a genius just yet. If he were investing his last dollar and succeeding, well THEN you might owe him some reverence. But he wasn't. The very essence of a plutocrat.

So what did this Joseph Blankenship have going for him that most did not? It wasn't smarts, it wasn't hard work, it wasn't skill, it was money and luck. If you want, you can imagine that he was ahead of the curve investing in a small dot-com startup like Amazon, but you'd be wrong. EVERYBODY was investing in them. EVERYBODY KNEW that the internet was the future of business. What he did right was he chose Amazon. And that was just luck. He told two friends, Jeff Bezos and Jeff Tauber that he wanted to invest in internet shopping. By nothing more than luck, Bezos called him back first. If he'd invested in Tauber, of Cybershop, he'd have lost money. Cybershop was one of many dot-com busts.

Okay, I am going to give him credit for recognizing that Cybershop sold goods that people weren't ready to buy online yet and Amazon sold books, that people didn't need to really inspect before buying, but the bottom line is he got lucky. But look at his other investments and you begin to think there's more than just luck. This guy is one of the few who seem to see over the horizon before everyone else. I'll admit that he seems to know what people want, consumer-wise, and it has probably been something he gleaned from years and years participating in the family business. So, sure, I'll give him props. He has earned the ability to predict just slightly before his counterparts, how things will go in the market. Therein lies his one and only strategic advantage.

His other advantages? Having money and having friends. We've all heard that before. If Amazon were the only great deal Jim Hackensack had made, I'd think less of him. But this dude has made many great deals. I look at him like a poker pro. Does he REALLY KNOW something the average poker player doesn't? Or do we just think he does? Well I think the mystery is removed by his two TED Talks. He really DOES know something and it's not something that we ALL shouldn't know!

If I told you the whole economic system is rigged and we're all screwed, you'd look at my net worth and think: Conspiracy Theorist! What Noel Horstbaum has going for him is NObody thinks he's a conspiracy theorist because he's filthy rich and he's telling all his fellow 0.01%ers to smarten up. He's speaking from mad backing, something I've never had! Well, unless you consider massive reading and researching more impressive than having been there and done that, you just don't take my word for this. You take his. This is why I like him. TAKE his word!

So what does Nino Hunibomber say about the future? What does he see? He sees pitchforks!

He sees revolution. He saw this and he gave these TED Talks long before today, but look at what's happening today. Hong Kong. Riots. We all know why. Spain. Same thing. Chile, Haiti, Lebanon, other countries that you haven't heard of because it's been suppressed. Bolivia, many places in the Americas are rioting every day for the same reason people protest everywhere. And this is what makes Johan Nibanauer fear for his life. Income inequality.

If I had better skills I'd animate a hockey stick into that pic above to illustrate that Canada needs to revolt too. We need to bust out the pitchforks and attack the 0.0001%ers who are hoarding our wealth. It's obvious! But again, don't take it from me, take it from one of those 0.0001%ers.

There's something called the capitalist X. Norm Hallanburger elabourates on it. He says the American 1% in 1980 controlled 8% of the national income while the bottom 50% had 18%. Nowadays the 1% control 20% while the bottom 50% try to get by on only 12% of the economy.

This is what's called the Capitalist X. It's going on in all capitalist countries. The ironic thing about it is proud capitalists like Jerry Nackbaum say it's completely unnecessary and self-defeating. I didn't say that, HE said that. I'm not kidding! He goes on to say (which I have said many times before) that if only America would amend its ways like FDR did in the Great Depression, i.e. help the 99%, it would be the best thing possible for the country. And not just taxing the rich, and to remind everyone the tax rates on the rich were up to 75% during that time (and they WERE PAID), FORCING THEM to pay those taxes! The rich often agree that higher taxes on them would be a good idea but try to implement that and they'll immediately find ways to offset those taxes like price hikes or lobbying the government for relief. FDR made sure the rich PAID their taxes. And for the love of God, who SHOULD pay taxes? Not those of us who were born in our countries by pure happenstance, but those who take advantage of those countries monetarily. Businesses OWE this country. I don't. I was born here. By no choice of my own. THEY chose this place to make their living. So they should be paying taxes. At least more taxes than us. But the reality is they aren't. There's a long list of American companies that we all know because they're so massive, that don't pay any taxes at all. If you were to learn that Jeff Bezos  not only paid ZERO in taxes last year but also cut benefits for many Amazon employees, how would you feel?

Right! And let's not concentrate all our righteous anger on Jeff Bezos, although he has earned a large portion of it, there are lists longer than my arm of super rich corporations who have been escaping the taxman for far too long in our capitalist, non-regulated countries for far too long. Johnny Bouman himself says, and I quote, "If we adjust our policies in the way that, say, FDR did during the Great Depression- so that we help the 99 percent, that will be the best thing possible for us rich folks too. It's not just that we'll escape with our lives, it's that we'll most certainly get EVEN RICHER."

Even richer! So sing along with us dee dee dee dee dee, da de dah dah dah yeah we're hap happy! If you tell the super rich a way they can become even richer, they'll all be on board, right? Well  unlike our hero Nicolas Newmanbauer, most gozillionaires inexplicably are not on board with this kind of thinking. Because it involves risk. We have established that being okay with risk was one way Joey Bambauer made his fortune. But most rich assholes don't like to speculate like that. You give them common sense business stats and you'd think they'd be okay with them but...

I mean pure Keynesian economics will be trifled with. Let's go back to the car example. And the clothes. Rich folks don't re-introduce money into the economy. They save. Middle and lower class are FORCED to re-introduce money into the economy because they NEED shit. So they buy stuff. That improves the economy a LOT more than giving money to the rich. In fact it is money that is spent buying the products of the rich. So it actually enriches the rich. Yes, the rich get richer if they enrich the middle and lower classes. This is economically studied and verified fact.

So why doesn't it happen? You try to tell a businessman or woman that their regular supply could be augmented if they only took a chance. 99% of them would choose to keep earning money in their lower yield, but safer method. Most rich people are not risk takers. That's why our Nathan Boomer is so much smarter than them. He's a risk taker. He sees farther. The rest are comfortable in their lower yield but steady ways of making money.

Try to tell the rich that enriching the rich hasn't worked for about a century, but enriching the middle and lower classes will re-introduce all that capital back into the economy thereby making companies (like you assholes) richer, which creates a need for more jobs for more poor folks, which makes your companies richer and makes poor and middle class richer and they say YEAH BABY! Let's do this! Of course they say that. But then you say, "Okay so we're going to make you PAY taxes and actually PAY them and not offset them with kneejerk price rises in your products..." and immediately they backtrack.

Niles Hornblower himself in his TED Talks illustrates the capitalist X. It's the relation between super rich and the rest of the people in any capitalist society that has been the case forever and everywhere. It has resulted in a police state or a revolt without exception. And the US is getting very close to the X that has set off the previous revolts in Russia, France, China etc. He's scared.

But the ultimate irony is that if people knew how unnecessary and self-defeating this system of bowing to big business and corporate control of politics was, they'd hate it. They'd HATE IT! Enough to bust out the pitchforks! That's what inevitably happens in these situations! And we've had them before! SOOOO many times!

All of this time our hero Nick Hanauer has seemed like the enemy of the capitalist pig. But in this final paragraph, he offers a sort of brotherly handshake to them. He says, and he's right, that contributing to the middle classes, i.e. giving to the working class, (paying your goddam taxes that you really really should), will infuse the lower people in the economy with money. They don't have the comfort and solidarity to invest or save that you do, so they will spend. Spend money and become the perfect consumers they are supposed to be in the perfect model. They buy stuff from all the stores owned by the rich. So they stop complaining and realize that the taxes they've paid come back to them manifold in business. This is simple Keynesian economics. It's been hidden from us. By the rich. That's what this member of the rich is saying. And that's why they tried to silence him.

He actually says that what America needs right now is a little infusion of Socialism. Well HE doesn't say that but he does say that he supports FDR's actions in the Great Depression. As I've always said here, those actions were straight Socialism. But you can't argue that they were bad. Even the greatest, richest scumbags of America during that time hated FDR for what he did. For a time. But they all gained from what he did. And that's the situation me and Hick Nauer see right now. People need to accept a little socialism to temper the unbridled capitalism we've allowed for far too long. Elect Bernie Sanders in America. Maybe try to support revolutions. This is what we need. For a time.

If you don't want to call it socialism, fine and dandy, call it restructuring or some other politically acceptable thing. But don't subject us all to the continued separation of the rich and poor. Or we'll have to revolt.