s0crates

I cannot help but think the mainstream narrative about Trump's "Muslim ban" is missing some key points, so I'm including a bit of alternative media coverage for your consideration (linked instead of embedded due to some NSFW language).

Here's Jimmy Dore's take (from the left):

https://youtu.be/4FTFB9GDfls

And here's Stefan Molyneux's take (from the right):

https://youtu.be/9OVnqerWUHg

I wouldn't say I entirely agree with either of them, in particular I'm not impressed by Molyneux's apologetics about Trump, but I think they both make some good points. I'm especially persuaded by the argument that US foreign policy is the main reason we have so many Muslim refugees seeking asylum in the first place, and I agree that there is something hypocritical in defending Muslims now after ignoring the fact we've been bombing the hell out of the Muslim world for over a decade. 

1. The ACLU is fighting the good fight on this.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/aclu-and-other-groups-challenge-trump-immigration-ban-after-refugees-detained

2. A lot of right wing commentators are pointing out that Obama did this kind of thing. Here's an article examining those claims:

http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/barack-obama-ban-refugees-did-iraq-iraqi-muslim-trump-jimmy-carter-iran-iranian-immigration/

This happened in Michigan today:

9 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

As far as I know, there is not strict board rule, but in general it has historically been considered bad etiquette to simply repeat what somebody else has said.

 

We don't need pages of people saying the same thing over and over again.

So it's bad etiquette to express the same opinion as somebody else?

13 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Because it doesn't add anything to the conversation that was already had.  You are essentially repeating things that are on the previous page of this thread.  That's the whole idea behind the read more post less.

 

(And I didn't side with big Pharma.  The idea in general is stupid and safety and quality is a concern.  There are better ways to get essentially the same results with respect to prices without the negative consequences (one of which I suggested).  That's not siding with big Pharma.  That's reality.)

I posted an article that hasn't been posted. Is there a rule against posting a new article that makes a similar argument to one other posters have made in the same thread? 

Anyway I'm all for other ways of making prescription drug prices lower, but the one that was on the table was better than nothing, and I believe it was defeated because of Democrats who are putting the interest of their big Pharma donors above the interest of their constituents, you can believe their excuses.

35 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Read more.  Post less.

The vote was two days ago, and the article I posted was published today. Why shouldn't I post it?

I noticed you sided with Big Pharma on this one, but I'm unpersuaded by your argument that this amendment failed because it was a threat to public safety. I'm glad to see a little bipartisan opposition to Big Pharma building.

3 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

Here's the thing.  I think more than half of GOP voters would soundly support it immediately if it was a GOP proposal.  

Sell it as a fiscally conservative decision.  Voila!

It could work.

When Ted Cruz votes to lower the cost of prescription drugs and 13 Dems vote against it, is it any wonder over 40% of the country is independent?

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/13/bernie-sanders-pharma-bill-vote-reveals-new-battle-lines-commentary.html

Cowboys are playing really well, again.

The Cowboys playing this well is very annoying. 

Today I learned that Dallas has lost 8 straight home games. Hopefully they extend that streak tonight.

Looks like the burgundy pants worked.

I somewhat understand where the teacher is coming from. He is right to say things like flag burning and kneeling during the national anthem are protected by the 1st amendment, and I would be willing to bet a lot of his students don't recognize it. I can also tell you that doing or saying something shocking can be a good way to get students attention, get them thinking, and get them talking.

That said, I wouldn't have done what he did. First of all, I love my country. Second of all, what he did was imprudent, he should have foreseen the consequences he is now facing. Third of all, I don't think it was an especially effective way to make the point he was trying to make.

Let me give you a sense of how I would have approached the question instead: I recently had a class where students wanted to talk about Kaepernick kneeling during the national anthem. They were split 50-50 in support and opposition. We had a productive dialogue about it, and I gave everybody a chance to speak his or her mind on the subject, democracy in action! For my part, I took the opportunity to remind them that such acts of protest are protected by the 1st amendment, but I tried to focus the discussion by quoting Cornel West, "We have to keep two ideas of America in our head at the same time." On one hand America is a place that believes in liberty and justice for all, but on the other hand America is an empire that has a long history of tyranny and injustice. Thomas Jefferson is a good example of this contradiction: He wrote the Declaration of Independence, saying it is "self-evident" that all men are equal and have a right to liberty, but he also owned slaves and regarded the indigenous people as "savages," which is remarkably dissonant if you think about it. One could rightly ask him, as David Walker did, "Do you understand the meaning of your own language?"

These are difficult questions, and maybe that's where I would disagree most with teaching about the first amendment in the way this teacher did, it was too much of an oversimplification.

I'm surprised you guys aren't all over this story:

http://abc11.com/education/fayetteville-teacher-who-stomped-flag-suspended-without-pay/1524142/

FAYETTEVILLE TEACHER WHO STOMPED FLAG SAYS HE'S BEEN SUSPENDED WITHOUT PAY

. . .

http://abc11.com/1521079/

FAYETTEVILLE TEACHER DEFENDS 'FLAG-STOMPING' LESSON

. . .

http://wsvn.com/news/local/video-shows-moments-before-north-miami-police-shot-unarmed-man/

guess he's lucky the cops didn't kill him or his patient

What the ****?

Here's the question I keep coming back to: Should the state have a monopoly on the use of force?

Edit: In honesty I find the question terribly difficult. I don't mean for the question to imply a particular answer.

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/21/democrats-war-on-due-process-and-terrorist-fear-mongering-long-pre-dates-orlando/

Democrats' War on Due Process and Terrorist Fear Mongering Long Predate Orlando

Glenn Greenwald

BEFORE THE BODIES were removed from the Pulse nightclub in Orlando last week, Democrats began eagerly exploiting that atrocity to demand a new, secret “terrorist watchlist”: something that was once the domestic centerpiece of the Bush/Cheney war-on-terror mentality. Led by their propaganda outlet, Center for American Progress (CAP), Democrats now want to empower the Justice Department — without any judicial adjudication — to unilaterally bar citizens who have not been charged with (let alone convicted of) any crime from purchasing guns.

Worse than the measure itself is the rancid rhetoric they are using. To justify this new list, Democrats, in unison, are actually arguing that the U.S. government must constrain people whom they are now calling “potential terrorists.” Just spend a moment pondering how creepy and Orwellian that phrase is in the context of government designations.

What is a “potential terrorist”? Isn’t everyone that? And who wants the U.S. government empowered to unilaterally restrict what citizens can do based on predictions or guesses about what they might become or do in the future?

. . .

For eight years, this mentality was the driving force behind the worst Bush/Cheney war-on-terror abuses. No matter what the extremist policy was — indefinite detention, warrantless eavesdropping, torture, no-fly lists, Guantánamo, rendition, CIA black sites — Republicans would justify it by saying it was merely being done to “terrorists” and would accuse their due process-advocating critics of wanting to “protect terrorists.” What they actually meant was that all of this was being done to people accused by the U.S. government of involvement in terrorism. But in their mind, “government accusations of terrorism” were synonymous with “proof of guilt.”

That is exactly the warped, Orwellian formulation Democrats embrace: As is extremely obvious, the Democrats’ definition of “terrorist” is “anyone whom the U.S. government suspects of being a terrorist.” Just as was true of all those GOP abuses, what makes these Democratic proposals so dangerous is that they constitute a war on the most basic right of due process.

. . .

Greenwald has makes good points at times, but is something of an extremist on the left and a very biased one at that.

I think your characterization of Greenwald as a leftist is simplistic at best. He is critical of both parties and in some ways quite conservative. You might call him anti-establishment, but I think he's ideologically independent.

I'm not all that persuaded by ad hominem arguments anyway. What I'd really like to know is whether or not you think he has a good argument on this point.

This is a particularly useful habit to have if you don't like what the experts are saying because it clashes with your preconceived political views or personal philosophy.

Global warming denialists, anti-vaxxers, and Brexit voters all employ it to great advantage.

Fair enough. As I said, we need to rely on experts. That's why I go to doctors when I'm sick and mechanics when my car breaks down. And I agree that dogmatic people sometimes ignore experts to their own detriment. My point is only that we should not uncritically believe the pronouncements of authority figures.

Just as people with agendas exploit public distrust of authority to great advantage, so too do people with agendas exploit people's trust in authority to great advantage. For example, intelligence experts assured us that invading Iraq was necessary for national security, and medical experts assured us many dangerous drugs (thalidomide, fen-phen, etc.) were safe, and financial experts assured us we had no choice but to bail out Wall St.

I would suggest that the public distrust in authority, which is certainly being exploited by dangerous ideologues as you suggest, is largely the product of the repeated dishonesty of those authority figures.

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/25/brexit-is-only-the-latest-proof-of-the-insularity-and-failure-of-western-establishment-institutions/

Brexit is only the Latest Proof of the Insularity and Failure of Western Establishment Institutions

THE DECISION BY U.K. voters to leave the EU is such a glaring repudiation of the wisdom and relevance of elite political and media institutions that — for once — their failures have become a prominent part of the storyline. Media reaction to the Brexit vote falls into two general categories: (1) earnest, candid attempts to understand what motivated voters to make this choice, even if that means indicting their own establishment circles, and (2) petulant, self-serving, simple-minded attacks on disobedient pro-Leave voters for being primitive, xenophobic bigots (and stupid to boot), all to evade any reckoning with their own responsibility. Virtually every reaction that falls into the former category emphasizes the profound failures of Western establishment factions; these institutions have spawned pervasive misery and inequality, only to spew condescending scorn at their victims when they object.

The Los Angeles Times’s Vincent Bevins, in an outstanding and concise analysis, wrote that “both Brexit and Trumpism are the very, very wrong answers to legitimate questions that urban elites have refused to ask for 30 years”; in particular, “since the 1980s the elites in rich countries have overplayed their hand, taking all the gains for themselves and just covering their ears when anyone else talks, and now they are watching in horror as voters revolt.” The British journalist Tom Ewing, in a comprehensive Brexit explanation, said the same dynamic driving the U.K. vote prevails in Europe and North America as well: “the arrogance of neoliberal elites in constructing a politics designed to sideline and work around democracy while leaving democracy formally intact.”

. . .

The article is a bit long, but highly recommended reading. As usual, Glenn Greenwald nails it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-27/world-s-top-fortunes-fall-196-2-billion-since-brexit-bombshell

World’s Top Fortunes Fall $196.2 Billion Since Brexit Bombshell

Global markets erased another $69.2 billion from the combined net worth of the world’s 400 richest people Monday, bringing the total since the U.K. shocked investors with a vote to leave the European Union to $196.2 billion in the last two trading days.

. . .

I'm seeing a lot of talk about "experts." In general, I recommend a bit of caution with that. Of course we should listen to people who know stuff. If I need my car fixed I go to a mechanic. On the other hand, experts can be wrong. Experts denied the Big Bang and continental drift for example.

Not only are experts sometimes wrong, but there is a real danger in giving too much deference to any authority. Consider the Milgram experiment. A guy in a lab coat has a stupifying effect on most people. It's not enough to say, "well he's a scientist, so he must know." You have to remember that people have agendas. Let's not forget what tobacco company experts said.

If you want to know the truth, then you have to be vigilant. Consider the source, examine the evidence, look at the arguments, consider counterarguments, etc. Otherwise it's best to say you don't know.

I think the masses are unfairly blaming the EU for situations that are not caused by the EU, merely responsible for managing such as globalization, refugees, etc.

Maybe.

I think most people are getting screwed, and so justifiably angry, though they're not always angry at the right people for the right reasons. Some of that anger manifests as xenophobic nationalism, which is certainly something we see with Brexiters and Trump supporters. I think that type of thing is deeply misguided and often hateful, but the anger I get.

I tend to direct my anger towards big bankers and multinational corporations, and I'm willing to bet they have undue influence over the EU, just as they do here.

Just to clarify, I was referring to the UK voters who voted to leave and then turned around and said "wait, what did we just do again?". Based on your posting history, ignorance is a not a word I would associate with you.

Fair enough, and I appreciate it, although I am sincere in telling you my knowledge of contemporary European politics is severely limited.

I think the absurdity part is where the argument falls apart for me. It's not hard to find similar plight replaying itself over and over as countries enter into more FTAs. On a macro scale, FTAs make sense. Trade partners give and take to maximize profitability and efficiency. I'm sure UK made concessions and received trade-offs both within the context of common fishery and in the context of total trading within EU. They were surely the beneficiary of having London be the hub of financial sector.

The big problem (that US must also grapple with) is how to deal with the sectors who lose out in FTAs. You could specifically provision for them in the agreements itself (e.g. - the EU provision paying fishermen to get out of the business) or the trade partner could deal with it (e.g. - UK could set up a compensation program for those hurt by the common fishery, banking on additional tax revenue due to benefits in other sectors to fund them). So many countries have signed FTA deals that benefit the wealthy without sufficiently providing for the common workers whose industries get displaced. Thus leading to anger of the electorate. But does that blame lie with EU or UK? Frankly, UK will still have to negotiate global trade agreements or they will get left behind. The horses have left the barn. Protectionist economic policies of the late 19th and early 20th century are not coming back. I think the efforts are better focused on addressing the disparate effect of globalization within individual countries rather than trying to stuff globalization back in the bottle.

Not for nothing, UK accounts for 11.5% of the gross tonnage of fish in EU. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_5.3.9.html

They imported 700K tonnes and exported 500K tonnes in 2011. 2 of the top 3 importers were Iceland and China, who are not EU members, so it's not as if the common fishery policy is allowing other EU members to take fish that should have been caught by UK and then selling it back to UK.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17536764

I'm inclined to think FTAs are beneficial to wealthy financiers and international corporations and harmful to ordinary people, and so I tend to oppose them, but maybe you're right that the UK's membership in the EU makes no practical difference in the matter. It's hard to see what would make a difference in a world where the masses of people have so little power and the owners have so much. Like I said earlier, I think a lot of voters are doing the best they can with the knowledge and power they don't have.

I guess it's sui generis, but probably closer to a confederation than a federation? Certain seems to be grappling with lot of the same federalism issues that the founding fathers dealt with when forming the articles of confederation and the constitution.

I cited 2006 because that was the stats I had on hand. The comprehensive stat is that since 1999, 2,466 times for and 56 times against. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-facts-brexit-immigration-trade-economy-fishing-leave-remain-what-will-happen-a7095046.html (See item 8)

So that would be 97.7%. Even without factoring in all the backroom brokering that would happen in any legislative process, that is a remarkably high rate of supporting passed legislation.

I'm not sure what requires consensus and what requires majority either. But certainly, it is not as if UK has been dragged to unwanted laws by the EU. Also, they have minority blocking where if the opposition represents 35% of the EU population, than the legislation is blocked. Simple majority doesn't rule.

Tax laws may be bewildering, alienating, and needlessly complicated, but they are typically not absurd. Could the tax code be cleaned up and simplified? Sure. Should the tax code deal less with special interests? Absolutely. But Kafkaesque? I have a question. Do you consider the US government Kafkaesque too?

Yes.

Maybe it's inevitable in this day and age, "the angst of postindustrial man under late capitalism," or some such thing. Still I could do with a lot less bureaucracy in my life, and I'm a liberal.

Would you advocate your state leaving the union?

No, but I fully intend to vote "none of the above" in the upcoming presidential election, and it won't be my first no confidence vote.

I guess you could say it's the act of protest that I respect, the willingness to do something other than what the establishment tells you to do. The proles have spirit, however misguided it may be.

EU government has a distinctly parliamentary flavor to it, no question about that. But is that enough to make it undemocratic? At the end of the day, not a single part of the EU government is not answerable to the democratic process. Didn't like your council rep? Make sure your country's government hears about it during the next vote.

As for the cabinet comparison, I don't think the people truly appreciate how much of the government is implemented by rulemaking by the various agencies and how much deference they are accorded in court. There is a reason why the two parties fight each other to the death every 4 years when Congress remains deadlocked year after year. The office of the presidency, with its control of the agencies of the federal government, has tremendous power to implement the agendas of the executive. Is the EU commission powerful? Absolutely. But, I made the comparison, not because I believe the EU commission is not powerful, but because I believe the US cabinet is commensurately so. At least EU commission can be removed by a legislative body.

I have a more fundamental question? Do you believe the parliamentary selection of a prime minister is undemocratic?

Don't know. It's hard to imagine it's much worse than our presidential selections though.

Do you believe the US government to be undemocratic?

The US government is deeply undemocratic. I'm quite confident in that proposition.

Look at it historically. Consider how democratic America has typically been for Native Americans, African Americans, women, people who don't own land, union workers. If you want more specific and more recent, you might consider the 2000 presidential election.

Or look at the present state of affairs. Washington is run by lobbyists and special interests, elections are decided by wealthy donors, districts are ridiculously gerrymandered, both of our parties support perpetual war and the erosion of our civil rights, neither of our parties oppose big banks or corporate interests, many of our territories deny citizens the right to vote, voters are suppressed in all kinds of devious ways, our media lies, our electronic voting machines are severely compromised, our campaign finance system is a mess, ghost voting is widespread, etc.

Maybe that's too far from the intent of your question, and the point is that our institutions are democratic, but of course they're not really.

The United States was made undemocratic on purpose. It's a Republic. Most obviously the Supreme Court serves the role of Plato's philosopher kings. This doesn't bother me so much, because I believe somebody has to prevent those in power and the mob from violating the rights of others. I could go for some better philosopher kings though, because I doubt all of ours know the meaning of "Liberty and Justice."

The electoral college bothers me too, but most troublesome is the two party system. There are a lot of Independents, Greens, Libertarians, etc. who have no voice in our government. People think the American voter is apathetic, but it would be closer to the truth to say he is impotent.

None of these are Athenian direct democracy, but I believe they are sufficiently accountable to the will of the people and therefore democratic. But, perhaps, you disagree.

There's the rub. I see governments doing the will of a small number of wealthy and powerful people. I'm inclined to describe the US government as more oligarchical and plutocratic than democratic, and I suspect the same is true of the EU.

I don't suppose any of that is very specific to the Brexit, but I think Brexit is a symptom of more widespread discontent and anti-establishment sentiment, which I think is justified. It's also frightening of course, a lot of the populist anger lacks direction, knowledge, and principles. Yet without it, what hope is there?

I am typically sympathetic to populist ideas. Sometimes the deck is so stacked from the beginning, that's its not a fair chance for many, if not most. But this isn't one of those times.

Isn't it? What do you think the masses are fussing about?

If you are going to vote for something, you have the burden to educate yourself or at least have the decency to admit your ignorance and abstain.

Well I had no say in this vote, but I do admit my ignorance. I'm trying to educate myself. Hopefully you can help.

You have heavily EU subsidized parts of the UK voting to leave EU for supposedly economic reasons and then turn around and say "Oh crap, can we make sure we get that same amount from UK now that we've kicked EU to the curb?"

And you keep saying that EU government is Kafkaesque, but complexity alone is not enough to declare it Kafkaesque.

You're right to say it is not mere complexity that makes something Kafkaesque, although bewildering complexity is part of it, it also involves themes of alienation, powerlessness, and absurdity.

Is that not an apt description of, for example, the plight of the English fishermen in the following video?

https://youtu.be/n_6rb4wWbwE

It's federalism made up of 28 distinct sovereign nations with history dating back hundreds of years.

Is the EU a confederation, a federation, or sui generis?

Of course it's going to be complicated. But the system essentially ensures that EU only acts when all 28 member states are basically in agreement (In 2006, UK voted for 84 of 86 EU legislation and abstained from 2. It's like the UN security council. Nothing gets done if the powers that be object).

It's not my understanding that the EU governs by consensus. Some laws require consensus, but others only require a simple majority. (I've seen the claim that the important laws require a consensus, though no description of what "important" might mean in that sentence).

I'm also not sure why you chose 1996 as an example. I saw a study that determined that Britain was on the losing side of EU votes more than any other country (12% of the time) from 2009-2015. Is that so? If it is, how does that square with the notion that "the system essentially ensures that EU only acts when all 28 member states are basically in agreement"?

If someone unfamiliar with US government kept calling it Kafkaesque, that would be wrong too.

Depends who you ask. For example, an American small businessman filing his taxes might reasonably describe the experience as absurd, bewildering, alienating, and needlessly complicated.

As for the 7 main bodies

1. The Council of the EU (legislature).: Each member country gets one minister per policy area. How the member country selects the minister is up to them. The concept is that of equal representation among the members regardless of population. Remind you of any legislative body in the US?

2. The European Parliament (legislature).: Each member country gets proportional seats based on population. Members of the parliament are elected by direct vote. Many compare it to the House of Representatives in US federalism. For good reason.

3. The European Council (executive).: Made up of heads of state from each member country. Because Europe doesn't want a single executive in charge of the whole union. It's different than US, but does that make it Kafkaesque?

4. The European Commission (executive).: I discussed this in another post, but essentially consider it a type of Cabinet with Commission president acting like the chief of staff.

5. The Court of Justice of the European Union (judiciary).: Each country sends a Judge chosen by their method. Only requirement is that the judge must have legal background and must be deemed completely independent. What's the problem here?

6. The European Central Bank (central bank).: It's the European federal reserve.

7. European Court of Auditors: This is EU's OMB. it's role is primary reporting and tabulating.

1. I take it you're comparing the Council of the EU to the US Senate, although I think it's a bit of a false analogy. US Senators are directly elected, and it's my understanding that these ministers are not.

Despite my best efforts to find out, I still don't know how the ministers are selected. You say that is up to the member countries, but that really doesn't answer my question specifically.

2. I've no complaints about how this branch of the EU government is elected. It's the one branch of the EU that seems democratic to me.

The comparison to the US House of Representatives is not perfect though, as the European Parliament is not as powerful. For example, they do not have the ability to initiate legislation.

4. This is the one that really makes my head spin. Here's my understanding of the process of selecting the European Commission :

a. European Council proposes a President "taking account" of popular elections, whatever that means.

b. European Parliament votes yes or no on that proposal, simple majority rules.

c. The President then chooses the other 27 members of the Commission based on the nominations from the Council.

d. The Parliament then gets to vote yes or no to the entire group of 28, again simple majority rule.

I guess you could say that this is a somewhat democratic process since the popular vote is "taken into account" by the Council and the Parliament has the chance to vote against the nomination, although it seems to me like a far cry from a truly democratic process, since neither the Parliament nor the people get any real say in the nomination of the President or selection of the 28.

Also I don't think calling the Commission "a type of Cabinet" is exactly right. It seems that this branch has the most power. They are the only body with the power of legislative initiative (they make the laws) and enforcement. Some commentators have said that the Commission might be more accurately referred to as "the European Government."

Anyway I fully admit I don't know much about EU government (as I've said repeatedly), so I welcome any corrections if you see something I've misunderstood.

I believe the charge is that the populist claim that EU is undemocratic is false.

Well I was responding to the charge that I'm a "populist." I freely admit I am so inclined.

I saw an article yesterday where a Brexiter was interviewed. "If you're rich you vote stay, if you're poor you vote leave," she said. That sort of stuck with me. It's emblematic of something stirring in the masses of people. People are starting to get the sense that they are being screwed, and they're right. They're not always right about who they think is screwing them, and they don't always pick the best representatives of their interests, but maybe they're doing the best they can with the power they don't have.

As far how democratic or undemocratic the EU is, I'll be the first to admit my understanding of how the Kafkaesque EU government works is very limited, so I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong on that point. Though I would like to hear an explanation as to where I've gone wrong.

My understanding is that the EU consists of 7 decision making bodies:

1. The Council of the EU (legislature).

2. The European Parliament (legislature).

3. The European Council (executive).

4. The European Commission (executive).

5. The Court of Justice of the European Union (judiciary).

6. The European Central Bank (central bank).

7. European Court of Auditors

Of these governing bodies, only the European Parliament is directly elected by European citizens. So it doesn't sound to me like the people have much power in the equation, and if the people lack power, then that's undemocratic by definition.

Socrates, you are susceptible to populist arguments.

If the charge is that I believe democracy is our best hope, then I admit I am guilty. I know the danger of democracy of course, the stupidity of the mob, but I also know of no better way to check the power of the few than with the voice of the many.

I'm reminded of a passage from a favorite English author:

'If there is hope,’ wrote Winston, ‘it lies in the proles.’ If there was hope, it MUST lie in the proles, because only there in those swarming disregarded masses, 85 per cent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated. The Party could not be overthrown from within. Its enemies, if it had any enemies, had no way of coming together or even of identifying one another. . . But the proles, if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength, would have no need to conspire. They needed only to rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies. If they chose they could blow the Party to pieces tomorrow morning. Surely sooner or later it must occur to them to do it? And yet ——!