Popular Posts

Sunday, February 10, 2019

The Full List Of Post


Out of all my posts on this blog, these five are the most connected to the long term political future of the Country.

The Dawn of The Era of Dictatorships; Explained by The Systems Theory.”

Peering through the fog of brainwashing: the real reasons behind the conservative politics.”


The Full List Of Posts
The N-word: The Great Distractor From Real Issues.
"He who has eyes, let him see". But what should "She" do?
The Dawn of The Era of Dictatorships; Explained by The Systems Theory.
The Only Way To Defeat White Nationalism Is To Embrace "Black Nationalism"


Thank you for visiting,
Dr. Valentin Voroshilov
P.S. I also have a blog on various issues in the field of education: www.Cognistiy.How

The N-word: a Great Distractor From Real Issues

The N-word: a Great Distractor From Real Issues
 
When I was in schools – from the elementary to the graduate – the N-word was commonly used in the media, I read it in textbooks, heard on TV.
But that was in a different country.
At least at that time, Russia was very supportive of the fight of Black Americans for having the same rights and social status as White Americans.
On one hand, Internationalism was a key element of the Communist ideology.
On another hand (but that I realized much later) top USSR politicians followed the old rule “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
When I moved to the U.S., for a long time I did not know that using the N-word by whites was culturally not allowed. And when I learned that fact I just shrugged it off – OK, whatever, every country has its own rules.
Recent events involving black faces (or this one) and the use of N-word sparked a media wave which attracted my attention to the matter.
I got curious about the history of this cultural phenomenon.
Of course, I Googled it.
I've read several links on the history of N-word (the top google searches)
The history of the word itself is pretty straightforward, but the reading did not help me to learn when and why the N-word has become forbidden for the whites.
I do understand the cultural effects of the word, and the psychological reasons for African Americans to impose/demand the sole usage of the word.
I just don’t think this helps African Americans to win their fight for – well, whatever they want to win.
“You are white, and you cannot use the N-word!”
That may sound powerful, and may be even seen as a victory, because, kind of, you won the right for the sole utilization of the word over your “enemies”.
But is it really a victory?
“We live in poverty, our schools are underfunded, our people have no prospects of having a good job, but, man, we can say the N-word, and they cannot! We won!” (this sentence represents a purposeful exaggeration).
To me this looks more like a quasi-victory, a pretend victory, or a fake victory – not sure about the best term (yes, I may see things in a dark way, but my personal policy is "It's better be prepared for the worst-case scenario and be happy it didn't happen, than hope for the best and face the unexpected downturn).
It only makes people feel good about themselves, without actually making them living good.
It deflects energy, and intellect, and efforts from things that are actually important for African American community.
According to a definition, racism is actions guided to discriminate people of a certain race.
Some actions which excite a heated discussion, like painting a face, or dressing a certain way, have nothing to do with racism, but a lot with juvenile stupidity.
As I already mentioned, I would really like to know when and why this word has become the N-word in its current usage.
Some people believe that crack-cocaine was used specifically to suppress Black American population.
I doubt the N-word has been selected specifically to diverge the attention from important issues, but it sure seems to me that it works exactly like that.
Russians say “You can call me a kettle, but just don’t put me in an oven”.
Because people’s actions are much more telling than people’s words.
Or, people’s words are much less important that people’s actions (Trump!).
Focusing on who can and cannot use some words or outfits only seems important, but in realty those actions make no positive difference for anyone in the African American community.
And BTW: so far I have not read or heard anyone in the media who would be advocating the same view as expressed in this piece.
Also, read “The Only Way To Defeat White Nationalism Is To Embrace “Black Nationalism”
 
P.S. I know, it is a risky post, but it is honest.
Appendix
Slavery is bad, awful, inhumane. However, the human race has a very long history of slavery. Many wars ended up by bring slaves to the country of victors. Vikings were using slaves in their villages. For centuries Russia had a cast of slaves. Slaves, and then serfs existed in Russia until 1861 - almost the same year when ... you know. Those slaves were not brought from other countries, they were Russians. But their owners could do, and did, to the slaves whatever they wanted to do, even bad, awful, inhumane things. Everyone who thinks that African Americans were the only people suffering from slavery is simply wrong.
Slavery was (and somewhere still is) the most inhumane form of exploiting humans by other humans. However, even slavery has been removed from many societies, there are still other - less visible - forms of exploitation. Any event when one person uses another person as a tool for his/her individual purpose is a form of
exploitation. From the general point of view, there are only two forms of human interaction: exploitation of one person by another person; or collaboration between different persons. It's either - or. So, when choosing what politician to support, ask yourself, does this guy want to exploit you, or he/she wants to collaborate with you? And judge by the actions, not by the words, because people who want to exploit others always lie. Always.

Tuesday, February 5, 2019

“He who has eyes, let him see”. But what should “She” do?

“He who has eyes, let him see”. But what should “She” do? 

“He who has ears, let him hear.
He who has eyes, let him see.”
It’s a noticeable fact that the Bible does not often mention a woman.
Maybe that was a reason for men domination in … well, everywhere, and for a very long time.
Thigs start finally changing (despite a strong resistance from male population, and a wide-spread apathy among women).
And that is a good thing.
The problem with men – especially in business and politics – is that they quickly lose any interest in a topic they discuss and start bragging who has a bigger Dickens.
That is why I don’t place my hope on any male Presidential candidate – they have no chance against Donald Trump. And the reason is not related to a gender per se. The reason is that the Democrats can only beat Trump if they design a mutual strategy, if they will act together in concert, starting NOW (not after the Convention).
This coordination will never happen between men (see the note about Dickens).
However, women candidates still have a chance to work together.
It’s like an Olympics team: on one hand, all the members compete with each other, but as a team they work together to beat other teams.
To succeed, however, they would have to invent and offer to the American voters a brand new philosophy.
Everyone who knows some history is aware of the fact that no revolution happens instantly.
At first there is “the one” who teaches something very different from the common views. Then there is a small group of people who start following the teacher. Then more and more people join the movement. And only then the movement grows strong enough to topple the current regime. And that only happens because the current regime stops answering the needs of the majority.
The current economic, social and political situation in the U.S. is exactly like that: the current economic, social and political regime has stopped answering the needs of the majority.
The problem is that all the contenders from the left still cannot offer to the voters nothing new, they are stuck in the old philosophy of “redistributing”.
No matter who says what about something (“free college”, “Medicare for all”, “jobs for everyone”, etc.) they all propel the same idea: “Most people have a bad life because they are poor, but few people have a good life because they are rich, so we need to take from the rich and give to the poor!”
Everyone who knows some history is aware of the fact that humanity has known many revolutions which were based on exactly this idea. And none of those revolutions ended up exactly like they were intendent.
They idea of the redistribution of wealth may be even correct, but the devil is in the details, namely, who and how will be redistributing that wealth?
Let’s say the new tax code is put in place. Let’s imagine the best case scenario, all the multi-millionaires and billionaires don’t try to leave the country, don’t hide their income but pay the tax as prescribed. The government finally has its coffins full with money. No budget deficit. Huge surplus. What’s next? Who will be writing checks and to whom and for how much? Money does not move from one place to another place automatically. There is always someone who makes the decision, like - how many tanks to make, how many aircraft carriers to build, or how many new hospitals to open and where.
If there are people making such decisions, there are always people who influence people making those decisions.
Those people do not go away, and they are good at what they do. And they do it for money – big money – from those who have those big money. And a dozen of freshly minted progressive politicians will not make any difference.
Unless they – those freshly minted progressive politicians – have a strategy – the strategy that goes way beyond “take from rich and give to poor”.
This strategy is simply absent.
The development of this strategy requires rethinking of all fundamental economic principles. The developers of this strategy should start from asking – again, like it has been done many times in the past – some fundamental questions, like “What is wealth?”, What is money?”, “How do we know how many dollars do we need?”, “Why do people need to work?”, “What is fairness - today?”, etc., the list is long.
Then they need to reassess the whole current structure of the wealth production and distribution, analyzing what elements of this structure help wealth production, what elements of this structure suppress wealth production, what pathways and gates does this structure have and how they affect the wealth flow?
And then they have to develop the new structure, that one which would incentivize working people work better, and rich people share more – the incentives to share have to be built-in in the system, not imposed by controlling and collection agencies (which are susceptible to corruption, or stupidity).
I cannot develop the whole new economic philosophy, but based on my reasoning I can offer one or two ideas which professional economists could use for the further development.
1. It is obvious to me that the nowadays majority of wealth is produced in financial institutions via shares, stocks and other financial instruments which are available only to a tiny portion of the population. It is unfair. To make it fair (or at least fairer) each (of a certain size) corporation has to have shares (not just some), and each corporation needs to transfer 10 % of the shares to a special fund, which would operate similar to the Federal Reserve, i.e. semi-independently from the government. This fund would be used to – well, whatever the fund thinks would make the life of people better (#1 principle of its operation is openness). Is this a new and very unusual idea? Yes. Can it be done? I don’t know. But I do know this idea is worth to be discussed, but no one from the left even raised it.
2. It is not enough to take money from the rich. The goal is to make rich to want to give the money – for example for helping people stay healthy. This is the approach that can be used to decrease spending on health insurance, and to increase the number of insured citizens via a creation (eventually) of a “Federal Health Care Fund”.
The Fund will function in a way similar to the Federal Reserve and the Supreme Court, i.e. the board will be composed based on a consensus between the Congress and the White House (and, maybe, the Governor’s Association); but the board will function independently from all other business and government entities, and the members are elected for life.
The goals and functioning of the board will be:
* Establishing on the annual basis the minimum level of the “States health insurance coverage” (may be different for different States).
*  Every citizen and permanent resident who does not have health insurance coverage can apply for the financial help to cover medical expenses.
* Every U.S. citizen and a U.S. based business will have to pay a one-time annual fee.
* The amount of the fee will be determined by the board depending on the number of the requests, and the total amount of the fund need to grant those requests.
* The amount of the fee will be determined by the board according to the formula set by the board on the annual basis.
*  The fee is NOT a tax, it does NOT go to a federal budget, it CANNOT be used on anything else but the activities set by the board.
* If needed, the board may file a request to the budgeting entities to request funds from the federal budget.
Results:
*  This approach will lead to ensuring that every US citizen will have sufficient health insurance.
*   More importantly, this approach will become a strong psychological instrument; this approach will provide incentives for business owners to provide sufficient health insurance, because that would result in decreasing the number of requests to the fund, which would lead to the decrease (and maybe even a complete elimination) of the fee.
*   More importantly, this approach will become a strong psychological instrument; this approach will provide incentives for business owners to extend the health insurance coverage in the various forms, because that would result in decreasing the number of requests to the fund, which would lead to the decrease (and maybe even a complete elimination) of the fee.
*  More importantly, this approach will become a strong psychological instrument; this approach will provide incentives for business owners to reach out to healthcare providers and healthcare insurers to make them to lower the cost of the healthcare, which would lead to the decrease (and maybe even a complete elimination) of the fee.
I have been writing on the matter and expressed some of the ideas in multiple posts, for example:

The Dawn of The Era of Dictatorships; Explained by The Systems Theory.”

Peering through the fog of brainwashing: the real reasons behind the conservative politics.”

and more.
Everyone is welcome to invest his/her time into reading and make his/her mind on the topic.
Now I want to discuss just one more issue of the left: the absence of cooperation.
Currently, narcissism and jealousy is flourishing among the left.
There is no chance male politicians would be able to overcome this temperament.
But female politicians could.
Cooperation (which I proposed right after Trump won the Presidency) should demonstrate people that the Democrats are indeed for the people, and would do anything to increase their (Democrats, not an individual) chance to win.
The cooperation could be in different forms, for example, mutual statements, an announcement of mutual cabinet assignments (“If I win I will take her to be my …”), etc.
When I teach, I always answer a question from a student.
If it was asked the first time.
If the same question is asked again, I answer it, too, but my answer is shorter.
The third time, and I say – “This questions requires a face-to-face discussion, please, see me after a class”.
I believe the same approach works in politics, too.
“Democracy dies in darkness”
Yes.
But first it needs to be born (i.e invented, and then applied), or reborn (reinvented, and reapplied).
And what history has been showing again and again is that Democracy is born by an Intellect and built for Fairness.
Dr. Valentin Voroshilov

Monday, November 26, 2018

The Dawn of The Era of Dictatorships; Explained by The Systems Theory.

Out of all my posts on this blog, these four are the most connected to the long term political future of the Country.
  
The Dawn of The Era of Dictatorships; 
Explained by The Systems Theory.
A system is a set of connected, interconnected, interacting, influencing each other, influencing each other's behavior, influencing each other's evolution elements called parts of a system.
Every system has a mission, but often it is not easy to figure that mission out and to formulate it in a clear unambiguous statement. The goal of every system is to survive and to exists as long as possible to fulfill its mission.
If a system dies that means it was not healthy enough to survive. Healthy means stable, effectively functioning, productive, reproductive.
Every system has at least one parameter which describes the health of the system. This parameter is measured as the average value of the values of this parameter measured for individual parts of the system. When many parts of a system have a low value for the health parameter the overall health of a system has a low value and the system becomes ill, sick. This is a sign of a crisis or of an upcoming crisis; this is the sign that soon a system may lose its stability.
A system cannot be healthy if there is a large number of unhealthy parts in it. This is why the ultimate goal of any "smart" system is to keep as many as possible parts in a healthy condition.
Unhealthy elements of a system do not "want" to die; they want to return to health stability, and they want that to happen as soon as possible.
There might be many possible reasons, negative influences, for declining health of a system or its parts. One of the strongest negative influences is the disconnect and/or the dissonance between a system and its environment.
Every system is a sub-system of a larger system. The surrounding of a system is called an environment. There is always an interaction between the system and the environment.
A system may change the environment. An environment may change the system.
In order to survive a system uses some resources coming from an environment and then releases some residues back to an environment. When an environment changes, the system has to evolve accordingly to those changes, or the system eventually breaks apart or dies.
Prolong existence of a system means that the processes happening inside it are stable and the changes happen evolutionary, in a slow manner, fluctuations are small and do not tear the system apart.
When the changes in an environment are large and/or fast, or both, the system has to adapt quickly, and that leads to large fluctuations inside the system. If some of those fluctuations are too large, and if different parts of a system fluctuate in opposite/competing directions, the system might fall apart; it might be divided in smaller parts which individually may adapt faster to the changes in the environment.
When a system has to adapt to some slow changes in the environment, it can be done evolutionary via multiple communication between different parts of a system. This process allows to take into an account interest of all active parts of the system (those which choose to participate). This process takes a long time, but when there is no need for fast decision making this process is sufficient.
When a system has to adapt to drastic changes in the environment, some parts of a system resist any changes because they desire stability, they perceive instability as the threat to their existence. There are forces within a system, there are some elements of that system which always try to bring the system back to equilibrium, back to stability, and tend to do it as soon as possible. But there are also parts of a system which embrace the change. The result depends on the interplay between forces of change and forces trying to restore stability. When fluctuations in different parts of a system are large and threaten to break it apart, the negotiations between different parts begin. But if those negotiations/communications are too slow, the changes needed to be done in the system to address the changes in an environment constantly lag, remain behind and inadequate, do not solve health problems, and the fluctuations only keep growing. There are two common outcomes from this situation: (a) the system eventually falls apart; or (b) one of the parts of the system becomes dominant, suppresses the processes in other parts of the system, and forces all parts of the system move in the same direction. Those parts of the system which resist the enforcement are getting weakened, or damaged, or even cut from the system. If two or more parts of the system fight for domination, and no one wins, the system eventually falls apart, or dies, or getting weakened and becomes absorbed by another system from the environment, i.e. becomes a part of another system.
If the system survives as such, it means one dominant part (or a series of dominant parts replacing each other) was able to navigate/govern the transition of the system from the initial state (the one that was in disbalance with a new environment) to the new stable state (the one that becomes in balance with a new environment). When that happens, eventually the evolution of the system becomes governed again via a long process of multiple communications between may parts of the system.
Every system is inertial, every system has such a property as inertia. Inertia means that every process takes time, no change can happen instantly. The larger a system is the more inertial it is, the more time is needed for a system to change. In a case of a drastic changes in an environment, inertia will not allow a system to quickly initiate required changes. When parts of a system begin communicate on what changes needed to be made, inertia leads to the situation when all individual/partial changes are based on the previous states, previous experience and do not represent adequate solutions.
A society is a system. People and groups of people are the parts of that system. Lately (for the last 20 to 30 years, which is a blink of an eye, history-wise) millions of people all around the word have been feeling the decline/decrease/degradation in their economic status, or the threat of that decline/decrease/degradation.
There are four major reason for that:
1. Climate change.
2. Financial globalization.
3. Rise of human-replacing technologies.
4. Mass migration.
The democratic approach to finding the political solutions to the challenges posed by the four reasons require long negotiations between different parties, participants, political and financial players. That makes the democratic approach to be too slow and inadequate. While negotiations attack one specific issue, the state of that issue worsens and more other issues arise. That leads to more and more people struggling socially and financially. More and more people want their social and economic status be improved and improved quickly. As the result, they turn to an opportunist who offers quick solutions. That leads to the rise of authoritarian politicians.
Of course, quick solutions to difficult problems do not exist, but people demanding a quick solution to their problems do not rely on reason or logic.
This is when we need to state how public education affects politics.
The vast majority of the people whose status is in decline are also people who have no advanced education. While growing up they have not been exposed to scientific facts as well to a scientific way of thinking. They have very narrow knowledge and underdeveloped reasoning abilities. Hence, they do not respond to logical arguments and react based on emotions and the culture of their “tribe”.
When someone has a poor education, it is not his or her fault – at least in a developed country. It is the fault of people who don’t care about the state of public education, or of people who sabotage the quality of public education (e.g. politicians whose power is based on brainwashing and mind manipulation).
When children misbehave, in order to force them into the right behavior, parents told them that if they will not do the right thing a troll will take them in the woods, or if they do the right thing, Santa Claus will bring them a gift.
In order to excite his base Donald Trump tells his followers, that if they will not have a border wall, bad illegal immigrants will take their jobs, rape their women, and kill their children.
In both cases trying to use fact based rational argument is useless and one influences behavior of other people using exactly same psychological tools - exciting strong emotions of fear or reward.
Children do not know enough facts and do not have developed reasoning abilities.
But adults who grow up without adequate education also do not know enough facts and do not have developed reasoning abilities; they are basically children in grownup bodies.
When the number of “adult children” who become active participants of a political process due to worsening of their life is significant, opportunistic politicians have a good chance to brainwash and manipulate the minds of millions of people. The difference between all previous eras of humanity and the current one is that nowadays technologies allow people of all sort to find quickly and connect with people who have similar views (for example, newly reborn Earth-flatters). The same technologies greatly amplify brainwashing and social agitation/activation abilities.
When the changes in the environment are significant, the state of the society is in disbalance with an environment; the state of the society keeps declining, and there are many people who are not susceptible to reason and react based purely on emotions and the culture of their “tribe” and who become politically active (due to internal motives, local influence from family of friends, or due to media influence), the general systems theory demands the inevitability of the rise of the authoritarian politicians all around the world, because democratic institutions are simply too slow to provide adequate solutions.
In the time of a war, people are looking for a general.
In the time that some people perceive as a war, those people are looking of a strong leader.
When the number of those people is large, they begin dominate politics, especially when they have a freedom of expressing their views. The opposition, i.e. people and groups of people who oppose the authoritarian tendency, act based on inertia, i.e. based on the ideas which worked in the past but inadequate to address the changing environment (a new generation of opposition is need to realize that old solutions will not work to solve new problems). 
Hence, the transition from a democratic policies to authoritarian policies is inevitable and unavoidable.
The only question remains – will the "general"/"dictator"/"ruler" be a good decent person, or it will be a liar, a bigot, a misogynist, a narcissists, a racist, and a tyrant?
Appendix I
A system where the parts almost don't interact  with each other, does not evolve. Evolution happens because interactions lead to the fact that the properties of a system are large, or bigger, or wider, or broader, or richer than the sum of the properties of its parts. It means that the most important parts of a system are those which establish, provide, govern interactions between its parts. In a society, the most important people are not the strongest ones, or the richest ones, or the smartest ones but those who can effectively communicate, who have an ability to convince other people what is right or wrong thing to do, the most convincing ones (including con men).
Appendix II
Imagine, that for decades someone was storing every year a shed of firewood to use in the winter time. And this year the temperature was unusually cold from the very beginning. Soon one noticed that three quarters of the stored wood has been already used in just one quarter of the winter time. What to do? Where would he get more firewood? And how would he get it if he has no money left to buy any more wood?
This "story" is a simple model of what has happened all around the world when the four major changes in environment of the human society made old and well established ways of governing obsolete, outdated, not working for majority but only for a few. As described in the main part of this piece, the rise of the authoritarian leaders is an inevitable consequence of the large disbalance between the system and the environment. What we see very clearly is how the property of inertia manifests itself in the solutions proposed by major political forces. The Republicans bet on the trickle-down economics, when large tax cuts to big corporations will boos the economy. It may work in a short term but will never work in a long run. Just a year after the large tax cut of 2016 numbers show that there is only one major improvement for the middle class Americans, namely, a very low unemployment rate. It means that people who had been out of work now have a stable income. But that income for them, as well as for the majority of the working Americans, practically does not grow. The gains in productivity and profitability go to a very narrow layer of rich Americans. However, the trickle-down economics will not solve the problems of the growing deficit, the upcoming cuts in social security and even pensions. This will lead to a social explosion, which may lead to an actual dictatorship as the reaction to another false promise from the politicians and the government.
The Democrats promote the solution based on tax increase for the rich. But for too many Americans phrase "let's raise taxes" is a no go, it goes against their culture, and too many people simply believe that raising taxes will inevitably hurt the economy. And it is not entirely wrong, because a mere governmental redistribution of money will force business into hiding their funds, moving to tax havens, corruption, and also will lead to the economic slowdown. Which again will lead to a social explosion, which may lead to an actual dictatorship as the reaction to another false promise from the politicians and the government. But the Democrats have no other ideas.
Until the new generation of politicians, people who can think beyond old economic theories, grows up, the attraction of the populous to a strong leader will only grow. Hopefully, eventually a strong leader with the new economic views, and also with the deep belief in a democracy, will rise from the "political mob" and will lead the transformation of the society to the new stable economic and political state.
But that will require decades of time. 
Appendix III
Well, dear Reader, if you have read everything above, I would strongly recommend to read this piece, as well: "The Degradation of White Male American Elite".  

Sunday, November 25, 2018

The Only Way To Defeat White Nationalism Is To Embrace “Black Nationalism”


Out of all my posts on this blog, these five are the most connected to the long term political future of the Country.

The Dawn of The Era of Dictatorships; Explained by The Systems Theory.”

Peering through the fog of brainwashing: the real reasons behind the conservative politics.”


The Only Way To Defeat White Nationalism 
Is To Embrace “Black Nationalism”

I need to inform the readers that I am not a politician, or a journalist, or a political analyst.
"A physics instructor" is more than just a job title, it is a “diagnosis”.
My profession defines my way of thinking, my way of processing information and making decisions, even the way I look at the world in general.
For example, when I watch politics, I see it through a prism of science and natural laws.
I think about mechanisms which would help a certain political group achieve certain political goals.
The way I think when I teach physics is just the way I think.
Most of the time it leads me to the right conclusions, and allows to make the right decisions, and follow the right steps.
That is why I have no doubts that the same way of thinking, when applied to politics, will be as useful as when it is applied to physics, or to teaching physics.
As a person of science, I see my missions as discovering truth and revealing it in a clear form which allows to make testable predictions.
And my political prediction is that within four to seven years the political landscape in America will be very different from the current one.
Specifically, in addition to the two currently existing major political parties, there will be two more strong and formally recognized political movements.
One will represent mostly white voters who do not affiliate themselves with neither the Democrats nor the Republicans, and I will tentatively call it "Independent Party".
The second one will represent minorities, mostly African-Americans, and I will tentatively call it "Minority Party".
The rest of this piece is a brief presentation of the reasoning which has led me to my prediction.
For the last three decades, the population of non-white Americans has been growing at a steady pace, and at the same time, the economic well-being of many white Americans has been gradually declining.
These two trends are not related (although, the Republicans want to make it look like they are).
However, these two trends have resulted in:
(a)    the decline in the political power of the Republicans in the regions with a large non-white population;
(b)   the rise of the White Nationalism in various forms, including the gains in the political power of the Republicans in 2016.
These two trends are not the only one which are influencing the politics in America.
Multiple polls have been showing a wide spread and growing dissatisfaction of many white voters with the both major political parties. However, expecting that the partisan divide will suddenly disappear any soon is a naive illusion. The Republicans say that they exercise conservatism. However, the cornerstone of their new conservative ideology is not “a small government” or “fiscal discipline” anymore. The new conservatives are not “pro” anything anymore. Contemporary conservative ideology, which has become a dogmatic religious belief, is simply “anti-socialism” (whatever they mean by that). And the progressive ideology is becoming closer and closer to “pro-socialism” (whatever they mean by that). The room for the common political ground shrinks and will continue to shrink.
This is a fertile political situation for the rise of a movement of the people who want to be politically active but do not want to align with the Republicans and the Democrats. It could eventually become a third strong political party, if the leaders of the movement would accept the true mission of a third political party in a two-party system. All currently existing third-party groups have no chance to play any significant role in the American politics because they do not understand what the third party needs to do. They want to “become kings”. However, the true role of the third party is being a “king maker”, i.e. helping the best candidates (in the foreseeable future that means the Democrats) to win. At the beginning of each election cycle the third-party leaders would announce their run, but also would prepare the followers to give their votes in a way preventing the worst candidate from a victory. If, closer to the election day, the third-party candidates would see that they would have no statistically significant chance to win, they would drop the races and would call on the followers to give the votes to, say, a democrat. This strategy looks like a political sacrifice. But that is the only strategy which can help any third party, starting from the “Independent Party”, to attract attention, then and only then gain respect, and then, maybe, become strong enough to compete with the other major parties. This movement will begin its formation as soon as there will appear a charismatic and financially independent leader (think of Tom Steyer, but less egocentric). The “Independent Party” should be the movement of the pragmatics. It should not base its actions on an ideology of any type, but focus on offering practical solutions to the issues concerning the local communities. The power of this independent-third-party movement will grow very slowly. It will take several years before the “Independent Party” will be able to elect a small number of its candidates to the United State Senate – which is its ultimate goal. But when it happens, that party may become one of the most important political forces in the Country because the “Independent Party” Senators will be responsible for delivering in the U.S. Senate the key votes, and the other Senators will have to bargain for those votes. With a strong leader, a strong party discipline, and “the eyes on the prize” the “Independent Party” can become a crucial player in the American politics. Currently, the opportunity to born the first truly third American political party is wide open, and I am confident that soon we will see the first attempts to do just that.
However, there is another, and potentially much more powerful than the prospective “Independent Party”, social force, which is non-white American population.
The political power of the non-white American population is right in front of our eyes.
Right after the Democrats talk about “a blue wave”, they announce numbers of African-American voters who came to the polling stations.
Right after the Democrats talk about lost elections, they complain on the voter suppression tactics of the Republicans; the tactics which were designed specifically against African-American voters.
The economy of the Country is in disarray. Stock market is high, but only a tiny fraction of the population benefits from that; unemployed is low, but the wages are stagnant. Macroscopic parameters such as the national debt, the budget deficit, the social security funds demonstrate dangerous tendencies, and there are no commonly accepted solutions in sight. That means that the Country is entering the era of economic quakes, social disruptions, and political turmoil.
That will lead to an inevitable strengthening of the White Nationalism.
The strengthening of the White Nationalism will lead to an increasing pressure on the social and economic well-being of non-white Americans.
Non-white American population will be facing a decision on how to defend the best its own social and economic interests.
For any social group, there are only two pathways for defending its own social and economic interests: (a) joining an existing political force; (b) creating its own political force.
It is obvious that the majority of the non-white American will never join the Republican party. Conservatism is simply not the ideology which may attract the most of the non-white Americans. For example, when conservatives say “I am for a small government” they simply mean “leave me alone, don’t tell me what to do” as an expression of the extreme individualism. This type of culture is not a good fit for African-American communities. And BTW, when things get tough, those conservative “independent” individuals turn for help to the government, or rather to the “savior” who will make the government to provide for them good living.
The economic platform of conservatism is also not very attractive for non-white Americans. It completely ignores the difference in the initial conditions of the white and non-white population. It sounds like “We have great highways! Everyone can use them and get anywhere one likes”. Yes, if you already have a car. But it does not work for people who have no cars and have no option to get one.
The social justice, civil rights, and equality movement has a long and rich history. During the last thirty years, the politicians representing African-American voters have been absorbed in the Democratic party. However, many African-Americans simply do not trust the Democrats, the same way they do not trust the Republicans.
The fact that after 2012 the participation of African-Americans in elections has decreased demonstrates that the Democrats do not offer for them the attractive political agenda.
The Democrats fight for the well-being of all people (at least that what they say).
However, African-Americans rightly think that they deserve economic, social, and hence, political actions focused specifically on them.
African-Americans played a special role in the social and economic development of America.
They were an engine and a productive force for a large part of the economy.
African-Americans were one of the most valuable commodities.
Today the value of that commodity, plus the interest, would reach trillions of dollars.
African-Americans have the right to demand at least the partial ownership of that value.
There are only two technical questions which African-Americans need to decide on.
1.     What should be the form of that ownership?
And,
2.     What should be the political force propelling the establishment of that form of the ownership?
The natural answer to the first question is (the name is tentative) "The Federal African-American Restoration Trust".
Every U.S. individual and a corporation, for-profit or non-profit - no exceptions - would have to pay (the number is tentative) 0.5 % of an annual income in that Trust.
The Trust would be run by prominent African-American leaders appointed by the NAACP (or by a special convention). Of course, the establishment of the Trust would not be the only agenda of the Africa-American movement, but it would be the one which would galvanize African-American voters. What African-American wouldn't support this idea by voting for people who would promise to realize it?
The natural answer to the second question is the “Minority Party”. Technically, it does not have to be a political party; being a movement will be equally sufficient.
It is obvious to me that the majority of the Democrats would not be brave enough to support the creation of the said Trust, because they would be afraid that this action would alienate white voters.
However, African-Americans do not need the Democrats anymore to defend their own social, economic, and political interests.
For African-American population the contemporary situation is very different from the situation of the time of Martin Luther King Jr.
Today African-American population has what Martin Luther King Jr. didn't, namely, a large cohort of famous and rich African-Americans: entrepreneurs, actors, singers, athletes. Those people are wealthy enough and independent enough to form and propel a political force of their own.
Oprah Winfrey doesn't want to become the President of the United States, but she could easily become the leader of the new African-American political movement.
The overarching theme of the movement would be “promoting fairness for all Americans”. America is the country of the fairness for all. The political history of America is the history of a gradual inclusion of different social groups into the circle of fairness.
Now is simply the time for another step.
When created, the movement/party will essentially play the same role as the “Independent Party”, i.e. a “king maker”, however with the much stronger political influence.
Without the strong political power of their own, African-Americans may be at risk of losing many gains delivered in the past by the civil rights movement.
“Black Nationalism” may be not the most attractive term to call the actions of the “Minority Party”, but it clearly represents the essence of the African-American politics.
"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition".
The only way to defeat, or at least to curb the rise of, the White Nationalism, is to embrace the “Black Nationalism”.

This article is the latest piece on various political issues. My blog http://www.the3dforce.us/ provides many more examples of my political writing.

Thank you for visiting,
Dr. Valentin Voroshilov

P.S. I also have a blog on various issues in the field of education: www.Cognistiy.How