The Economic Meltdown is very good news, indeed

I'll come right out and say it: "Our current economic meltdown is a good thing." We can use this opportunity to force the System to change. More on that in a bit, but here's a clue: I'm still advocating a General Strike, one year after my initial declaration.

You won't hear my Dem/Pub opponents say good things about our economic downturn. Barack Obama and John McCain, to be fair though, aren't saying much of anything at all. They really don't have a clue on how to "fix it." They suffer from the same affliction as does much of the electorate: They're victims of Brand X vs. Brand Y thinking.

Barack Obama is in effect saying: "All I have to do is ride out my brand name recognition for four more weeks."

John McCain is in effect saying: "All I have to do is get people thinking Obama's like some cheap, dangerous product imported from China that causes cancer."

I should have said Obama and McCain are "victims/beneficiaries..." "Victims" because they've lost the ability to think outside the box. "Beneficiaries" because one of them (most likely) will be elected president due in no small part to a half-century of efforts by the American advertising industry to program us into thinking we've only (ever) got two choices:

• Coke vs. Pepsi
• McDonalds vs. Burger King
• Nikes vs. Reeboks
• Good guys vs. Bad guys
• Tide vs. All
• "We'd rather fight than switch" - an old Tareyton cigarette slogan
• Great taste vs. less filling
• You're either for us or against us.
• Filtered vs. unfiltered
• Damnation vs. everlasting life
• The In Crowd vs. the Out Crowd
• Losers vs. Winners
• Mainstream media vs. independents
• Democrats vs. Republicans

Bottom line? Actually, most people are deathly afraid of having too many choices, since that would force them to think. But, not to worry, when too many choices present themselves, we tend to rely on what our friends think or what influential celebrities think. Sad.

We can, however, break the grip of Brand X vs. Brand Y thinking - but only by realizing we can go on the attack:

Revisiting my call for a General Strike

On Oct. 20, 2007, I posted a blog on this site entitled:

"General Strike declared by Steven Searle" at http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2007/10/general_strike_declared_by_steven_searle

It opens by saying:

"I hereby declare that a General-yet-Incremental Strike against the top seven U.S. banks will commence on November 1, 2007."

It continued by detailing an easy-to-implement strategy for attacking the major banks of this country. Little did I know back then - a year ago - that our financial institutions' greed would have wreaked such havoc upon us. To which I urge: Let's pour it on.

Maybe if systematic economic warfare conducted by America's citizens brought the Dow Jones Industrial Average down so (say) 8,000 (7,000?), we could force a capitulation of the Dem/Pub Party monopoly.

My general strike had two stated goals: This strike shall be considered successful when:

• Bush and Cheney resign from office (or are impeached and convicted)
• The United States withdraws all forces from Iraq - not just all combat forces.

I believe a General Strike should be encouraged now, since that's the only way to sufficiently "stress" the System to the point where fundamental change is inevitable. [And that, Barack Obama, is the only change I can believe in.]

The people in power don't want to change anything, except according to their own values formulas. That is, in accordance with what will keep them wealthy and in power. Oh, sure, Congress will conduct investigations as to why "things" got so out of hand in the financial sector. [They're good at conducting fingerpointing investigations - makes good copy.]

I truly regret that my call for a General Strike a year ago didn't gain enough traction to force Bush/Cheney from office. Or to force us out of Iraq. However, I still believe in the power of a General Strike - this time with a new goal:

We don't call off the Strike until all incumbent Dem/Pub Congressmen in DC resign. I don't mean "most of them" - I mean "all of them." It would be quite all right with me if other Dem/Pubs sought to run for office to replace those who'd resigned. However, I believe that the Dem/Pub Party Combine would suffer such a loss of prestige, no one in his right mind would run as a party man.

Hopefully, he or she would see the logic of running as an independent, for one term of office only, and under the terms of a written contract which is the basis of my current run for the US presidency.

This statement in today's posting of Rasmussen Reports should encourage potential independent Congressmen everywhere:

"Congress was front and center in the national news last week and the American people were far from impressed. If they could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, 59% of voters would like to throw them all out and start over again."

Here's the exact breakdown to the question asked by Rasmussen's pollsters:

"Would you vote to keep the entire Congress or get rid of the entire Congress?"

17% said "keep the entire Congress"

59% said "get rid of entire Congress"

24% said "not sure"

I think the 24% who said "not sure" might have been thinking of (maybe) one or two Congressmen in particular they'd like to keep in Congress.

Isn't it amazing, though, that almost three-fifths of Americans replied: "Get rid of entire Congress?"

Another pitch for Cross-Sectional Representation

I have written about the need for a new model of government, which I invented, called Cross-Sectional Representation. Our current economic troubles serve well to illustrate the value of my new model.

For instance, when Ireland had recently decided to guarantee all bank deposits in an effort to prevent runs on Irish banks, guess what? Depositors from (for example) British banks yanked their deposits out, flooding funds into Irish banks.

Lesson? When times get tough, protectionism starts looking pretty good.

If, however, the European Union had a constitution based on my Cross-Sectional Representation model, Ireland could never have acted on its own. The politicians who would have had to okay this scheme would have informed the Irish bankers who were promoting it:

"We can't do this. Our constituents would overwhelmingly vote us out of office."

This argument makes sense only if you're aware of CSR's fundamental principle:

QUOTE [using the USA's Congress as a reference point]:

The 435 Congressional Districts now in existence share a fatal flaw: they are distinct physical locations. Each district should be replaced with a new unit: the Cross-Section. Every eligible voter in the country should be randomly assigned to one of 435 numerically-equal Cross-Sections. A Congressman would still be elected, but his constituency would consist of voters who, as members of a Cross-Section, are literally scattered all over the country. This way, we avoid having Congresssmen trying to please local constituencies at the expense of our broader, national interests.

:UNQUOTE.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"In the event I lose this election, I will still carry on my campaign to elect independents to office - as I look the Dem/Pubs squarely in the eye and demand they abdicate" - Steve.

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Contributions to my campaign: I am no longer soliciting, nor will I accept, any monetary contributions to my campaign. This does not mean, however, that I'm giving up.

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.