Strange things are happening in the world of American politics.

1. It reads like a spy/ conspiracy/ cold war/ cyber war fiction.

Russia's Putin hates Clinton, but loves Trump. That has been known for a while. At the same time, Trump's admiration of Putin for the law and order that Putin established at the expense of massive civil liberties in Russia is also well-known. In fact, Trump himself has shown a dictarorial bent, including trusting, it seems, only his own flesh and blood. Russia's official agencies hack into the DNC email and Wikileaks publishes it.

Some interesting developments on this here and here.

At the end of the day, the DNC chair is forced to resign and Bernie supporters are livid that their conspiracy theories were confirmed. The party convention preparations that had been going smoothly are rocked to the core. Trump's numbers rise and is again tied in the polls with Hillary Clinton. It looks from the outside like Putin has been the grand puppeteer playing with American voters to affect the election results in his favor. Whoa!

2. Many Bernie supporters are no different than some Trump supporters. Both groups purport to vote for their candidate for their children and grandchildren. They share the same goal, just with different candidates. Watch this video:

https://www.facebook.com/claudia.stauber/videos/10208776020210828/

"I don't give a fuck about Trump. Trump is dangerous for this country, but so is Hillary Clinton."

She sounds and acts crazy. Has she been following the same Hillary Clinton as I have? Years of being in the spotlight, granted some bad, but also much good, but overall an intelligent, unjustly maligned woman?

I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary. I was a Bernie supporter. But he never gained a wide appeal. But his supporters created this persona of Bernie who seemed to do no wrong. The idea of Bernie was separate from Bernie, the person. Hence, the boos when Bernie the person stated during his speech that Hillary Clinton needs to win over Trump. I don't understand these people. So thoroughly beholden to the perfectionist fallacy. Bernie was their perfect candidate, so when he wasn't, he was booed. Which is why now they are saying that they are going to vote for Jill Stein.

3. Jill Stein is the Ralph Nader of this election. She does not have a long political history like Clinton, so there is not much that one can fault. No fault, therefore, translates into perfection for many Bernie supporters now turned Stein supporters. False equivalency, anyone?

Stein sounds just like the woman in the video. She insinuates that Trump and Clinton are equally bad. Maybe Trump is a little worse because he is a racist. Stein has stated that Clinton has already done what Trump is promising. Awww, only if things were that simple. Again, false equivalency, anyone?

I remember 16 years ago (16 years already!!!) when Al Gore ran for president against George W. Bush. Bush wasn't really a well-known political figure because the governorship of Texas is more of a figure head for the state than an actual policy maker, and people thought that he would govern much like his dad. They bought his "compassionate conservative" label for himself. People liked the guy. He was goofy, he would be a great beer buddy.

Gore, on the other hand, was boring. He talked too much. He was too professorial. He was too stiff. No one would want to have a beer with him. Many progressives voted for Ralph Nader because they were not satisfied with Gore. Protest vote.

Then while the Supreme Court was taking time to decide who won the election, many cried for the White House to be occupied because it didn't matter who was in it. They were the same, good or bad. And what happened? We started 2 wars, spent trillions of dollars in them, thousands of American soldiers dead, and untold number of Afghans and Iraqis dead. Oh, how different the world would be now if Gore had become president. . .

4. Americans love revolutions. We are taught early on that is how the country came to be. Revolutions are good. Revolutions are sacred. Revolutions are how we bring about change.

Revolutions only work when the majority participates in them. Think about Ron Paul. He ran many times for president, promising a revolution. Remember his rEVOLution? But he didn't get anywhere because his supporters were seen as fringe. Bernie supporters also love revolutions. They call their support of the idea of Bernie a revolution. It failed to gain support of the majority. Then it is not a revolution. It's a failed attempt at a quick change.

What Bernie supporters need to do, instead of acting up, booing, stamping their feet, yelling at the top of their heads like petulant children, is to spread their revolutionary ideas and bring the majority of the populace to agree with them over time. America does need to change. Badly. Will it happen through reforms? Doable. Will it happen through a revolution? I don't know, but if it is a revolution, there had better be the majority of people backing it.

I ran across a very interesting article today. It was about Rosa Luxemburg and the idea of reform vs. revolution. Luxemburg rejected the reformist attitude of the Social Democrats and embraced Communism. For her, reforms do nothing to bring about the change that was needed to bring down capitalism and exploitation of workers. Only a mass revolt will do. As she said, "Only when the great mass of workers take the keen and dependable weapons of scientific socialism in their own hand, will all the petty-bourgeois inclinations, all the opportunistic current, come to naught." (http://www.solidarity.net.au/mag/back/2009/13/rosa-luxemburg-reform-or-revolution)

For Luxemburg, "socialism could not be achieved by capturing the capitalist state through parliament because the state ultimately represents the capitalist class." As a political theory, however, Luxemburg's idea is problematic. Let's say the mass strike and revolt is successful. What then? Can the true workers' paradise be achieved? That's what the Bolshevik Revolution was about. That's what Leninism was. Luxemburg could not have known what was ultimately to become of the Bolshevik Revolution because she was assassinated in 1919 and never saw how unrealizable it is. As my friend Kevin Amidon says, "Rosa Luxemburg was right. The left's great WEAKNESS is that Leninism always trumps reformism."

It is foolish to be infatuated with revolutions in my humble opinion unless there is the complete capability and the certainty of mass revolt.

Another way to successfully revolt with only the minority of people backing it is with arms. Right now, there are plenty of these people: believers of certain religions and gods who use arms to force change onto the masses even if the masses don't want it. But we know that's not a revolution. There is another word for it. It is terrorism.

Think about it.