Making Sense of Our Times

Our last article focused on the falsity of the current "noise" of social media's attempt to make people believe that we're under siege by a bunch of "socialists". While there is some truth in their claims in that they---mostly the Millennials who make up groups like Antifa or BLM---are at the vanguard of a neo-Marxist socialist or even Communist spear tip. The social media wants us to think that at any moment, there will be a vast uprising of wannabe Che Guevaras, Huey Newtons and Angela Davis', or "Maos", or whomever. That the spirit of the SLA, Weatherman, SDS, Baader-Meinhof gang, or Black Panthers lives again. They want us to think that the Democrats in Washington are covertly planning to oust Trump, arresting his supporters and seizing our guns.

Well, it is true that this past election revealed a lot of desperation by certain Democratic officials who were determined to rig elections with votes of long dead individuals and illegal immigrants. A few were eventually fired, but still eligible for their retirement benefits which I find mind boggling. While not very publicized, the "New Black Panthers", an overtly racist and mostly Muslim group which openly calls for the murder any non-black individuals and the overthrow of the government, again tried to bully and intimidate whites, Hispanics, and Asians from voting, although their efforts didn't really come too much.

The cold hard fact of the matter is that while they're being lead to believe that they are advancing the cause of some idealistic version of Marxist "socialism" or Communism, they are being played like a cheap banjo. They are, as Lenin would say, "useful idiots". Their energies and passions are being directed the way certain very powerful groups want; "broken on the cliffs" as one might say (a common Chinese tactic by the way). Their leaders are being outed and will now appear on special lists where they will be monitored for evermore. Meanwhile, "socialism" is once more being cast as a negative; associated with failure and violence. Why would that be you silently ask?

Well, why would you want to discredit a rival ideology? Personally, if I was trying to redirect public opinion away from some ideology which could interfere with my plans, it might be handy if I could convince people to associate the very term with some negative baggage. For instance, instead of referring to Cuba or Venezuela as forms of Communism, a mostly failed Marxian ideology, what if I started calling it simply "socialist", thus associating the name with state sanctioned violence, a loss of freedom, and economic turmoil?

Instead of looking at how successful non-Marxist democratic socialism has been historically in Scandinavia and parts of Europe, they start pointing their finger at the current social or economic situation without mentioning the invading "migrants"? That might create an impression that democratic socialism is just another name for socialism (Marx be damned) which is another way of calling it Communist. What would I hope to achieve here? Well, I suppose the ideal outcome would be to convince people that socialism, especially non-Marxist socialism, which inherently a doomed political system. Where would they led me, and the public at that point?

It would lead people to conclude that pretty much anything too far off our current system would obviously be unsuccessful. That would imply that Capitalistic democracy would be the only viable political system. But what, exactly, is "Capitalistic democracy"? It's simply a economic political system whereby everything is measured by economic success; where money equates to power, and those who have the power should government, or to put it another way, money trumps individual rights. You cease to be citizens of a country and become global consumers. You consume in order to consume some more, be it "keeping up appearances" or artificially created trends, or whatever.

For Capitalistic democracy to survive, it must grow constantly. It can never stop. Think of it as an ravenous creature that, no matter how much it eats, can never be satisfied. Even as it expands, it continues to eat what it had just consumed, and so it perpetually recycles. In the case of a political economic system, if it can expand by manipulation or by persuasion, it will do so by force...war...or at the very least, conflict.

Unchecked, it can also cause social and economic inequality. That is, the upper tier's quality of life increases far and away from that on the lower tier while the middle tier adsorbs the weight of supporting the other two continues to shrink; ultimately finding itself just slightly better than lower tier. Ideally, the economic social scale should look like a diamond on its side, with a small wealthy class at the top and a small poor class on the bottom with a broad middle class in the center. What we have today looks more like a hourglass with a very wealthy upper class at the top, a large lower class at the bottom, and a narrow middle class in the center.

I don't want you to assume that Capitalistic democracy is necessarily a bad thing. It's not, if the beast is kept on a leach; that is, if it's regulated and controlled. In that case, there is both growth and an opportunity for adapting to the expansion. It progresses, albeit it slowly. It doesn't force open markets by economic pressure or military threats, nor does it create industrial pseudo-monopolies whereby a single sector controls the overwhelming majority of resources to the point where there is no competition; no new newcomers or innovators.

Who benefits under Capitalistic democracy? Well, obviously those with the money, and when we say "money" I mean mega-bucks; far beyond what most people can even comprehend. These individuals, who've amassed a tremendous amount of political influence to go with their economic influence, are the plutocrats. They use their "privilege", as they prefer to think of it, to acquire even more power which in turn creates more opportunities to make more money, and so the circle goes around and around.

These plutocrats have come together to create an Oligarchy; which is essentially rule by a small elite group, and rule they do, albeit mostly behind the scenes. They ensure that laws are written for their economic benefit; that they are exempt from the same laws that affect the "ordinary masses". They do this through corporate lobbyists who act as their "errand boys"; who help write some legislation and advise elected officials on the passage of others. They help to ensure the "right" people are hired for key positions. Some may even run for office themselves (always under the guise of a populist "one of the common folk" types). They also make sure elections are too expensive for the majority of the people. After all, only they are fit to make the "big decisions" such as writing tax laws, forcing open markets (either through bribery or intimidation), and where to drill.

Of course, everyone once in awhile, some individual or group comes along to rock their yacht. Those individuals are usually bullied into scurrying along. Some are simply bought off. Those who continue to hand around are subject to increasing degrees of ridicule and eventual character assassination (including their family, friends, and associates). Sometimes, that's not enough, and when it's not...well, you can imagine what happens then. Recent history is full of "what ifs" and "what may have been" scenarios.

All of this brings us back to the Millennial "Snowflakes". They represent the typical idealistic youth. They think they've got it all figured out. They know how things should be run; it's all so simple. Yeah, my generation did so too. We told ourselves that we had it all figured out. We "tuned out and turned on". All be needed to do was "give peace a chance", thought that "all we need is love". Communes, sex, drugs, and rock n roll was all that was required. Well, that didn't turn out so well did it?

The biggest difference is that while my generation, the children of the "Greatest Generation" and their children, the Silents, was perhaps the most economically spoiled generation in history, is that it set the stage for a continuing cycle where there was less and less emphasis on personal responsibility and growing sense of entitlement. While many of my generation initially lived off of their parent's dime, they eventually grew up and found their way in the world. Nowadays, their grandchildren, the Millennials, are still living in their parent's basements and thanks to technology and the lack of social contact, never really grew up.

As a result, they created a social "bubble" which prevented them from ever experiencing the world as it really is. They remain sheltered in many ways, but they still have that sense of entitlement but still possess that youthful idealism. This has created a generation that is emotionally weak, and thus easily manipulated. Thus, the ruling Oligarchy has to find a way to "bleed off" that idealism while steering them from the one ideology which could threaten their hold on power. But if you think that's all, you'd be wrong. There's more. Much more.

Since the goal has always been about "more", what has to happen is the creation of state in which they face no threats to their power, which means there has to be social as well as economic stability. How to do that? First, there has to be a crisis which can be used to focus the public's attention. Usually this is in the form of an external threat, and we have one. Terrorism. With terrorism, we have the opportunity for an never-ending war and the perfect excuse to intervene militarily anywhere we want. It also allows for a wartime economy which artificially increases economic production (besides, war or "conflicts" are highly profitable). More recently, there have been subtle attempts to rekindle a new Cold War with Russia or China since the "War on Terrorism" has been slowing down. The nice thing about this kind of war is that, like terrorism, is can go on forever. Meanwhile, they build a surveillance system to help "protect" us. They create ways to monitor us; track us until we have unwittingly helped construct our own prisons in the name of security.

But what about employment? If the economy is doing well, artificially or not, won't there be a shortage of soldiers and sailors? Nope. First, we have an increase in automation to help keep employee numbers down. Secondly, we have illegal immigration. As more and more individuals enter the country and seek jobs, demand for work pushes down wages and benefits. Thus, people are forced to take less...unless they would like to join the military. This takes potential workers out of the job market (and the fact that a certain percentage won't be returning). Another plus is weak unions who are unable or unwilling to do anything for force up wages (usually faced with the threat of closing plants and shipping jobs overseas).

In addition, the Oligarchy finds ways to divide the populace. If we are arguing and fighting with each other, we aren't watching them now are we? To do that, they foster division across every possible avenue they can, be it race, gender, class, religion, social, bright versus average, or whatever. If there's a difference, they'll find a way to exploit it. We see accusations that one side is going to do this or that to the other side and back again. They do whatever they can to kindle the fire until it's nearly out of control. I say "nearly" intentionally. They don't want things spiraling so far out of control they lose control themselves (remember, they need stability and order in order to make profits).

However, they have to allow things to get so bad that the public will demand that the government "do something", and "something" they will indeed do. They will impose order, but for a price, and that price will be our freedom (or at least much of it). We are already a surveillance state. Next will be police state (police departments across the country are already being militarized to deal with the increasing violence of criminal gangs that have been allowed to enter the country not to mention a failed "drug war" policy, and an outdated justice and educational system which fails to teach while rewarding mediocrity and a lack of discipline). A controlled population is a compliant population, and a compliant population is one which do as expected and not rock any boats. Of course, so long as you do what you're a good little drone, you'll have nothing worry about.

So, you must be wondering just what political philosophy these Oligarchs follow if their goal is money and a callous control of society, even if it means creating chaos and violence to bring about total dominance. Well, like any group, there is no monolithic or overarching single ideology. There are those who support a softer approach which emphasizes more social engineering while others who prefer a more self-direction. The majority belong to one or the other two pre-approved political parties of which the literally own, along with the media and every other major industry.

However, having said that, they don't adhere to necessarily to the stated ideals of that political party although they may do so publicly. As a group, the ruling Oligarchy is Fascist (which, as Fascism's founder, Benito Mussolini, once said would be better called "Corporatism"). Some lean toward a Left leaning form while other want a Right leaning version as stated before. This then is what all the fuss is about. It's not "socialism" or Communism". It's whether a Left or Right oriented version of Fascism prevails. For us, it really doesn't matter if we get eaten by the lion or the tiger does it?

Fascism, which tends to be ultra conservative, has historically borrowed from both the Left and Right; the degree of which depending on the traditions and history of the country in question which is why Germany's version was different from Spain's which was different from Argentina's which differed from Italy's, which, again, was different from that of Romania, Hungary, or Bulgaria. In that sense, it's almost neutral when it comes a political spectrum, especially the antiquated version that we still use today (it originated in the 18th Century during the French Revolutionary Period). Some may see its reach as a form of pseudo-socialism" at this stage while other may see a rise in nationalism, but it's still Fascism any way you look at it.

Fascism, by its very nature is very fluid. It ebbs and flows, but always advances against the weakest links of society until it either succeeds or society sees it for what it is and reacts aggressively. Thus, the question is what will we do? Will we set back and watch it advance, believing we're safe in our little world? Will we allow our society to be torn apart as it seeks to manufacture artificial divisions and turn us against each other? Or will we acknowledge our mutual enemy and come together to restore the country of our Founders? The choice is yours.

Willful Ignorance or Intentional Manipulation? Making Sense of All the Political "Noise" on Social Media

Have you noticed that social media seems to be exploding with posts from so-called "experts" or academic sounding groups all claiming that we are on the verge of being overrun by "socialists" or Communists" or maybe even Nazis? They all seem to say the same thing; that the Left has been taken over by covert socialists or closet Communists who've been lurking the whole time under Barack Obama's bed or Nancy Pelosi's secret closet, or in Maxine Water's belfry. As the same time, we hear about how Donald Trump has suddenly morphed into Adolf Hitler or how the Tea Party is a secret group of neo-Nazis intent on taking control of the Republican Party and world domination.

To make matters worse, I read some of the comments about how the Democratic Party is now the new Communist Party (but better dressed). But, as if to make the situation all that more absurd, are those either spewing out these pieces of nonsense or agreeing via the comment section that socialism, Communism, and Nazism are essentially interchangeable terms for the same thing like a bunch of bobble heads. Seriously, are people just that uneducated or is this just willful ignorance?

I guess, for me at least, all this would be knee slapping funny if it wasn't so dangerous as in a "don't-touch-that-it's-hot" sort of way. First off, socialism, Communism, and especially Nazism aren't the same, and secondly, we aren't headed in that direction no matter how many self-serving pseudo-intellectual sounding emails or posts we get on social media. It ain't gonna happen friends, and I'm going to tell you why. So, let's start off with understanding some terms. (I promise this won't use a economic or political science class definition and to keep it brief).

First, "socialism". Just what is it? Well, most people, especially in the US, have been taught that socialism is a bad thing. Some see it as being synonymous with Communism, or the very least, Marxist-Lite. Well, not exactly. Socialism, as defined by Merriam -Webster is "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; a system of society or group living in which there is no private property; a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state; a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between Capitalism and Communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

So, in short, there are varieties of socialism. What Scandinavia has for instance is democratic socialism and it's worked quite well thank you very much while Venezuela has a more Marxian form which has proven to be dismal at best. However, corporations are heavily regulated under democratic socialism and state controlled under Marxian socialism. There are also multiple political parties, strong unions and employee associations under the former and, as usual, state control under the latter with a single political party.

Communism, as again defined by Merriam-Webster is "a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed; a theory advocating elimination of private property. Capitalized, a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R.; a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production; a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably; communist systems collectively. Pretty straight forward. State control of everything. No Capitalism. Private ownership of nothing. No independent unions. One state political party.

Now, Nazism ("Nazi" stands for National Socialist German Workers Party. As an aside, it's the second word, "Socialism", which throws people for a loop and confuses the daylights out of them). So, what does Merriam-Webster say about Nazism? They define it as "the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the Nazis in Germany from 1933 to 1945 including the totalitarian principle of government, predominance of especially Germanic groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the Fuehrer. Helpful, but not entirely clear is it? Let's try the ever popular Encyclopedia Britannica.

According to them, Nazism is "totalitarian movement led by Adolf Hitler as head of the Nazi Party in Germany. In its intense nationalism, mass appeal, and dictatorial rule, Nazism shared many elements with Italian Fascism. However, Nazism was far more extreme both in its ideas and in its practice. In almost every respect it was an anti-intellectual and a theoretical movement, emphasizing the will of the charismatic dictator as the sole source of inspiration of a people and a nation, as well as a vision of annihilation of all enemies of the Aryan Volk as the one and only goal of Nazi policy. Well, that's a little better, but it really doesn't quite answer our question.

One key reason is that Nazism was a one-off political movement; that is, it happened only once and was unique to a particular people, place and time. Our attempt to place this 70+ year old ideology on our current but antiquated Left/Right political spectrum fails to do it proper justice. Nevertheless, Nazism, which was variant of Fascism, was first and foremost a nationalistic movement more so than a typical political party. Secondly, it had a particularly unique racial component to it. It was an ideology designed for and aimed at the "Aryan" or Germanic People. Lastly, it was a totalitarian form of government (as is Communism and the Marxian form of socialism).

Under Nazism there was no infringement on private property. Unions were merged into a State run union ("DAF" or German Labor Front). Capitalism continued to independently exist, though certain industries served the State's military needs via government contracts and financial rewards. Under Nazism, there was one official political party and elections, while continuing to exist, were basically meaningless. So what about the name? Well, originally, the name was the German Workers Party, which was basically a small working class debate club which meet at a local beer hall (where the best political and sports discussions often happen).

After Hitler was elected (or, as some insist, appointed) head of the "party" in 1921, the name was changed to National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) by Hitler himself. The name was chosen with a specific intent in mind. At the time, there were numerous political parties and special interest groups across the political spectrum. The largest on the Left was the Social Democrats (SPD), who had controlled the Wiemar government since its creation in 1919, following WWI. Secondly, also on the Left, was the German Communist Party (KPD). In the middle there was the large Catholic dominated Center Party. Finally, on the Right there was the "DNVP" or German Nationalist People's Party.

There were also several smaller parties like the Peasant Party which represented farmers and tradesmen, the Middle Party which was monarchist, the National Liberal Party, and the German Democratic Party; all of which represented middle and upper middle class, mostly conservative individuals. In addition, there was the Patriot Movement which was nationalistic and tended to represent veterans. Then there was the Racist Movement (yes, an actual separate Pan-Germanic movement which was anti-Jewish, Slavic, Asian, African, Gypsy, etc. It also was nationalist) and the Peasants and Middlestand League which was focused on economic issues. The trick was how to attract people from these various groups.

The answer was to offer everyone something. "National" appealed to the various veteran and Pan-Germanic groups. "Socialist" was aimed at the unionists, but also those the Pan-Germanic groups with the idea of creating a Germanic community while "Worker" was aimed at the smaller working class parties as well as groups focused on economics. As an aside, under Marx, "socialism" was seen as international and post-national whereas Hitler saw it as strictly nationalistic and for the benefit of the Germanic Peoples. So, same word but entirely different meanings.

Now, that brings us to present day USA. While groups like Antifa and BLM among others may proclaim what they believe to be a "socialist" or even Communist message, it ain't gonna happen. Same goes with any groups on the Right who espouse a neo-Nazi position. The reason is that those funding these groups have absolutely no intention whatsoever of giving up their power, control, and most certainly their wealth. Wallstreet isn't going anywhere. Agree? America is, sadly, no longer the Constitutional Republic it was founded. America is in fact an Oligarchy; a plutocracy. What do I mean by those terms? Simply that the US and its government are controlled by a small elite group of every wealthy individuals and their corporations. Not even academic disagrees on that point.

This "partnership" is a defacto form of Fascism (sorry to throw another term at you). Modern Fascism was created by Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Mussolini, who had been raised a "socialist" by his parents, conceived of the idea during and just after World War One, after what he saw as the failure of socialism, as a partnership between government and big business with government basically as the senior partner in that relationship (he later said that a better description would be "Corporatism"). It would be corporate capitalism bolstered by the power of the government for the mutual benefit of both.

Under his Fascism, little would appear to change. There would still be private property, freedom of religion and so forth. It did not, for instance, prohibit other political parties. Mussolini adopted a classical economic liberal (laisser-faire) policy along the lines of John Maynard Keyes, which later expanded into specific intervention of certain areas as he deemed necessary. During the Depression, he did engage in public works programs as did pretty every other country did including Germany and the US for instance. For awhile, it seemed like Mussolini and his Fascism could do no wrong.

Under our present day Oligarchy, America is faced with a "creeping" Fascism, which unlike its earlier incarnation, has government more of a junior partner; basically a manager or caretaker protecting the privileges of the ruling elites. It advanced here, retreats when it encounters strong resistance but always probing for weakness. The current political turmoil that America is in is not, as we're led to believe, one of "socialism" (or Communism) vs. neo-Nazism, but of a softer Left oriented version of Fascism as opposed to a stricter Right oriented form of Fascism (Fascism borrows from both the Left and Right). Both see the need to destroy unions and employee associations. Both see the need to perpetuate wars (even if it means rekindling the Cold War) or manufacture enemies because wars, after all, are profitable. The threat of military intervention is how corporations either force open markets or obtain favorable deals. Wars "bleed" off excess population, which reduce unemployment numbers and artificially stimulates the economy creating more jobs, which make politicians look good and make obscene profits for business executives.

Another aspect of "creeping" Fascism (or "Friendly Fascism" as the late great Dr. Bertram Gross called it in his book by the same name) is that it doesn't really care about borders or even national sovereignty, at least in the traditional sense. Countries are "passé". Instead, they see economic blocks with each government serving as its middleman; its manager if you will. Some are temporarily cooperate (alliances) while others are directly competing (conflicts). In lieu of nationalistic citizens there are merely consumers and workers whose values are largely determined by their credit ratings. No more. No less.

Lastly, both support opening the borders to allow more individuals in, but for slightly different reasons (be they legal or illegal). First, more individuals means more competition for jobs. That drives down wages and reduces benefits. Both sides agree on that. However, the Democrats also see it as a way to pad their registration numbers since they believe that most of these immigrants would register as Democrat (that's because of the perception that the Democrats will "give" them "free stuff"). Meanwhile, both sides support exporting of jobs, lower corporate tax, corporate welfare, and keeping the revolving door (and gravy train) between the corporate world and governments flowing.

So, while these race oriented and anarchist groups may think they're protesting for one thing, they're being maneuvered into doing another (Lenin called these type of people "useful idiots"). What needs to happen, be it for the Left or Right oriented Fascists, is total control because that allows them to establish order, and order improves profit margins. How to do that? Simply by doing what's actually counter-intuitive---create chaos. By promoting as much division, instability, violence, fear, and confusion as possible, the public will sooner or later demand that the government "do something" to restore order. It's not a new idea. It's been tried and applied since the Late Rome Republic if not earlier. Once we feel we are no longer safe, the economy is to erratic, and the pressure from outside (manufactured or real) threats, the American People will insist that the government intervene, and trust me, they will but not in the way we expect.

America is already a surveillance State. There's no questioning that. We have the means that past totalitarian regimes could only dream about. We have militarized the police forces across the country. The Oligarchy already controls 90+% of all media, which means they control what we hear, see and watch,. They spin it and manipulate our perceptions. If they say a certain individual or group are the bad guys, they will spin the story to make us believe it and visa versa. If there is something happening they don't want us to know about, you can bet we won't, or if we do, it will be spun in such a way to create whatever impression they want. They control how we're entertained, be it sports, TV shows, movies or video games, which in turn affects how we perceive events and keeps us distracted (the ancient Romans referred to this technique as "bread and circuses").

I hope this helps clarify some of the "noise" you're getting on both social and local media. Whenever you feel the need to respond, feel free to copy and post this article. Perhaps it will help someone else too. Meanwhile, remember that the narrative of much of what you hear, read, and see is from these groups, the establishment media, and these so-called "experts" or "authorities" is aimed at steering you into a particular direction in order that you come to the conclusion they want you to. You need to always ask yourself "what are they wanting me to believe and why?", and never take it at face value.



The U.S. is an Oligarchy? The Research, Explained



Is America an Oligarchy?


America's super rich: six things to know


Nazism, socialism and the falsification of history


Hitler, Nazism, Socialism, and Rightwing Propaganda


Was Hitler a Socialist?

Political Corruption: Taking Out The Trash

Over the past several weeks we've taken a look at political corruption, from the cozy relationship with the big donors ( and no, George Soros and the Koch Brothers aren't even close to being at the top of that list) to military contractors, local lobbyists, and the always entertaining, "dirty tricks" which happen at the local level. Political corruption isn't unusual or even new. It's been a part of society since the very beginning (the same with religious corruption, which started out as being one and the same as the political, and in many countries today it's essentially the flip side of the same coin).

The real problem is when a society goes from the occasional individual form of graft to institutionalized corruption; where it actually becomes part of the political system itself, which is where we are today. In the past, once a society reaches that level of corruption, society begins to break down, some form of totalitarianism arises and eventually the people rebel. I think that's what we're starting to see today, except that the rebellion is being carefully controlled or manipulated; channeled if you will.

America is governed by an Oligarchy. That's an accepted fact by all but the most naive. An Oligarchy is when a relatively small elite control the government for their own benefit. In this case, it's a plutocracy, which is rule by the wealthy. As I've previously written, they control---literally own---the financial institutions, defense industry (war is a very profitable business), oil and gas, as well as the energy industry, the auto industry, the media (90+% of all forms of media), and many more. This is the stuff that urban myths about the Trilateral Commission, Bildenbergers, the Council on Foreign Relations are based, and to a degree, are true in that they all belong to small interlocking clique of committees and boards that you and I will never belong to.

What is their goal or objective you ask? Well, actually it's quite simple. It's all about having control. They already have more money they any of us could possibly imagine. However, money begets power, and power equates with control. Their aim is to control or influence every aspect of society. For them, control is order and stability. It takes order and stability for business to operate and, hopefully, generate profits. This also means controlling the demand for jobs, wages, and benefits, which also means controlling or destroying labor unions and worker associations. That's why it's important for them to be able to ship high wage/benefit jobs overseas where they pay virtually nothing (and because of the abject poverty and overpopulation, people are glad to take it) and then ship it back over here where marketing creates the demand for it (not to mention intentionally built-in obsolescence).

It means controlling demand...and supply...of not just products but of the availability of jobs. This is the reason many of these large companies push for open borders and/or are willing to employ illegal immigrants. The more demand there is for the limited number of opening, the lower the employer can force the wages as well as any benefits. This is a flaw with labor unions too. They work to recruit illegal workers, especially in the low skill sectors since they are unlikely to rock the boats and ask a lot of questions about how things are run, but more importantly their dues fill near empty union bank accounts.

Another serious factor is controlling ordinary people. The information they routinely gather is used to ascertain our shopping habits---where we go, what we purchase, how often, what we watch, and so forth. It's also used to determine our financial and physical health; our "worth" to the economy if you will. It is used to gather information on our political leanings, which is helpful for them to determine what are key issues or "buttons" are, as well as seeing just how far we can pushed.

If, for instance, I know what are the hot buttons are for various issues, I know I can push you on other topics without much push back. If I know the hot topics for a specific population segment, I know how to manipulate and motivate them to act (like the best way to get you to send money, or maybe call or email some legislator). I also know how to spin issues to make one side look better (or worse, demanding on my intent). That's what the media is for. It's to decided what is and isn't newsworthy, how to present it (spin), and manipulate the outcome.

Now if you happen to be one of those individuals who think it's all the Democrat's fault or the Republicans, then I hate to break it to you, but it's not one side or the other, it's actually both. These Oligarchs literally own both parties and the politicians who are actually more selected than elected. Think about it. If the Democrats were right and the GOP were all a bunch of greedy and selfless bastards, and the Democrats did all they said they would do, there wouldn't be a single Republican elected to office anywhere in this country. On the other hand, if the Republicans were right and the Democrats were a group of manipulative SOBs determined to tax the middle class into oblivion, and they actually did all they promised, you couldn't find a Democrat in office anywhere you looked.

However, we know---we instinctively know---both sides are lying to us. Whenever a single party has controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency nothing changes does it? We still have the same ole BS. Even when a single party had controlled the governor's office and state legislature it's still the same game. The reason is because neither party is actually serious about doing anything. While you and I talk about the system being broken, for them the system works just fine because the ones who line their pockets and campaign war chests are doing just fine. A politician's biggest concern is getting reelected because, frankly, they love the power (which is addictive and gives them a sense of self importance) and they love the perks and lifestyle that power brings them. But getting and keeping that power mean getting access to big money, and the only ones capable of providing that kind of money are the big corporations or their errand boys (and girls) who work for them, the lobbyists.

In fact, these lobbyists are paid really big money on behalf of their masters to make sure those they helped to put in office do as they're told. In some cases, they even help to write legislation and provide summaries for bills or issues along with their "recommendations". All this has effectively made it near impossible for the average American to even consider running for office; it's far outside the financial reach of most of us. That's why Congress is called the "Millionaire's Club", because it actually is. It doesn't matter what your party affiliation is. It matters who your financial benefactors are. The political infighting is both a matter of which special interest group wins out on a particular issue, and in keeping us divided; to make us believe it's the other side's fault (like "taking guns away" or "destroying" some freedom).

The truth of the matter is that the Oligarchy wants--- actually needs--- for us to be divided. It has to keep us at each other's throats in as many ways as possible. "Why" you ask? Again, the answer is pretty simple. As long as we're fighting and arguing with each other, no one is watching the "candy store". That is, we're not focused on the corruption which is taking place almost openly (and in some cases, in broad daylight). Secondly, with us fighting each other, it's so much easier to manipulate one side and then other. That allows them to expand their control. This type of mentality happens not just at the local or community level, but at the state as well as the national and even international levels.

How often have you heard where some country, often one few have even heard of, is suddenly in the news amid claims of "terrorism" or some other "international crime"? Fairly often I would bet. Invariably the US is "asked" by various parties to intervene to help restore democracy or some other noble sounding cause. The odds are pretty good that the sole reason has to do with either access to resources or a market. And as often as not, it's because attempts to gain access to these resources or markets by regular means have failed. Attempts at bribing have failed. Threats have failed, and finally once that has happened, public opinion is stirred up and the next thing we know, we're bombing the daylights out of some nothing of a county or group.

Former Nazi Air Marshall Hermann Goering once said "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” The only real difference today is that the decision is made between corporate and government officials, who work hand-in-hand (in the majority of cases, the revolving door between the corporate world and the government one, be it as an elected official or an appointed one, is a blur) rather a cabal of politicians. In fact, it might as well be stated that the goals of most politicians, senior staff members, bureaucratic department heads, or appointed offices is to become one of these very generously paid lobbyists.

Another feature of a divided people besides being easier to manipulate, is that they almost always look to the government to "fix" the problem, which it is always happy to do since that affords them the opportunity to seize more control over your life. Recently that control has been in terms of surveillance and the increased militarization of the police. Together, they can quite easily devolve into a police state...all for our own protection naturally. There's another interesting feature used in these situations which we're seeing a lot of lately. The use of name calling, or more specifically, of demonizing an individual, group, or term.

Since kindergarten we've all known the value of name calling, rumors, and innuendos. Politics is no different. I've known a certain politician who purposefully would call his female nemesis a vulgar but rhyming term similar to her name. Of course, calling opponents by various derogatory but humorous names has been common since the ancient Greek forums. The late Huey P. Long of Louisiana made it art form! So did President Teddy Roosevelt and his cousin, FDR. It's a staple of politics. What's different today, at least in US politics, has been the misuse of terms like "Nazism", "Socialism", "Communism" as well as "racism" and others. The intent seems to be to confuse people by trying to convince them that the term means something that it doesn't. For instance, claiming that the Democratic Party is "Socialism" or "Communist" while the GOP is "Nazis" (this can just as easily be applied to a specific individual from either party as well).

The fact is that neither the Democrats or Republicans are as the other side claim. Both represent corporate special interest groups; each has its own agenda. While socialism and Communism imply doing away with capitalism and Nazism implies business interests becoming subservient to the state, which are all opposite to what the Oligarchy wants. In addition, the overuse and misuse of the terms distorts and dilutes their meanings to the point no one understands their significance. As Humpty Dumpty said to Alice, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose for it to mean---neither more or less". Has politics now become the "Looking Glass"? This misapplication of terms also distort the fact that ideologies such as democratic socialism had worked quite well in Europe until recently when the system was overloaded with "migrants" who, lacking skills, education and a similar work ethic, refuse to participate in the economic system which is required for its success.

However, when it did work properly, the citizenry benefited very handsomely. Yes, they paid much higher taxes (which they voted to approve), but they were willing to do so in exchange for more public benefits. But it also meant the corporations were also more heavily regulated and there was more mandatory transparency. It also meant that unions and employee associations had a much more active voice in government and work affairs. That's something the Oligarchy obviously doesn't want. So, terms like "democratic socialism" become linked to "Communism" or even "Nazism", which already have negative connotations, as if they were one in the same.

So, what kind of government does the Oligarchy and plutocracy want? Their ideal form of government is Fascism, which as its founder, Benito Mussolini once said, would be better called as "Corporatism" since it's a partnership between government and the major businesses (in his view, government would be the senior partner while today it's the opposite). The plutocracy, as the name implies, would like to see to that the rich (and by that I mean really rich) elites are in charge. Thus, the special interest groups behind the Democratic Party and its politicians are pushing for Left oriented form of Fascism while those behind the Republican Party are trying to implant a Right leaning form of Fascism. Either way, it's Fascism.

For it to succeed, we must be ignorant of or willing to ignore the many forms of corruption and manipulation which are taking place at all levels of government (the so-called "Nanny State" which wants to control what you eat, wear, the education of you and your children, your workplace, use of private land, living "off the grid", and so forth while learning everything there is about you). It's also necessary that we not be united. That's one reason we see such groups like Antifa and BLM with their paid organizers and agitators (surprisingly, the Right has been unexpectedly quite when it comes to social violence). However, to be sure when it has come to police shootings, there has been several instances where the police reacted improperly and weren't either punished or adequately punished. But too has been the tendency of the certain groups to think they don't have to follow a cop's instructions or to act physically or verbally aggressively (either intentionally or not). You just don't make a intense situation worse by doing that. It's really stupid and a recipe for tragedy.

There are things we can do, at least for now, to help offset this assault on our individual freedoms and to restore our Constitutional Republics, which for now appears lost. One, don't share personal information (especially financial or political) with groups you don't know. This is especially true of surveys by phone or online (such as the seemly innocent looking quizzes online which offer to tell you what's your "totem animal" or "power color" or whatever). If you must, then lie about the responses. Seriously. Don't give any real data about your viewing, shopping, dining habits no matter how innocent they seem. It all goes to build a profile of you and others with similar responses.

Another thing you can do is to assume that the media, just like politicians or other political groups, have an agenda they're pushing. Try to get as many diverse news sources as possible. Read Left leaning articles as well as Right leaning on the same topic if possible in order to seek out the truth, which is usually somewhere in the middle (no one said this was going to be easy). Read different blogs and pass them on to your friends and ask that they do the same (like this one for instance!). Go outside the US for news stories. You'll be surprised at the different takes they have on events in the US as well as the stories they find important that we never hear about.

We also need to support candidates based on their stances on issues, not political registration (and especially not based on newspaper or other endorsements which, again, are pushing their agendas not yours). Pay specific attention to third party and Independent candidates (remember, Indies are the largest voting bloc in America by far). Partisan politics are about pushing someone else's agenda who has a lot more money than you do or ever will. Get involved in issues which are non-partisan such as real campaign finance reform which makes it possible for anyone to afford to run for office; ending gerrymandering for political parties. This creates artificial and biased boundaries designed to keep the incumbent or their party in power. Push for a non-partisan group like a university to do it using simple population data not based on political registration.

Get involved with efforts to create a balanced playing field for Independents and third parties to file and run for office, as well as participate in debates. There are still backward states which require non-partisan candidates to have hundreds or even thousands more signatures to get on a ballot than a Republican or Democrat. Also, both corporate owned parties actively seek to keep third party and Independent candidates out of debates; they make it appear that you have "choices" while limiting those choices to two! As an aside, the news media also try to ignore third party and Indie candidates; treating like a sideshow if they acknowledge them at all. Voters also need to be the ones with the final say on tax or rates increases, as well as increases in public sector salaries or perks. Allowing citizen initiated ballot referendums must be given.

Volunteer or financially support Indies or a third party candidate if you can, even if it's just telling others. Demand term limits be imposed in order to at least limit the amount of corruption going on. Personally, I support a twelve year cap. Focus on individual issues, and be sure to keep an open mind (doing a little research of your own won't hurt either). Heck, don't vote for incumbents for a change of pace and fresh ideas! Lastly, find ways to bring diverse groups together to target specific problems. If we can do this, we can fight back against the obvious attempt to hijack our country, its values, and its traditions. We need to restore our Constitutional Republic, and by coming together we can do that. But if we wait any longer that opportunity, like our nation, will be gone forever. Let's kick to the curb those who seek to overthrow our nation like yesterday's garbage.

Wolves in Sheep's Clothing: Two New Polls and Name Calling

"Democrats Want Socialism!" Agh!! Run for the hills everyone! Well, perhaps not so much. While, that was the headline of the first story I saw this morning, I think it was more about shock value and provoking people to respond without exploring further. Yes, there has been a recent interest in socialism here in the US, most among Millennials thanks in large part to failed presidential candidate and self-proclaimed social democrat, Bernie Sanders.

Vermont Senator Sanders, an Independent who switched to Democrat, ran an unsuccessful campaign against Hillary Clinton in 2016 for the Democrat Party Nomination. Hillary Clinton and the key players in the DNC, were concerned enough to rig the Primary elections against and then worked to silence Sanders supporters at the Democrat Convention. Ultimately, Hillary won the nomination as planned while DNC Chairwomen Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was fired for her role in rigging the Primary (she was hired the next day by Hillary's campaign to be a "coordinator"), As a aside, the DNC later acknowledged the Primary had been fixed and simply blew it off.

Meanwhile, Hillary was never able to win over many of Bernie's supporters, and eventually lost to Donald Trump. Interestingly, many of those who bought into Bernie's message of democratic socialism never went away. Instead, they've been spreading the message among other Millennials. So is there any danger that the Millennials will eventually turn America into a "Socialist Paradise"? The short answer is "no". While the Millennials are the largest voting demographic, they aren't the sole demographic and their political clout, while powerful, is likely to be temporary. So, let's take a look at the numbers.

According to the CBS Poll, 57% of Democrats and those who lean Democrat have a favorable opinion of democratic socialism. Two years ago, in 2016, it was 58% and in 2010 and 2012 it was 53%, so obviously Trump obviously can't be blamed! However, when we break those numbers down, we find that 51% of those with a positive opinion of democratic socialism were between 18 and 29 years of age (ie: the Millennials). Only 28% of those 65 and older had a favorable opinion (60's era Babyboomers).

On the other side, those who identified a Republicans or leaned Conservative only 16% favored democratic socialism (I question why anyone who was Republican or leaned Conservative would favor socialism but it's not my poll). 71% favored Capitalism (or apparently some form of it). In 2016, it was 68%. Oddly, in 2012 while 72% of those who leaned Right supported Capitalism, 23% didn't. In 2010, the favorable percentage was the same while those who supported democratic socialism was 17%, which makes me wonder if Capitalism may have a "soft underbelly". I wouldn't expect those favoring democratic socialism from the Right to be that high, but so it is.

Before we go any further, I need to point out that "Socialism" is not the same as "democratic socialism", and neither are the same or even kissing cousins to Communism. While differences between socialism and democratic socialism are subtle, they are different. First off, "Socialism" remains a theory. Despite claims by various leaders and governments to be "socialist", the fact is that socialism have never actually been successfully applied. Socialism is rule by the people; committees or unions. Businesses are independent and run by employees. Each employee has an equal voice in how things are run (employees are the managers/owners). The employees elected someone as "management". They also elected a representative to work with other employee elected representatives on larger projects such as the state, which is committee based. However, everything works off of ad hoc committee.

On the other hand, democratic socialism has been tired, and rather successfully too. The governments of Scandinavia have been using it for decades. Historically, these nations are consistently ranked highest in terms of quality of education, happiness and quality of life, lowest in crime, healthcare (which is primarily preventative rather than reactive care). The biggest criticisms comes from Capitalist nations like the US over the high taxes, which are indeed high. However, it is the citizens who approve taxes (or not) based on what they get for their money. In America, representatives make that decision for the citizens. Even countries which haven't adopted democratic socialism, like the UK, France, and Germany, they still have aspects of it in place.

The biggest flaw with democratic socialism is that it requires everyone to participate equally in order for everyone to benefit equally. Recently these nations have been accepting immigrants from third world countries who lack the education , work skills, and most importantly, the work ethic which are essential for democratic socialism to properly work. They tend to simply set back and draw on the system without contributing anything to it. In addition, their moral values have proven to be entirely different, which has resulted in a dramatic increase in crime like rapes, murders, and robbery. They also lack the same respect for the environment that the Scandinavians and other Europeans have. The results is trash everywhere and public defecation and urination. Lastly, they have failed to integrate into the society's where they've settled; in many cases creating "no go zones" for the locals and police.

As for countries like Venezuela, Cuba, and others who've claimed to be "Socialist", they obviously aren't. What they are is the same ole economic central planning Communist states which have failed worldwide under the veneer of a new and more popular name (by the way, while Venezuela's so-called "socialism" has failed, neighboring Brazil's is a rousing success, but you won't hear about that!). They differ only slightly from the Communism of Stalin and Mao. In no way can they be compared to countries like Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, or Norway by any measure. Now that we've gotten that cleared up, let's move on to another poll which I found to be equally worrisome.

According to a poll conducted by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, 58% of Millennials favored Socialism (the democratic kind), Communism, or Fascism over Capitalism. Yikes! In terms of percentage, 44% favored democratic socialism, while 7% each like Communism and Fascism which represent the Left/Right extremes. Democratic socialism is one thing, but Communism or Fascism are something quite different, but more of a possibility than they think (more on that in shortly). What perhaps is more disconcerting is that excluding Millennials, only 59% of the others polled favored Capitalism compared to 34% who preferred democratic socialism, with 4% wanting Fascism and 3% backing Communism.

With America being the bastion of Capitalism in the world, does this indicate a possible trend away from a Capitalist economic system? I have to wonder if these responses are the result of our failure to adequately teach history (without any political slant one way or the other). It could also be indicative of our failure to incorporate Civics, sociology, and political science in the school curriculum (a lack of resources is often cited as the reason, but there always seems to be enough resources available for non-essential activities likes sports). The same argument could apply to higher education, which offer all sorts of completely useless classes which, if anything, reinforces the political bubble they've become so comfortable with rather than to think critically and explore other Truths.

Proof of this, as revealed by the poll, was that only 33% of Millennials surveyed were able to correctly define democratic socialism, which sadly was about average with the rest of those surveyed. Millennials also had the least "unfavorable" opinion of Communism at just 36%. Meanwhile, only 51% could correctly define Capitalism, which was the lowest demographic surveyed (the average was 67%). Could this be the result of their honest preference for other systems like Communism, or is it the result of ignorance and their "bubble" mentality? Millennials define our present economic system as a "burden" on them (the only group to say so) and added that they felt the Capitalist system "worked against them" (again, the only group to make that claim).

In looking at other groups, 56% of those surveyed had an unfavorable view of Communism, and of those, 63% said they would be "insulted" if anyone associated them with Communism (only 44% of Millennials were). Generation Z, the group coming up behind the Millennials, had a different attitude. 43% of them were able to correctly define democratic socialism and 66% of Generation Z felt that the Capitalist system worked for them, although many were, as of yet, too young to be in the workforce full time.

As an aside (and I can't resist), there's an interesting comparison to be made here. The opinions of the Millennials seems to be a reflection of their grandparents, the Babyboomers. However, there are two distinct cohorts of Babyboomers which most people aren't aware of. The first cohort were born from 1946 to 1955. These were the "Flower Children" of the 1960's. They tended to be very liberal, experimental (like communes and drugs), individualistic, and supported social causes. They were also viewed as "anti-establishment" and supported Far Left politics.

The second cohort (the one I belong to) was born between 1956 and 1964. This group was pessimistic, distrustful of the government, individualistic, and more rebellious. These were the anti-war and Watergate protestors; those who lost faith in the political system. The former group remained Democratic leaning and liberal while the latter leaned Republican, conservative and nowadays, more Independent. It seems we have a parallel between the Millennials and Generation Z based on the influence of their grandparents the way the grandparents of the Boomers, products of the 1920's and 1930's, influenced them.

Amusingly, the poll also revealed that Millennials looked up to individuals like Karl Marx with 32%, Che Guevara getting 31%, Vladimir Lenin at 23%, and 19% for Mao Zedong. "Uncle Joe" Stalin received just 6%. Not so different from their Babyboomer grandparents! Ironically, none of those mentioned were fascist, although 7% favored Fascism as stated earlier. I also mentioned that I would discuss this later. Well, it's later. So let's delve in shall we?

As readers of Another Opinion know, I often write about the ruling Oligarchy; the plutocracy which now controls the government (I won't use the word "our" because the government is clearly not the American People's any longer). First, we need to remind ourselves what Fascism is. Modern Fascism, as created by Italian dictator, Benito Mussolini, is the merger or partnership of big business and government for the mutual benefit of both. He said that Fascism would have been more aptly named "Corporatism" since that's how it's organized and functions (it's really feudalism brought current).

Unlike Communism, the state didn't own all the businesses and there was no capitalism. Everyone worked for the state, regardless of where they were actually employed. Under Fascism, capitalism was alive and very well. Unlike democratic socialism, the employees and workers had little or no say much of anything---union or not. Under Nazism, a form of Fascism, the state was the senior partner and everyone was answerable to the party, which answered to a supreme leader while capitalism still flourished. Fascism operates more like a corporate board of directors. The leader can be hired and fired like anyone else and the state wasn't always or necessarily the "senior" partner.

The Oligarchy, if it operates similar to any political or economic system, comes the closest to operating like a fascist or even neo-feudal like system. Big business and the government operate hand in glove. It controls the press, business, the military, the police, and national security apparatus. You can't argue that there isn't a revolving door between Big business and the government, or that lobbyists, working on behalf of the corporate elite, influence (to be polite) government, up to and including writing legislation.

Corporations finance campaigns and the politicians themselves. Or that we have a two tier legal system; one set of laws for the elites and another set for the rest of us. You can't argue that the media isn't solely controlled by a small clique (six to be exact) which dictates what we see, hear, how we're entertained, and what we're suppose to think about any given issue. We're also told what to like, what to buy, and even when. We live and die economically by our credit rating. It essentially determines our value to the system. It's our digital leach.

It dictates wars and conflicts. Anytime a country rejects its overtures, be a refusal to adopt the petrodollar, access to resources, assets, or potential consumers, the government and media mount to a saber rattling campaign to whip up the public and manufacture some justification for a bombing campaign or even an invasion. Usually the unfortunate target backs downs and suddenly we're all best buddies again. Then too, sometimes it manufactures enemies. Why? Conflict is good for business. It stimulates the economy, reduces unemployment, and best of all, it's highly profitable.

Fascism is Big Business and Big Government run amuck. Historically, Fascism borrows from the Left and the Right. It tends to advance slowly but not always. It's opportunistic if nothing else. It uses the history and traditions of its host country as its cover like the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing. Which is why the Fascism of Italy differed from that of Hungary or Spain, which was different from that of Romania, Bulgaria, or Germany. It's adaptive, but like any beast, it's always hungry and if it's to survive, it must forever be devouring.

So, whether they know it or not, the Millennials, and perhaps even Generation Z, may be getting what they want without understanding it. However, it won't be the Constitutional Republic which we were bequeath by our Founding Fathers and so foolishly lost. In addition to what I've already mentioned, we've witnessed the increased militarization of the police, an ever growing surveillance system with the equally growing cooperation of Big Business, increased censorship, increased restrictions on various rights, and a nefarious attempt to divide us in as many ways as possible, like the article I mentioned at the beginning; the Left calling the Right "Nazis" or "Fascist" and the Right calling the Left "socialist" and "Communist" as well as pits races or other groups against each other on the basis of nothing.

As long as we fight each other, we can't focus our attention and efforts on the real enemy---the Oligarchy itself. Sadly, the public as a whole has the attention span of a two year old. Collectively, we seem to be society with ADHD! The Oligarchy know this and they use it. We have to snap out of it. We have to find ways to come together; to prevent ourselves from being divided. This isn't a Republican or Democrat thing. It isn't a white or black or Native American, Hispanic, or Asian issue. It's not gay or straight, nor is it Atheist, pagan, Protestant, Jewish, Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu, or any other religious group matter.

It's a American problem, and it's about whether we want our country back or not. The choice is yours. I should point out that while we're facing a consolidation of power by the Oligarchs, it's not limited to the US. Their reach is everywhere, Asia, Africa, Europe, and it's attempting to expand into Russia. That's why Putin is often portrayed as the villain and there's a lot of effort being made to rekindle the Cold War with Russia. So, in truth, it's a Humanity thing. The only question is what are we going to do about it?



Millennials would rather live in a socialist, communist, fascist nation than under capitalism


Millennials aren't satisfied with capitalism--might prefer a socialist country study finds


Millennials prefer socialism to capitalism


What is the difference between Communism and Socialism?

A Snapshot of US Politics: Where We Are and What We Can Do About It

As most of you know, America is no longer the democratic republic established by our Founding Fathers. Over the decades, but especially since the end of World War II in 1945, the US has morphed into an Oligarchy; a plutocracy with a near permanent political class comprised of politicians, professional staffers, bureaucrats who manage agencies with little oversight except by their fellow insiders (and certainly with little to no public accountability), and the ever present corporate lobbyists, which nearly every politician aspires to become, and in the background, the corporate and financial elites.

Corporations nowadays essentially run Washington via their messenger boys and girls, the lobbyists, which means they run America, especially with the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" fiasco in 2010 which defined corporations as "people", or "Frankensteins" as I prefer to call them. It also declared money to be "free speech", except that these Frankensteins have unlimited "free speech" while you and I are still capped in how much say we have when it comes to elections. It's often been said that money is the life blood or mother's milk of politics. Personally, I think it's more the "crack" of politics; everyone always wants more and more is never enough. For example, in 2017, lobbyists gave Congress, government officials (including congressional staffers, the DNC and RNC, agency heads, etc ) $3.37 billion dollars not including perks like golf outings, hotels, use of private jets or cost of airfare, dinners, or help writing or summarizing legislation (along with their recommendations on how to vote), and so on.

Nevertheless, the mind boggling amounts of money and perks provided to Congress (and indirectly to the Judicial branch as well, not to mention the presidency) by lobbyists far outstrips what ordinary Americans can donate. In fact, it's practically made it impossible for the average American, who is often just as well educated and experienced as their multi-million dollar counterpart to run for office. As a result, we are forced to cast our votes for who may be the least qualified candidate, but certainly the richest.

Of course, primaries are all about the two corporate owned political parties choosing which puppet they'll put up for election. I liken it to a beauty contest among prostitutes (you can take it from there). General elections aren't much better. We're stuck with mostly one dimensional cardboard cutouts posing, glad handing, and pretending they're having a good time. It really comes down to whose meaningless populist platitudes we dislike the least. As far as their corporate paymasters are concerned, it doesn't really matter. They own them both. We're just picking figureheads while the media tries to make it into political reality show.

Think of the two corporate political parties this way. Corporations own it all. Money trumps everything. The two parties are both literally owned by the same corporate elites, but in slightly different configurations. Basically, it's one corporate syndicate comprising certain special interest groups versus another corporate syndicate with its special interest groups. Their agendas are similar, but ranked slightly different, but regardless, they work together to get did what their key players want done. The hubbub we see on TV or read about is usually over the crumbs and details.

For instance, both needed to weaken labor unions in order to make it harder for workers to fight back and to reduce costs, and so they did! Unions bosses went along in order to avoid seeing whole sectors either closed or moved overseas rather than a few plants or hundreds of jobs. Legislation was written, mostly in conjunction with the lobbyists, to provide tax breaks to underwrite the cost of jobs being sent overseas and return finished products sans import tariffs, all at taxpayer expense naturally. Want another example? Both politicians and their corporate overseers needed to artificially keep down unemployment numbers and boost the economy, and so now we have the eternal "War on Terror" to drain off "excess" job seekers while making a killing off of military contracts which affects a whole host of peripheral industries. Thus the economy grows, employment remains artificially high as we continue to operate at near wartime production rates.

Seriously, do you think that if they weren't working hand in glove? Why hasn't a tax code favoring working class Americans been written by now? That there hadn't been serious campaign finance reform and an end to corporate donations, as well as an end to gerrymandering and establishing term limits? With all those lawyers in Washington, do you really think those loopholes are accidents---legal "boo-boos"? Nah, those people are a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them. How do you think they can pass laws which apply to us but not them? Why is it that out of a ten hour work day, the average Congressman spends only two hours working on bills and other issues and the other eight raising money?

Of course, the smartest thing they can do is to keep us divided, and they seem to be pretty good at that. They promote, albeit quietly, animosity between Left and Right, between races, between genders, between white collar and blue collar, and in every other way they can think of. Various groups are formed (and paid) to foment chaos in the form of inflammatory speeches or interviews, inciting riots and trying to silence anyone who disagrees with whatever their position happens to be. Meanwhile, there are arguments interjected to curtail this or that law or Constitutional Amendment which they claim will solve everything. The political center, where the majority of Americans live, is virtually ignored or even ridiculed by both political extremes and the media, even during general elections; once they gravitated toward the center during the general election and spun back to their respective extremes. Not anymore! Now they barely bother. It seems both camps have lost their fear of the electorate thanks in large part to Citizens United.

Meanwhile, the police are militarized and increasingly taught, even if unofficially, to view the public as the enemy, and to respond as such. The result is often excessive violence when a little patience would do. The courts, almost as a matter of course, find the police officers "innocent" and that ends the matter. That in turn results in individuals not trusting the police and either fighting back, running, or ignoring the police, and so the cycle repeats. At the same time, the corporate puppet masters use their influence to expand the monitoring of groups and individuals through social media and national intelligence agencies; to build not just individualized consumer buying profiles, manipulate and control content, but also to build profiles on potential resisters and independent thinkers who are not buying into the whole scam.

The media, of course, plays along and why not? As I previously reported, over 90% of all media--- TV, radio, social, newspaper, etc---is controlled by just six corporations. They decide what is and isn't news, manipulate the facts, decide how it will be spun, and above all, create public opinion. And if that isn't enough, they decide how we'll be entertained, be it sports, video games, game shows, movies, TV shows and so forth; much of which also containing subtle political content designed to influence our opinions on various subjects. More recently, some corporations like Nike and Levi Strauss have stepped directly into the political arena by promoting various issues or agendas so that sporting a certain look or product will now express or imply a particular political outlook. Perhaps the hope is to shame those who don't adhere to the same look through peer pressure.

Elections are controlled by keeping Independents, who are the nation's largest political bloc, as well as third parties off ballots. Why? Because they won't play the game. They can't and won't be controlled by corporate handlers. They also had a high degree of uncertainty to election outcomes, that means they can't count on either of their political puppets winning; someone with a different agenda or who will think independently might "accidentally" get elected and that must never be allowed to happen. That's because after Ross Perot ran for President in 1992 (and again in 1996) and did so well that he embarrassed both corporate candidates (Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush) the DNC and RNC came together to amend the Commission for Presidential Debates to make it virtually impossible for Independents and third parties to qualify to participate (and many states followed suit).

Requirements to get any non-Democrat or GOPer on ballots were also set so high as to be nearly impossible, even though both parties know it would likely fail any Constitutional challenge. However, the problem of course is the costs to do so in court. Both parties are banking that no one will spend that kind of money to take the matter to court. In addition, the media, which is owned by the same corporate interests, have stopped treating Indies and third parties as "legitimate" candidates and also stopped covering their campaigns; treating them as sideshow entertainment and someone not to be taken seriously. Naturally, the big donors, who also happen to be these same corporations, ensure that their money keeps flowing to the two pre-approved candidates. The same goes for endorsements, which are valued for their cash and in-kind donations as well as for volunteers. Doesn't sound very much like a "free" country do it?

Lastly, I want to discuss something which, frankly, irks to no end, but I also think it's important for you to understand. As I mentioned before, there's a lot of effort being put into dividing us by the ruling Oligarchy. They don't want us to come together and peek behind the curtain so to speak. one of the ways they are trying to divide is by name calling. Specifically, by one side or the other being called "socialists", "Nazis", "Communists", "social democrats" or "fascists" as if the names and terms are interchangeable. They're not.

Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production by the workers. Think of it in terms of worker co-ops, ESOPs, credit unions, etc. Workers/employees come together to decide on how the business will be run, how much everyone will be paid and so on. In terms of government, committees are formed from these groups to decide how to manage the town, city, or community. Participation is not mandatory, but then you also don't get a voice if you don't Each committee elects someone to a larger committee to manage the larger state. Of course, there are other variations, but that's the general idea. Basically then, the workers/employees control the state through direct democracy.

Communism as we know it isn't Marxism as Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels wrote it. Communism as we know it was based on Stalin's corruption of both Marx and Lenin ideas. Thus, Communism came to be State ownership and control of everything---corporations, jobs, houses---you name it. You may be employed at some job, but your employer was the State, and the State was the party. You participated whether you wanted to or not. The State controls your life from cradle to grave. Democratic Socialism is something of a mix between the two, and despite claims to the contrary, it has been very successful in Scandinavia. Under democratic socialism, the State exists exclusively to serve the people, with the people approving what the States does through referendums or voting. While Communism is very undemocratic, democratic socialism is highly democratic while socialism is more communal. All of these are on the Left side of the political spectrum (although the Left/Right spectrum is completely out of date and not very accurate).

Nazism, which is short for National Socialist German Workers Party, is generally considered a far Right ideology, although that's not entirely correct. First it's nationalist whereas Communism is internationalist; in this case Germany or Germanic countries. It socialist, but not the way we think of socialism. It founder, Adolf Hitler, said that "socialism" for Germany meant a community of Germans only. Here, Hitler means "Aryans" or pure Germanic People. It also means creating an community of mutual support for Germans. In this, Hitler promoted a classless society between the old nobles and Junkers (the elites) and everyone else as well as distinctions between regions or occupations.

It meant equality between Catholics and Protestants, equality in hiring and education, promotion of similar ideals such as proper health, hygiene, and fitness. German Worker meant just that. German society would be dedicated to ordinary workers, artisans, craftsmen, farmers the same way it was to the banker, business owners, or academia. He dissolved individual unions, and created a single State union, the DAF or German Labor Front, into which everyone would belong. Of course, Hitler also choose the specific wording to attract as many people as possible away from the other political parties (his biggest political competitors was the Communist and Democratic Socialist parties on the Left, the Catholic Center Party, and the German National Peoples Party on the Right). Thus on our political spectrum, the Nazis would be more center Right than anything.

Lastly, Fascism. Modern Fascism was created by Italian dictator, Benito Mussolini. Essentially, it's a merger or partnership between the State and key corporate entities which cooperate for their mutual benefit. Individuals may work for a given company, but that company serves the State as its partner. The State operates along the lines of a corporate board of directors who elect their chairmen or President (in this case, Mussolini. In fact, in 1944, Mussolini was voted out of office by his Fascist board of directors). Like Nazism, Fascism borrows from the ideological Left and Right, but it varies depending on the history and tradition of that country. That's why the fascism of Italy was different from that of Bulgaria or Spain which was differed from that of Argentina or Hungary or Romania. Thus, Fascism can come from the Left or Right whereas Nazism is strictly conservative and socialism is strictly liberal.

The Oligarchy or plutocracy which controls our government now, and to a greater degree, much of world's economy, come closest to fitting the description of fascism than anything. It is very much the merger (or perhaps takeover is a better word) of the government for the sole purpose of controlling assets, resources, production, and yes, even us. They use our tax money as their own slush fund. They use our military as their own enforcers against nations who won't cooperate. We have been transformed from nationalist citizens to international consumers. Our loyalty is less to country and more to a product (ever notice how often commercials use words like "family", "trust", or "love"?). We are encouraged to buy the latest this or that and thus incur debt, which in turn becomes our shackles. We are their economic serfs or as some people prefer, "wage slaves".

The only way out of this is by not cooperating; not drinking the blue or red Kool-Aid they offer us during the election cycle. Supporting Indies and third parties, including demanding equal ballot access. By insisting that non-policy or lawmaking elected offices become non-partisan. By organizing employee associations or cooperatives. Changing your voter registration to Independent or third party. By finding common ground to bring diverse groups together. By demanding a voice when it comes to raising taxes, rate hikes, fees, or salaries for elected officials. By becoming more economically independent like shopping local, buying at farmer markets, growing your own garden, installing a rain barrow, solar panels, home schooling, and so on. By ignoring news media endorsements and doing your own research. Seeking out alternative media. They are beatable although they try to convince us otherwise. All we have to do is refuse to cooperate and to think and act for ourselves. But in a fascist state, even a benign one, that can be a dangerous thing.


Total lobbying spending in the United States from 1998 to 2017 (in billions U.S. dollars)

How Third Parties Are Kept Out of Presidential Debates

U.S. Presidential Debate Rules Out Third Party Candidates