American Politics: A Reality Check

It seems we see almost all the the time on social media. Some group or another is trying to sell us on the concept that America is on the fast track toward socialism, fascism, communism, or some other "ism". They usually produce a list of greatly distorted "facts", coupled with a picture of Hitler, Marx, or some other nefarious "villain" from the authoritarian pantheon of history.

In truth, that's not "facts" they're peddling.  If you bother to look who's behind these sponsored posts, you'll usually find that they're some group looking to build support for some issue, bill, or agenda, or sell a book, and not uncommonly, looking to part you from some of your money.

Of course, social media being what it is, people tend to simply accept what they see on the surface without doing much (or any) research and pass it on. Their objective is to use our first impression and what we want to believe (actual facts aside) and to be "click bait". We do their marketing for them.  We've been conditioned to associate certain images, phrases, and images with particular emotions. We see a hammer and sickle, we automatically think Stalin or gulags. We see a swastika, and it's Hitler and concentration camps.

Today's political marketers have learned to link their message to those images. If you're conservative, an image of Obama or Hillary will almost automatically trigger an image of Hitler or Stalin. If you're liberal, that same image may make you think of the "Second Coming". It's all about controlling the message and as psychologists will tell you, as humans tend to react best to images.  

Nowadays, we're being conditioned (just like Pavlov's dog) to react a certain way every time we see or hear the terms "socialism", Communism, Nazism, or Fascism. If you're someone who's inquisitive and not willing to accept things at face value (as I am), you want to know why. You want to know who is behind the piece and what they're trying to gain.  

Of course, that requires some thinking for yourself, which, sadly, isn't as common as it once was. The main reason, as I'm sure you know,  is that education has repeatedly been dumbed down. Students are no longer taught critical thinking skills. Instead, they are taught to memorize what's presented to them and then to regurgitate it back in the form of a "standardized" test. It's no wonder students "graduate" from high school functionally two or three grades below where they should be!

It's not unusual for students with a high school diploma to be reading at a 10th grade level. Their math skills aren't much better. When it comes to their knowledge of history, civics, the sciences, or literature, it's pathetic  Surveys have repeatedly shown that the United States performs toward the bottom among industrialized nations when it comes to reading, math, and science. 

The world academic benchmark, set by the Programme for International Student Assessment (or PISA), ranks 30 of the 64 other industrial nations ahead of the U.S. academically, and this wasn't a one off. It's consistent.  "Why?" you might ask yourself.  Given the amount of money we spend on education and teachers, we shouldn't be ranked alongside second tier countries, and you would be right. 

In my opinion, it's because an ignorant populace is a populace easily led. We've often heard the old maxim that employers want employees just smart enough to the job but not smart enough to question their bosses. Well, imagine that from a political perspective--- creating voters just smart enough to follow along but not smart enough to question their leaders. 

People are usually so preoccupied just trying to get by in their increasingly chaotic "life" , they have no time or interest in researching what's actually happening (even if they knew where to look), not to mention confused, frustrated, or angry by the constant partisan bickering and crisis "de jure". 

Most just want to turn on some mindless "reality" show or watch a mediocre sitcom with its canned laughter track. Sadly, most individuals so brain numb from merely surviving the daily grind they fail to recognize all the subtle and not so subtle political and social messaging in the shows and commercials aimed directly at them. It's called "programming" for a reason you know.

America, as almost everyone knows, is no longer the "America" of their youth. It's changed, and not for the better. Corporations literally own both political parties and their politicians. While both operate behind a self-constructed image that they are the one and only "true" protectors of all that's good and righteous, they serve their corporate masters at our expense. 

In case you haven't noticed, the mindset in Washington, as well as in state capitals and city halls has changed. They no longer see themselves as our employees "hired" to represent our interests. They view themselves as our superiors; ours "betters". They represent themselves and their friends (who are their "friends"? We'll get to that shortly), but it will suffice to say that at this point, the relationship between (s)elected officials and us is akin to that of master and a serf with us playing the latter role. 

Their lobbyists openly write the legislation and shepherd it through committee after committee, until it finally becomes law. The only conflict, which is hidden behind partisan banners, is between competing corporate interests. These corporations fund their campaigns. Their fill the coffers of their so-called "leadership" PACs., create front groups to funnel money through, and underwrite hit pieces on their opponents. 

Corporations don't see nations. They see economic zones with governments serving as their managers. It doesn't matter if they wear blue ties or red ones as long as they do as they're told. They dictate domestic and foreign policy, which includes the use of the military to force open access to markets or gain control over resources and assets. Control is, after all, the name of the game. 

Corporations are not democracies, nor are they intended to be democracies. They are, by their very nature, a type of dictatorship. The workers don't get to vote on what they want to do, how much they get paid, or time off. You do the job or you either quit or get fired. Unions give you---the worker---a little more say in your job, but ultimately, it's do as you're told or leave.

The founder of modern Fascism, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, described "Fascism" as a integration between government and big business; a hand-in-glove relationship (hand in mailed fist might be a better analogy). Fascism borrows from both the Left and Right, depending on a country's history, traditions, laws, and values.

This is why Italian Fascism was different from that of Hungary or Romania, which were different from the fascism of Germany (yes, Nazism is a form of fascism), which in turn differed from that of Spain or Argentina (or later, in various post-WWII South American, Asian, and Middle Eastern governments which we installed after overthrowing their elected governments). Remember, it's about control. 

Fascism can have a centralized leadership, as it did in Germany for instance, or it can have a broader committee style leadership as Italy or Spain did.  Under Communism, there is literally no private anything---homes, businesses, banks, energy; nothing.  The state controls all. Under 'socialism" (which, by the way, has never actually existed), the workers or public own the means of production and distribution. 

Under Fascism, private ownership exists despite social media posts to the contrary. However, wages are regulated. Unions are either eliminated, nationalized, or effectively assimilated by the company as they are now. The social safety net, interestingly, is often typically enhanced. The government may outsource functions it once handled, including social services, to some anonymous corporation which doesn't always have to follow the same rules. The police become militarized. There is also the deployment of a massive national surveillance system, which provides the framework for a eventual police state. 

Additionally, the government/corporate partnership seek to weaken the opposition. They do this by acquiring control of the media and fomenting distention. They use the media to introduce "acceptable" behavior or thought while vilifying others. This includes political parties, ideologies, and social movements or individuals they perceive as dangerous. They also infiltrate various groups and work to either weaken or destroy them. 

Along the same lines, they pit groups against each other through manufactured events. Using the media, they invent or play up stories to increase hostilities and suspension. The idea is to create a volatile social situation or crisis whereby the public will, at some point, demand martial law to restore order, which, naturally, they will be more than happy to do. 

With Communism, private ownership of guns aren't permitted except by special permission. Under Fascism, there is a tendency to restrict gun ownership (unless elimination is possible) such as through mandatory registration and restricting the type of guns an individual can own. Despite the urban myth to the contrary, the Nazis didn't strip guns from the population. In fact, it was the opposite.

The majority socialist Weimar government of Post-WWII Germany, with pressure from the powerful Communist faction, greatly curtailed the private ownership of guns after the "Great War". The Nazis, however, restored private ownership of guns to most Germans with the exception of criminals, Jews, Gypsies, and those deemed as "politically unreliable" such as Communists, anarchists, socialists, and pro-democracy individuals.

While I'm at it, let's dispel another popular myth. Fascism was never anti-Bible, anti-Christian or even anti-religion. In fact, they saw organized religion as another useful tool to  to control the population. The Nazis tried introducing something called they called "Positive Christianity" which purged or downplayed all Jewish references in the Bible. They even invented a "Aryan" Jesus complete with blonde hair and blue eyes. Nevertheless, it tended to meet with limited success by ordinary Germans.

The Nazis did, however, prohibit religions like Jehovah Witnesses, Quakers, Pentecostals because of their "anti-state" and/or pacifist beliefs. However, the average German continued on as before, with some being Protestant (mainly Lutheran) and others Catholic.  Even the belt buckle of German soldiers had the motto "Gott Mit Uns" (God is With Us) on it.  Communism, on the other hand, is officially atheist while democratic socialism is religion is considered a matter of personal choice. 

Since the 1930's, the United States has flirted with a limited form of "socialism" such as limited  regulation of businesses and a taxpayer sponsored public safety net like social security, unemployment, women's right to vote or own property, a safe work environment, the right to organize and strike, and imposing child labor laws, a standardized 40 hour work week. Although we take these for granted, all of these were actually once considered "socialist" by business leaders who aggressively campaigned against them.   

Since the 1950's, union membership has declined from 35% of the overall workforce in 1954 to 10% in 2024 as many of issues unions campaigned for became federal law and more states (especially in the South) adopted "Right to Work" laws as 25% of  Americans households live paycheck to paycheck (that figure is 29% for low income families) and 31% have no savings set aside for emergencies.44% can't cover a $1000 emergency. The two groups most affected were Millennials and GenZ at 34% each.  Employers  cut or eliminated benefits due to either rising costs or to improve profits margins while good paying jobs were sent overseas. As an aside, did you know that the United States is the only industrial nation without a dedicated Labor Party? 

We all know our Republic is all but a shell of its former self; an illusion. Most academics agree that we've become a Corporatocracy (a neo-fascist blending of state and big business), led by an elite group of very wealthy individuals and corporations. Some call them an oligarchy while others refer to them as a kleptocracy or plutocracy.  To the 99% on the bottom, it's all semantics. The top 10% control about 67% of household wealth in the United States. The top 1% of that control roughly 30%. 

The real question is what do you see? The strong vibrant America of your youth or an America becoming controlled more and more by an all powerful centralized state as it acquires private property and all manner of businesses, including banks, brokerages firms, the media, oil companies, and the collapse of Wall Street? If so, that could be Communism.

If you see an increase in government regulation or nationalization of key strategic businesses, an expanding social safety net, growing unions, worker co-ops, and more public input, then maybe you're seeing democratic socialism.

Perhaps you see a growing unregulated corporate control over government; a revolving door between government officials and big business; distrust of the media, faith in elections; a weakening public impact on government, and the growth of a surveillance state, that could be neo Fascist Corporatocracy. As for me, I see an America in serious trouble and in desperate need of patriots.

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 . 

As Union membership has fallen, the top 10% have beengetting a larger share of income

Labor Unions in the United States

Corporatocracy

Wealth inequality in the United States

Bankrate's 2025 Annual Emergency Savings Report

Nearly a quarter of U.S. households live paycheck to paycheck, report finds

Can We Restore Our Republic?

 

The Ancient Romans had an expression which said that “time was fleeting’. The "Eternal Empire" as Rome was called existed little more than the proverbial blink of an eye in retrospect despite lasting well over a thousand years. One thing for sure is that time is fluid. It has a nasty habit of becoming the past before we've had the opportunity to reflect on its present. 

Perhaps America's fate will be similar to Ancient Rome's. It too was ruled by two powerful political blocs --- the Optimates and the Populates --- which were the approximate equivalent of the Republicans and Democrats respectively, and in turn were dominated by Rome's powerful and wealthy elites. But, after 482 years, the Republic fell and Rome became a dictatorship although the facade of a Republic was allowed to continue for a few more decades. 

What happened to Rome (and indeed, to most of History's republics) was not so much the result of an external threat, although that also happened, be it in the form of "illegal migration" or the near perpetual wars Rome fought throughout its history. Rome's fatal weakness , however, was internal. It was the corruption, greed, arrogance and incompetence of its ruling class, which by definition, shouldn't have existed in a Republic had it functioned properly as ours once did. 

It was partly the diversion of resources to serve the needs of the wealthy rather than the poor. It was the undermining of Rome's middle class, the backbone of the Republic, through over taxation. It was Rome's slowly decaying infrastructure as its attention focused on putting out fires throughout the edges of its empire. Even Rome's social safety net became too great of a burden. Rome also suffered under the weight of slavery while we bear the weight of a different form of slavery --- economic debt. 

Eventually, even the old maxim attributed to the poet Juvenal about keeping the populace occupied with "bread and circuses" to avoid civil revolt could no longer hold the empire together (Emperor Trajan exiled Juvenal for his comment. Apparently speaking truth to power was just as dangerous then as now). The idea was to keep the masses fed and pre-occupied in order to maintain power. 

Of course, our modern equivalent of "bread and circuses" being entertainment (includes sports, video games, movies, the internet, etc.) and consumerism with just enough media propaganda to keep the masses frustrated and confused. We’ve been transformed from citizens into consumers whose “loyalties” are to products. 

For the average Roman, there was no sudden "thud" as the Republic collapsed. The fall of nations are rarely sudden or dramatic except in time of war or some unexpected economic implosion (unexpected to all but those paying attention). The fall is typically gradual with growing peaks and valleys. Roads or bridges aren't repaired timely, or the repairs are of inferior quality. 

The quality of education becomes worse. In place of innovation, a mentality of "good enough" develops. Goods seem often shoddy quality. Crime is increasingly out of control. Taxes seem to spiral ever upward but with less and less to show for it. The last thing to be affected, however, is almost always the military. Even when Soviet Russia imploded, its military remained strong to the last. 

Ironically, the last to experience the collapse are those at the top. They're so insulated from reality they have little concept of the seismic political shift occurring under their feet. They believe that the same old platitudes and appeasements will keep working (ie: "let them eat cake") and allow them weather out the storms. They construct structures to protect them and to keep power in their hands while we’re left feigning for ourselves. 

America is no longer a Republic. Like ancient Rome, the myth is still being perpetuated by the elites to keep the masses pacified. They believe that if the illusion is allowed to continued, they can hang onto power (and wealth) a little longer. They know intuitively that at some point the masses will wake up to the scam being played out under their noses, but hope they'll be long gone or fully insulated by then. 

Unlike Rome which, after a series of social upheavals, transformed from a Republic into a militaristic dictatorship under a single powerful leader, America has turned into an Oligarchy pretty peacefully. But to be more specific, we've become a Corporatocracy, which I suspect is a term that some of you have never heard of before (unless you’re regular readers of A/O). 

A Corporatocracy is quite simply a form of government controlled by either corporations or corporate interests, which, in turn, is a type of plutocracy or rule by the wealthy. Who in their right mind can deny that Washington, as well as every state capitol or local city hall isn't dominate by a wealthy few? Money buys power. Power makes money. 

Washington has near 15,000 lobbyists representing corporate interests. These lobbyists provide the money (and perks) needed to make elections happen. They ensure that those who cooperate remain in office and those who don't are defeated. These same lobbyists "help" write legislation either directly or through so-called experts they retain. In a nutshell we actually have are two political cliques who are beholden to competing corporate interests (think of it as Coke vs Pepsi arrangement but cooperate to keep out any competitors). 

Under a Corporatocracy, which literally owns both parties, political outsiders such as third parties or Independents (who, by the way, are the country's largest political bloc) are keep out of any debates and off ballots whenever possible. They also use the media, which they own, to degrade, humiliate, or simply ignore any challenger. Thus, voters are virtually forced to pick between one of two pre-determined and pre-approved choices. 

The goal of a Corporatocracy is to remove any and all barriers which interfere with corporate profits. Through their control of government which includes not just those selected (err, I mean "elected") but also the governmental bureaucracy itself via appointments and the judicial system to provide the appearance of legitimacy. They  use "think tanks" to direct domestic and foreign policy and the media to manipulate public opinion. 

Domestically, the only acceptable form of chaos is the one which is managed. Take for example what's currently happening here in States. In addition to the COVID virus, we're witnessing BLM and Antifa running amuck. We're subtly being encouraged to be "afraid". 

The COVID virus was sold as some amorphous death cloud lingering around the next corner while neo-Marxist BLM and Antifa anarchists are planning to impose Communism (or worse, “socialism”) on unsuspecting Americans. Meanwhile, Trump and his supporters are nothing more than better dressed versions of Nazis and Fascist! 

The truth of matter is that both BLM and Antifa has used high profile incidents which should never have happened and turned them into political events. It's also true that BLM has a strong racist bent to it and Antifa behaves more like the old Nazi "Brownshirts" they allegedly opposed (as an aside, the Communists of that era had their own group of thugs known as the "Red Front". They fought the Brownshirts blow for blow). 

Social order is a precondition for capitalism and democracy to function properly, and that includes Corporate capitalism. Normally, the type of chaos we experienced from Antifa and BLM would have the ruling class quaking in their Gucci's, but it's not and I'll tell you why. 

First, there will be no "socialism" or "Communism" takeover despite what political front groups tell us on social media. Neither are conducive to the neo-fascist environment that a Corporatocracy needs to operate in. Both Communism and socialism require total government ownership of everything, and that ain't gonna happen. 

The elites will never willingly surrender their wealth or control over government and the economy, but they will use the fear of these political system as a bogeymen to scare the people into demanding that the government "do something" to protect them. Historically, people have always been willing to sacrifice freedom for security. 

In 1933, it was the Reichstag fire which Hitler used to push through the "Enabling Act" which ultimately gave him near absolute power in Germany. But before that it took a volatile economy, a political climate where the use of scapegoats were plausible, a series of assassinations, a high crime rate, mounting external threats and finally the fire itself to make the Enabling Act possible (not to mention the subsequent trial of three Bulgarian communists and a 24 year old Jewish Dutch Communist willing to admit to setting the fire to bring it to a head). They each played their part of (to borrow from Lenin) "useful idiots" just as BLM , Antifa, and their supporters are now playing their part. 

America is being transformed. There is absolutely no doubt about it. That transformation is as profound as Rome's was from a Republic to a militaristic dictatorship. There will be no socialism or Communism in our future nor a return of our cherish democratic and Constitutional Republic, at least not in the near term, and not as long as the Oligarchy remains in power. Our best hope is to demand changes which transfers the balance of power back to the people. 

How? I talking about term limits; a level political playing field that allows all parties and individuals the same ballot access and inclusion in debates; ending Citizens United and taking unlimited corporate money out of politics; ending corporate participation in writing legislation; allowing nationwide voter referendums; ranked choice voting; equal ballot access; mandating the former government officials not be allowed to engage in lobbying directly or indirectly for a minimum of ten years after they leave office; voter approval for tax, fee, rate, or salary increases of elected officials. 

Lastly, require that all elected officials resign from whatever party they're a member of once they are sworn in. The only loyalty should be to the people they were elected to represent. Only then can we restore America back to the People.

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

Corporatocracy


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


Lobbying Data Summary


The 20 companies and groups that spent the most money to influence lawmakers

 

 

The Case of the Vanishing Republic: The Morphing of America’s Democracy

 

It seems that the Right is perpetually speaking about Democrats leading us down the road to socialism's perdition. With Donald Trump in office, the Democrats and those on the Left kept comparing "The Donald"  with Hitler and Republicans with fascists (hence the thinly vailed “No King” protests). It seems that neither side is familiar with history.

First off, there's no way those in power on the Left or Right would allow this country to become "socialist", Communist or anything else that requires them to surrender their wealth or power to the State. Secondly, the two party system is a farce. Wall Street owns both parties and they make no secret of it. What we see on a daily basis is political “kabuki” theater.  

The only real difference between the two parties is the two competing corporate cliques. Citizens United has ensured corporate control of the political system. It has put political reform all but out of reach of the average American. Corporate lobbyists write the laws, leaving voters with the illusion of choice. 

As for fascism, it was (and remains) a partnership of sorts between the government and Big Business. In the past, the latter assumed a junior role, but nowadays, we all know Wall Street wouldn’t go for that.  

Actual socialism, which remains an abstract idea since it has never actually been implemented, means that the people essentially own everything. Under actual socialism  political power and the control of wealth would be in the hands of the working class. Businesses would be typically employee owned and run while others, particularly essential businesses, would be controlled or heavily regulated by the State.

Nevertheless, I don't see Wall Street or their K Street lobbyists allowing anything like that to happen do you? Certainly not after the "Citizens United" or "McCutcheon's" decisions by the Supreme Court which gave them carte blanche to the halls of power and the public trough! 

What passes for "socialism" today is an admixture of capitalism, democracy, and a welfare state comprised of social programs  under the heading of "Democratic Socialism", which is common in Scandinavia and places like Germany and Netherlands. Think of it as "capitalism with a friendly face".  Of course, that hasn’t kept some authoritarian states from usurping the term. It’s like North Korea calling itself the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”.

Nevertheless, despite high taxes (especially on the wealthy and corporations), the democratic socialist form of government have proven to be quite popular with the masses, with practically everything being subsidized. However, it requires everyone to pitch in and contribute back into the system. But when you have a mass of people who draw on the system without contributing to it, it fails, which is what seems to be happening in Scandinavia and other parts of Europe.  

Under Communism, which is often---though incorrectly--- used interchangeably with socialism, there are again no privately own properties, businesses or corporations. The State owns everything. Everyone works for the State. The State is everything. Do you see corporations like Google, Lockheed Martin, Exxon or people like Zuckerman, Musk, Bezos, or Buffett  surrendering their power and wealth to Washington? So, what is America is morphing into? The answer is a Corporatocracy, which is a de facto form of neo-fascism.

Fascism is, as its founder Benito Mussolini said, was more accurately described as "corporatism". Specifically, Mussolini said "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power". Novelist Upton Sinclair called fascism "capitalism plus murder" while Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin referred to fascism as "capitalism in decay".

Politically speaking, fascism isn’t stagnant. It borrows some of its goals and techniques from the Left and some from the conservative Right, including militarism. It grafts various national traditions and values to its cause as needed and jettisons whatever is no longer of use.  Corporatism is, if nothing else, adaptable. It's objective, however, is always corporate control plain and simple. The role of government is to serve as the lesser partner and "middleman" between the "elites" and masses. It's objective is to serve the rich.

Under a Corporatocracy, there is little to no strong middle class; certainly not in the way we're used to. There's the insanely rich and then there's everybody else. There is a two tier justice system. One for us and another for the elites. Sound familiar? Can you see the one percenters giving up their money; their penthouses; their private planes and yachts if we were truly becoming “socialist”?  

As an aside, some less informed individuals and groups (and few who should know better) want to convince you that Nazism was a Leftwing “socialist” movement because they used the term “socialist” in their name. Hitler’s definition of the term was that of a community of likeminded Germanic people (aka “Volk”) with a shared culture, values, and heritage. Also, unlike communism or socialism, it was strictly nationalistic, not international.

Consider this too, while unions exist in a Corporatocracy, they are weak and fairly ineffective. A far cry from the unions of old. Their primary purpose is to keep the masses in their place---on the job and off the strike line---while generally backing the decisions of the corporate bosses.  They serve the interests of the corporation, even if it means cutting benefits, pensions, and hours.  

So, in reality, we are morphing into something akin to a neo-fascist corporate State where we see the top 10% owning 52% of all wealth. The ultimate goal is to diminish the autonomy of the individual, as well as our economic and political power, while increasing our dependence on the State, which in turn, is controlled by Wallstreet and the corporate elite. 

In short, we're to become economic serfs with the government serving as our overseer and corporations as our masters. Of course, the "big prize" is the creation of a single interlocking global corporation with a single government. A digital ID will serve as our chains. That means creating and using global organizations to serve as the intermediaries on global projects and national one's on more regional projects with the legacy media selling a siren’s song.  

Under corporatocracy we can expect national governments become ever more pervasive in their role of overseer while local and state governments become weaker and more dependent on the federal government.  This role also enables corporations an ever growing access to taxpayer money to acquire resources domestically and globally while at the same time shielding their intentions behind the illusion of a sovereign government.  

They can also use the national government take other actions on their behalf, like wars, trade agreements, or treaties, to enhance their wealth and power on the taxpayer's dollar.  In further defining corporatism, its founder, Benito Mussolini said, “Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity, quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace.”. In short, war and the threat of war is good for business.

Il Duce was also talked about was the concept (novel for his time) of what we're now experiencing, that of perpetual war---like the "war on terrorism"---to maintain control over the population and the exploitation of resources by corporations, be they natural resources or national resources for the sake of the bottom line. It artificially stimulates the economy, masks actual unemployment numbers, and allows for near unlimited deficit spending. Sound familiar? We get crumbs and they call it a “victory”.

As an aside, what did Mussolini think of socialism? After all, his father, Alessandro,  was a prominent Italian socialist and Benito started off his political career as a socialist. This was his opinion, "Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail".

So, when someone starts complaining about America becoming "socialist" or "Communist", remember that famous line from movie "The Princess Bride" as uttered by the swordsman Inigo Montoya (played brilliantly by Mandy Patinkin), "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means".  

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

 

Eight Billionaires Own asMuch as the Poorest Half of Global Population

 

The Rich 1% Own Almost Half the World's Wealth & 9 Other Mind Blowing Facts About Wealth Inequality

 

Freedom and Democracy: How Do They Stack Up Globally?

We’ve all heard that America is the home of democracy. The land of free and home of the brave. We hear it every time our National Anthem is sung. There’s few things which make us feel more secure and proud than watching Old Glory gently blowing in the breeze on a sunny day or watching a military parade rolls down the street. While there’s no questioning our military strength or the dedication of our men and women in uniform, have you ever wondered just how free we really are?

America was founded on the concept of individual freedom. We took on the world’s greatest superpower of the time over freedom and the notion of issues like taxation without proper representation, and yet here we are, some 250 years, and our Founding Fathers wouldn’t recognize the nation they fought to hard to create.

Most of our freedoms, even the most basic ones likes speech, expression, or right to bear arms are challenged on a daily basis And what about taxation without representation, the core reason we fought the British? How often do you get to vote on a tax or rate increase? Many of these are decided by some appointed committee, not by anyone you voted for. Some have built-in increases that don’t even require public debate.

 Partisan political primaries are taxpayer funded by state legislation. But what if you don’t belong to one of the two corporate owned and controlled political parties? Well, too bad.  Independents, who are the nation’s largest political bloc, and people who’ve joined a third party for whatever reason, are still required to pay for the Democratic and Republican primaries, and it gets worse.

While they are involuntarily taxed, they are legally prohibited from participating in their primaries (as an aside third party primaries are strictly self-funded. No taxpayer support)  Fair? No. Legal? Questionable. Democratic? Hardly. In keeping with the founding tradition of “no taxation without representation”? Hell no! So, I can almost hear you ask “well, if you don’t like it, why don’t you just vote them out?”. That’s a great question. Very logical, but the answer is, sadly, not quite so clear cut.

The reason is that both parties, in the spirit of bipartisanship (some might call it “collusion”) have made it nearly impossible for them to be voted out of office. Briefly, the 2010 Citizens United and the 2014 McCutcheon rulings, declared that corporations, which are actually artificial legal fictions, are now “people” with the same rights as ordinary flesh and blood humans, with one key exception, and that concerns “free speech”.

According to the (un)Supreme Court, declared that money is now the same as “free speech”.  And while we are free to voice our opinions via donations to political campaigns, we are capped in what we can give. Corporations, on the other hand, are not. Apparently they have more “free speech” than you or me, and that means more influence.  They can give essentially as much as they want (not that we have a spare $10 million laying around to give to some candidate). As a result, they finance not just campaigns and political parties but also fund so-called “leadership funds” (which are basically political “slush funds”), and through various legal loopholes run commercials and ads on behalf of a candidate or issue supported by that candidate. Independents and third parties typically don’t get a dime.

Through state legislation, unequal ballot access is the norm. That means there are one set of rules and requirements for Independents and third parties and another set for the two corporate owned parties. They don’t even have their own election representative to protect their interests! As a rule, they are lumped in with whichever party has the smallest voter numbers and forgotten.

Other issues, such a partisan gerrymandering all but guarantees control of a district by the majority party. It allows districts to be drawn to ensure they retain control of it. It’s a case of a party choosing the voters instead of voters choosing their representatives. This is why gerrymandered districts have reelection rates in the high 90% range.

Also, despite approval ratings in the upper 20% or low 30% range (and occasionally as low as 9%), Congress has a reelection rate of 97%. Do you think that’s by coincidence?  Corporate lobbyists help write (or write altogether) legislation as well as review bills, provide summaries, and so forth. Do you think any of this is for our benefit? Don’t bet on it.  So, I will again ask you, do you think we are free? How do compare with the rest of the world?

According to the 2024 “Freedom Index”, published by the CATO Institute, the freest country in the world in terms of personal and economic freedom, is Switzerland, followed by New Zealand and Denmark. The next three are Luxembourg, Ireland, and Finland. Seventh place is a three way tie between Australia, Iceland, and Sweden. Then comes Estonia, Canada, and Japan. Rounding out the top 15 economically and personally freest nations are Norway, Germany, and the Czech Republic.

Did you notice anything particular here? Who is missing? That’s right, the United States. We are not only not in the top five, we’re not in the top ten or even the top 15! What the hell? If we’re supposed to be the “home of the free”, why is nobody at home? Where are we?

Before getting to the U.S., I’d like to mention that according to the Freedom Index, of the top 15 freest country, the index points out that 13 of those 15 countries have seen a decline in their ratings. Just two saw improvements. The nation which has seen the greatest loss of personal and economic freedom was the Czech Republic with Finland and Canada close behind. Only Japan and Denmark have both experienced slight improvements at 0.07 and 0.02 respectively in personal and economic freedom.

As for the United States, we ranked 17^th of the 165 countries on the Freedom Index. For the record, Mexico was 94^th overall. India was 110^th. Russia was 139^th. Taiwan was 19^th. Brazil was 70^th, South Korea was 32^nd, and China was 150^th. The freest regions were North America, Western Europe, and Oceania. The least freest was the Middle East, Northern and Sub Saharan Africa, and South Asia. In terms of freedom for women, the top regions were North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. The worst areas for women were the Middle East, Northern and Sub Saharan  Africa, and South Asia.

When it comes to democracy, representative governments, political participation, civil liberties, and electoral pluralism, we need to turn to the Democracy Index compiled by the Economic Intelligence Unit of The Economist publication. They looked at various factors, such as to those just mentioned,  to determine just how effective the political system is in a given country. Countries were ranked as “Full Democracies” (10.00 – 8.99), “Flawed Democracies” (7.99 – 6.99), “Mixed” (5.99 – 4.99) and “Authoritarian” (3.99 - .99).

The chart rates each of the 165 countries surveyed on a scale of 0 to 10 with zero being the most authoritarian and ten being the most democratic. At the top of the list are Norway (9.81), New Zealand (9.61), Sweden (9.39), Iceland (9.38). and Switzerland (9.32) rounding out the top five democratic countries in the world.

These were followed by Finland (9.3), Ireland (9.19), Netherlands (9.0), Luxembourg (8.98), and Australia (8.85) finishing the top ten. Honorable mention goes to Taiwan (8.78), Germany (8.73), Canada (8.69), and finally Uruguay (8.67).  

As for the United States, we are ranked 28^th of the 165 surveyed with a democracy rating 7.85. Again, not a real good selling point as the “home of the free”. In fact, the U.S. is actually listed as a “flawed democracy” and may be teetering on becoming a failing democracy.  Some of the main reasons for why are mentioned at the beginning of this article.

In fact, countries like Costa Rica (8.29), Mauritius (8.23), Estonia (8.13), and Malta (7.93) are more democratic than the United States. As if that’s not bad enough, we barely beat out Chile (7.83) and Slovenia (7.82). That’s not good people. Of course, there’s nothing wrong or negative about these countries. In fact, good on them for doing a great job representing their people. However, the United States can and should be doing a much better job serving the people and not on Wall Street executives.

Out of curiosity, I wanted to know what the least democratic nations on the planet were so that I could go ahead and mark them off any future itineraries should the occasion arise. Liberia was 5.57. Mexico was 5.32.  Palestine (West Bank) has a rating of 3.44, while Nepal was 4.6 (so much for Buddhist enlightenment). The North African nations of Morocco,  Tunisia, and Algeria  were 4.97, 4.71, and 3.55 respectively. Egypt was 2.79. The Democratic Republic of the Congo was 1.78, making it sound neither democratic or a republic.  

Saudi Arabia, a Sunni monarchy, was only 2.08. Yemen, home of the Houthi which keeps attacking Israel amid its claims of Israeli brutality in Gaza, has a 1.95 on the Democracy Index. Syria, which is still dealing with a civil war, was 1.32. Iran, an Islamic theocracy, was 1.96. Iraq was only a little better at 2.8. Jordan, another Sunni kingdom, was 3.28. Kuwait, also a Sunni monarchy, where we fought a war to liberate Kuwaiti oil under the guise of “restoring democracy”, has democracy rating of 2.78. South Africa was 7.16 and India was 7.29.

 Turkey, whose government is secular despite a 98% majority Muslim population, was a notable 4.6. The highest rated nation in the region was, not unexpectedly, Israel, the only parliamentarian democracy in the region. It’s democracy rating was 7.8 (remember, America’s was just 7.85). Russia was 2.03 while China was 2.11. Ukraine was 4.9 and Belarus was 1.99.  However, the worst places to be if you’re looking a democratic government were the Central African Republic (1.18), North Korea (1.08), Myanmar (0.96) and Afghanistan (0.25).

Finally, in terms of regions, Africa was 3.92 overall. Asia was 4.06. North America was 5.64. South America was 6.01. Europe was 7.41 and Oceania was rated 7.46. The Middle East as a region wasn’t specifically mentioned, but averaging the numbers would be approximately 2.11 (excluding Israel) on the Democracy Index.

Additionally, did you know that there are only 25 “full democracies” in the world today? There are 46 “flawed democracies” (of which the U.S. is one), 36 so-called “hybrid” governments or that global democracy had been declining for 19 years straight?  Just 20% of the world lives in a “free country”. 42% live in a “partly free” nation, and 38% live under some form of authoritarianism, all according to the Freedom House.

It’s bears mentioning that most of the nations facing the worse influx from migration from countries with little or no tradition of freedom or democratic governments are the ones highest on both the Freedom Index and the Democracy Index lists. This begs the question of what happens when a country or region with a history of personal liberty and economic freedom is overrun by peoples with a history and culture based on oppression?

Well, historically speaking, the latter will almost always win out unless the former has the will to either enforce assimilation through regulation and legislation or expels the latte by whatever means necessary. If you’re looking to create a society of compliance and blind obedience, then you do exactly what the West is doing now. There is no middle ground.

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

Human Freedom Index

Democracy Index

Freedom House: Marking 50 Years in the Struggle ForDemocracy

The Secret “Theory of Stupidity” and How It Still Applies 80 Years Later

Recently I came across a short (about six minutes) video which I think helps to explains this rather unique predicament. The video was published by “Sprouts”, which provides short videos covering a wide range of topics such as philosophy, politics, psychology, and so forth. Sprouts is also open source, meaning that it’s free for anyone to use (provided they’re properly cited), including for work, school, or business (I know some of my former bosses would have greatly benefited from a few of these).

This particular video is entitled “The Theory of Stupidity”, which was written by the German Lutheran Pastor, Dietrich Bonhoeffer in March/April 1945 while sitting in a Nazi prison awaiting execution (he was hanged shortly after finishing his paper, just two weeks before the camp was liberated by American troops).

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was born on February 4,1906 in Breslau, Silesia, Germany  (aka Prussia which is now a part of Poland). He was born into a rather large upper middle class family (he had seven brothers and sisters, including a twin sister, Sabine). His father, Dr. Karl Bonhoeffer, was a  neurologist and psychiatrist as well as a noted critic of Sigmund Freud. His mother, Paula, was a school teacher and the granddaughter of Protestant theologian Karl von Hase and the landscape painter, Stanislav von Kalckreuth.  

Like Martin Luther, the principal founder of the Protestant Reformation, Dietrich had originally intended on attending law school as his brother Klaus had done but ended up majoring in theology. He studied at the University of Tubingen before transferring to the University of Berlin where he graduated summa cum laude. He went on to graduate with a Doctorate in Theology from Humboldt University of Berlin at the ripe old age of 21.

From birth until 1933, Bonhoeffer belonged to the Evangelical Church of the Old Prussian Union (also called the Prussian Union of Churches, a decree by King Frederick William III of Prussia to unite the Lutheran and Reform churches), which still exists in Germany today. In 1933, that all changed and Bonhoeffer decided to leave.

In 1933, the Nazis came to power. Almost immediately, they began integrating themselves into every aspect of society, including religion. Under the Nazis, they set out to purge the Christian religion of its Jewish roots with the introduction of what they termed “Positive Christianity” under the name of the German Evangelical Church which was known by several other names such as the “Protestant Reich Church” and more commonly, the “Reich Church”.   

How, in a society which produced some of the greatest theological and philosophical minds in the world, with individuals like Luther, Mann,  Arndt, Hegel, Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche, could this happen? Beginning in the late 1920’s, the post-Putsch Nazi party slowly began united the various conservative political parties, groups, and media. Among these was a special interest group within the Evangelical Church who self-identified as the “German Christians” which was ultimately led by Dr. Ludwig Muller.

These individuals were extremely socially conservative, very devout, pro-military, and held to a Pan-German ideology.  They were also anti-Semitic. In addition, they didn’t care much for Roma gypsies, gays, Slavs, Negros, mixed marriages, and the “degenerate” society of the Weimar Republic in general.

They didn’t have much use for other religions too like the Quakers, Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Baptists, or Mormons.  Like most other Germans, they opposed the Versailles Treaty and the notion of reparations. Lastly, they tended to be well connected.  Perfect fodder for the Nazis and their ilk.

The collapse of the German economy post-WWI with its hyperinflation and high unemployment, the social unrest triggered mainly by the Communists and others on the Far Left just made things worse (in November 1923, because of hyperinflation, 42 billion marks was worth exactly one U.S. penny). Overwhelmingly, Germans were really for a serious change. It was a time to return to a strong Germany. No more government corruption. No more high taxes.  No more social welfare, and no more crime.

Post WWI, Germany was plagued by violence (especially drugs and alcohol related). Nowhere was safe. As an aside, the Nazis were never pro-gun control although the Democratic Socialists who dominated Weimar government were.  The influx of “foreigners”  (mostly from the eastern portion of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, needed to end. Meanwhile the media spread propaganda (often funded by wealthy industrialists and special interests groups).

It was time to restore discipline and academic competence in schools and Germany’s status as a world leader in higher education. In short, it was time to restore traditional German family values of “Kinder, Kuche, Kirche” (Children, Kitchen, and Church).

This then were the core of the German Christians who would made up the Reich Church which would become the semi-official church of the Nazi Protestants (much has already been written about the Catholic Church, who relationship ran from appeasement to pro-Fascist and outright cooperation). This was the church Bonhoeffer left.

Starting in 1933 until the end of his life on April 4, 1945, standing on a Nazi scaffold at the Flossenbürg Concentration Camp, Bonhoeffer would be an outspoken leader of the Confessing Church which he helped to found along with other leading pastors such as fellow Lutheran ministers, Martin Niemoller, author of “First They Came…”.

For those who’ve never heard of the Flossenbürg Concentration Camp, it was located in Bavaria and began operations in 1938. It housed primarily political prisoners, criminals, aristocrats, and Jews of course. Approximately 100,000 unfortunate individuals passed through its gates, of which around 30,000 died, mostly of starvation, disease, and physical exhaustion. Prisoners were engaged in building various projects such as roads, bridges, buildings, and so forth. Later they were used in the production of Messerschmitt BF 109 fighter planes. The camp was liberated on April 23, 1945 by the U.S. Army.

To put things into further perspective, it’s worth mentioning that as of 1933, there were 65 million Germans. Of those, 45 million were Protestants. The majority were Reform and Lutheran. They  were served by approximately 18,000 ministers (not including lay ministers). Of these, about 3000 ministers adhered to the Reich Church while a near equal number were aligned with the Confessing Church (also known as the “Free Church”).

That left the majority of Protestant ministers, some 12,000, trying to avoid “taking sides” between the Nazis and those who opposed Fascism. I wonder how they tried to justify that position later on in life…and afterwards. From 1935 until the end of the war, some 700 pastors were arrested, including Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

What landed Bonhoeffer in the Flossenbürg Concentration Camp was his willingness to speak out (he was also accused of taking part in or know about the “20 July Plot” to assassinate Hitler in 1944 at his Wolfsschanze or “Wolf’s Lair” headquarters in Poland). He saw what was happening around him and decided that he must do something. So, he spoke out whenever he could. He wrote pamphlets, and he actively took part in numerous protests (while it was still possible). He openly discouraged his friends, family, parishioners, and students from attending Nazi events or from joining Nazis organizations (especially the Hitler Youth aka “HJ” or the BDM for young girls), which, at the time, was illegal.  

Bonhoeffer opposed the anti-authoritarianism of Fascism and its efforts to stifle democracy. While he (along with most Germans) supported reclaiming land lost at the end of the First World War and the penalties imposed by the Versailles Treaty, he opposed the invasion of Poland and the war which followed. Bonhoeffer was willing to step outside the bubble and challenge the Status Quo. Very few people are, then or now.

It should be mentioned that although Germany wasn’t at fault for starting WWI, the treaty forced it to accept the blame. It was stripped of all its colonies as well as its industrial heart, the Ruhr Valley, which included 48% of its iron ore and 10% of its coal, and 15% of its agricultural base. In total, Germany lost 13% of its territory in Europe (about 27,000 square miles) and about 12% of its total population (roughly 7 million citizens), in addition to paying reparations amounting to 132 billion gold marks or about $500 billion dollars in today’s money (it would have taken Germany 91 years to pay off).  

Ultimately, it wasn’t just the Nazis or the power of the state which resulted in the death of Bonhoeffer and others like him. It was the all-encompassing power of conformity. It was the systematic suffocation of independent thought. Critical thinking wasn’t just discouraged, it became heresy. People became willingly trapped in a bubble where they actively opposed  (and attacked) anything and everything which challenged their worldview. No one was entitled to any opinion which was counter to the Status Quo. Acceptance was seen as patriotism. This was “group think” writ large.

It was while awaiting his execution that Bonhoeffer wrote about this. He called it his “Theory of Stupidity”, but it was so much more than that. It was a firsthand account of human psychology and whether we have the moral courage to speak out against what we know to be wrong when others support it. History has shown that most of us don’t. We quietly go along. We won’t check our sources. We don’t go outside of our comfort zone.

The ”Theory of Stupidity”, despite its name, wasn’t intended to demean anyone. It was a message and warning from someone facing his imminent death who experienced the banality of evil and what happens to those, even the most intelligent among us, when we refuse to think for ourselves.

The video below is just under six minutes (I’ve included a slightly longer version at 20:35 minutes if you want to see how deep the rabbit hole really goes and how it applies to us today). I urge you to check either video out and see whether it resonates with you.

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

Bonhoeffer’s Theory of Stupidity (5:58)

The Terrifying Theory of Stupidity You Were Never Meant toHear---Dietrich Bonhoeffer (20:35)

 

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

German Evangelical Church

Positive Christianity

Confessing Church

Martin Niemoller

Territorial evolution of Germany

Ludwig Muller

 

The Role of German Clergy and Church Leaders

The Brutal Execution of Dietrich Bonhoeffer---Resisting theNazis

Flossenbürg Concentration Camp