How the American Voters Have Become Political Orphans

You don’t need a crystal ball to tell you that America is more divided than at any time in its history. More so than the decade leading up to the American Revolution. More than the decade preceding the Civil War. More than during Great Depression or the turbulent 1960's.

In fact, the division today may be so deep and the gulf so wide that it may never be bridged. We have become a nation of diverging ideals.  The recent elections (such as in New York City and Virginia as well as events in places like Dearborn Michigan) have served only to highlight our division. What have we've become?

One ideal our nation was founded on was the belief in a small or limited federal government. Low taxes, a level economic playing field, and government out of our private lives. However, now there are those who believed that government should be our primary source of our social and economic salvation. While our Founders believed that one succeeds or fails by their own efforts, we have those who think that government and by extension, society, “owes” for them simply for existing.

There are those who believe in entitlements, where all aren't just equal in the government's eyes, but some are more equal than others and should be given special consideration for some historical slight or another. Another group believe success comes from a good education and hard work, be it white collar, blue collar, pink collar or any other collar; that teachers are there to impart the skills one needs to succeed in society.

Meanwhile, others believe in downgrading the quality of education so that everyone "succeeds" or is a “winner”. As a result, society has to become a mediocrity. Meritocracy, where people are hired based on their skill and compatibility, is proclaimed “unfair” or “racist”. Successful people somehow "owe" those less successful because they spent their time skipping school or goofing off or thought that playing sports  was more important than studying English, math, science, or history; that they are owed a job just in the name of diversity or equity instead of knowledge or ability.

Our Founding Fathers envisioned a nation of "Yeoman farmers" and local merchants. We're a long way from that. They believed in the right to petition their elected representatives meant the right to question them, and if necessary, to recall them. They believed in transparency in government. They believed that no matter how well intended, government had no business in our private affairs. Individual privacy was essential as was freedom of speech, press, and association. With just five corporations controlling 96% of everything we watch, hear, or read, including the news, we no longer have those freedoms. We have a propaganda machine.

They believed America should look after America first and no “foreign entanglements”. Indeed, our Founders were ardent nationalists. They truly believed in "America First". They believed in the right to own arms. Not just for hunting or self-defense, but because recent events had proven to them that their mistrust government was justified. They understood that power, once obtained, is seldom willingly given up. They also knew, long before Lord Acton famously said it, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupted absolutely.

An armed citizenry was much harder to intimidate than an unarmed one (just look at England now). Most importantly, they believed in a small federal government with little taxation power because they knew they the way to destroy freedom can come from just as easily from the ability to tax as it can from the barrel of gun. Power should rest primarily in the hands of the States. Local control was the best control.

Most of our Founders opposed the creation of political parties as “cliques” who would, in time, seized power from ordinary citizens and use it to push their own agenda. They would be horrified by the control Big Business has over government.

Forty-three percent of registered voters now identify as Independent, and that doesn’t include members of third parties like the Libertarians or the Greens. That makes them the largest political bloc in the country. That also means that both of the two corporate owned parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, are in fact minority political parties. That also means that the majority of Americans are sick and tired of being sick and tired of the petty partisan bickering pushing their own agendas without public input or approval.

Our Founders also supported the concept of the “citizen legislator”, where a citizens would serve one or two terms in office and then return home and allow another citizen to do the same; a form of term limits. In this way, legislation would also stay relevant and reduce the chances of corruption.

What that absolutely disapproved of was notion of a “professional” politician, which was seen as little better than leach living off their fellow citizens. As an aside, these “citizen legislators” were only to be reimbursed for out of pocket expenses and not given a salary. Serving in government was seen as the civil duty of each citizen.

Personally, I believe that once a newly elected politician raises their hand to take the oath of office, they automatically end any political allegiance. They aren’t there to represent the agenda of some political  party or corporate clique. They are there to solely represent the American People and those of their district. Nothing more and nothing less.

We elect individuals to go to Washington, to our state capitols, or to City Hall and to work together to solve problems, but all too often those problems are the result of backroom dealing making or making unnecessary laws while We the People are left dealing with the mess and picking up the tab on something we had no say in.

We constantly hear how it's always the “other side” who won't cooperate. It's more like how one corporate clique wants more of our tax dollars. Playground antics and high school bullying instead of trying finding common ground is the rule in politics today and not the exception. They play economic chicken with the welfare of the people they were elected to serve. Anything goes as long as their master---big business--- profits.

Who is the "big business"? They are the ones who bankroll both political parties and pull their strings. They are the ones you rarely see at the national conventions. They are the ones who draft the laws with loopholes so they can make more money while avoiding taxes (or better yet, passing those taxes on to us). They are the ones who walk through the revolving doors of Wall Street boardrooms into cushy government appointments and back again. They are the corporate lobbyists and Beltway insiders.

They're the new and improved global military-industrial-technological complex President Eisenhower tried to warn us about. They are the exploiters of people and resources. Their goal is nothing less that control, be it of assets, market access, natural resources, and, of course, of us.

They know no national loyalties and are restricted by national boundaries. They have turned us from self-sufficient producers and proud citizens to mere global consumers “loyal” to one toilet paper brand, detergent or another product. If you carefully watch their programming, you’ll see just how interchangeable we're made to feel. We’ve become indentured economic serfs, hostages to credit ratings, manipulative consumption, and built in obsolescence.

They are the ultimate users and corruptors. We are artificially divided as every turn. We are pitted against each other in some way, be it work, entertainment, sports, and of course, gender, race, religion, and politics. As long as we’re divided, we aren’t focused on the real villains of our collective misery.

So, what are we to do? Can we mend this manufactured divide or is it too late? Frankly, I don't know. But this I do know. The system as envisioned by our Founding Fathers no longer exist. Returning to our constitutional republican government will require more mere tweaking.

Many already recognize this. Given the dominance of Independent voters, it’s obvious that many are finally waking up. Some, however, may never. They prefer to remain blissfully naive, while others couldn't care less as long as they're getting theirs and someone else is picking up the tab.

Lady Liberty has been prostituted out by Wall Street. Our freedoms, once guaranteed, are being usurped and sold to the highest bidder.  Uncle Sam is on life support while his two incompetent physicians, the Democrat and Republican parties, have their hands on the plug as they argue over the treatment for the disease they caused. Meanwhile, you and I are soon to become orphans. The only real question my dear readers, is what will you do? One thing is for certain. Inaction is not a choice. 

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! 

11 Reasons Why the American Middle Class is Doomed


11 Graphs that Allegedly Prove That the West Is Doomed


Does the US have a bubble economy and doomed to fail?

 

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

America: A Nation of Exiles, Misfits, and Second Chances. But has it gone too far?

America. There has always been something truly unique about this country. People of all sorts have been coming here almost ever since its discovery, and they keep coming despite all our faults and failures (and there are many).  Nations, far older than us, are constantly comparing themselves to us. We’ve become the world’s yardstick for practically everything, but who are we really?

We don’t tend to think about it much, but most of those who came here to settle were misfits and exiles. They were people who didn’t fit into society any longer. They came to escape the restrictions their native country had placed on them. For many, they were locked into an economic and social caste system irrespective of their intelligence, ability, or motivation.  

Many were just one slippery step from debtor’s prison. Others had already fell victim to the harsh judicial system, often for petty crimes committed in the name of survival. The lucky one’s found themselves “transported”. This was a way to be rid of petty criminals, social deviants, and malcontents while emptying out their overcrowded prisons and relieving a marginal social safety net based largely on charity.  They were typically sent abroad as “indentured servants” to work off their sentences in places which were often difficult and dangerous (Georgia and the swamplands of South Carolina were often a key destinations).

Meanwhile, others simply wanted to chance to start life over again and a chance to show the world (and themselves) what they could do if given the opportunity, and so they came by the tens of thousands.  Many bore  the same title of “indentured servant” as the felons, though under slightly better circumstances in most cases.

These individuals were mostly young, poor, marginally educated, with very limited opportunities. Many were orphaned. They voluntarily leased themselves out for a set period of time. This usually covered their passage (typically in steerage) as well as their labor with the hopes that, in the end, they would get their chance at a new life. It was a difficult and often risky choice, with many never seeing the end of their bondage, but it was better than what awaited them if they had remained.

A surprisingly large segment of immigrants also came to avoid religious persecution. It was commonplace for each country to have an official religion, often headed by a monarch,  to which everyone was expected to participate, if not in person, then financially. It wasn’t uncommon for so-called “dissenters” to find themselves harassed by authorities, fined, imprisoned, or stripped of everything they owned in order to pay the mandatory tithes. This new country demanded none of that. There would be no state mandated religion.  It’s easy to understand why, to believers, this was seen as the “promised land”.

Not much has really changed in all those centuries since the first Europeans set foot on this continent. We still attract the world’s misfits, exiles, and those looking to start over. America is a different sort of country. It is not a nation which evolved organically over time like Europe or Asia. We came about in less than a blink of an eye in terms of history. We were created as an experiment, born out of a sense of justice, fair play, and individual sovereignty.

 In lieu of having a long history to shape our nation, ours was based a heritage of ideas stemming from the Enlightenment, Judeo-Christian morals, and the philosophies of the Near East, Ancient Greece and Rome.  Even our government was modelled on the Roman Republic. All of which is nicely summed up in our traditional national motto---"E pluribus Unum” (“Out of Many, One”) along with our official national motto, “In God We Trust”, which reflects the desire of many to come here to seeking their religious freedom.   

The Statue of Liberty, which graces the entry into New York, reminds us that we are still a nation of second chances. It’s often the first thing arriving immigrants see. The plaque at its base bears the  famous poem by Emma Lazarus entitled “The New Colossus” which speaks of America as the “Mother of Exiles”. It urges the world to “…Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breath free. The wretched refuse of teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift up my lamp beside the golden door!”

Marvelous words expressing the aim of America to welcome all those seeking to be free, but something has changed since those words were pinned in 1883. America was conceived of as a welcoming melting pot, where all would leave behind the worthless hatreds and prejudices from wherever they came. Here they would become a new people---“Americans”--- sharing a common language with a shared set of values, laws, and uniquely American traditions.

Somewhere along the way something changed. We no longer concerned ourselves with those who come here in defiance of our laws. We stopped being proud to be Americans. Today, we have some 13+ million illegals living here with millions using taxpayer based social services they never paid for. They have no interest in adopting our language, laws, traditions or values. Worse, we have politicians, cities and groups which are fine with that. What happened?

According to a U.S. government budget committee report on the costs of illegal immigrants to taxpayers dated January 11, 2024, 69% of illegal immigrants don’t have an education beyond high school (compared to 35% of Americans) which impacts their work skills and employability. Each individual cost taxpayers approximately $68,000 each over their lifetime or about $42 billion.  In addition, the children of illegal immigrates (including children born in the U.S. of parents here illegally) received roughly $68.1 billion dollars (as of 2019) in taxpayers funded services. Taxpayers also picked emergency care and other medical costs to the tune of $7 billion dollars annually.

Some hid behind the 14^th Amendment, which was intended to provide citizenship for recently freed slaves following the Civil War, in order to claim legal status, thanks “anchor babies” as noted above. More recently, others have claimed asylum status when they’re only seeking employment without applying for a work permit (employment isn’t recognized as a legitimate reason for asylum status under international law).  Still others send their children with strangers and then come seeking to be reunited with them.

Even certain religious institutions blatantly choose to ignore immigrations laws, believing that somehow they are exempt from following the law, and going as far as not just encouraging them to migrate, but providing them with shelter, housing, job contacts, and even how to manipulate the system to access taxpayer based services. Of course, these immigrants fill pews and church coffers, as well as improve their political clout.

We became fixated on the “right” of these individuals to enter our country undeterred while other nations, ever anxious to rid themselves of hungry mouths they can’t afford thanks to antiquated societal norms, openly proclaim that we had no legal right to protect and secure our border.

Somehow, our right of national sovereignty had come under attack while their sovereignty remained securely intact. Immigrants now come, not to be Americans, but to transplant their country, language, values, traditions, and all! Some intend to even transplant their religious values despite not being compatible with ours. We’re the ones expected to conform and adopt, not the immigrant. What went wrong?

Our  English language is treated as unimportant. The government now caters to “diversity” instead of promoting emersion. Immigrants view the taxpayer funded social security net as an entitlement just for being here. They regularly send money home to support their families and community, which is perfectly fine. But why do they refuse to apply for work permits and pay their fair share of taxes to the country which makes it all possible?

At about the same time, we started to see more and more people no longer identifying as Americans. They had become hyphenated Americans, be it cultural, racial, ethnic, or whatever. In addition, the very notion of “American” increasingly became as a form of slander. The “ugly American” of the 1960’s had suddenly returned home.

We were increasingly taught to be ashamed of our collective history. Entire chapters of our history have become distorted and rewritten. Critical thinking skills have been replaced, and with it, the quality of education. Discipline is now seen as a form of suppression. In colleges and universities, students aren’t expected to take responsibility for the debts they willingly incurred despite many earning majors where there is no demand in the job market.

Even the Pledge of Allegiance is no longer publicly acceptable. Neither are displays of the American flag (which is now considered a “trigger object”).  Statues and monuments deemed “offensive” by a select few are defaced, vandalized, and removed.  Individuals with criminal histories are portrayed as heroes while law enforcement is viewed with contempt.

While America has always welcomed various religions, how do we deal with a religion which wants to impose its own religious laws on society, going so far as verbal and physically attacking people, blocking sidewalks and traffic while they “pray”? They become incensed at criticism of their faith but encourage attacks on other religions. In Europe, this has proven to be a disaster as the governments continually cave to their demands while punishing the victims.  

This is all part of a new narrative being preached throughout America---the “Gospel of Political Correctness” as proclaimed by so-called “woke” Millennials and Gen Z. To contradict the gospel in any way is regarded as blasphemy or heresy, often resulting in being  “canceled” (sounds like a euphemism used by the Gestapo or KGB). The good news, however, is that you’re freely entitled to their opinion at any time, whether you want it or not.

How does a nation founded on freedom of speech, religion, and association cope with this? How does a nation protect its national security when our borders are ignored?  How do we address the issue of hyphenated loyalties, a declining education system, no common language, or an agreed upon history survive? Historically, nations similar to this  have become ungovernable and ultimately imploded. No nation can be pulled in multiple directions and hold in the long run  (I’m reminded of Yugoslavia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, as well as the Ancient Roman Republic).

I’m reminded of a quote by Theodore Roosevelt (perhaps our greatest president and certainly my favorite). In speaking before the Knights of Columbus at Carnegie Hall in 1915, the former president addressed many of these same issues when he said, “In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he’s an American , but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room but for one flag…We have room for one language here, and that is the English language…and we have room for but one sole loyalty, and that loyalty is to the American people”.

I couldn’t have said it better Teddy. Well done. The question  which needs to be addressed is whether we are going to heed Roosevelt’s word, spoken some 110 years ago or are we going to go the way of the Yugoslavia past or current Europe? America has always been a country of second chances for those with nowhere else to go. But for us, here and now, there’s no place for us to go. There’s no one coming to our rescue. Republics rarely, if ever, get second chances.

 

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. 

 

Poems: The New Colossus

“Americanism”  by Theodore Roosevelt (1915)

Theodore Roosevelt: No Room in This Country for Hyphenated Americans

Hyphenate American

House Judicial Subcommittee Report: The Costs of IllegalImmigration to Taxpayers

Indentured Servants  

Can Donald Trump Really 'Clean House' As Promised?

Donald Trump's thumping of Vice President Kamala Harris has sent shivers down the spines of not just the Democrats, but the Status Quo as well. Trump's election is seen by his supporters as four years of long overdue house cleaning; of ridding the government of corrupt oligarchs and wealthy insiders who've turned our Republic into a neo-fascist corporatocracy, albeit  with a thin veneer of democracy. The question facing Trump and the American People is whether he or anyone else can rid the nation of this virus and restore America?  

According to the 2024 World Population Review's publication of the world's oligarchies, there are twelve full fledge oligarchies plus several which are approaching the definition of oligarchy, but before we get to those countries, just what is a oligarchy?

The term comes from the Greek meaning "rule by the few" . An oligarchy  is sometimes referred  to as a plutocracy or a kleptocracy, which are actually subsets of an oligarchy.  A plutocracy is rule by the rich. So is a kleptocracy, which means rule by a few to steal their country's resources for their own benefit. A aristocracy or theocracy are types of oligarchy.

The ideal form of government for a oligarchy is authoritarian or feudal, although they can exist, at least for a while, in a democratic style Republic, be it a parliamentary system or a "winner-take-all" system like the U.S. has. They typically expand their reach through a process known as "gradualism". They advance a little here, maybe retreat slightly (and temporarily) there until they have ample influence to achieve their agenda.

Generally speaking, oligarchs are students of history and power. Since their bottom line is all about control,  they typically exert control over the media in order to control the flow and content of information.  Following Joseph Goebbels's dicta on propaganda, the public is feed just enough truth as to bury the lie without much notice. In most cases, the lie simply remains hidden behind euphemisms and red tape. Sometimes, there are no lies at all. The public is often seen as having achieve the occasional "victories" to keep them pacified just as they are kept entertained.

The elite monitors the population through surveillance, which is enforced through the law enforcement, intelligence agencies, secret courts and/or cooperative judges. Individuals who speak out to loudly or reveal their secrets (often falsely labeled as "national security") are accused of treason and dealt with accordingly (Julian Assange, Karen Silkwood, Daniel Ellsberg, Karen Kwaitkowski, and Edward Snowden come to mind). 

 Naturally, they control the nation's monetary policy  in a variety of ways, but most notably interest rates (which affects inflation) and taxation.  The military is used not just protecting the nation, but also as a club to enforce policies which, at their heart, are intended to open markets and access to resources (there is blurring of what's in their interests and the nation's).

Those governments who cooperate, receive various forms of bribery such as ”favorite nation" status and with it, supplemented access to our markets, billions in financial aid and "loans" (which are usually "forgiven" in all or part), and product such as military equipment, grain, fertilizers, etc. (and yet they somehow stay poor and backwards). Many times, direct U.S. military presence is provided to officially protect them from mutual enemies when in truth, they're for propping up the regime and protecting our own investments.

Those who are hesitant or refuse to cooperate face the usual threats of implied force and slow build up of purgative  labels as "undemocratic", "oppressive", "terrorist", and so forth. Gradually, the heat is turned up until a "liberation" invasion is deployed. After which, a new regime and more cooperative regime is installed (historically these tend to be Far Right military juntas).  If any of this sounds familiar, it should.

So, who are these "oligarchic" nations mentioned by the World Population Review? Not surprisingly China is top on the list. Despite officially being a "people's republic", the party control everything. It can make the richest Chinese business person a peasant anytime it wants. The government maintains a significant presence in every business operation.

Russia is another oligarchy which tends to operate more like a kleptocracy. They control every aspect of elections, keenly heeding Stalin's old adage about it not being who voted that's important, but rather who counts the votes. They also have their hands in every aspect of the Russian economy, particularly its oil, gas, infrastructure (like construction) and military.

Iran too is an oligarchy. In this case, a authoritarian theocracy comprised of clerics.  These clerics control nearly every aspect of society, from the economy, parliament, military, education, and media to maintaining a "morality" police which enforces religious laws governing dress, music, food, and social life based on their strict brand of Islamic law. 

North Korea is not unexpectedly an oligarchy under the total control of Kim Jong Un, his immediate family, and the military.  Several Middle Eastern monarchies such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates function as oligarchies in varying degrees as well. So do other countries like Columbia, Venezuela, Indonesia, Chad, Laos, and the Congo (amusingly, many of these nations also call themselves "democracies" or "people's republics"). 

Finally, the United States. The U.S. as an oligarchy has been supported by data from various academic studies for several years, although officially it's a democratic Constitutional Republic. That really shouldn't come as a surprise if you know your history. Ancient Rome, which our system of government is modeled on, called itself a "Republic" long after coming under the rule of the Caesars in order to reassure the people while it firmly seized control of the empire. The imperial government functioned as a military junta.  The result of these studies have shown that America is dominated by a relatively small handful of immensely wealthy individuals and corporations.

According to Italian dictator and founder of modern fascism, Benito Mussolini, fascism is a hand-in-glove partnership between the central government and Big Business. He added that fascism was more accurately defined as "corporatism" since that is what it was. However, in his definition, the state was to be the dominate partner. Today, Wall Street is the senior partner. Fascism occupies the same point on the Right that Communism occupies on the Left.

Is Fascism Left or Right wing? We hear that question often these days, especially as WWII fades from our collective memories. Make no mistake, however, those who lived through it had no doubt that fascism was seen as a extreme form of conservatism. Fascism borrows from the Left and the Right to varying degrees based on the history, traditions, and values of a given nation.

Countries with strong religious ties tend to keep or enhance those ties under fascism for instance. Some instituted a racial or ethnic policy. Some didn't. That's why fascism in Italy differed from Germany's, which was different from that of Spain or Hungary, Argentina, Austria, or Romania.  As an example,  Oswald Mosley, a English fascist of the 1930's tried to introduce a brand of Nazism in England, which Hitler, while acknowledging it, disapproved of.

When asked why, Hitler said the National Socialism was organic. It was based on political, religious, and social elements which were uniquely German and therefore couldn't be transplanted elsewhere. Instead, individuals like Moseley or America's Fritz Kuhn, should develop their own unique form of fascism as Italy, Argentina, and Spain had done.

As an aside, many of the reforms which followed WWI and the Great Depression were considered "socialist" such as unemployment insurance, the FDIC, Social Security, and so forth. Not only did the United States enact these and other social programs, so did Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Spain, and other Right Wing governments (in fact, almost every country enacted some type of public programs).

Because of the pre-WWI  global political and economic power of Socialism, there was  serious concern among the ruling elites that a revised Socialist Left could potentially topple their capitalist empires. As a result, something called "conservative socialism" came about, albeit amid the gnashing  of teeth and a strong propaganda campaign opposing these "Anti-American" proposals such as wage and hour legislation, the right of workers to organize, the introduction of child labor laws, and workplace safety.

The goal of "conservative socialism" was to protect the capitalist state while introducing changes designed to pacify the people (and, of course, stimulate the economy. Starving or sick workers are useless). This became the bedrock of modern "gradualism" which sought to appease those who provided the labor while leaving the system essentially intact.

So, who are America's oligarchs? That's a hard question to answer since the exact definition is a matter of some disagreement among academics. Some consider those in the 10% or 5% income bracket to be the oligarchy. Many say the top 1%, while a few think it's more likely the 0.01%.

It's this sort integration into society which helps to insulate them from a direct public backlash similar to what befell their predecessors in 18th Century France for instance.  But one thing for certain, it's not the average U.S. taxpayer and voter who calls the shots. We're merely given the illusion. This is our "Matrix". Today's government  serves the interests of the wealthy, whether that be the top 5% or .01% at the exclusion of the bottom 99%.

Once, names like Rockefeller, Morgan, Mellon, Gould, Vanderbilt, Ford, Hearst, Rothschild, and Carnegie were synonymous with near absolute wealth and power. They bought presidents and prime ministers, congressmen and lords, judges and generals with the same ease as hiring anyone else who worked for them. Power was measured in railroad tracks, shipping, steel manufactured, newspapers sold, real estate, and of course, the control of money.

 Today, it's corporations such as Exxon, Bank of America, McDonald Douglas, Google, Apple, and Raytheon are among the small clique of entities who call the shots in Washington, but the end goal remains the same---the control of money and with it, the power it brings.  

While names like Musk, Bloomberg, Bezos, and Gates are familiar to us. Less known are names like Miriam Adelson, Ken C. Griffin, Cameron and Tyler Winkelvoss, Peter Thiel, Dick and Liz, Uihlien, Tim Mellon of the Mellon banking dynasty, and they like it that way. It gives them anonymity, which only enhances their power and personal security. In this past presidential election, they donated billions of dollars (Tim Mellon alone donated $100 million dollars), and you can bet it wasn't done out of patriotism.

Money is more than "free speech" and it buys more than just access. It buys power to a degree that the Czars, Emperors, and Sultans once welded. Consultants, advisors, and lobbyists in their employ, directly or indirectly, do far more that make suggestions when it comes to legislation. They help write bills. They review and recommend how to vote on legislation. They help move bills they're interested in through the maze of committees. They fund public pressure ("awareness") groups to promote issues of interest to them, including linking with legitimate groups.

They have a major impact on creating foreign and domestic policy. Of course, they compete with others elites. It's all part of the game of power, and we're a part of their game whether we like it or not. It creates the illusion of a competing political duopoly. As the famous Louisiana Governor, Huey Long, once said about the Democrats and Republicans, "one skins from the ankle up and the other from ear down.

That's the only real difference in the two parties. We are their pawns to be played and sacrificed with the ease of sipping a martini. In exchange, we're periodically given an incidental crumb from their thrones which are then hailed as some sort of victories for the public by the media they own.  

This is not the nation our Founding Fathers intended, but it is the nation we allowed to come into being. Whether Trump, his cabinet, or his mass of supporters can change this remains to be seen. Historically, those who get to close are bought off, co-opted, stalled, defeated and demoralized before being shuffled off History's stage, or simply removed from the game altogether.  Trump knows the game well. He's been a player all his life. Let's hope he can prevail. This may be the last time an outsider will ever have the opportunity again.

 

Thank you for reading Another Opinion! We hope you enjoyed this article and will pass it along. Please don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly, please "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Please find below the links we consulted in researching this article.

 

What countries have authoritarian governments

List of Whistleblowers

Oligarchy comes to America

Who has joined Trump's team so far?

 

Oligarchy countries 2024

 

Bourgeois socialism