The "Great Reset" : Fascism with a Smile?

I'm sure you all have the heard the term, the "Great Reset". However, like most people, few have any real understanding of just what the term means and how it would play out. First, the term itself comes from World Economic Forum, which is a global conglomerate of very wealthy individuals working within global corporations (mostly banking and financial) and government.  

The proposal, first put forward by Klaus Schwab, a German economist, engineer, and founder of the WEF, describes the "Great Reset Initiative" (aka the "Davos Project") in three components aimed at creating a "stakeholder economy" comprised of resilience, equability of economic outcomes, and sustainability using environmental, social, and governance methods of measurement with the objective of creating a Fourth Industrial Revolution.   

Opponents call it a new version of fascism or socialism (two diametrically opposed systems) . These individuals allege that what the "Great Reset" proposes is nothing short of global ownership and control of everything by corporate/government "representatives". They will own literally everything, including property and claim that we will even be happy about it.

We will supposedly be assigned points to measure our cooperation with the system similar to a social credit score. The more points, the more we are allowed access to such as travel or greater internet use. The fewer the points, the less.  China already has a similar setup despite its claim to be a "socialist" country.

A number of world leaders, such as now King Charles of England, have already signed on to it, along with Kristalina Georgieva, a Bulgarian economist and a director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), U.S. President Joe Biden, Canada's Justin Trudeau, and the UK's former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson to name a few. This is the "New World Order" former President George H.W. Bush spoke about years ago.  

The attached video, produced by the Centre for Risk Analysis, a South African think tank, and host David Ansara, provides an excellent discussion with author, Douglas Kruger  about the ideological backdrop to this proposed economic system in light of the public's response to the Covid-19 pandemic, poverty, technology, and  wage inequality (hint: it doesn't get better).  

The video is fairly short, just under 12 minutes and worth your time to watch. I'm also including a video (11:31 minutes) made by the World Economic Forum about their proposed "Great Reset" project for comparison. There's no doubt that given some of the world's most powerful and wealthy players are involved that some portion of what they propose will be put into practice. America, as most everyone knows, has already moved into becoming a neo-fascist corporatocracy under the defacto control of an oligarchy. A "Great Reset" make be closer than you think.

 

Click Here:

CRA: "You will OWN NOTHING and be HAPPY"

Click Here:

WEF: What is theFourth Revolution?

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! 

 

WEF: The Great Reset

The Great Reset

OpenDemocracy: Conspiracy theories aside, there is somethingfishy about the Great Reset

 

Hillsdale College Imprimis: What is the Great Reset?

The Slap Heard Around the World

The slap heard around the world. No, I'm not talking about that sissy slap Will Smith meekly threw at comedian and presenter, Chris Rock, at the Oscars. I'm talking about the verbal slap President Biden threw at Russian president Vladimir Putin while visiting Poland. Biden referred to the Russian president as a "butcher".

The head of state of every nation is expected to act with a certain amount of decorum when speaking to or about any other leader, especially one in which they are not at war with, and particularly when they are trying to bring hostilities between two warring factions to an end.

Referring to Putin as a "butcher" is not going to make him take heed to anything else Biden says, whether it's about peace or not. In fact, the only reason to call names like that is if you're actually trying to provoke a fight, which some think Biden is. What's more is that President Biden had previously referred to Putin as a "war criminal".

Whether or not Putin is a "war criminal" is not up to Biden. It's a charge that only the International Court of Justice ("World Court") at The Hague can determine. Secondly, Biden's comment  completely dismisses Putin's reasons for the invasion, which for those not paying attention, was entirely about national security and NATO's disruption of the region would bring should the Ukraine be admitted into the NATO and be permitted to station troops, tanks, aircraft. Most of all, the missiles which would be placed on Russia's border or pointed at point blank range towards Russia's largest naval base in Sebastopol.  All this begs the question, what's going on here?

A few weeks ago, President Biden mentioned at a meeting of the U.S. Business Roundtable that a "New World Order" was inevitable, and added that the U.S. "must" lead it. As we explained in a earlier article, a New World Order is all about creating a single global economic system with the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency, meaning that all global trade would use the dollar as the preferred currency.

This increases the value of the dollar on the world market and strengthens the U.S. economy. However, it also weakens the Euro, the Russian ruble or the Chinese yuan, which devalues the U.S. debt (the U.S. is world's top debtor nation). It would also control the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, meaning that the U.S. would be central power player when it comes to loans to various governments.

The New World Order also creates a single world legal system, which includes trade agreements. It would require nations to subjugate their national authority to this supranational agency, which would be under the auspices of the United Nations. Naturally, the U.S. would be the dominant power leading this arrangement if Biden has his way.

Some would say that's totally fair. After all, the U.S. is the primary guarantor of money loaned to the IMF or World Bank. It's also the nation most responsible for keeping the UN afloat. In 2020, the U.S. alone gave the United Nations 22% of its entire budget. China was second with just 12% while Japan donated 8.5%. The way the New World Order is presently configured, other nations like China, Russia, or the EU, would be regulated to second tier status on financial matters.

However, not everyone is willing to play along. Some nations, while willing seeking economic trade, don't want to go along with these rules. They don't want to subjugate their national sovereignty to any other country or supranational organization. It's worth noting that those nations just so happen to be on our economic "hit list" and often labeled as "enemies of democracy". We're talking nations like Iran, China, Venezuela, and Russia.

Let's take China for instance. It is the second largest holder of U.S. debt behind Japan (and it's worth noting, that China is Japan's largest creditor). It doesn't want to subjugate its currency to the dollar. In fact, it's quite happy with the present economic system. Why? Because it's winning.

The U.S. is declining as a world superpower. China is poised to surpass the U.S. as the world's largest economy by the end of this decade. Its infrastructure is continuing to grow (albeit at a pace some economists say it can't sustain), and massively updated its military. It's done this through a system of controlled capitalism in which the State maintains a sustainable interest in each business. It oversees any international agreements to ensure that they meet China's long term goals.

Nevertheless, it is acquiring control over resources throughout the world. It has been hyper-aggressive in its intrusion into fishing waters claimed by India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the Philippines. It has warned these and other nations (including the U.S.) to stay out of the South China Seas.

China has not only reiterated its claim to the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, which had been Japanese since 1895, but also territory on the Chinese/Indian border around Tibet. China has even gone to the extent of actually building islands in the South China Sea which appear to serve as military fortifications or listening sites.

In terms of international resources, Chinese corporations are aggressively expanding nearly everywhere. However, it's in Africa and South America that its interests are particularly focused. China depends on imports for over half of its key mineral needs such as gold, silver, zinc, copper, and more exotic minerals like germanium and rhenium. The trouble is that the U.S. as well as some other countries, need these same minerals too. Control of these minerals control innovation, which in effect controls economies.

The U.S., while mineral rich, still must import about 24 key minerals to meet its needs. Of these, we are in competition with China for 11 of these. In addition, China is a primary importer of 9 out of 13 minerals, which include cobalt, indium, bismuth, and 17 rare earth elements ("REE"); all of which are important in the manufacturing of batteries, computer chips, automobiles, and electronics. China is also going after timber, farm land, and fresh water, which is becoming increasingly more scarce.

As competition grows, so also grows the need for military might to protect the production and shipment of these products. The military has become key to the acquisition of these and other resources like oil and gas ("might makes right"). Closer at home, while we continue to pick up the lion's share of the costs to keep the UN going, China has been focused on acquiring control of key UN agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).  

China has been actively pursuing control of groups like the World Health Organization (which has been aggressively investigating the origin of the Covid-19 virus), the World Bank, the IMF, UN's Higher Commission on Human Rights, and the World Intellectual Property Organization. It is also attempting to expand its influence into Interpol. China now controls four of the 15 most important agencies within the UN, whereas no other country controls more than one. 

Although China and Russia have been "frenemies" , China is not likely to let Russia sink under all the massive sanctions imposed on it by the U.S. and EU. However, it will not try to alienate the West either. For the moment, that's where its economic bread and butter lies.

Both countries have echoed each other's claims of secret U.S. intervention around the world aimed at reducing Russian or Chinese influence. One of Putin's original claims was that the U.S. was behind the 2013 "Maidan Uprising" in the Ukraine which coincidentally removed a pro-Moscow government and replaced it with the current pro-West and pro-NATO Zelenskiy government.

Russia has expressed its opposition  to a "New World Order" government since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact in 1989, a reiterated again in 1991 with the implosion of the Soviet Union. In 1989, the Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev sought assurances from Western leaders not to expand NATO into former Warsaw Pact nations. 

Gorbachev was seeking to rebuild the trust broken in 1946, following the end of WWII, and find ways to reintegrate Russia into Europe, even applying to become a member of the EU and NATO, which included accepting that, at least for the time being, there would be one global superpower (Russia joined the "Partnership for Peace" in 1991).

Although Gorbachev was promised by President Bush that NATO wouldn't advance "one centimeter", by 1991, all of the Eastern Europe was a member of the EU and NATO. Russia has fought the advancement of a "New World Order" ever since.

Fyodor Lukyanov, one of Putin's foreign policy advisers, has stated that this "unipolarity" of a single world superpower gave the United States an rare historic opportunity to remake the world in its image; an opportunity it squandered. Today, according to Lukyanov, the world must become "multipolar", with multiple spheres of influence. 

He makes the point that rather than trying to create a world modeled on American styled democracy, that nations and their cultures be allowed to develop in their own way, whether its democratic, theocratic, or whatever.  The U.S. notion that "one size fits all" has failed just as surely as Soviet style Communism.

Others in Putin's circle argue that Russia should stop trying to integrate into West and, instead, focus on being a hybrid between East and West, while, as was pointed, China increasingly views itself a merger between communism modeled on Stalin and Mao plus Confucianism which made the collective  stronger than the individual.  Reminds me of the Borg.

President Biden's name calling will solve nothing. His verbal slapping of Putin will have no positive impact on the crisis in the Ukraine, nor will it help the Ukrainian people. It does, however, make him look like an outdated old fool. The war in Ukraine may prove to be mistake. It certainly hasn't gone as Putin's advisers had planned. But it does demonstrate Putin's frustration over his nation's security and the attempt by the U.S. led West to impose its stamp on the world...and Russia. America's time in the sun is coming to end as it has with all great empires before.  

However, Russia and China are governed by autocrats while America, and by extension the West, is ruled by its own Oligarchs who have transformed the U.S. from a constitutional Republic into a growing neo-fascist Corporatocracy.  None of this bodes well for the masses. The ordinary people of the world, who made the riches of the Oligarchs possible, must ensure than any change serves our interests first.

The future will not be dominated by one or even two or three superpowers. The world will once again splinter into perhaps many "points of light" to borrow from President G.W. Bush, and with it, we will see a reordering of alliances---political, economic, and military--- as well as ethnic, racial, and religious, which will hopefully bring humanity closer, but that will only happen if everyone has a seat at the table.

If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing 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 A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation.  

 

 

China, United States, and competition for resources thatenable emerging technologies

 

Russia's and China's plans for a new world order

China Doesn't Want a New World Order. It Wants This One

Rare earth element facts

'Creeping Capture' : How China is trying to 'control' global bodies like UN, WHO

The Significance of Julian Assange and His Arrest

On April 11th, the co-founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange was arrested by British Police. Assange spent seven years living in an Ecuadorian consulate compound in London to avoid extradition to Sweden originally, and to the US on conspiracy charges and computer hacking. The conspiracy charges are in conjunction with former Army private and intelligence analysis Bradley Manning, who now goes by the name Chelsea Manning. Assange, who is 47 years old, had originally sought sanctuary over alleged rape charges of two women in Sweden and skipping bail. As it turned out, neither of the women actually filed rape charges, but were attempting locate Assange, whom they claimed knowingly transmitted a STD. However, those charges were dropped long ago and Sweden has shown no interest in reopening them.

Over the years, there's been several attempts to force Assange out, including attempts to kidnap him from the London compound. However, yesterday, Equator withdrew its "invitation" and the London Metropolitan Police were finally successful in "getting their man" just as Ecuador signed a 4.2 billion loan deal with the International Monetary Fund (the IMF). Assange is expected to be extradited back to the US as quickly as possible in order to stand trial. His crime, authorities claim, is collusion with the Russians (yes, them again) using hacked documents, some of which were allegedly classified and secret. Assange has maintained for years that none of the documentation came as a result of Russian espionage and that the documentation had been secretly provided by a third party.

The real "crime" that Julian Assange stands accused of...and for which he is no doubt guilty...is releasing the information he acquired to the public; information which reveals just how corrupt the US and other governments are. His information "leaks" mentions names, dates, places, and amounts. Assange has outed agencies as well as high profile individuals. Obviously, that makes him a dangerous man, and potentially one with a very short life expediency ahead of him.

Julian Assange is not unlike Edward Snowden, who revealed government secrets; mostly about secret surveillance of individuals like you and me by the federal government and made it public. Meanwhile, social platforms like Facebook, collected volumes of confidential information on its users and in turn either gave or sold it the various government intelligence and other agencies. As a result, Edward Snowden was forced to flee to Russia, where he now lives in exile while others, such as Mark Zuckerberg, the owner of Facebook, are hailed as "patriots" by the ruling political elites.

Thus, I have to wonder if it's not the fact that confidential information was compromised, but the fact that information affecting the ruling elites and government agencies, illegal though it may be, is to remain private and out of the public eye, while our information, regardless of how private and personal, is free and readily available to the government or can be sold without out knowledge or consent. Therefore, we have a situation where there is privacy and the veil of secrecy for some, but not for all.

Some would argue that releasing classified government information, regardless of how it's obtained, or information about public officials, even if it involves criminal activity, is somehow different from making available the private information of ordinary citizens who could, after all, could allegedly be plotting some possible terrorist act or other crime-in-the-making. Enter the "thought police" and where you are presumed guilty first. Meanwhile, wars for profit, running illegal arms deals or taking bribes to the tune of millions or even billions by government officials are seen as somehow okay or beyond public scrutiny. So too is using unsecured servers for the receipt and transfer of classified communication pertaining to national security is apparently permissible.

What we have is obviously a double standard. One set of rules and laws for the ruling Oligarchy and political class of plutocrats, and an entirely different set for you and me. Privacy, as we know, has become largely a thing of the past. Something that once existed decades ago, in the time of our grandparents or great grandparents. We are monitored virtually 24/7. Every time we go out to a public venue, there are cameras, be they security cameras on nearly every corner, in stores, or someone videotaping someone else. Overhead satellites are constantly looking down on us. Their sophistication is to the point where they can literally read the text on our cell phone, but of course, every electronic signal we generate, be it a cell phone call, text, email, landline call, computer log on and site search is tagged and monitored. In fact, every electronic message sent anywhere in the world is monitored. Every single one. We know this, in part, thanks to individuals like Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and groups like Anonymous, bloggers, and vloggers. They ratted out the rats regardless of the political leanings. For the Oligarchy and ruling political elites, people like Assange and Snowden are every bit as dangerous as Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, and his capture is viewed by them in the same light.

So, what is the significance of Julian Assange's arrest and future trial (assuming he makes it that far)? No doubt that first and foremost, government authorities are going to want to know where...precisely...his information comes from. If it's the Russians or Chinese, they are going to want to know name, dates, and times. They will then conduct an exhaustive internal search for a possible mole. Obviously, this could result in a major international fallout. Alternatively, they will want to know if the information comes from a disgruntled employee or someone seeking a little private revenge for some perceived wrong. Perhaps too, the information comes from someone who feels they are a true patriot and was just serving their country by outing secret crimes against this country. Either way, government prosecutors and intelligence agencies are going to want to know who. That potentially put other lives in danger.

But there's something else at risk here, which is far more important and dangerous, and that's freedom of speech as protected by the 1st Amendment. Julian Assange views himself as a investigative journalist (whereas Edward Snowden was a government employee and Whistle-blower). Journalist have long enjoyed "journalistic privilege" which allows them to protect their sources, regardless of who those sources are or where that information comes from (with the possible exception of information which is potentially libelous). Government authorities will likely argue that Assange is no journalist and that he runs a extortion racket or perhaps even a spy operation whose goal is to spread disinformation.

Just as important, if not more so, is what information Assange is still privy to? What "dirt" is he still sitting on, and on whom or what government agency? The reason they'd want to know is to bury or discredit the information, eliminate any leaks or potential threats (in the literal sense of the word), and ensure that there are no further leaks ever again (if this was a movie, it would be something like "The Empire Strikes Back"). In the parlance of the intelligence community, this is about "identification and clean up". Assange's trial will be public. That much is true, but there will be much the public will not be allowed to see or hear. Behind the scenes, the "empire" will be mobilized to snuff out any "resistance" to the status quo; anything which prevents the expansion of its control, which especially includes keeping secrets from the public.

Fascism, as I've often mentioned, didn't die in 1945 in the ashes and rubble of World War II. It survived. If you strip away the racial and nationalistic ideology, it works because it's very effective. Fascism is a partnership between the government and big business. In the past, government acted essentially as the senior partner. Today, that partnership is much more balanced because they very same people routinely move between senior private and public sector positions. Wealthy corporate CEOs and presidents run for office, getting elected with the help of other wealthy and powerful individuals and groups in and out of politics. They serve for a while, often with the aid of these very same folks. When they retire, they go to work as lobbyists or "consultants", calling on their friends still in office and helping other like minded individuals into office, and so the cycle repeats. Partisanship and ideology doesn't really matter. Government contracts and profit do.

Fascism has generally been viewed as "Right-wing" historically because of its nationalism, although in truth it's a merger of elements from the Left as well as the Right, based on a particular country's history, traditions, values, and political structure. That's why the Fascism of Italy differed from the Fascism of Hungary or Romania, which in turned was different from the fascism of Spain, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, or even Nazi Germany.

As modern Fascism's founder, Benito Mussolini once said, Fascism would be better named as corporatism. America have evolved (or "devolved" would be a better description) into an Oligarchy comprised of these super wealthy individuals and their corporations, alongside a professional political class of plutocrats into a modern Fascist state. Instead of pushing a solely nationalistic agenda, it pushes brand loyalties. Something we, a tribalistic human beings, can belong to, be it a product or a sports team. It's something we can rally around while remaining controlled. That's the point of today's political parties. We fight "wars" against "opponents" and reap a sense of victory or defeat. We defend our victory or revenge the defeat. We humiliate or "assassinate " the other side's leaders.

Of course, the more we can be divided, the easier it is to manipulate and control us; playing each other off the other. The more divided we become, the more focused we are on each other and other differences---real or manufactured---and the less attention we pay to the real changes happening around us; the wars over the control of resources or assets, the loss of freedoms such as free speech and the right to privacy along with the growth of a surveillance state, which is nothing more than a neo-police state.

The last thing the ruling Oligarchy and political class wants is for us to know the truth and to unite. That is what is behind the arrest of Julian Assange and others like him, be it vloggers on different ideological sides like Lauren Southern, Abby Martin, Bill Whittle, Stormcloudsgathering.com, or groups like Anonymous, as well as certain bloggers and local talk radio hosts. Government whistle-blowers like Edward Snowden pose a special threat to them because they are on the inside. The arrest of Julian Assange is also as much a message as anything to those who expose light into places where the ruling class wants darkness. It's as much about government transparency and the right of the public to know what's being done in its name as it is about protecting your personal and financial privacy.



Julian Assange: WikiLeaks co-founder arrested in London

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrested in London, facing possible US extradition

Ecuador inks 42 billion financing deal with IMF-Moreno

The Groups Anonymous Inspired Are More Powerful than Anonymous Ever Was

5 of the most famous federal whistleblowers

Protesting for Fun and Profit: The G20 and Its Consequences

Did you know that Hamburg Germany is currently on fire? Well, not the whole city. Just sections really. The reason for the fires, which mostly consists of cars and trash set ablaze in the middle of the road, as well as the obligatory looting and general mayhem, is the result of the G20, which currently meeting there. What is the G20 you ask? Well, set back and I'll be happy to explain it to you. For those of you who follow Another Opinion on a regular basis, you've often read my rants about the Oligarchy and how America is no longer a democratic or constitutional republic. Well, that's where the G20 come into play.

The G20 or Group of 20 is a international forum comprised of the top 20 economies and central banks whose polices literally control the world's economics (as an aside, it was decided in 2009 that the G20 would replace the G8. The G20 itself was created the year before in 2008). They determine virtually everything involving global trade, including who gets loans and credit to bailouts and the wavier or reduction of interest charges and whose debts get written off ("forgiven"), though the prime responsibility is maintain a stable global economy. Currently, the G20 is comprised of the United States, Germany, France, Argentina, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, South Korea, Japan, China, Italy, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Australia, Brazil, Canada, South Africa, and the European Union which is represented by the European Commission and European Central Bank.

The G20 came out the rubble of World War II in response to the need to "manage" world economies in order to create a more balanced trade environment and foster closer cooperation between the world's leading economies and oversight of developing economies. The first incarnation of the G20 was the Bretton Woods conferences, followed by International Monetary Fund and World Bank, and the World Trade Organization. It was Germany's Hans Eichel, a member of the Social Democrat Party (or SDP) and the finance minister under Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, along with Canada's Finance Minister (and future Prime Minister) Paul Martin and US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers who created the G20. Martin is a member of Canada's Liberal Party while Larry Summers is a Democrat and served in President Bill Clinton's Administration. It's understood, however, that Eichel and Summers were the driving force for the creation of the G20 through their respective roles in the G7, later G8, to manage the developing debt crisis's that were happening at the time. Nevertheless, the role agreed to by the member nations was the "governance of the world's economy".

Collectively, the G20 accounts for 85% of the gross world product; 80% of world trade; and 2/3 of the world's total population. The current chairpersons of the G20 are Germany's Angela Merkel and Argentina's Mauricio Macri, which, given Germany's internal migrant issues and the present state of Argentina's economy, doesn't exactly exude confidence, especially when you look at some of the other member nations. Notably absent are most of Africa, the Middle East, and the Oceania nations. However, of these, Africa, has the weakest and most unstable countries. This agenda of the summit is the rise and spread of global terrorism (and religious extremism), climate change, and of course, global trade. It should be pointed out that the G20 invites non-member nations and organizations such as the World Bank Group, the Association of Southeast Nations and the International Labour Organization to attend its meetings as a "guest".

So, if you ever wanted to know who or what the Oligarchy is, there you go. In addition, there are dozens of think tanks which deal with developing policies on a vast array of topics such as the environment and pollution, overpopulation, food production, poverty, resource development, and sustainable economic growth. They work hand in glove their respective governments on policy and given its transnational role, just as often with member governments, associations, academic institutions and global corporations on setting coordinating polices. In short, this is the world government---albeit still taking shape---that many of you were taught to fear in Sunday School and in sermons. It is also the global governance which threatens organized labor by being able to so easily transfer production and manufacturing across international borders in order to obtain the cheapest labor and/or avoid various taxes. Some would also argue, that organizations like the G20, facilitate the "raping" of natural resources, leaving behind a decimated local environment while enriching government officials, corporate executives and investors.

But that's not all. Many also believe that groups like the G20 are the main cause behind various wars and conflicts. Why you ask? Because their role, under the label of "global governance", is to maintain economic stability in order for trade and financial growth to take place. In other words, it's about control--control over economic development, both world and individual national economies, and resources, as well as resource acquisitions. It means obtaining whatever natural resources exist in a given country, which may mean resettling a native population, the temporary or permanent loss of local food sources, damage to the environment including loss of clean drinking water or farmland, and so forth. Generally, the powers that be can usually be bought, but sometimes they want to much or they're just obstinate and won't cooperate. Then additional pressure can be brought to bear on an escalating scale with military intervention (either direct or covert) being the last resort. Of course, it's always presented as being in the national interest while painting the other nation's government with a wide---and often unsubstantiated---brush of various nasty charges like having weapons of mass destruction, the use of chemical weapons, or in support of "the people's demand for democracy", etc. In reality, it's about not getting onboard with the petro-dollar as its trade currency, access to various indigenous resources, and so forth.

This brings us to Hamburg and what's going on there. While estimates vary wildly, most put the number of protesters well into the thousands according to attendees. Most are anarchists, meaning that they just don't simply oppose corporate globalization, but also the government's---any government---interference in their personal lives. They simply want to be left alone and live a life free from the dictates of some government bureaucrat. Freedom and democracy in its truest form. Naturally and to not waste a good riot, you have wannabe "Socialists" or Communists. Then too you have those who are there simply to thrash everything and loot as much as possible. These are usually the most violent types, which means they're the ones who get the most media coverage and are presented to the watching public as the anarchists, neo-Socialists or born again Communists. They are the ones throwing Molotov cocktails, glass bottles, rocks, and starting fires as well as doing the looting. Rounding out the lot are various special interest groups such as Kurds, and opposition political parties like the Scottish Independence Party, who are there in the hopes of getting some free media coverage. For the time being, the usual Muslim protesters and Sharia law enforcement gangs have been keeping a low profile, perhaps out of fear of getting their collectives butts kicked. If so, they may have more common sense they I gave them credit for. However, some Kurds are using the occasion to draw attention to their plight.

Reports from various news outlets state that despite the use of body armor, water cannons, armored vehicles and standard anti-riot tactics, approximately 160 police officers have been injured---some seriously---while dozens of protesters have been arrested or detained. Estimates , according to the police and reporters put attendance among the rioters as high as 100,000 to perhaps 75,000. Ironically, it's being reported that some of the rioters are demanding the implementation of Socialism or Communism while others, specifically those from countries like Venezuela, are demanding an end to their current form of government---Socialism! Others are demanding open borders while others want closed borders and tighter control over immigration, as well as more money directed towards alternative energy research, ending poverty and a reduction in military budgets. These same reports point out the many of the rioters are from countries other than Germany, and describe the protesters are mostly college educated, employed, middle class and/or "trust fund babies". As an aside, there are "sympathy protests" taking place in other countries, such as in Venezuela's capital, Caracas. One witness to all the riots, Laura Zeriadtke, said that what she as witnessed was nothing less than a "Civil War". Many would agree.

I believe that what we are seeing is a seismic shift in the global body politic. People are rejecting the adoption of this implementation of a new form of Fascism; Perhaps "Friendly Fascism" as the late great Dr. Bertram Gross had coined the growth of corporate-government partnership. People demand the imposition of "Socialism" without truly understand what "socialism" is. The same goes for the Communism. I would also have to ask whose "Communism"? Stalin's? Lenin's? Mao?, Castro's or Ho Chi Minh? Kautsky's? Luxemburg's? Maybe Che's or Marx's? Each were different and none actually followed what Marx and Engel wrote. In truth, they were only variations of totalitarianism (except maybe Luxemburg and Kautsky). As for Socialism, that's never actually be tried despite claims to contrary. What has been attempted is democratic socialism, which, in fact, was quite successful, that is until the vast influx of migrants who didn't share the same work ethic, traditions or social values. Instead, they simply drew on the system like a piglet does on a sow, without contributing back to it . As a result, their economic systems are being strained to the breaking point. People are rejecting globalization, at least the corporate control of markets and nations.

Historically, people have always willingly surrendered their freedom for security---personal and economic. Always. I think the ruling Oligarchs are banking on this holding true again. They provide control, be it economic, political, social or personal. In exchange, we have a certain measure of safety and security. Never mind that our privacy is gone or greatly compromised. Never mind that ordinary businesses are regulated to the hilt or that we are taxed to the point that we might as well simply sign over our checks. After all, someone has to pay for this new found protection right? The only problem is that an increasing number of people worldwide are catching onto the scam. We know that the elections are rigged. We know that the politician class doesn't represent us. They represent the corporations who underwrite their campaigns and help write or lobby for certain policies.

We know that there are two sets of laws---one for the wealthy and one for the rest of us. We've seen it happen too often not to know. Right now, the ruling class is doing everything in its power to divide us along as many line as possible. Divided, we are weak and powerless. United we can topple any Oligarchy or ruling clique, and they know it. We know it too in increasing numbers. What's happening in Hamburg and elsewhere are but the opening salvos in a socio-economic war that's a old as civilization. A war between the ruling elite and the rest of us. The difference is that the stakes are far higher now than they were a few generations, centuries, or millennia ago. It's time we demand our freedoms back.


Peaceful protests mark the end of the G20 summit hours after riots



More than 100 police injured in Hamburg riots


G20: Activists riot overnight in Hamburg...

We Interrupt this National Decline...

It was once said that that all roads led to Rome. It was true figuratively and as well as literally. With some 100,000 miles of road, it provided direct access for the Roman legions to any hotspot within the empire. It established trade routes throughout the empire and eventually even connected to the Silk Road to the Near Eastern nations, India, and finally to China. But, as goes another old saying, as Rome's roads went, so went the Roman Empire and its ability to defend the empire and its trade routes, and with that, along with the decline in political stability thanks to the ineptitude and corruption of the political class and the financial elites, taxes, decline of the water systems, agriculture, decline in innovations, quality of the fight forces, increases in pirates and illegal immigration who didn't integrate, the rise of the poor amid the decline of middle and business class, ever more successful foreign invasions, devaluation of its currency, and a host of other factors---some major but most subtle, the glory and the might that was Rome gradually faded over the course of about 300 years until it became but it memory.

Much the same has been said America. Certainly, we face many of the same factors. Like Rome, we went from rule by a monarchy to a Republic and now to an oligarchy; controlled by transnational corporations which have no loyalty to either a nation or national ideals. Wealth--- economic and political control---is the hands of the top 1%. Our Middle Class is all but nonexistent while not the ranks of the poor increase, some communities and cities look like they belong to some third world nation, as social services decrease due to expense. We too experience a debt that not only can we never hope to pay, but is actually unsustainable. We too are being invaded by illegal immigrants looking for a better life, but few are finding it. They too are refusing to assimilate. While are military remains strong (though, like Rome, there is talking about incorporating illegal immigrants as an avenue to citizenship), it is ever more dependent on technology, which makes it vulnerable to shortages of those able to operate and maintain it as our educational system continues to decline.

Like Rome, we face a decline in social morals and a sense of community values in the name of "inclusion", or as we would say, "political correctness". Our roads, dams, electrical grids, bridges, and highways are crumbling too, and again, like Rome, a public reluctance to paying for repairs through higher taxes (they often did so out of the pocket of a government official, usually seeking higher office). Trade and often innovation has steadily shifted overseas, not for lack of resources, but avoidance of labor costs or in some cases taxes, and then reshipped back into America by these stateless corporations. Meanwhile, public funds are often diverted to pay costs they incurred or for poor management while local businesses struggle or are forced to close.

I could go on and on, but we all get the picture. It doesn't matter if you lean politically Right, Left, or like the majority of Americas, to the center and increasingly independent. We've all witnessed the rise of the Occupy Movement which opposes the economic and political control of Corporate America and the 1% while others, such as the Tea Party, opposed to over reach and intrusion of a growing federal government clamber for a return to the original intent of the Founders. Therefore, it seems to me that it's time that we refocus the discussion. We see what's wrong with America, though we may have different solutions. Perhaps it's time for changing America and move away from mere criticisms. The powers that be hold power largely because they've been successful in dividing us, which is ironic if you accept that we largely want many of the same things. We---as individuals and communities---have allowed ourselves to be pitted against each other across artificial divides. As long as we argue and fight each other we fail to see those who are not just the source of our misery, but profiting off of it.

Maybe it's time we reconsider if we want this to remain a single nation? Perhaps we time we go our separate ways. Or, as some contend, the Constitution (largely usurped already) is outdated; made obsolete by technology and societal changes unforeseen by our Founding ancestors? Perhaps a democratic socialist state which serves the needs of all equally is what we should strive for (and no, we aren't "socialist" now despite the talking heads on the Right. We are, however, increasingly fascist---corporation rule per its creator Benito Mussolini) or should we rely on our innate abilities embrace libertarianism as espoused by Jefferson? Some would argue that we've advance to far as society for that---an ideology best suited for small agrarian societies.

The demise of the oligarchy and restoration of the Middle Class are givens I think. How about freedom? How much do we want? How much can we stand? What kind of freedom to we want? China calls itself "free" and so does Holland. What form of government do we want now that we no longer have a democratic republic? Do we return to a democratic republic but with greater restrictions? Certainly ending gerrymandering, adding term limits, real finance reform and reversing "Citizens United" I hope; perhaps too, revising federal judicial appointments, including federal judgeships and the often out-of-touch Supreme Court. What about proportional representation like the other limited democracies have or mandating voting? Regardless, let's consider the America we want and not the one Washington is giving us.

The elites control us by controlling our ability to communicate. Did you know that only six corporations control our public media?

They attempt to mold and manipulate what we think and how we act. Mao Tse-tung once said that power came from the barrel of gun. Nowadays, it's more likely to come from the click of mouse. Within little more than a decade, we've witnessed how social networking and the Internet has brought down military dictatorships, theocracies and other corrupt governments. It's little wonder nations, including the United States, have banded together in an attempt to control, regulate, or monitor the Internet. The idea of people exchanging ideas and find a commonality brings fear to those who try to inspire fear and intimidation to their people. This may yet prove to be more powerful than Mao's bullets. This then is our best tool to molding a nation or perhaps a world into what we want. As has been said, people don't want wars. Governments and banks do.

And speaking of the world, we, as Americans, must understand and accept that we have no obligation or even right to impose our values, beliefs, or even our form of government on any nation or any people. All individuals have a natural right as human beings, to chose freely the form of government they want irrespective of what their neighbors desire them to have. Though not alone, America has interfered and attempt to impose its concept of Americanized government or worse, violent militarized juntas on people for the sake of economic profit and corporate control. If we demand freedom for ourselves, they we should do less than allowing others the right to chose their own governments whether we agree with it or not.

In our present military situation, our response to 9/11 was to find and bring to justice those responsible (and accepting, however painfully, the reasons why 9/11 took place). Beyond that, we proceeded for the sake of economic---corporate greed--while claiming the virtues of "freedom". Kuwait was not liberated for "freedom of Kuwaiti People" or even Royal promises of social, political or "gender" equality---none of which never materialized, but for influence and control of assets. The invasion of Iraq wasn't required. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was already impotent militarily and politically. It wasn't done for the sake of the Kurdish People who we've promised much and delivered little. It was for the sake of controlling Iraqi oil and gas. What it did, thanks to an incomplete and unrealistic occupational plan, was open an Pandora's Box that has costs the lives of thousands of brave military personnel while at the same time providing a gold mine for lobbyists, contractors, the WTO, the IMF, and others, not to mention a perfect sandbox for testing the military's latest toys.

The adoption of the never-ending "war on terror" and a terrorist or potential terrorist behind every tree mentality has also provided

a perfect excuse to impose restrictions on our freedoms which we never would have previously tolerated; surveillance of all/threat by few/denial for your own good is our new mantra, and a way to cover-up a weak economy racked by unsustainable debt and greed through a never ending supply of recruits to keep the employment numbers down and keeping the economy running on a artificially inflated "war economy". This too is something we must address since this conspiracy, which is not of the making of a few extremist crack pots, but adopted by both parties as cover for the oligarchs who now run our country. Meanwhile, endure those who have a visceral hatred of this country; who attempt to make profane the American Ideal and its symbols while pursuing every recourse to weaken and belittle this nation.

These are things we each see and mostly agree on. The powers that be will continue to obfuscate, distract, divide, frighten, or if necessary, threaten. It is also quite capable deceit, lies, of manufacturing evidence or worse. The question I repeat, is not to continue to debate the merits of what we all see, but to agree that we must begin to find ways of addressing them. Whether the status quo agrees is irrelevant. Ultimately the only real power it has is the power we cede to it.