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

 

Gimme Some Truth: America's Loss of Trust In The Media

Do you trust the news? If you're like most Americans, the answer is an emphatic "no". Would it surprise you to know that according to a poll released in January of this year, 60% of those surveyed believe the media is all about pushing a political ideology rather than reporting facts? Well, it's true. The majority of Americans no longer trust mainstream media, and it's getting worse.

There was a time, not all that long ago, where we would regularly tune in to watch Walter Cronkite, Edward R Murrow, Howard K Smith, Frank Reynolds, John Chancellor, and of course, Huntley and Brinkley for our news.  Max Robinson, Roger Mudd, Peter Jennings, Eric Sevareid, or Paul Harvey told us what was happening in the world without coloring it with their personal political opinions.

These were journalists with integrity. They reported the facts without distortion. We counted on them to tell us the truth. When they conducted investigative reports, it was to get to the crux of what was happening, not to push a political agenda or conduct character assassinations.  Of course, those days are long gone.

Today, the media divides us instead of bringing us together. The aforementioned poll, conducted by Edelman, a global communications firm, seems to bear that out. According to the poll, in 2020 73% of Democrats trusted the media compared with just 30% of Republicans, because it allegedly leaned Left.

Now, here we are in early 2021, just past one of the most contentious presidential campaigns in recent history, and only 57% of Democrats believe what they are hearing. Interestingly, the "trust" factor rose slightly for Republicans, 18% now believe what they're being told. Meanwhile only 35% of Independents (America's largest political bloc) had zero trust in the media.

Another poll, conducted by Gallup, says that 84% of Americans blame the media for America's deep political and social divide. To make matters worse, the same polls said that 86% of Americans believed that mainstream media was politically biased. Nearly half---49%---thought the bias was highly significant while 37% described at as a "fair amount".

The poll went on to say that 80% of those surveyed believed the media distorted the news toward a specific political viewpoint. 54% added that reporters "misrepresented the facts" while 28% thought that the "facts" were made up entirely to justify the political slant of the story! 

In delving into the racial divide, 60% of blacks felt that racial and ethnic diversity should be a priority when presenting the news compared to only 35% of whites. 55% of Hispanics feel the media misunderstood them, as did Asians and Native Americans, by reinforcing stereotypes or presenting topics of little or no interest to them.

When we jump to the age divide, only 19% of those under age 30 were favorable of mainstream  media. Only 44% of those 65 and older were. So, with so much distrust of mainstream media, where are people turning to for their news?

According to the Pew Research Center, 55% of adults get their news from social media sites; 28% of them admitted that social media provided them with the majority of their news.  But does that mean they trust social media?

88% thought that social media platforms deliberately influenced the slant of the news. 62% of those surveyed saw that as a problem. How much of a problem? Well, 53% of Democrats and Left leaning Independents saw it as issue affecting the validity of the story. So did 75% of Republicans and conservative Independents.

I would say those are some pretty significant numbers, which means while over half of all adults are getting at least some of their news from social media on a regular basis, although their trust of that source isn't any necessarily better than mainstream media.

What's particularly disconcerting is that while 85% of Millennials (those born between 1981 and 1995) expect to vote, the information they're receiving from social media is often considered to be incomplete, misleading, or outright false, and the same is trending true for Gen Z, the generational demographic just behind the Millennials. 

Why is that? Probably because the same major communications companies which own mainstream media also own the social media networks, which means they're peddling the same song and dance, just in a different format. Remember that only six corporations own 96%+ of all media outlets. That includes television and radio stations, newspapers, movie and entertainment companies, video game development, music companies, and social media platforms.

So, which social platforms are getting the most "me time"? Facebook receives about 52% of all hits while YouTube and Twitter ranked second and third with 28% and 17% respectively. LinkedIn (which is more of business oriented site), Reddit, and Snapchat rounded out the top five with under 10% each.

However, due to increased claims of censorship, many dissatisfied customers are jumping ship. Most are going to MeWe, Gab, Rumble, QubeTV, and Parler. As an aside, several social media companies joined together and attempted to deplatform Parler for refusing to go along with their "guidelines" aimed at controlling (and restricting) content, particularly conservative content. My understanding is that Parler weathered the storm thanks to its conservative subscribers and is again back up and running. Create a niche, and someone will fill it.

Millennials are the largest demographic since the Babyboomers, so there's no doubt that media corporations are paying attention to them. They want to influence their outlook on the world, and that especially includes politics as well as products.

As a political segment, the majority of Millennials lean Left. About 70% of them want a socialistic America. The few who lean Right, tend to be more of the libertarian variety (small "L"). Over all, neither have any use for either of the two corporate owned party. So, where are they getting their news?

The majority of them (about 54%+) are getting their daily dose of news from social media as well. Most of them have turned off and tuned out mainstream media. The top social media sites for the "Gen Y" crowd is Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter. Interestingly (and concerningly), 60% admit they pay attention to celebrities, personalities, and other so-called social media "influencers" to help shape their opinions on events. 

The generation coming up behind the Millennials, known as "Gen Z" (born after 1996), are showing themselves to be every bit as Left leaning as their older brothers and sisters; 64% describe themselves as "socialist". 78%+ say that current events are important to them and they want to be informed. However, they too put no trust in the mainstream media, choosing to rely primarily on social media. Of course, all this has created a potentially serious problem, not just for them, but for our society.

With those on the Left and Right side of the political spectrum increasingly get their news from distinct sources, we're starting to see competing camps develop.  Television and radio used to bring us together as a society, whether we were listening to Jack Benny or watching Bonanza, we were still getting our news from a small handful of sources, and those were politically impartial. The programming on ABC wasn't all that much different than from NBC or CBS, including the news.

While today there are countless sources for the news, they are all mostly owned by one of six companies and each follow a certain political agenda, even if it's not blatant. They may pretend to be "progressive" to attract a younger audience (and revenue), they remain neo-fascist at their political core.

The media and the political establishment have no intentions of letting the Millennials  or Generation Z have their way when it comes to political, but do we really want fascism in any form? At present, it doesn't matter if you pick from "red" unsweetened Kool-Aide or artificially sweetened "blue" Kool-Aid. You still get the Kool-Aide. Some of us, however, have chosen no Kool-Aide at all.

Regardless, those on either side of the political divide are increasingly insulated from each other within a ideological information bubble, thus reducing our ability to communicate and empathize with each other. We're starting to speak a different language.

We hide behind a veneer of artificial politeness called "political correctness" which mutes us rather than permitting us to speak openly to each other. While our words may be similar, the meanings are starting to blur. We must speak freely so long as we speak honestly if this nation is to survive. 

We must demand that the media once again seek out the highest common good as it once did. Divided we're easier to control and manipulate. That's the name of the game in any authoritarian regime.  Ours is no different. Did we really expect it would be? Perhaps our loss of trust in the media is justified, but what about our faith in each other? We must never lose that. 

New Poll: Media Trust at an All-Time Low  

Gallup poll finds 84% of Americans say media is to blame forUS political divide

 

Gallup: People With No Trust in News Media Hits Record

Black, Hispanic, and white adults feel the news mediamisunderstands them, but for very different reasons

Parler has been booted by Apple, Amazon, and Google

 

Canning the "Cancel Culture"

Tyrants and totalitarian regimes down through history have sought to leave their mark on society. Many start off with good intentions, but power, as they say, tends to corrupt. They often find that they are always in need of more power in order to root out and destroy all the evil they find. There is never quite enough of it--power---or the time they need to accomplish their goals.

One of the most common ways tyrants---whether they be rich Oligarchs, fascists, or someone "from the people"---has been to rid society of the outward signs of corruption as they see it. Typically this is in the form of books, art, statues, and even names. In ancient societies, for instance, certain names fell out of favor since they hearken back to a time and regime which were seen as symbolic of evil.

During the Protestant Revolution as an example, people stopped naming their children after popes or saints. Instead, they named them after many of the Old Testament patriarchs.  During World War I, names were often changed to make them sound less German.

The British Royal family, which had deep and recent German roots, changed their surname to Mountbatten-Windsor from the much more Germanic sounding Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.   Many a "Johan" or "Karl" became "John" and "Charles". During World War II, the Nazis questioned anyone with a "Jewish" sounding name, names were changed again. After the war, you couldn't find an "Adolf"!

Throughout history, statues and artwork representing the opposing side were destroyed. In ancient Egypt, they priesthood of Ra not only destroy the statues of the so-called "heretic" pharaoh, Akhenaten and his beautiful wife, Nefertiti, they destroy the entire city of Amnara and used much of it as fill work  on newer projects. What wasn't used, was left for the desert to bury.

The reason was that Akhenaten had introduced a new religion in Egypt which focused on worshipping a single god---the Aten or sun, thus replacing the old religion and its priestly caste with its many gods. He moved the political and religious capitol (which had been Thebes) to a new city, Amnara, at great expense (most of it coming from the treasury and granaries of the former priestly caste).

With his death, the old priestly caste (with the support of the military) made a quick return, forcing Akhenaten's son, Tutankhaten, to restore the old priesthood and return the capital to Thebes. They even forced him to change his name, dropping the "Aten"  and becoming Tutankhamen.  The priests and supporters of Aten were largely murdered or forced to flee for their lives in exile (one theory says this was the basis of the Exodus story and Moses).

The Nazis destroyed statues, pictures, and books of not just Jews, but anyone they viewed as a threat. The infamous book burnings of the 1930's were conducted by the pro-Nazi German Student Union. The first books to be tossed into the flames were those written by Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, and Karl Kautsky, but later included people like Freud, Einstein, Thomas Mann, and any books pertaining to socialism, Communism, pacifism, or were viewed as "liberal".

Other books consigned to fire and ash which promoted homosexuality, the "Jewishness" of Jesus or the his Apostles. The Nazis also added philosophy books by Heine, Kafka, Hesse, and Brecht. Expressionist art was banned, as was jazz music, and plays which included gays, Jews, or gypsies. Anything which didn't celebrate the "Aryan" ideal was viewed as unacceptable. They created a blacklist of writers, artists, playwrights, sculptors, actors, and musicians who were denied not just work, but even payment for work already completed.

No longer could Jewish actors find work. Studios (especially the giant movie studio Ufa) were forbidden to hire them and fellow actors were not allowed to either work or socialize with them. Radio shows who employed non-Aryans had to either cancel programs or find replacement actors. Needless, to say, Jews, gays, and gypsies from every sector of society were strongly "encouraged" to leave the country.

Nazi Germany, as terrible as it was, wasn't the only place where this happened. It happened elsewhere, such as Italy and Spain, and to other groups in other countries like Romania and Hungary. It also happened in Stalin's Russia, where people were literally "erased" from pictures, just as they were erased from history books. 

 Movies were re-edited to reflect Stalin's viewpoint, and this continued not just throughout Stalin's reign, but for decades afterwards. Many of the innocent "offenders" were either murdered or worked to death in the brutal gulags of Siberia. 

"Cancel Culture" has long existed, and has been known by many names. It's been used by the Right as much as the Left and just as effectively. Like with the Nazis and Communists before, people are being denied the opportunity to freely express themselves. They've been shouted down. They've been physically attacked. They've had their works vandalized or destroyed. Order succumbs to chaos. 

They are censored or shadow blocked, which I consider to be the coward's form censorship, and has affected numerous articles, vlogs, and blogs (including this one). Anything which challenges their fixed mindset is seen as a threat and must be eliminated overtly or covertly. But hiding behind "fact checkers" or "community standards" doesn't change it from what it is--- an attempt at intimidation to enforce conformity.   

Today, we're seeing statues of our Founding Fathers vandalized because, two hundred years ago, they owned slaves (or perhaps not). We ignore the fact that these individuals were constricted by the morals and laws of their time, yet we judge and convict them through the morals and laws of our present time. This goes for those who supported the Confederacy as well, who are now socially persona non-grata. 

It wasn't enough. Perhaps only a fool would have thought it would be. As a result, we engaged in the most brutal and costly war in our country's history. Not solely over the single issue of slavery as some want you to believe, but over many issues, mostly economic, which ultimately came back to the issue of equality of all. It wasn't long after that women were included in that equality with the right to vote, to work, to own property, and who to marry (or divorce). Revolutions often devour their own children.

The "Cancel Culture" of today seeks to deny us our voice; of expressing ourselves openly and freely without fear of ridicule or attack. They attempt to create division by promoting what separates us rather than what unites us, yet calling anyone who disagrees with them "fascist", "Nazis", or "racist".  It's an old lesson of tyranny, to accuse your opponent of what it is that you're doing. 

We are seeing the absurdity of the Cancel Culture unfold before us as they seek to eliminate cartoon characters like "Pepe La Pew" and "Speedy Gonzales" from popular culture. Why? Because Pepe (who was based in part on French actor Maurice Chevalier) was somehow promoting "sexual harassment".  As a result, the animated character has been removed from a kiddie movie, "Space Jam 2". I'm sure he'll disappear from the usual morning cartoon lineup too.  I wonder if they'll remove Augie Doggie because he's a straight single dad?

They claim Speedy Gonzales is a negative stereotype of Mexicans (and by extension, Hispanics) and yet he always comes out on top against "el gatito" every time. I suppose they'll go after "Porky Pig" next because he stutters! They've already tried to eliminate Elmer Fudd because he carries a gun (they allege he encourages violence). Have they never seen video games like "Call of Duty", "Mortal Kombat" or "Grand Theft Auto"? How about the violence in movies or music videos and songs? Talk about violence!

Perhaps they should consider Yogi Bear for stealing picnic baskets or Penelope Pitstop for being the perpetual "damsel in distress". or"Jonny Quest" for being "white privileged". Of course, you had Fred Flintstone not only holding a job, but working at quarry (obviously blue collar). That should offend everyone who doesn't want to work!  We can't forget "Hector Heathcote",  that Revolutionary-era patriot of all things American! He's is the anathema of the Cancel Culture. I can imagine they would never want kids to see that cartoon! Of course, we can't forget their efforts in removing Dr. Seuss! 

Although not consigned to the bonfires (yet), movies like "Gone With the Wind", "Blazing Saddles", "Breakfast at Tiffany's", Animal House, Airplane, and a host of others could never be made today. This is especially true of movies made during Hollywood's "Golden Era'.  Books like "Tom Sawyer" and  "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" aren't considered "PC". Neither is "Little House on the Prairie", "Peter Pan", "Catcher in the Rye", or "Indian in the Cupboard" among dozens of others. We need diversity of thought, even (or especially) if we don't agree with it. 

Crayola has announced they were dropping "white" from their color crayon line up (rumor have it that the color will remain, but the name changed to "plain"). The color "Flesh" is now "Peach". The VP of Marketing at Crayola, Charles Weston, said that they originally viewed the color "white" to be used for "coloring clouds, snowballs, and Republican Senators". He also stated that Crayola would no longer be including the white crayon in the hopes that "enable more coloring and less whitening, unlike American history classes".

So, where does that leave us? There's so much more we can discuss, but space here prevents it. We've all become accustomed to the usual flag burning or trampling which is aimed solely at provoking a response, or at the very least, gaining some attention. "Taking a knee" at sporting events failed to galvanize a nation. Instead, it enraged us, and as a result, cost the sports entertainment industry millions of fans and billions of dollars. What was moral is now reviled. Lies are truth from another perspective. Strength is seen as weakness. Up is down.

The Cancel Culture is about "cancelling" our culture as Americans, and that includes are collective values and traditions. It's little different from the Stalin or any of the other tyrants of the past except that it's here in America and it's happening now. They are political zombies bent on destruction. It includes not just our ability to live together, but to work out our problems peacefully. 

Cancel Culture is no different from the tyranny of the past. They seek to erase all that they fear by creating fear in us. Their aim is to convince us that we have no power to stop them, when, in fact, we hold all the power. We just need to speak out. 

Nazi Book Burning

 

Progressive! Crayola finally acknowledges the white crayonis useless

HBO Disarmed Elmer Fudd!

Speedy Gonzales Is the Latest Cartoon to be Accused of Perpetuating

 

 

Impeachment and Life After Trump: "To Whom It May Concern in Anywhere America"

 

Like him or hate him, you have to admit that Donald Trump was never boring. From his sold out speeches in stadiums throughout the country, to his press conferences and verbal jousts with so-called "journalists", to his tweets, we never knew what he was going to say.

However, it was mostly the later, his tweets, which were the most incendiary. Though they were typically directed to his supporters, he would use the platform to go after those who attacked him directly or indirectly. It became a way to express his opinions in a candid and often unfiltered way. 

On January 6th, massive numbers of pro-Trump and ordinary conservatives from around the country descended on Washington DC to express their anger at what they saw as a blatantly rigged election and failed government. But it was much more than that. They were tired of the condescending attitude of members of Congress (both parties) and open bias of the media.

They had endured eight years of mockery and ridicule under the Obama Administration and a full four years of barely concealed contempt and smugness from the Speaker of the House on down. It was just as bad in the Senate. It was all over the news and on social media nearly every minute of every day. It was integrated into magazines, books, music, TV shows, radio, and movies.

Now that the nation had a new (and some who believed an illegitimate) President suddenly calling for "unity" and "coming together" with that the Status Quo back in charge was too much.  So, they planned, organized, and came together in a open and highly visible expression of their own contempt for a system which failed them; which belittled them.

Anyone who bothered to look out their window could see what was happening. There was no doubt that the Establishment was peeing down its collective leg. They were terrified. Hiding in locked rooms, in closets, under tables. They couldn't imagine the American People were actually coming together and saying "enough!". It's the one thing they least expected. It was also the one thing they feared the most.

Trump tweeted out words of support and encouragement. This was what he had fought for over the last four years. Never did his tweets call on the protesters to vandalize, loot, or deface property the way Antifa or BLM had done the preceding year. Never did he urge the protestors to break windows or even enter House or Senate chambers. And, he never encouraged the violence which unfolded.

Yes, a number of the protestors were armed. It was no secret. It was out in the open for all to see. But not surprisingly, their message was lost on the elites. What could all those gun toting protestors carrying American flags and pro-Trump banners want except to tar and feather members of Congress? 

 But the message was clear to the most casual viewer. They were there to impress on Washington that the American People have a right to carry arms. It's called the Second Amendment. It's right up there with the First Amendment---the right to freedom of speech, expression, religion, and to assemble.

 It didn't mean they were there for violence. It was to remind Congress that the People have those rights and will protect them if need be. Of course, how do you explain this to those who sincerely believe they have a pre-ordained right to rule---not govern--- but rule? The concept was beyond their understanding.  But something went wrong. What? The answer is that there were multiple mistakes.

The first mistake was the media. The only ones there that day was the corporate media which has spent every moment over the last four years trying to divide this country, be it Left vs. Right vs.the Center; black vs. white vs. brown vs. yellow vs. everyone else; men vs. women; straights vs. gays, and so on. Division, as artificial as it may be, drives ratings and ratings equal advertising which is money. Divided we can be controlled and manipulated. Together we can't.

The corporate media is the eyes, ears, and mouthpiece of the Status Quo; the Establishment. If you watched any of the "reporting". They were stunned to find conservative blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans in with the crowds. They were equally stymied to see gun totting women and yes, even gays there as part of the protest. It didn't fit the narrative they've been feeding us. The solution was, as always, to misdirect out attention, manipulate the image, and obscure the message.

What was missing was the eyes, ears, and voice of the protestors. Who was their media advocate? The answer was no body (you can't really include Fox News anymore). Image is perception. Perception becomes reality. It controls the narrative, and the organizers left it to the corporate media to dictate what that would be.

The second mistake was not knowing the crowd. I don't how the organizers set about getting the message out, but they did a good job in getting people there. But there was a large gathering of Antifa and BLM just a few blocks away for their own event, which could have easily spun out of control had the two groups clashed. 

Some allege that Antifa infiltrators were the ones breaking windows and spray painting walls,  but there's no hard proof of that (vandalism is a hallmark of Antifa as America and the world witnessed last year).  For those unaware, Antifa is a Far Left anarchist group. They are not directly associated with the Democrats per se. While the name is shorthand for "Anti-Fascist" they tend to behave similar to Nazi Brownshirts and Mussolini's Blackshirts, both  fascist organizations, and the Maoist Red Front.

Several members of the pro-Trump crowd tried to point out these interlopers and separate them from other protestors (they were mostly successful). However, the damage was done, both figuratively and literally. Without a supportive media there to record it as it happened, it created the image the radical Left wanted and the Status Quo hoped for.

The third mistake was Trump himself. The election was over, and whether the results were right or rigged, the corporate media was portraying the outcome as factual.  Trump resisted. He was upset and angry, and he struck out. Never let your emotions guide your actions. He should have known that as a businessman. But, unintentionally, it was his tweets which were his undoing.

President Trump had long used social media to bypass blatantly biased news outlets so much so that they spent as much time on his tweets and posts as they did on his actual statements. Following the election, his media bursts became sharper.

However, on January 6th, Trump tweeted messages like "stay strong" and "fight like hell" to his supporters . While his intent was to provide moral encouragement, the message was distorted. It was filtered through a corporate media seething with hatred for the President and his supporters. It was portrayed in a matter not intended. It was portrayed as to encourage violence and mayhem.

In all likelihood, I suspect that neither Trump or his staff were fully aware of what was actually happening outside. After all, they had been hurried into secure rooms, safe from any potential harm. Any information they received from outside was likely old, incomplete, or possibly inaccurate.

Given Trump's history, his cell phone should have been "secured". Without full knowledge of events, anything more than a "be safe" or "keep it peaceful" message was bound to do more harm than good, and, as we all know, it did. 

Ultimately, one protester, Ashli Babbitt, was shot dead by Capital Police. One police officer died while engaging protestors. Three others died from natural causes, and several were injured. Papers inside House and Senate chambers were strewn everywhere. Even Pelosi's podium was stolen! Windows were broken, laptops went missing, along with some general vandalism as mentioned previously.

The Establishment was pissed. It was time for revenge, and it came swift starting with social media suspending a setting President's accounts and cutting off any direct and unfiltered communication with the American public. There was also a crackdown on Conservative sites as well, including pressuring other social media sites to comply with their new guidelines or risk being deplatformed.

Speaker of House Nancy Pelosi was publically beside herself in anger that citizens had invaded the "People's House" while they were doing "the People's business" without permission. Ugh! We can't have the common rabble running around Congress. Who do these peasants think they are? It's not like Congress actually represents them or anything right?

So, Trump is gone. Biden is President, but that's not the end of the story. Trump is to be the first American President to be impeached twice, which could create a Constitutional crisis of sorts. Can someone be prosecuted for what happened while in office after they've left? We know they can be removed from office while still in office, but what if they're no longer in office?

It's likely the matter will eventually find its way before the Supreme Court, assuming the High Court will even hear the matter. After all, the point of impeachment is to censure the individual for "high crimes and misdemeanors" and, secondly, to remove them from office if necessary. In our history, only three presidents have been impeached, Andrew Jackson, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump.  But what about Richard Nixon? Why could he be important?

President Nixon was never impeached for his role in the Watergate break-in and subsequent cover-up which included a kidnapping, wiretapping, destruction of evidence, and lying to Congress. However, the House was proceeding with impeachment hearings when Nixon resigned (had he not, he would have likely been impeached and possibly removed from office).

Nevertheless, Nixon was never tried although others were, and some went to jail for their roles. As far as ole "Tricky Dick" Nixon was concerned, the matter was dropped. Nixon didn't lose any of his perks of having been president either. Trump is accused of far less.

It seems to me Nixon comes the closest to Trump's current situation. Nixon avoided impeachment by resigning, nevertheless the stigma remained. As Trump is no longer President, there is no reason to impeach him. His removal from office came as a result of the election. Like Nixon (and even Clinton), the stigma of the first impeachment will itself likely keep him from ever seeking public office again.

But unlike Nixon or Clinton, this isn't about a break in or lying to Congress about getting blowjobs in the Oval Office. It's political, which means its personal. Donald Trump was an outsider who upset the plans of the Status Quo by defeating Hillary Clinton. He then set about exposing the corruption of Establishment, which included both parties, big business, and the media. That was unacceptable. This is about sending a message addressed "To Whom It May Concern in Anywhere America".

That message is a simple one. They will not ever allow another outsider. They will never again be publicly exposed for who they are. They are self-ordained to rule by virtue of their wealth and connections. They are not "one of us". They are our betters. They, and they alone know what's best for us. Our job is to keep quiet and do as we're told. Set back and enjoy the "bread and circuses".

The game is rigged. It's fixed. As George Carlin said, "It's a big club and you ain't in it".  Everything you or I suspected is likely not just true, but worse than we imagined. Once we accept this simple truth, regardless of which wing of the vulture we're under, the better we're going to be. Why? Because knowing the truth isn't the same as accepting it. Once it's accepted, you can act on it. You can start doing something about it.

 

 

These Are The 5 People Who Died in the Capital Riot

Watergate Scandal

George Carlin: It's a big club and you ain't in it

 

 

And The Winner Is...

And the winner of the 2020 Presidential elections is...well, it remains to be seen. It may be weeks yet before we know who the next president will be. However, the fact the we don't know speaks volumes about the state of the nation. It wasn't that long ago that we knew by 10:00 or 11:00 PM election night who would occupy the Oval Office for the next four years, but not anymore.

Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin once remarked, it didn't matter who voted. It was who counted the votes that was most important. Never has that been truer since the Al Gore and George W Bush in 2001 (Gore was even briefly called "President Elect" by the media). As America has become increasingly divided, elections have become increasingly harder to call...or count.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi echoed Stalin's comment when she recently said that it didn't matter what the final vote count was, Joe Biden was going to the president. He was going to be the one sworn in on January 20th. The utterance of someone who knows something or just being mouthy?

Earlier, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, told Joe Biden and his team not to concede the election no matter what. He wasn't to say or do anything until every last vote was counted. It's hard to say whether she was giving Biden some political advice or a warning.

America is a deeply divided country. We haven't seen division this wide or deep since the late 1850's; the decade preceding the bloodiest chapter in American history, the Civil War. Both sides allege rigged elections; ballots destroyed or lost by the thousands, and then tens of thousands of ballots, all for one candidate, suddenly appear in states which were previously to close to call.

Worse still are the Leftist groups who threaten more violence---rioting, looting, arson, or worse---if their candidate loses. We have national unions, like the AFL-CIO for example, threaten to strike if their choice loses and to remain on strike until the candidate they oppose is removed from office.

That's the kind of thing we typically hear about in third world countries where some tin pot despot and their thugs are trying to suppress the voting.  Let's face it, the Left was attempting to hold voters hostage; give us who we want or we will loot, burn, and destroy.  We'll bring an already sluggish economy to a halt.  We will win through fear and intimidation if we lose at the ballot box.

Massive barriers and walls were erected around government buildings. Many commercial buildings followed suit. The National Guard in many state were put on ready alert status. The State Police in some locations were ordered to be on standby.  How was this possible in a country such as ours?

We were once known to have one of the most secure balloting in the world, yet it now seems to be easily corruptible. America was once known for having the most stable political system in the world. We were known for our peaceful transition of power. Now, we speak in veiled and not so veiled threats of coups.

We have individuals from both political parties openly discussing having the military physically remove the president and anyone else in the way because he said he wouldn't concede until all votes were counted and certified. The same as the Left demanded in 2016, which no longer appears to apply.

We have a media, which is supposed to be fair, balanced, and non-partisan, blatantly engage in character assassination over the course of four years while simultaneously either ignoring or soft pedaling stories about the other side.  That's propaganda of the kind that Nazi Germany's Joseph Goebbels would be proud of.  No wonder the media has lost its credibility.

Academia is no better. It was supposed to expose students to new ideas, even if they're unpopular, in addition to teaching new skills; to teach factual history, not glossed over versions of it. Most importantly to develop critical thinking skills so that students will be able to think independently for themselves.

Nowadays it serves as indoctrination centers with "safe spaces" to hide away from any group or idea which threatens to burst their fragile ideological bubble while encouraging them to censor others. Some schools offer segregated rooms for certain groups to "take a break" from straights, conservatives, or whites (as if they're a contagion).  But if you're one of those, don't expect the same protection ---that would be "politically incorrect"!

So, where does that leave us? Well, regardless of who "officially" is elected, the other side will not accept the results. They will regard the incoming administration as illegitimate;  a usurper of the People's Will. The media has no credibility. Whatever they report will be seen as lies.  

The only true winner to come out of the 2020 elections is the ruling Oligarchs and their Corporatocracy.  Both parties---the Democrats and Republicans---continue to lose whatever hold they had on the American People. The majority are now Independents, and that has held true over two decades. Even third parties have felt the frustration as they watch their numbers grow.

This election will likely add to those numbers. Meanwhile, the Democrats and Republicans, the Laurel and Hardy of political duopoly, continue to fight over a shrinking portion of a stale pie as they see their control over the populace weaken.

From their high towers, they don't see how the people scoff and sneer at their worthless platitudes. Meanwhile, ideologically infected minorities claim to be "awoke" when in truth they've swallowed the blue pill of dutiful ignorance; Manchurian zombies still serving the interests of the Status Quo.  "Useful idiots" Lenin would have called them. Hitler would have called them "cannon fodder".

The mysterious virus, COVID-19, with its Chinese origin, has served a useful purpose aside from thinning the sheeple. It has not only drastically affected the world's economy, it has reshaped of the U.S. economy. While large corporations have benefited from taxpayer funded low or no interests loans and bailouts---$2.3 trillion dollars with $651 billion in tax breaks ---small businesses haven't been so lucky.

Many businesses have closed or cut hours, leaving ordinary working class people forced to liquidate what little savings or investments they had, thus weakening an already emaciated Middle Class. With no job, no investments or savings, many face the prospect of eviction with a cold winter looming.  

America has become a surveillance state, and we seem fine with that. After all, it's all in the name of national security. Only guilty have need to worry right? Perhaps soon, we'll have ID chips implanted in our hands too, in the name of national security no doubt.

Besides, think of the convenience of all your financial, health, education, and work information loaded into one discreetly embedded chip. No doubt it will be all the rage as our favorite Hollywood  "celebrity" will be flaunting it, so we'll naturally all want to emulate them. Commercials will glorify it the way they do apps, shoes, or dog food while the government will promote its use through PSAs.   

In China, everyone is required to carry a Smartphone at all times. Not only does it help you stay connected to friends and family, it helps you stay connected to the government which incessantly monitors everyone's whereabouts and conversations.  A chip would be so much less intrusive don't you agree?  This is particularly true if new viruses are to be a part of our future.

Chips could monitor metabolic changes, alert us when we're infected, and order---I mean urge us---to "voluntarily" quarantine. It could even alert the authorities, everyone you've been in contact with, and shut down your access to anything outside of your residence, thus nearly completely eliminating your ability to travel, work or shop outside of the home---for your wellbeing of course.

Couple this with facial identification, vehicle GPS tracking, ultra sensitive spy satellites, and just think of how "secure" you will be! Best of all, the technology is already in place and being used.  Wang Dongxing, Lav Beria and Heinrich Himmler would be green with envy! 

With the defeat of President Trump an all but forgone conclusion, the Oligarchs has already scurried back into the light, regaining their open control on the levers of power. They will ensure that no outsider like Trump will ever again upset their agenda in the same way they ensured that no one like Ross Perot would ever secure a place on the national stage.

The COVID virus will slowly be brought to end as its usefulness wanes. The media will set the world to rights as the next crisis is manufactured.  Meanwhile, the elites will take note that the Right failed to respond as anticipated to the rioting, looting, arson, and general mayhem of the Left.

Their conclusion will likely be that the Right, for all their guns and bluster, are unorganized and unwilling to act. Perhaps they're a "paper John Wayne" after all. If this is the conclusion they come to, expect overt and covert assaults on the 2nd Amendment under the cover of national security.

Meanwhile, corporations will continue to crack down of free speech, especially on social media sites (COVID has already impacted our freedom to assemble). The Right will continue to panned on campus while indoctrination spreads in primary schools. Opposition will not be tolerated.  Resistance is futile. Conservatives will be labeled as "racist", "reactionary"  and "anti-societal". The collective will prevail.

Future historians will view the selection of Biden and Harris as a critical turning point in American domestic history; one in a series of small steps which began decades ago. As Lenin wrote of "two steps forward, one step backward".  Much of what Trump did will be undone as quickly as possible in order to erase the backward step and take the next step forward.

Biden's tenure as the "straw man" will be relatively brief. Harris may well be ordained as the first woman President with a proud Hillary and Pelosi looking on. The illusion of a Republic will continue so long as it remains a useful curtain to hide behind.

 

Gallup: Party Affiliation

'Doomed to Fail': Why a $4 trillion bailout couldn't revive the American economy

Wang Dongxing

Lavrentiy Beria

Heinrich Himmler

 

 

Dancing With the Devil: The November Elections

What do you think will happen if Donald Trump is reelected President? What do you think the outcome would be should Joe Biden win in November? Given the derisive climate we are living in, those are two questions we need to seriously think about. In fact, in a October 2019 Georgetown University poll, almost 68% of those surveyed said that we are quickly heading for a second civil war. That's a scary prospect folks.

The first civil war was the bloodiest war ever fought by this country. Some 620,000 died with another million or so either missing, wounded, or dying from their wounds or disease. About 420,000 died in World War II; 58,000 died in Vietnam. Given the size of our population and today's technology, can you imagine what the death toll could be? Ghastly would be an gross understatement, especially when you consider that we have a much higher percentage of people who are considered seniors, in nursing homes, or requiring medical care of some sort than at any time in our history who would affected.

Nevertheless, let's briefly consider the two scenarios. Ever since Trump's election in 2016, the establishment media has been waging a political assassination campaign against him. At every turn they have been trying to find some way to discredit or remove him, be it claiming Russian collusion, insider deals and bribery, to falsified "leaks" and whatever else you can think of.

The Democrats have been trying to undermine him at every term. The contempt individuals like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and a myriad of others have for Trump is palpable to the point of being embarrassing. Even prominent Republicans have been critical of the president, violating Ronald Reagan's old political maxim, "Thou Shall Not Criticize A Fellow Republican". Loyalty is a fickle thing in politics.

Meanwhile, since the 2016 election, there has been growing street violence. Groups like Antifa have been using old style "Brownshirt" street fighting to attack anything or anyone who disagrees with them. BLM, which started off seeking social justice for black individuals, has morphed into a radicalized Left wing political group more akin to Antifa than not. Other, even more radical groups, including several militia-like organizations which threaten violence have started forming.

In addition, a new Left formed on college campuses, social media, and elsewhere. Their goal is to deny, wherever possible, the opposition an opportunity to speak. They have attacked speakers (including those who had been invited to speak), trashed stores which sell anything opposing their views. They have harass individuals on social media in an attempt to silence them while going after subscribers, commenters, or even advertisers who support them. Freedom of speech for some but not all.

Since March, the violence has increased due to the deaths of several black individuals resulting from police shootings. Most of these incidents are still under investigation, but the tone has been set---charge them or the city will burn, which carries the obvious implication that their guilt and conviction should be foregone conclusions. So much for a fair trial.

Former 2016 Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton has already publicly stated that should Trump win, Biden is to, under no circumstance, accept the results. Hillary has stated that they will need additional time to "ensure" that all votes are counted, which could take months. Presumably, this means they'll all be properly---and legally---counted before January. This brings up another issue, the votes themselves.

Because of the COVID-19 virus, many locales are encouraging mail-in voting. Of course, this creates the opportunity for all sorts of mischief such as lost ballots, altered ballots, disallowed ballots, or maybe even the dead voting! For those who "insist" on voting in person, this will likely be made as inconvenient as possible.

Traditional polling places will be closed and people will be herded into large buildings to vote amid constant reminders of the dangers of COVID-19. That may be enough to keep a lot of people home. As Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin once said, "It doesn't matter who votes. It only matters who counts the votes". Ole Uncle Joe knew what he was talking about.

So, Trump wins, then what? At first, not much. The media will downplay it and point to the votes yet to be manufactured...err...counted. However, as days drag into weeks, the patience on both sides will wear thin. There will be an increasing number of confrontations; many of them violent. When it becomes obvious that either Trump still wins or that fraud is afoot, that's when gloves will come off quickly.

The Far Left will go all out. There will be no middle ground. No compromise. There will be violence in the streets, be it cities, the towns, or the suburbs. The media will censor much of it as it has thus over the past several months. The economy, already hobbled by COVID-19, will largely come to a screeching halt (except possible online). It will be simply too dangerous for many people to go out.

There could be blackouts as electrical substations are attacked. Water purification plants could be attacked as well. Hospitals and pharmacies could be periodically attacked. In short, think Beirut. Read up on or watch videos about the "Color Revolutions" in Eastern Europe or the "Arab Spring" to get a good idea of what to expect.

Meanwhile, expect to see local police set up at key locations, especially major streets and expressways which will be subject to roving roadblocks by protestors. The state police will be out in force (most of them deputized as federal marshals). The National Guard will be out too. As looting and riots increasing, "shoot to kill" orders will be issued. Some states may even tell their citizens to move to certain secure areas or be prepared to defend themselves best as they can. It like literally look like a war zone.

After a few weeks of this, many of the least committed on both sides will start to settle down, leaving only the most extreme (of which there will still be plenty), but a general sense of normalcy will slowly evolve. Ultimately, Trump may be forced to resign "for the good of the country" in what will be a thinly veiled coup staged by his own party. An interim "caretaker" President will be installed. The media will hail it as brilliant statesmanship but everyone will see it for what it really is. The ruling Oligarchs of the Corporatocracy will use the chaos to restore order and everything else to their liking.

We will enter a long period of "normalization" which is code for protracted martial law. Various rights will be "temporarily" suspended for our "own good". Of course, we will never see those rights ever again, at least not in the same form. The New Order will begin. "Your papers if you would please".

What if it goes the other way and Biden wins? What happens then? You will immediately see the corporate media proclaim a "mandate by the people". There will be an immediate demand that Trump concede regardless of the status of mail-in ballots. They will want to secure the election as quickly as possible to avoid any delays or possible dispute of the results.

You will see the Left go bat shit wild. Yes, there will be massive celebrations in the streets, but in conjunction with these there will a great of celebratory violence with the usual vandalism, burnings, and lootings. On a slightly deeper level, you'll see Leftist groups start going after those who supported Trump and the Republicans (with the exception of large donors who just as likely donated to Biden and the Democrats).

Meanwhile, the Far Right will cry "foul" and take to the streets. Voting locations will be quickly secured by not just police but also by Right wing groups. There could be direct clashes with the Left while the small conservative media eggs them on. Indirectly you could see demand from all quarters of the Right for an immediate recount. Lawyers will file their previously prepared briefs to bring the whole process to a halt. Again, the economy would be affected through fear of potential violence.

As before, the local and federally deputized state police will be out in force along with the National Guard. The Democrats will assert the legitimacy of the election while the Right---conservatives and Republicans---will demand a recount first. Ultimately, martial law will be imposed under the pretext of restoring order and normalization, thus ushering in a New Order.

It's highly possible that during the chaos, that there is a massive wave of illegal immigrants, be they from Latin America, Asia, or the Middle East (especially terrorists hiding among the influx). This surge could overwhelm already strained social safety nets of cities and states throughout the nation but mainly in the southwest, Oregon, and Washington State.

Hostile foreign powers could use the chaos to make whatever nefarious move they've been harboring such an invasion of South Korea by the North, a Chinese invasion of Taiwan or the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, a possible toppling of the government in Iraq by pro-Iranians, or attack on Israel by Iranian backed terrorists.

Of course, any combination of the above could potentially happen. It's also possible that aside from a few protests or minor riots, a bit of looting, and some political posturing that not much of anything happens. That's the best case scenario I think. However, it's more likely that the post-November election will bring about a new course for America, whether it's a more polite form of corporate fascism from the Right or a more direct form from the Left. "How do take your revenge my dear---sweet or bitter?"

One of the things which has made the American Experiment so unique in history has been the peaceful transition of power. Given America's deep divide, fanned by the corporate media, this election will put the American Experiment to its toughest test to date. As long as we remain divided, only the Corporatocracy will win. In a "winner take all" electoral system, sometimes the losers are the weepers.

Bernie Sanders and Democratic Socialism: The (Current) Ogre of The Right

As of this writing, Bernie Sanders is the current leader among the contenders for the Democratic Party's nominee for President and the one to face President Donald Trump in the fall. The last time Sanders ran for president, back in 2016, he was literally cheated out the opportunity to become his party's nominee by the "Queen-in-waiting", Hillary Clinton, along with a little help from her friends like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the (then) head of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Of course, Wasserman was later forced to resign as a result of helping to rig the nomination process against Sanders. Sanders was also denied a role in putting together the party's agenda for the upcoming election. Such was the deep seated fear of the Establishment Democrats of Sanders.

Now, with no Hillary Clinton to contend with, Bernie Sanders appears to be on a roll. So much so that the Establishment Right is already rolling out their "Oh God, he's a Pinko Commie Bastard" message. The truth of the matter is this. Bernie calls himself a "socialist democrat" and he's making all the usual promises designed to get attention and, hopefully, votes; especially from those who are sick and tired of being sick and tired of politics as usual.

The Right is doing its best to equate Bernie with every bogeyman imaginable. They are claiming that he's a full blown a rat-bastard Communist and neo-Stalinist. They've even tried to link his claim of democratic socialism with Fascism and Nazis (which actually fall on the far Right of the political spectrum, not the Left), but let's not confuse facts with some good old fashion mudslinging! Besides, this is politics. What does "Truth" have to do with it anyway? Some have even had the audacity to compare Bernie Sanders with that other lowdown Commie, President Franklin D Roosevelt (gasp!).

Yes, it's often alleged by the Right that President Franklin D Roosevelt was a closet Commie bastards too. Well, he was certainly called a "traitor to his class" by all well heeled society folks of the time, especially those on Wall Street. After all, he was tied to the Great Depression thanks to the actions (or inactions) of his predecessors, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. It's true that he took steps to make Wall Street and the banks more accountable not just to the government, but to the public.

It's also true that he helped implement some dastardly "socialist" government programs like Social Security, funded pensions, enacted child labor laws, legalized unionization, backed the 40 hour work week, established wage hour laws and supported health benefits programs, unemployment insurance, and safe working conditions. He also created "make work" programs (the so-called "Alphabet Agencies" to employ many of the vast unemployed men and women. Oh the humanity of it all! Did this man not have a conscience? He was indeed a traitor to his class.

It's said that FDR was nearly as bad as his cousin (who was called a "mad man"), President Theodore Roosevelt, who broke up the monopolies of the Robber Barons (Antitrust Policy), his conservation efforts, and the Meat Inspection Act along with the Food and Drug Act of 1906; both of which sought to make clean up those industries so that people would get a healthy and consistent product. By today's standards, ole "Teddy" as he was called would also be called a RINO.

But much has changed since then. For example, we had numerous programs aimed at improving life for ordinary Americans. Many were called "socialist" at the time too but we wouldn't dream being without them. I'm talking about Truman's Fair Deal of 1949 which included the Housing Act which rid communities of slums and implemented urban renewal. He expanded Social Security. He desegregated the military (yes, that was actually called "socialist" in 1949). Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1960 while Kennedy expanded it in 1962.

President Johnson declared war on poverty, which included work-study programs for students, expanded healthcare and education programs such as Headstart into areas hit the hardest by poverty (particularly in the Appalachian regions of Kentucky and West Virginia). There was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which, in part, barred discrimination against in employment, sales, and housing. In 1964, Medicare and Medicaid were created. The Water Quality Act was passed in 1965.

Nixon backed the Consumer Product Safety Act of 1972 to create safety standards and ban products deemed unsafe for consumer use, and the list goes on. The point is that each of these programs were, in their day, each called "socialism" by the opposition, but can you imagine being without any of them--no unemployment, no Social Security; no laws protecting you from overtime abuse or your paycheck; living with unsafe working conditions, or legalized discrimination?

Yeah, there have been oversteps; programs which didn't work or work as originally intended such as Welfare which has devolved into a virtual "career" choice for some, or federal overreach into public schools (another notion which was considered "socialist" when first introduced), and especially forced busing which denied choice. More recently there have been attempts to limit gun and ammo sales or curtail free speech. None of these does society much good.

As for Bernie Sanders, he is a Democrat no matter what he calls himself. He must still operate within the confines of the rules established by his party. Secondly, the Democrats and Republican establishment work in unison to control the political process in this country. There are things they will and will not allow to happen. In turn, the two party duopoly and their politicians are controlled by a ruling Oligarchy of very wealthy and powerful corporations and individuals. They establish the political tone and direction in this country by controlling Washington's overall political agenda.

The Oligarchy is not in any shape form or fashion socialist or tolerant of socialism. They will not allow themselves to ever be dictated to by the government. Never. At present they exist in a partnership with government which is financially beneficial to each. They, through their hired guns---the lobbyists---help write legislation and then lobby (bribe) to ensure its passage. The bickering is mainly over whose agenda makes it through and who gets the largest share of crumbs (aka "pork"). Financially they underwrite the politicians and their campaigns. They control 90+% of the media and, therefore, control the message.

Politically speaking, most are pretty conservative fiscally, preferring a hands off approach from government with as little regulation as possible, while their opinions on social issues vary. Anyone elected to office must comply with the demands of the Oligarchy and, in turn, the very powerful party bosses, who act as gatekeepers, and committee chairmen and women. That includes Sanders should he get elected president. Any attempt to buck the Status Quo will be shut down.

If someone gets too far out of hand, the Establishment will force them back in line. That can be anything from denying you a seat on a particular committee or no "crumbs" to take home to the voters to destroying your political career or character assassination to working against you in your reelection (yes, a party will turn on their own if they buck the system too much). In a few cases, they've been known to take more serious steps to eliminate a problem.

Who is backing Sanders? He can't get elected on the dimes and dollars ordinary voters give. The Status Quo has been it virtually impossible for the average person to run for office and get elected. So, obviously Sanders has to have some big money behind him. Well, in his 2016 race his biggest financial supporters were the University of California, Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Amazon, Kaiser Permanente (a healthcare consortium), National Nurses United, Boeing, Intel, AT&T, as well as political action groups and wealthy members representing the Armed Forces, Veterans Affairs, U.S. Dept of Defense, and federal government employees.

However, his biggest financial donor was a company I had never heard of. It's named Alphabet, Inc. It turns out that Alphabet, Inc is a conglomerate of multinational corporations which comprise businesses like Google, a semi-secret R&D company named X Development, another R&D company which focuses on genetics and disease named Calico, Nest which markets smart home products, Makani Technologies which manufactures wind turbines, a private equity company, CapitalG, which concentrates on investing on emerging growth technology businesses. Not exactly what I'd expect to find donating in large dollar amounts to a "democratic socialist".

As expected, there were also a host of Left leaning organizations such as MoveOn and ad hoc groups like Progressive Voters of America. This go around, it looks like his big donors are the same groups as above in addition to UPS, Walmart, City University of New York, Starbucks, and Target. He's also getting money from the American Postal Workers Union, the Communication Workers of America, the National Education Association, Unite Here, Service Employees International Union, the American Federation of Teachers, and the Operating Engineers Union.

Again, not what I would expect for someone whose political campaign is based on doing away with free enterprise or government takeover of all existing businesses including Wall Street. I should also point out that several of these groups are covering their bases by donating to multiple candidates, but it appears that at this point anyway Bernie is getting the majority of their money.

Speaking of which, Wall Street Democrats and other Establishment Democrats loath Sanders. Not that they actually expect he'd be able to pull off some sort of socialist coup once elected, but that he might be able to at least implement some form of restrictions on capital or push through some type of new social program. The big dollar Democratic candidate is multibillionaire Michael Bloomberg (because being a billionaire creates such a close connect with the working class I suppose). He's followed by another multibillionaire, Tom Steyer, then come Bernie, who is a mere millionaire.

Next is Joe Biden with a net worth of around nine million dollars. Rounding out the top five is Pete Buttigieg. It's worth noting that Buttigieg is not a millionaire, but he's not exactly poor either. He's basically upper middle class with a net worth of approximately $100,000. He earns just over $112,000 as mayor of South Bend Indiana. His husband, a middle school teacher, earns $152,000.

So, there you have it. Bernie, the millionaire. Hardly the stereotype of a democratic socialist, and making promises he knows damn well he can't deliver on. Meanwhile front groups on the Right are on the verge of a hysterical meltdown as they try to whip conservatives into thinking that Sanders represents Stalin incarnate (the likely goal is to help get a Establishment Democrat win the nomination). They've even gone as far as to claim that Sanders and his ilk equate to Communists, Fascists, Nazis, and that all of them are offshoots of Marxism!

Yeah, I'm perfectly aware of just how absurd that sounds, but then again, thanks to our "dumbed down" education system there are a lot of people who don't know history and will be believe just about anything. Want to know more? Check out my links below. As regular readers of A/O know, I always include source links with my articles.



Open Secrets: Bernie Sander's Campaign 2016

Open Secrets: Bernie Sander's Campaign 2020

The Money: Who's Winning---and losing---the great 2020 money chase

What is Pete Buttigieg's Net Worth?