American Politics: A Reality Check

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 . 

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

Labor Unions in the United States

Corporatocracy

Wealth inequality in the United States

Bankrate's 2025 Annual Emergency Savings Report

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Eight Billionaires Own asMuch as the Poorest Half of Global Population

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Bonhoeffer’s Theory of Stupidity (5:58)

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

 

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

German Evangelical Church

Positive Christianity

Confessing Church

Martin Niemoller

Territorial evolution of Germany

Ludwig Muller

 

The Role of German Clergy and Church Leaders

The Brutal Execution of Dietrich Bonhoeffer---Resisting theNazis

Flossenbürg Concentration Camp

Is the United States Undergoing a Marxist Revolution?

Recently, I had a reader ask me if the U.S. was surreptitiously becoming a "Marxist" country. The reader pointed to presence of  Left wing groups like Antifa. LGBTQ, and Black Lives Matter (which have gone quiet lately) and the hesitance of government officials (especially Democrats) to act, not to mention the politicization for the Justice Department and law enforcement agencies such as the FBI. They also wondered if the comically misnamed "January 6th Insurrection" was part of it, perhaps a "false flag" designed to rally the Left and shine the spotlight on Right winger agitators and leaders.

While there's no doubt the protest of January 6th was out of years of pent-up frustration, triggered by what many saw as a "stolen election", it was by no means a "false flag". It was genuine anger, and as the last four years has borne out, a justifiable anger.  The Biden Administration hasn't done America any favors domestically or overseas. So, is America on the road to Marxism? Here's my response. I hope you find it informative.

Is the U.S. becoming Marxist? Hardly. In fact, we’re aren't in the midst of a revolution of any sort (at least, not yet).  However, the United States is and has been undergoing a corporate coup in slow motion for some time now. Wall Street has been growing its power and influence over politics in the U.S. ever since the “Citizens United” blunder in 2010 by the Supreme Court, which effectively removed the ordinary citizen voter from any meaningful impact on elections.

Citizens United declared that corporations, which are nothing more than legal fictions, have the same rights as you and I while employees are denied many of the basic rights they have outside of the business. It means that not only does the artificial entity itself have a voice in a election, but so to does the individuals who control the company. In addition, the Supreme Court blunder said that money is equivalent to free speech.

It also said corporations can donate what they please while we’re still capped in what we can donate, not that it matters. Corporations can give millions which far exceeds anything the average citizen voter can ever hope to give. These corporations even donate more than unions by a 10 to 1 margin.

Thus, corporations can buy the candidate of their choice. They also underwrite the two principal parties, the Democrats and Republicans (what in truth we have is simply two competing corporate cliques with many corporations giving to both parties). They also fund so-called “leadership PACs” which are basically slush funds for politicians to use as they please.

There are literally hundreds of lobbyists per legislator (who often call on the senior staff as well). How many lobbyists represent “Joe and Jane Public? you ask? Virtually none, and what does exist can’t come close to matching what Wall Street gives.

In addition, because politicians don’t have the time or staff to read every bill coming across their desk, corporate lobbying firms do have the time and staff to reading incoming bills, as well as provide summaries and recommendations on how to vote. On many occasions, this is done strictly for the party leadership, who then pass their marching orders down the line. As an aside, legislators typically spend the majority of their day fund raising for the party and party leadership as well as themselves.

Corporate lobbyists help legislators to research and/or write bills (and have been known to write the bills in their entirety) and then help shepherd them through the maze of committees (albeit often quietly picking up some "riders' (better known as “pork”) along the way.

Now, if that’s not enough, corporate lobbyists provide all sorts of perks, ranging from the use of private planes, boats, beach houses, “investment advice”, and vacations (typically under the heading of a “seminar” or something educational). In addition, the majority of legislators leaving office find themselves working for one or more of these lobbyist firms and/or Wall Street corporations making ten times what they did in Washington (many under the moniker of <wink wink> “consultant”).

Just five corporations now control 96+% of all media—-print, electronic, internet, television and radio. They determine what you hear and see (until recently it was six). They decide what you should know and how it’s to be presented. They also entertain you with regular programming (some with a political slant and some not), sports, video games, talk shows, magazines, and so forth. Some of it is obvious but most of it isn’t. It’s barely noticeable and subtle. Bread and circuses made new.

So, does any of that sound like “Marxism” to you? Most political scientists agree that the United States is nowadays a neo-fascist Oligarchy. The debate has become over which term best describes the nature of our servitude --- a “plutocracy”, "oligarchy", or “kleptocracy”, but does it matter? The end result is the same. We've ceased being citizens. National pride is passé, even frowned upon. Nowadays, we are global consumers loyal to some soap or deodorant. 

America is no longer a Republic, although the illusion will continue to be perpetuated for a bit longer just as it was under the early Roman Caesars shortly after the fall of the Roman Republic. The Caesars offered security and economic stability in exchange for power, wealth, and the freedom of the Roman people. 

The United States has become a corporatocracy through a process known as "gradualism"; shot incremental steps which, while appearing to go backwards here and there, steadily advances elsewhere. Sometimes it makes giant bold moves while at other times its movements through the halls of government are so subtle as to be barely noticeable.   

We've devolved into a surveillance state where privacy has become a quaint notion of a bygone age, where democracy is parceled out, and our freedoms are managed for our own good. Any government which has taken upon itself the power to a lot you any measure of freedom can just as easily take that freedom away without civil recourse. Government should serve the people, not serve them up on a platter. 

There are literally dozens of books, articles and videos about our metamorphosis from a democratic Constitutional Republic into “USA Inc”. I’ve provided just a sprinkling of links below to whet your curiosity. I do hope you will check them out.

 

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

The Media Oligopoly: How a Handful of Companies Control Nearly All of the Media in the U.S.

The Myth of U.S. Democracy and the Reality of U.S. Corporatocracy

The Corporate Takeover of American Politics

How the US Became an Oligarchy

The American Oligarchs Have Arrived to Destroy US Democracy | Common Dreams

 

The Importance of Getting it Right: America's Domestic Dilemma

Right now there are some very powerful groups working non-stop around the clock to pit us against each other every way possible. They manipulate what we watch, listen to, or see as much as possible. After all, just 5 mega corporations own 96+% of all media. They've totally ignored the fact that nearly half the country is registered Independent---43%. Nearly half the country wants nothing from the corporate own uniparty.

Remember this too. The Nazis came to power under the banner of "law and order" and national security with just 43% of the total vote. Lacking a majority, the Nazi's were compelled into a coalition government with industrialist Alfred Hugenberg's conservative German National People's Party (DNVP) in order to take power.  But once the Enabling Act was in place by March 23,1933, the ill-conceived  response to the February 27th Reichstag fire allegedly started by "Communists agitators", the German Republic was all but over.  And it took Hitler just 52 days.

The Democrats and Republicans are both minority parties with roughly 25% of registered voters each. but you wouldn't know it from the media or how the country is run. They've created a two tier legal system and a political class system. They've quietly overthrown our Republic at the behest of a neo-fascist corporatocracy led a super rich oligarchy (or kleptocracy if you prefer, it really doesn't matter. The results for us are the same), and while we were busy playing on our "smart phones" or watching some reality show.

Freedoms are routinely and gradually  suppressed in the name of "national security" in order to protect the populace from scapegoat enemy.  Historically it's been the "Jews", Protestants or Catholics, blacks, Chinese, the Irish, and so on. But, it need not be a group, it can just as easily be a abstract idea; a "catch all" if you will. For instance, "socialism" and Communism" are typically bandied about as if they're one and the same, which they're obviously not. But none of that really matters as long as you're made afraid of it. Why?

The corporate state will always employ a "us versus them" mindset using every resource they have available in order to make and keep you afraid of something. They will use that fear to justify their existence. It will be the foundation of their control.

Let me ask you a question. What do the following laws all have in common? The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 which, among other things, prohibited the use of child labor, created the 40 hours work week, and provided for a minimum wage, the National Labor Relations Act, of 1935 (aka "the "Wagner Act") or the Social Security Act of 1935. Any guesses?

What about Title VII  of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on age, race, gender, national origin, religion, or sexual orientation, or the 19th Amendment (passed in 1919) giving women the vote?  How about the Federal Unemployment Act of 1935 which provides unemployment benefits to out of work employees or the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 which gave Native American tribes more control of the extraction of natural resource on tribal land. Give up?

Every single one of them were labeled either "socialist" or Communist. Every. Single. One. Most of these were passed during Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration, which didn't go unnoticed by the powerful industrial elites of the time who ridiculed Roosevelt as a "traitor to his class" (he came from a wealthy upper New York family), as a closet socialist or Communist (take your pick). Wall Street did everything it could (legal or not) to defeat, or at least delay these laws, but ultimately failed. But, can you honestly say your life would be better off without most or all of these laws?

But it doesn't end there. Not by a long shot. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, and "War on Poverty" initiative  signed by the Democratic President, Lyndon B Johnson, was vilified as being a Communist plot to destabilize the country as was the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.  The Consumer Product Safety Act, Clean Air and Clean Water acts on 1972, all of which were signed by Republican arch conservative Richard Nixon, were also hailed as being "socialist". Of course, "Obamacare"  which help provide critical medical care for those without any (in many cases because their employer couldn't afford to offer any).  

 It's the same in every totalitarian government.  Different actors. Same script.  As Nazi propagandist genius, Joseph Goebbels, once advised "publicly accuse your enemy of doing what you're already secretly doing". Our "Enabling Act" arrived  in 2001 under the flag waving title of "The Patriot Act" and  we've never looked backed despite the slow transformation of the U.S. into a surveillance state. Fascism, in all its incarnations---populist, traditional, benevolent, or religious, all ends the same. It's about control.  

Fascism, which is really just another name for corporatism, can declare itself as  being "liberal" (China, North Korea, East Germany, North Vietnam, Somalia, Yemen, and others were labeled as "Democratic Republics"). The famous quote (erroneously attributed to author Sinclair Lewis) said that fascism, when---not if--- it comes to America, "will be wrapped in the flag  and waving a cross" as well as "American fascism, when it eventually arrives, will be government of, by, and for profits." Sounds a lot like today's Oligarchy doesn't it?

Echoing that statement, James Waterman Wise Jr , author of numerous books including "Our Bill of Rights: What it Means To Me" and "Thomas Jefferson: Then and Now" penned in the  Feb. 5, 1936 edition of Christian Century (considered the flagship magazine of mainstream Protestantism since 1900). He remarked, "If fascism comes, it will not be identified with any 'shirt' movement, nor with an insignia, but it will probably be 'wrapped in the American flag and heralded as a plea for liberty and preservation of the constitution".

These "friendly fascists" might claim to know the "Will of God" and promise to return us to time of more traditional family values. Such is "friendly fascism". It may claim to be socially conservative if that is what it takes to get your compliance just as easily as it claims to be "all inclusive". But regardless of its outward message, Fascism will always ultimately insist on your total and unwavering compliance.

The assault on our nation has been a gradual one. It creeps forward in one place and makes a strategic  but temporary retreat in others areas, but overall, their agenda always advances. It's a process known as "incrementalism" or "gradualism". Notice for instance how the educational system have been "dumb down". Did it happened over a month or even a year? Nope. It's been happening over decades.

Schools have gone from teaching critical thinking skills to teaching "Critical Race Theory". Some of these same schools are now encouraging "gender selection" by kids who barely know what "gender" means! Worse still is that the parents don't even have to be notified. Schools and libraries are trying to ban certain American classics such as "Huckleberry Finn", "Tom Sawyer" , "1984" and "Animal Farm", "Of Mice and Men", "To Kill a Mockingbird", and "A Farewell to Arms" . Even "Little Riding Hood" and Anne Frank's "Diary of a Young Girl" have fallen to censors!

Meanwhile, liberals claim that books about race (especially those placing certain racial minorities in a positive light), history books offering a different perspective of events, as well as books about sexual orientation and gender are being banned by schools and libraries at the same rate.

This, of course, raises the question as to where books should be banned at all? Perhaps we should go back to the age specific criteria for children is strictly enforced just as all decisions made about students should involve the parent.  After all, isn't the ultimate objective to encourage kids to read, develop their critical thinking skills, expand their intellectual horizons and help make them responsible citizens?

People are expected (and in some places, mandated by law) to play along with other people's fantasies by referring to a biological male  who "identifies" as a female as "she/her" or by female who believes they're a male as "he/him". Even more oddly, some don't even want to be referred by a gender specific pronoun since they're "gender fluid" and want to be known as "them/they", but it gets weirder.

There are those individuals who "self-identify" as animals---dogs, cats, whatever---and they want to be treated that way. Some even show up in school dressed as the animal of their delusion...err..choice... and wants act, be talked to, and even fed from a bowl at lunch  (I wonder if they go outside to the restroom, sniff other people's butts, or if they've figured out how to lick their privates yet?).  

Anyway,  I don't care who or what someone believes that are, although much of this I believe is a cry of attention or simply a mental illness. It's really none of my business, but why must I have to reinforce their self-delusion and play along? What about my moral compass?

In the long run, all the corporate state cares about are workers just smart enough to do their jobs, but not smart enough to challenge their authority, and certainly not individuals who think for themselves. Those people are dangerous.

If we're are pitted against each other, then we won't be paying attention to what they're doing. In a short order, the mask will slip and then drop completely and you can bet they won't bother even asking for our support or anything else.   They will demand and you will comply.

In that same instant, when they finally stop pretending to care about rising gas and food prices, the environment, unemployment, high taxes, or having an open border, you will have to decide for yourself, for your family, and for grandchildren yet unborn if it's better to stand on your feet and take a unmovable stand as a free man or women to fight for democracy and a return of our Republic, or to live forever on your knees having never knowing freedom ever again.  Remember, no decision is still a decision by default. But for those who come after you, it will be far too late. The decision will have already been made for them by your inaction.

As  Dr. Klaus Schwab of the globally powerful and influential World Economic Forum recently said, when speaking about the WEF's "Great Reset Initiative", that "you will own nothing and be happy". Another aspect of the "Great Reset" is to create a more "sustainable planet" by promoting greater economic deregulation of businesses, and in particular large transnational corporations (of the corporatocracy type) and  giving them a greater role in global governance "at the expense of government".  Does that sound like "socialism" or "Communism"? Not to me. In fact, it's almost the textbook definition of fascism.

There's no question that America has slipped into a corporatocracy under the leadership of a group of mega-rich oligarchs. They thrive on creating chaos and promising us order. Their sole goal is control, be it assets, resources, or us as their economic serfs, forever chained to debt. Our "worth" determined by our credit rating and to afraid to speak up for ourselves for fear of losing our jobs.  A roadmap is already being laid out for us and those who follow who will "own nothing and be happy". Will you willingly go down that road or will you fight to preserve our democracy and for a return of our Republic? We have to get this right the first time.  

 

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 beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

Dept of Labor: Summary of Major Laws of the Department ofLabor

The Sinclair Lewis Society

World Economic Forum

openDemocracy: Conspiracy theories aside, there's something fishy about the Great Reset

Great Reset

25 of America's most unexpectedly banned books

Independent Party ID Tied for High; Democratic Party for NewLow