Splitting the vote

The Republican National Convention was a complete disgrace. As I mentioned in my previous article, the establishment just took a huge power grab, and stomped all over the grassroots movements.

Chris Littleton nails it with his article ‘The GOP can because you’ll take it’ Please click on the link and take a few minutes to read it.

The time for party pandering is over. On the national scale, we must show the establishment on both sides who’s boss.

Think about it, if 1/3 of the republicans vote libertarian, and 1/3 of the liberals vote libertarian, we’ll have  a majority to get Obama out of office, and prevent his twin Romney from getting in too.

What many don’t understand is, though Obama is a terrible president, he is not much different than Bush. Both voted for liberty stripping bills such as the Patriot act and NDAA, both passed stimulus, and both ran up the deficit. Mitt Romney is no different either. And although many call Obama a socialist and many other names under the sun, what many don’t realize is that Mitt Romney would have even more power over us than Obama, and wouldn’t do much, if anything to change his policies.

Ask yourself this; ‘What is the motivation of our current presidential candidates for office? For liberty and freedom? Or for more power, wealth and control?’

So which is better? Having a National Socialist or a Soviet Socialist as president?

I say neither.

Many argue that we shouldn’t split the vote, but I ask the question ‘which vote?’

I think we should split the tyranny of the big government Obama/Romney ticket and vote for Gary Johnson.

There are enough disenfranchised voters on both sides of the political spectrum. What many on the right do not realize is that the liberals are not all ‘commies’ and ‘welfare whores’ but rather many of them voted for Obama because he campaigned as a centrist and promised to bring the troops home. When he gained office he simply continued on the same path of massive spending and warmongering as president Bush.

If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are no better than an Obama supporter because you are ignoring all the facts about Romney’s big liberal voting record. And to say that he was an entrepreneur is a joke. Romney’s business did not create jobs, he simply stripped assets and sent jobs over seas. Sure Obama never held a real job in his life, but the line between a looter and moocher is very thin.

It’s time to man up and send a clear message to Washington; the time for big government and good ol’ boy establishment politics is over.

I say we split the vote on both sides, and return to freedom!

Gary Johnson 2012!

Brandon Raub update

I’ve been getting a lot of hits over the last couple of days for Brandon Raub, so I made a quick post and put some links on here for you to find out more information. Let’s keep him on the radar and expose what’s going on!

Here is the link for the Facebook Group ‘Free Brandon Raub’:

http://www.facebook.com/groups/188319494633640/

The Brandon Raub Legal Defense Fund:

https://www.donation-net.net/donation/donation1.cfm?dn=1034&source=8&CFID=15298476&CFTOKEN=62079510

Video of Brandon Raub being arrested:

Kidnapped Marine Vet Brandon Raub Speaks out from psych ward:

It’s good to hear that he is OK!

Here is a group against the NDAA act and indefinite detention:

http://www.facebook.com/Billion.against.Indefinite.detention?ref=stream

I hope the links I provided help. It is important that we stand by those who speak out for our freedoms.

If we do not hold the government’s feet to the fire, our freedoms will continue to be diminished. We must wake up and expose the facts.

Stand up when you see injustice. Politicians and those in power do not like it when fingers are pointed at them.

So keep up the fight for everyone’s individual liberty and the right to express it!

 

UPDATE:

Here are a couple extra links I found:

This one talks about how most people are completely unaware of what happened last week, and how the media has not said a word about it:

http://thedailycrux.com/Article/41113/Government_Outrage

And this one has a petition to free the marine vet, and has a lot of extra details about the hero:

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/08/21/petition-president-free-marine-vet-brandon-raub-172811/

Hope this helps! Spread the links around and tell your friends!

The justification for war and a lesson in critical thinking

It is always important to keep an open mind and explore new ideas. In a world full of nuclear weapons, perhaps it is time to tryout a nonintervention approach when dealing with foreign policy.

Here is a great speech by Howard Zinn, which questions the wisdom of going to war:

Critical thinking is essential for a society to move forward, and it is desperately needed in a time when a country is collapsing in upon itself.

“when it comes to war the means are horrible and the ends are uncertain” – Howard Zinn

Howard Zinn (August 24, 1922 – January 27, 2010) was an American academic historian, author, playwright, and social activist. Before and during his tenure as a political science professor at Boston University from 1964-88 he wrote more than 20 books, which included his best-selling and influential A People’s History of the United States.[2] He wrote extensively about the civil rights and anti-war movements, as well as of the labor history of the United States. His memoir, You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train, was also the title of a 2004 documentary about Zinn’s life and work.

Eager to fight fascism, Zinn joined the Army Air Force during World War II and was assigned as a bombardier in the 490th Bombardment Group,[6] bombing targets in Berlin, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary.[7] A U.S. bombardier in April 1945, Zinn dropped napalm bombs on Royan, a seaside resort in southwestern France.[8] The anti-war stance Zinn developed later was informed, in part, by his experiences.

I don’t agree with Howard on everything, indeed some of his ideas are socialist in nature, but I do like his critical thinking.

Critical thinking is important, especially when the subject of war comes up. Wars are almost always based on lies, and the outcomes are not always as desired.

Critical thinking means looking for more information to fill in the gaps, instead of just seeing everything as black and white.

This picture presents a false dichotomy, because the ‘only other option’ currently being presented is Mitt Romney, who I have explained before is the same as Obama on almost every level.

Certainly it would be a move forward if he is replaced with a constitutional minded president, but not if he is replaced with someone like mitt Romney who is essentially the same in his beliefs.

Sites such as www.arewesafer.com represent a real problem in this country. This site presents another false dichotomy. Why do we want to feel ‘safer’ when safer really means less free. Should we bomb another country to make ourselves feel better about ourselves? Are they actually a threat to begin with?Or are they just being attacked so that a select few can make more money through the sale of oil, weapons and bloodshed?

I have seen many friends and family get caught up in the fascist mantra of blind nationalism in their fight against Obama and socialism. While I despise socialism, I know that neither collectivist concept will do us any good, and so I find myself in battles on both sides to get them to see reason.

We live in a world that is waking up to new ideas, and is slowly discovering that capitalism does work, but that it is still held back by corruption.

Always keep an open mind to something new, and check your premise. You might be pleasantly surprised with what you find out.

Critical thinking paves the way for the future because it is unbiased, and deals with the facts, and not just propaganda. Always do you own research and use your mind.

 

With critical thinking at the helm of governments instead of looters, perhaps we can avoid mindless wars altogether.

Disinformation: how it works

Some articles need no introduction, please read this one for yourself:

Disinformation: How It Works

By Brandon Smith

August 13, 2012 “Information Clearing House” —   There was a time, not too long ago (relatively speaking), that governments and the groups of elites that controlled them did not find it necessary to conscript themselves into wars of disinformation.

Propaganda was relatively straightforward. The lies were much simpler. The control of information flow was easily directed. Rules were enforced with the threat of property confiscation and execution for anyone who strayed from the rigid socio-political structure. Those who had theological, metaphysical or scientific information outside of the conventional and scripted collective world view were tortured and slaughtered. The elites kept the information to themselves, and removed its remnants from mainstream recognition, sometimes for centuries before it was rediscovered.

With the advent of anti-feudalism, and most importantly the success of the American Revolution, elitists were no longer able to dominate information with the edge of a blade or the barrel of a gun. The establishment of Republics, with their philosophy of open government and rule by the people, compelled Aristocratic minorities to plot more subtle ways of obstructing the truth and thus maintaining their hold over the world without exposing themselves to retribution from the masses. Thus, the complex art of disinformation was born.

The technique, the “magic” of the lie, was refined and perfected. The mechanics of the human mind and the human soul became an endless obsession for the establishment.

The goal was malicious, but socially radical; instead of expending the impossible energy needed to dictate the very form and existence of the truth, they would allow it to drift, obscured in a fog of contrived data. They would wrap the truth in a Gordian Knot of misdirection and fabrication so elaborate that they felt certain the majority of people would surrender, giving up long before they ever finished unraveling the deceit. The goal was not to destroy the truth, but to hide it in plain sight.

In modern times, and with carefully engineered methods, this goal has for the most part been accomplished. However, these methods also have inherent weaknesses. Lies are fragile. They require constant attentiveness to keep them alive. The exposure of a single truth can rip through an ocean of lies, evaporating it instantly.

In this article, we will examine the methods used to fertilize and promote the growth of disinformation, as well as how to identify the roots of disinformation and effectively cut them, starving out the entire system of fallacies once and for all.
Media Disinformation Methods

The mainstream media, once tasked with the job of investigating government corruption and keeping elitists in line, has now become nothing more than a public relations firm for corrupt officials and their Globalist handlers. The days of the legitimate “investigative reporter” are long gone (if they ever existed at all), and journalism itself has deteriorated into a rancid pool of so called “TV Editorialists” who treat their own baseless opinions as supported fact.

The elitist co-opting of news has been going on in one form or another since the invention of the printing press. However, the first methods of media disinformation truly came to fruition under the supervision of newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst, who believed the truth was “subjective” and open to his personal interpretation.

Some of the main tactics used by the mainstream media to mislead the masses are as follows:

Lie Big, Retract Quietly: Mainstream media sources (especially newspapers) are notorious for reporting flagrantly dishonest and unsupported news stories on the front page, then quietly retracting those stories on the very back page when they are caught. In this case, the point is to railroad the lie into the collective consciousness. Once the lie is finally exposed, it is already too late, and a large portion of the population will not notice or care when the truth comes out.

Unconfirmed Or Controlled Sources As Fact: Cable news venues often cite information from “unnamed” sources, government sources that have an obvious bias or agenda, or “expert” sources without providing an alternative “expert” view. The information provided by these sources is usually backed by nothing more than blind faith.

Calculated Omission:
Otherwise known as “cherry picking” data. One simple piece of information or root item of truth can derail an entire disinfo news story, so instead of trying to gloss over it, they simply pretend as if it doesn’t exist. When the fact is omitted, the lie can appear entirely rational. This tactic is also used extensively when disinformation agents and crooked journalists engage in open debate.

Distraction, And The Manufacture Of Relevance: Sometimes the truth wells up into the public awareness regardless of what the media does to bury it. When this occurs their only recourse is to attempt to change the public’s focus and thereby distract them from the truth they were so close to grasping. The media accomplishes this by “over-reporting” on a subject that has nothing to do with the more important issues at hand. Ironically, the media can take an unimportant story, and by reporting on it ad nauseum, cause many Americans to assume that because the media won’t shut-up about it, it must be important!

Dishonest Debate Tactics: Sometimes, men who actually are concerned with the average American’s pursuit of honesty and legitimate fact-driven information break through and appear on T.V. However, rarely are they allowed to share their views or insights without having to fight through a wall of carefully crafted deceit and propaganda. Because the media know they will lose credibility if they do not allow guests with opposing viewpoints every once in a while, they set up and choreograph specialized T.V. debates in highly restrictive environments which put the guest on the defensive, and make it difficult for them to clearly convey their ideas or facts.

TV pundits are often trained in what are commonly called “Alinsky Tactics.” Saul Alinsky was a moral relativist, and champion of the lie as a tool for the “greater good”; essentially, a modern day Machiavelli. His “Rules for Radicals” were supposedly meant for grassroots activists who opposed the establishment and emphasized the use of any means necessary to defeat one’s political opposition. But is it truly possible to defeat an establishment built on lies, by use of even more elaborate lies, and by sacrificing one’s ethics? In reality, his strategies are the perfect format for corrupt institutions and governments to dissuade dissent from the masses. Today, Alinsky’s rules are used more often by the establishment than by its opposition.
Alinsky’s Strategy: Win At Any Cost, Even If You Have To Lie

Alinsky’s tactics have been adopted by governments and disinformation specialists across the world, but they are most visible in TV debate. While Alinsky sermonized about the need for confrontation in society, his debate tactics are actually designed to circumvent real and honest confrontation of opposing ideas with slippery tricks and diversions. Alinsky’s tactics, and their modern usage, can be summarized as follows:

1) Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.

We see this tactic in many forms. For example, projecting your own movement as mainstream, and your opponent’s as fringe. Convincing your opponent that his fight is a futile one. Your opposition may act differently, or even hesitate to act at all, based on their perception of your power. How often have we heard this line: “The government has predator drones. There is nothing the people can do now…” This is a projection of exaggerated invincibility designed to elicit apathy from the masses.

2) Never go outside the experience of your people, and whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.

Don’t get drawn into a debate about a subject you do not know as well as or better than your opposition. If possible, draw them into such a situation instead. Go off on tangents. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty in your opposition. This is commonly used against unwitting interviewees on cable news shows whose positions are set up to be skewered. The target is blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address. In television and radio, this also serves to waste broadcast time to prevent the target from expressing his own position.

3) Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

The objective is to target the opponent’s credibility and reputation by accusations of hypocrisy. If the tactician can catch his opponent in even the smallest misstep, it creates an opening for further attacks, and distracts away from the broader moral question.

4) Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

“Ron Paul is a crackpot.” “Gold bugs are crazy.” “Constitutionalists are fringe extremists.” Baseless ridicule is almost impossible to counter because it is meant to be irrational. It infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage. It also works as a pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

5) A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.

The popularization of the term “Teabaggers” is a classic example; it caught on by itself because people seem to think it’s clever, and enjoy saying it. Keeping your talking points simple and fun helps your side stay motivated, and helps your tactics spread autonomously, without instruction or encouragement.

6) A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.

See rule No. 5. Don’t become old news. If you keep your tactics fresh, it’s easier to keep your people active. Not all disinformation agents are paid. The “useful idiots” have to be motivated by other means. Mainstream disinformation often changes gear from one method to the next and then back again.

7) Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.

Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. Never give the target a chance to rest, regroup, recover or re-strategize. Take advantage of current events and twist their implications to support your position. Never let a good crisis go to waste.

8) The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

This goes hand in hand with Rule No. 1. Perception is reality. Allow your opposition to expend all of its energy in expectation of an insurmountable scenario. The dire possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.

9) The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

The objective of this pressure is to force the opposition to react and make the mistakes that are necessary for the ultimate success of the campaign.

10) If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.

As grassroots activism tools, Alinsky tactics have historically been used (for example, by labor movements or covert operations specialists) to force the opposition to react with violence against activists, which leads to popular sympathy for the activists’ cause. Today, false (or co-opted) grassroots movements and revolutions use this technique in debate as well as in planned street actions and rebellions (look at Syria for a recent example).

11) The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. Today, this is often used offensively against legitimate activists, such as the opponents of the Federal Reserve. Complain that your opponent is merely “pointing out the problems.” Demand that they offer not just “a solution”, but THE solution. Obviously, no one person has “the” solution. When he fails to produce the miracle you requested, dismiss his entire argument and all the facts he has presented as pointless.

12) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.

Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. The target’s supporters will expose themselves. Go after individual people, not organizations or institutions. People hurt faster than institutions.

The next time you view an MSM debate, watch the pundits carefully, you will likely see many if not all of the strategies above used on some unsuspecting individual attempting to tell the truth.
Internet Disinformation Methods

Internet trolls, also known as “paid posters” or “paid bloggers,” are increasingly and openly being employed by private corporations as well governments, often for marketing purposes and for “public relations” (Obama is notorious for this practice). Internet “trolling” is indeed a fast growing industry.

Trolls use a wide variety of strategies, some of which are unique to the internet, here are just a few:

1. Make outrageous comments designed to distract or frustrate: An Alinsky tactic used to make people emotional, although less effective because of the impersonal nature of the Web.

2. Pose as a supporter of the truth, then make comments that discredit the movement: We have seen this even on our own forums — trolls pose as supporters of the Liberty Movement, then post long, incoherent diatribes so as to appear either racist or insane. The key to this tactic is to make references to common Liberty Movement arguments while at the same time babbling nonsense, so as to make those otherwise valid arguments seem ludicrous by association. In extreme cases, these “Trojan Horse Trolls” have been known to make posts which incite violence — a technique obviously intended to solidify the false assertions of the think tank propagandists like the SPLC, which purports that Constitutionalists should be feared as potential domestic terrorists.

3. Dominate Discussions: Trolls often interject themselves into productive Web discussions in order to throw them off course and frustrate the people involved.

4. Prewritten Responses: Many trolls are supplied with a list or database with pre-planned talking points designed as generalized and deceptive responses to honest arguments. When they post, their words feel strangely plastic and well rehearsed.

5.
False Association: This works hand in hand with item No. 2, by invoking the stereotypes established by the “Trojan Horse Troll.” For example: calling those against the Federal Reserve “conspiracy theorists” or “lunatics”; deliberately associating anti-globalist movements with racists and homegrown terrorists, because of the inherent negative connotations; and using false associations to provoke biases and dissuade people from examining the evidence objectively.

6.
False Moderation: Pretending to be the “voice of reason” in an argument with obvious and defined sides in an attempt to move people away from what is clearly true into a “grey area” where the truth becomes “relative.”

7. Straw Man Arguments: A very common technique. The troll will accuse his opposition of subscribing to a certain point of view, even if he does not, and then attacks that point of view. Or, the troll will put words in the mouth of his opposition, and then rebut those specific words.

Sometimes, these strategies are used by average people with serious personality issues. However, if you see someone using these tactics often, or using many of them at the same time, you may be dealing with a paid internet troll.
Stopping Disinformation

The best way to disarm disinformation agents is to know their methods inside and out. This gives us the ability to point out exactly what they are doing in detail the moment they try to do it. Immediately exposing a disinformation tactic as it is being used is highly destructive to the person utilizing it. It makes them look foolish, dishonest and weak for even making the attempt. Internet trolls most especially do not know how to handle their methods being deconstructed right in front of their eyes and usually fold and run from debate when it occurs.

The truth is precious. It is sad that there are so many in our society who have lost respect for it; people who have traded in their conscience and their soul for temporary financial comfort while sacrificing the stability and balance of the rest of the country in the process.

The human psyche breathes on the air of truth. Without it, humanity cannot survive. Without it, the species will collapse, starving from lack of intellectual and emotional sustenance.

Disinformation does not only threaten our insight into the workings of our world; it makes us vulnerable to fear, misunderstanding, and doubt: all things that lead to destruction. It can drive good people to commit terrible atrocities against others, or even against themselves. Without a concerted and organized effort to defuse mass-produced lies, the future will look bleak indeed.

You can contact Brandon Smith atbrandon@alt-market.com

This article was originally published at Alt-Market

We see much of this all over the media right now. Stay vigilant and do your own research!

Insurance and fascism

Insurance and fascism are currently linked by government coercion.

From the time I learnt to drive, to the present day, I have never been in a wreck or needed to ‘claim my insurance’, and nor has my wife. And yet, between the two of us, we have paid a combined $8000 over the last four and a half years between all our vehicles. If I had not been forced by the state to buy insurance, I could have re-invested that money, or bought a whole new car by now. Why should I have to pay for other people’s reckless driving habits? I have driven in snow storms and on sheets of ice, and I’ve always maintained my cool. If I crash into someone else’s car, that is my fault, and I should have to pay for damages. But I should not be forced to put money into an insurance program ‘to save myself financial ruin’ at some later point in life. All the while, I’m being strapped down in the present by overbearing insurance costs.

The same applies to healthcare. Why should I have to buy healthcare? Is my health not my own? Who says I am property of the state? Who said I am a burden to the state? It is not up to government to take care of me. If I get sick, I should pay for it myself. If I cannot afford the care, I can make a payment plan with the hospital.

Since the intrusion of government into hospitals and healthcare, costs have only gone up, service has gone down, and people are unable to pay for their own healthcare unless they get insurance. But now insurance has become too expensive, and people can’t afford that, so now we are to be forced to pay for healthcare that we cannot afford. Where does it end?

Does this mean that it is more important for me to finance a healthcare corporation to save me from myself, than to put food on my table to maintain my very existence?

Think about it. If you’re forced to buy insurance, whether for health or auto, or anything, doesn’t it take away from your immediate concerns, such as eating a meal or repairing your property. We have now reached the top of the curve, and the very insurance which was supposed to save us sometime in the future from financial ruin, is now too expensive to buy to begin with, and now that it is mandated, the costs are ever higher, and out of reach. Financially, we are drawn and quartered, before we are even able to pay for our very survival through simple things such as food and shelter.

Fascist systems such as this do not last. Eventually they collapse in on themselves, or the state takes over completely. Either way the end is misery, through famine or bloodshed. The notion of forced compliance, especially with ideas of safety, or saving you from yourself, should be rejected entirely.

Forced insurance is a fascist idea.

Fascism is the merging of corporations with the state. All over the US we see that today.

This article displays many facts about fascism:

Fascism Anyone?

Fascism’s principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for.

 By Laurence W. Britt

 The cliché that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm.

 We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist1 regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities.

 Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.

 For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.

 Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

    1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent  displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was  usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on  xenophobia.

    2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

     3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a  means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame forfailures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional  national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and“terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

    4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even  when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

    5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

     6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were  under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass  media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

     7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

    8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

     9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

    10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

    11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

    12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

    13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

    14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating an disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

 Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.
 

“When facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the American flag.”  – Huey Long

The shocking truth is, that much of this has become true in America today:

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.

USA! USA! USA! ‘Isn’t this a great country?’, ‘if you’re not with us, you’re against us’ and many other slogans, are passed around like candy in today’s society.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.

Guantanamo Bay? The NDAA act?

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.

Terrorists! Extremist Muslims! Need I name more?

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.

Support the troops! I found a site the other day that said ‘if you’re not prepared to stand behind the troops, feel free to stand in front of them’. We hear all the time that the troops are heroes, and where that may be true in certain wars, and in protecting the country, our troops are currently used to protect ‘our oil’ in the middle east, and work for ‘the elite’ and their ‘special interests’.

5. Rampant sexism.

The debate still goes on for womens rights, even though they are equal to men’s in this country, and lets not get started on the gay marriage debate!

6. A controlled mass media.

I’ve written about this before, the media is completely controlled and bias.

7. Obsession with national security.

OK, let’s see; Homeland security, the TSA, grouping at airports, naked body scanners, need I say more?

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.

Yes, this is happening too, just look at nutty candidates like Rick Santorum and Michele backman. And what about our wars in the middle east and our love affair with Israel.

9. Power of corporations protected.

‘Corporations are people my friend’ – Mitt Romney

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.

I don’t agree with labor unions, but they are being supressed, so I suppose it’s true.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.

When was the last time you saw an intellectual debate on TV? When was the last time you heard about philosophies or becoming a better world? Not sure about the arts though.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment.

The United States has the largest prison population on the planet!

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.

Bailouts anyone?

14. Fraudulent elections.

2000 elections? No? Well what about all the lawsuits from the Ron Paul camp, because of election fixing by corrupt GOP members trying to get Romney elected. Oh you didn’t hear about the delegates in Maine a couple days ago?

Is this not absolutely shocking to you? I find it down right scary.

It’s the Corporate State, Stupid

“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” – Benito Mussolini. 

David G. Mills

11/10/04 “ICH” — The early twentieth century Italians, who invented the word fascism, also had a more descriptive term for the concept — estato corporativo: the corporatist state. Unfortunately for Americans, we have come to equate fascism with its symptoms, not with its structure. The structure of fascism is corporatism, or the corporate state. The structure of fascism is the union, marriage, merger or fusion of corporate economic power with governmental power. Failing to understand fascism, as the consolidation of corporate economic and governmental power in the hands of a few, is to completely misunderstand what fascism is. It is the consolidation of this power that produces the demagogues and regimes we understand as fascist ones.

While we Americans have been trained to keenly identify the opposite of fascism, i.e., government intrusion into and usurpation of private enterprise, we have not been trained to identify the usurpation of government by private enterprise. Our European cousins, on the other hand, having lived with Fascism in several European countries during the last century, know it when they see it, and looking over here, they are ringing the alarm bells. We need to learn how to recognize Fascism now. 

Dr. Lawrence Britt has written an excellent article entitled “The 14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism.” An Internet search of the number 14 coupled with the word fascism will produce the original article as well as many annotations on each of the 14 characteristics of fascism that he describes. His article is a must read to help get a handle on the symptoms that corporatism produces. 

But even Britt’s excellent article misses the importance of Mussolini’s point. The concept of corporatism is number nine on Britt’s list and unfortunately titled: “Corporate Power is Protected.” In the view of Mussolini, the concept of corporatism should have been number one on the list and should have been more aptly titled the “Merger of Corporate Power and State Power.” Even Britt failed to see the merger of corporate and state power as the primary cause of most of these other characteristics. It is only when one begins to view fascism as the merger of corporate power and state power that it is easy to see how most of the other thirteen characteristics Britt describes are produced. Seen this way, these other characteristics no longer become disjointed abstractions. Cause and effect is evident. 

For example, number two on Britt’s list is titled: “Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights.” Individual rights and corporate rights, at the very least conflict, and often are in downright opposition to one another. In the court system, often individuals must sue corporations. In America, in order to protect corporations, we have seen a steady stream of rules, decisions and laws to protect corporations and to limit the rights of the individual by lawsuit and other redress. These rules, decisions, and laws have always been justified on the basis of the need for corporations to have profit in order to exist. 

Number three on Britt’s list is the identification of scapegoats or enemies as a unifying cause. Often the government itself becomes the scapegoat when the government is the regulator of the corporations. Often it is lawyers or administrators who take on the corporations. Often it is liberals who champion the rights of individuals, or terrorists who might threaten state stability or corporate profit. Any or all may become scapegoats for the state’s problems because they pose problems for corporations. 

Other notable characteristics of fascism described by Britt which are directly produced by corporatism are: 

< The suppression of organized labor (organized labor is the bane of corporations and the only real check on corporate power other than government or the legal system);

< Supremacy of the military (it is necessary to produce and protect corporate profits abroad and threats from abroad); 

< Cronyism and governmental corruption (it is very beneficial to have ex-corporate employees run the agencies or make the laws that are supposed to regulate or check corporations);

< Fraudulent elections (especially those where corporations run the machinery of elections and count the votes or where judges decide their outcomes); 

< Nationalism (disdain for other countries that might promote individual rights);

< Obsession with national security (anti-corporatists are a security risk to the corporate status quo); 

< Control of the media (propaganda works);

< Obsession with crime and punishment (anti-corporatists belong in jail); and 

< Disdain for intellectuals and the arts (these people see corporatism for what it is and are highly individualistic). 

All of these characteristics have a fairly obvious corporate component to them or produce a fairly obvious corporate benefit. Even Britt’s last two characteristics, the merger of state with the dominant religion and rampant suppression of divorce, abortion and homosexuality produce at least some indirect corporate benefit. 

In sum, it’s the corporate state, stupid. 

As I have pondered what could be done about America’s steady march toward the fascist state, I also have pondered what can be done internally to stop it. The Germans couldn’t seem to do it. The Italians couldn’t seem to do it. The only lesson from recent history where an indigenous people seemed to have uncoupled the merger of economic power with governmental power is the French Revolution. The soft underbelly of consolidated economic power is that the power resides in the hands of a few. Cut off the money supply of the few and the merger between economic power and government becomes unglued. The French systematically took out their aristocracy one by one. It was ugly; the French couldn’t seem to figure out when there had been enough bloodletting to solve the problem. 

The thought of an American twenty-first century French Revolution is ugly. But the thought of an American twenty-first century fascist state is far uglier. It would be a supreme irony that the state most responsible for stopping worldwide fascism would become fascist 60 years later. But far worse than this irony is the reality that an American fascist state with America’s power could make Nazi Germany look like a tiny blip on the radar screen of history. 

For some years now we have lived with the Faustian bargain of the corporation. Large corporations are necessary to achieve those governmental and social necessities that small enterprises are incapable of providing. The checks on corporate power have always been fragile. Left unchecked, the huge economic power of corporations corrupts absolutely. Most of the checks are badly eroded. Is there still time to get the checks back in balance? Or will we be left with two unthinkable options?

America is undeniably under fascist rule right now, many call President Obama a socialist, marxist or communist. But he has all the hallmarks of a fascist, and the terrifying fact is, that Mitt Romney does too.

Many are left to wonder how the nation that defeated fascism could so completely have absorbed it. Joseph Campbell explains this as ‘the hero as the villain’  in ‘the hero with a thousand faces’. But that is for another article.

So how do we get out of this mess?

I say; stay informed, stop seeing things as black and white, and start looking at the grey areas. Obama is certainly not good for this country, but that doesn’t mean ‘anybody but Obama’ will be. And this mess goes far beyond the presidency, since the head of state is simply a symptom and not a cause. People have been guided like sheep, slowly for decades, into ‘left vs right’, instead of realizing that its ‘up vs down’, the state vs liberty. It’s really a case of the individual vs the collective, since both communism and fascism both center around the collective having the power, which essentially snubs out the lowest minatory which is the individual.

So do we need a bloody revolution to stop this? I hope not. But I know that a revolution is currently in full swing. Between the Tea Partiers, the Occupy Wall Street members and the Ron Paul Revolutionaries, we have an intellectual revolution roaring, and if we can find common ground in the constitution and our basic human freedoms, the fascists (or whatever word you want to use) don’t stand a chance!

As for the insurance, this bubble will burst in time, so save your money and only take out what you really need. The mandated provisions won’t last for long.

The case against Mitt Romney and the establishment

I will not endorse Mitt Romney because he is cut from the same cloth of all the other establishment politicians who have sidetracked our great republic over the last century.

The main reason that John McCain lost the 2008 election was because he was almost a carbon copy of George Bush. The same George Bush, who signed the patriot act and started up Guantanamo Bay. This same John McCain later went on to co-write the NDAA act. The same act that Mitt Romney supported, and that Barack Obama signed.

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are very similar. Mitt Romney introduced socialized medicine in Massachusetts, and Barack Obama copied this example when he signed Obama Care.

If you go to Mitt Romney’s campaign page you’ll see a lot of wording that looks like this; ‘an American century’. Which is curious, since ‘an American century’ is what the neocons came up with at the end of the last century, and helped provide a framework for this century.

The Neo Conservatives and their plan for a new American century has now come into fruition and we are now seeing the progression to an American dominated globe and a new world order. This is why I do not support Mitt Romney, nor Barack Obama and why the only candidate who I support is Ron Paul. There are many media talking heads, including Glenn Beck, who now profess the rise of socialism, and where they may be correct, they are wrong in suggesting that someone like Mitt Romney will help fix this.

If you do not support a candidate with a firm moral ground and a full understanding of the constitution, then you will be personally responsible for this country’s demise from liberty.

This country stands perilously close to a totalitarian society. We have now joined the ranks of communist Russia and Nazi Germany in regard to our own citizens as prisoners. It is time to wake up and take back our liberties. It is time to unite behind Ron Paul and overthrow the establishment. It is time to stop being afraid of ‘the other side’ winning, and realize that it is not about the left vs the right, but about us vs the state and all its bloated bureaucracy and control.

The Tactics of Fear

The sun was beginning to set behind the clouds in the distance to the east of the old school building in south east England. The last glimmer of light shined off the science room windows. A young lad around the age of 19 swept up the last remnants of the discarded bits of paper, charcoal and dust from the day’s classroom experiments. Upon rounding the the door to scoop up the last of the day’s debris and dump it in the nearest trash can, a science teacher named George flicked the light on in the tea room and almost bumped into the young lad. “Oh! Hello Paul, I didn’t see you there”. “Hi George” Paul replied, smiling. “Would you like a cup of tea?” George asked. “Sure, replied Paul “Have you decided which country you want to move to yet?” George then replied “I think I’m going to move to New Zealand”. “Wow, New Zealand is a beautiful place, but why not Canada or the USA?” Paul asked. “Well..” replied George “…I’ve lived in Canada before, and it’s an awful lot of paperwork just to get over there, I’ve lived in so many different places now, it would take months just to get all the paperwork sorted out”. “But what about the US?” asked Paul. “Well, don’t get me wrong, I love the US, but their visa’s are hard to get, and I wouldn’t be making as much as I am here. Plus I always get a sense that people live in fear in the US”. Perplexed, Paul asked “why’s that?” Having been on numerous trips to the US over the last couple of years, Paul was beginning to become quite an expert on all things USA related. George then replied “Well, they’re always worried about something…the commies are gonna get you, the terrorists are gonna get you. There’s always a boogie man around every corner for them, and they take it way too seriously. I wouldn’t want to live in that environment. Plus I’ve visited there before, and New Zealand will be a fresh start for me”. Paul mused over this interesting new information “hmm, that’s interesting, I suppose you’ve got a point. I’ll keep that in mind. Anyway, I hope you enjoy your new start in New Zealand”. “Thanks” replied George, “I hope you get to move out there and live with your girlfriend in America soon”. Paul finished up his cup of tea and bagged up the trash. He then walked town the hallway, down the stairs and out into the cool late evening air. The sun had set, and the street lights had come on. Paul mused over this information as he walked back to the main school building to clock out for the day. It had been a long work week, and he now had enough money saved up for his next trip back to the states, where he would end up proposing to his long time girlfriend.

Five years later, that young man is now a US citizen, and has experienced many changes to this country since he started living here. I have witnessed the election of Barack Obama, the rise of the Tea Parties, the Glenn Beck Program, the Occupy Wall Street crowds, and all the bias news from the various different media outlets. And now, on reflection, I can say that the US does live in fear. Fear of its economy, fear of other nations, fear of Muslims, of things we don’t know. So many Americas, while being very proud of their nation, its history, and their personal liberties, do not understand the world around them, and are very afraid of what they do not know. I suppose I can’t blame them, the world is a very large and complicated place, and there are bad people out there who will take the chance if they have it to kill you. But those people are few and far between. Most people want to live in peace and live happy lives with their families. The idea of bombing another nation, imposing sanctions, and driving them into the ground, because we are afraid of what they might do is ludicrous.

I recently had a debate with one of my friends on here about Glenn Beck, Mitt Romney, Iran and Ron Paul. Many people think it is naive to leave Iran alone. Where as I agree with Ron Paul that we should make peace with them. That is not to say that we should trust them entirely. But at least resume trading and doing business with them. How can you call this country a free democratic republic when we dictate toward other countries? Iran has posed no threat to us. Sure some of their leaders have spewed rhetoric about Big Satan and Little Satan, in reference to the US and Israel. But to them, with the way that our countries have acted toward them over the last few decades, I can see where they would get that idea. But are we also forgetting that many of our leaders have mentioned turning Iran into glass?

I do not fear a great evil from the middle eastern countries. As master Yoda once said; “Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. Fear is the path of the dark side.” This mythological term used in Star Wars plays true in reality and in today’s society. Our actions in the middle east and other parts in the world, are beginning to mirror that of empires past, and we are beginning to become a totalitarian society, ruled over by shadowy figures, and left to grind about our daily lives in fear of what might be, instead of living in freedom. Safety and freedom do not go hand in hand. Is this not the land of the free and the home of the brave? Lately I’ve seen many who now live in the land of the debt slaves and and home of the fearful.

Personally I live by the Jedi code:

There is no emotion, there is peace.

There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.

There is no passion, there is serenity.

There is no chaos, there is harmony.

There is no death, there is the Force.

If it comes to an actual attack on us by another nation, we will respond to it. But preemptive military strikes, mirror that of the Nazis resolve during 1939. If you want a war with Iran, I suggest you go sign up at your local recruitment office and go make your fight in the desert. I want nothing to do with it. I have my own firearms. I’ll only ever use them if I am personally attacked in my own home, or if somehow another military power comes marching down my street. That is the whole point of an armed citizenry; to defend and protect, not to attack and dominate.

Could you really blame Iran if they did acquire a nuclear weapon? They know that if they acquire nukes, that we will leave them alone. The more we provoke them, the more likely they are to acquire them.

As of right now, Iran does not posses nuclear weapons technology. But how many nuclear weapons does Israel have? And which country threatens whom the most? From what I’ve read; Israel is being the most aggressive and threatening to bomb Iran.

And why is it that US politicians speak so highly of Israel, even though Israels leaders use the tactics of fear to control their population?

Is it not Israel that should be feared in the middle east? They and they alone have the power to wipe out the entire middle east. Is it not dangerous to let them continue this way? Or should we be equal in allowing every country to do what it wants?

Why is it that we continue to vote for the lesser of two evils when it comes to politicians and issues? Why is our media so obsessed with talking points instead of investigative journalism? For all those who are preaching ‘anybody but Obama’, I would question you; ‘were you not upset with the Bush administration’s patriot act and Guantanamo Bay?’. You forget that Obama only came about because of the disastrous Bush policies. Neither party right now has our best interests in mind.

It appears that both the US and Israel use the tactics of fear to control the masses. The media is highly controlled and bias, and uses slanted news headlines to help promote lame candidates and to encourage us to vote for the lesser of two evils during elections.

Do you really think that we can survive another decade or two of bad presidents and policies? The days of Ross Perot were a long time ago, and how much has our country improved since?

So where do you stand? Will you vote for another lame candidate who will do nothing to better your freedom? Or will you vote for a candidate who will reverse the trend?