Battle For The Planet Of The Dupes

The problem with Trump, at least from my point of view as expressed since the long-ago days of July last year, is that he is a walking corporation.  He is a creature of the State.  He has no existence nor worth outside the coddling arms of the State.  He exists by the pleasure of the State, and the State is his nanny and toy.

Now I know a lot of Trump supporters read this site.  That was clear long ago and far away in our Far Side Official Unscientific Survey, where more than 70% of respondents chose Trump over all other choices (Hillary and Johnson).  So I beg you indulgence to hear me out.

Yes, Trump was elected by a certified, all-genuine rebellion.  Not a revolution, mind you, because the State was left intact.  But enough people had had enough State shenanigans that they were willing to try out a complete new-comer in the presidency in the hopes that 1) Hillary would NOT get elected, and 2) something fundamental would change at the national level.

Sorry to say, and I've waited the obligatory six months of mourning to say this, but America got gypped.

Notice that all of Trump's major promises, and his actions after he broke them, serve only the corporate interests.  To whit: the border wall has all but disappeared to preserve the constant supply of fresh meat for the labor market - which keeps the unions at bay.  Notice that the tax reform (now defunct) was centered primarily on corporate relief.  Notice that healthcare reform (now defunct) was to make the whole Obamacare fiasco even more friendly for the corporations.  Notice that the Pentagon budget and global saber-rattling was continued, even ramped up from the Obama and Bush days, to feed the bottomless gullet of the corporations.  Need more?

Them notice that Freeport MacMoRan, a huge mining corporation that all but owns Indonesia, was in the grips of populist reform and stalemated at the negotiating table at the beginning of the year.  Further notice that Mike Pence (Vice Prez of USA, Inc.) made a quick little visit to these parts and within hours, Freeport had their concessions.

Or how about the much vaunted Trump Saudi trip, which ended with billions in arms sales, and even defense contractors with subsidiary agreements in the Middle East to save shipping costs.

Finally, notice that all the talk of reform for regulations and government oversight center solely on corporations.  Have you heard a single word promising less government sitting on the shoulders of real human beings, who theoretically are the government in any real republic.

If you STILL doubt where Trump's loyalties lie, then I implore you to read Peter Dale Scott's insightful piece on how Trump is a threat to Indonesia's (and many other countries') democracy.

I, for one, could care less if Trump is impeached, though what would follow would likely be far worse than anything those of us who remember the JFK coup remember.  As I have said repeatedly, the only way to fix the problem is to remove it.  No amount of "reform" will ever achieve freedom and liberty for us real folks.

Here's the deal.  We humans are natural, organic beings with priorities and interests that don't always, if ever, align with the State.  The State fears our privacy and rights.  It doesn't want chaotic creatures running loose mucking up its Grand Plans for itself and its creations.

And when it comes to creations, there is only one creature in the world that is completely and utterly beholden to the State, and that is the corporation.

Corporations are formed (born) by a union of law and enforcement.  The State literally creates these creatures and is fully responsible for their behavior.  When the State is fully in control of the corporations, you have Socialism.  When the corporations are fully in control of the State, you have Fascism.  Note well that real, organic human beings don't figure into this marriage from Hell in any way, except for the rare few who are granted big pay packets for being caretakers of both the State and corporations.

Out of loyalty to theirs parents, corporations protect and defend the State.  Out of motherly love, the State protects and defends the corporations.  It is a sick, twisted relationship that has none of our (us real people) interests at heart.

This is why there is a revolving door between corporate interests and State regulatory divisions.  This is why corporate officers never go to jail, just get their wrists slapped and a fine or two.  This is why governments are unresponsive to real people.  This is also why there is a long list of billionaires in government and on the visitors list, not just now, but ever since the late 1800s.

For the last eight years, the Socialists were in charge and corporations were kept on a leash, though a rather long one.  Now, the Fascists are in control, and not only is the leash longer, but the collar has been loosened to allow the corporations to slip their fat heads through and run wild in the neighborhood.

Trump is nothing more than a flim-flam man who understood show business well enough to basically steal the election from the heir apparent, who stole it herself from her own party.  Even the parties are corporations that run in the interest of corporations in order to be seated at the Board Room Table of the US Corporation.

Unfortunately, there is no reforming this mess.  It is far to gone and far to woven into the fabric of the modern world.  The only hope is for real people to once again asset their dominion over the creature they created, called government.

There's only one problem.  The corporations have so polluted our water and food with chemicals to keep us dumb and sick that I have little hope this will ever happen.

Trump was a fluke.  Enough people had enough sense left to try to "reform" the mess.  It will never happen again.  There are only two routes open to us now: the way of complete destruction of the State as it exists, or complete capitulation of real people to artificial corporations (legal fictions called "persons").

Honestly, I don't expect much effort in the right direction.

To Serve Blindly

I have been very lucky in my life to have developed a number of very close and long-lasting friendships.  The wonderful thing about many of my friends is that we have radically different thoughts and beliefs on a number of normally hot topics, and occasionally tempers have flared, but we have managed to push on past our differences.  It does make for some rather interesting arguments (in the Aristotelian sense).

One good friend in particular is very pro-military and thinks everyone should support the troops.  We get into long passionate debates because I hold that every US soldier since WW2 has violated their oath and does not deserve my support, no matter what they have given "for their country."  For the non-Americans out there, US public servants (military included) takes an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."  That Constitution specifically states that Congress cannot fund a standing army more than two years (Art.I, Sec.8, Sub.12), and that the President becomes the Commander in Chief only when Congress passes a Declaration of War and authorizes the funding to raise an army (Art.I, Sec.8, Sub.11 and Art.II, Sec.2).

Apparently, none of the individuals who swore to protect and defend the Constitution ever read it.

At any rate, my friend posted a graphic on Farcebook the other day stating that the US should require/conscript young people into the armed services or some public service for a period of time, as many countries do.  Well this set off a debate (again), since I pointed out that the power to conscript people into some public service implies that the State owns the citizen and can force one to sacrifice for the betterment of the State.

My friend's reasoning was emotional.  He decried the lack of investment young people had in the country and thought that forcing them into the military or public service would give them a feeling of ownership in the country, as well as instill a little discipline.

I understand his reasoning and his frustration.  Many people lament the lack of patriotism and volunteerism in many of the country's youth now.  There is a diminishing feeling of solidarity and the Kennedy-inspired concept of asking "what you can do for your country" has all but evaporated.  I argued that this was the wrong way to go about recapturing that spirit.

In the first place, it is rather difficult for a country to call itself free if the State can conscript men and resources at will.  This is a form of servitude that bears a significant resemblance to slavery.  I do not think any State has any interest in or right to any life or property that is not freely given.  Forced volunteerism is a complete oxymoron.  It is like a "voluntary" tax system that is enforced with grievous bodily harm.

I have no problem with community service, so long as it is truly voluntary and does not benefit the State, but rather the communities and culture directly, though I have no implicit problem with the State administering the systems and processes needed to guide and focus the efforts.

Among other things, a standing army and forced conscription are hallmarks of fascism.  Raising and maintaining an army gives the State the power to make war at will, either on foreign powers or its own people.  That the money to pay for the army comes from money commandeered from the citizenry makes for a deadly loop where the army is an implied threat to backup the confiscation of wealth.

Had the US government not had a standing army, it would have been significantly more difficult to prosecute wars in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan.  There are few people who could, in good conscience, argue that any of those wars were for pure and righteous reasons.  That all were fought against "enemies" who had never attacked the US, nor did they have the means to, further condemns them as little more than mercantile protectionism.  Obviously, when the powers and resources of the State are put into service of the corporate and financial interests, you have - by definition - fascism.

That corporations have invaded nearly every aspect of daily life, from birth to death, it is reasonable to assume that a forced public service would quickly be turned to slave labor on behalf of those interests, increasing their profits at the expense of the public freedom and welfare.

Even the most idealistic programs, when supported by a fascist State, are often turned to the benefit of the corporate interests.  Prime examples are the increasingly powerful corporations that have virtually taken over the education system, from kindergarten to university.  That the State sanctions, protects and requires things like standardized testing and "Common Core," this is exactly fascism in practice.

It has been said many times that American fascism would come with red, white and blue boots stamping on the People's faces, and indeed it has.  For someone as smart and thoughtful as my friend, the fact that he can seriously support such a fascist effort means that the indoctrination is complete.  People are not even aware of the profound contradictions in what they say and believe.  They can, with a straight face, claim to be free people, and yet propose and promote corporate slavery through the auspices of the State.

I pick on the one friend, but I have others that are pure socialists, but will vehemently deny it even in the face of hard evidence.  On the one hand, these friends will crow long and loud about how free and wonderful America is, and then turn right around and advocate fascist/socialist programs and laws.  It is truly amazing to see, and the fire - even anger - with which they will deny the facts and adhere to their errors shows the pervasive and profound depths of the indoctrination.  These educated and intelligent people cannot comprehend the contradictions.

It should be noted that the difference between fascism and socialism are so subtle as to be almost meaningless.  It is an argument of hues in the same palette.  Whether the State acts as the protectionist arm of corporate interests, or is the sole beneficiary of the nation's output hardly makes much difference at the level of the individual.  In either case, the labor and wealth of the individual are stolen and distributed to others.  The only difference is who constitutes "the others."

I agree that citizens are responsible for the defense of their property.  If every citizen were armed and trained on a regular basis as part of a social requirement enforced by the community and one's family, there would be no need for a standing army, police or any of the other trappings of force owned by the State.

If Dad told Junior that college assistance depended on Junior training once a month with the local mitia or guard, no harm no foul.  Having armed agents forcefully take your money and your children through conscription, though, is nothing more than slavery to the State, dressed up in patriotism and flags.

It seems that thinking people should take inventory and begin questioning their assumptions and beliefs, especially in these rather turbulent times.  Blind patriotism, no matter how well intended, is a potent weapon in the hands of a corrupt State.  It is also necessary for thinking people to begin analyzing the reasons they believe certain things, and to reason out the inevitable results.  It is not enough to spout feel-good rhetoric any more.  The world is changing and we need to be precise about the kind of world we wish to build going forward.

Will we be free?  Or will we continue to serve the State and vested interests?

One can't change the world if one is not sure what is being changed, and to what it will be changed.