Weimar America: Four Major Ways We're Following In Germany's Fascist Footsteps

What happens when a mature industrial nation turns its back on democracy and lets its right-wing elite destroy the middle class? We've seen it before.

By Robert Cruickshank, AlterNet
Posted on July 5, 2012, Printed on July 6, 2012

What happens when a nation that was once an economic powerhouse turns its back on democracy and on its middle class, as wealthy right-wingers wage austerity campaigns and enable extremist politics?

It may sound like America in 2012. But it was also Germany in 1932.

Most Americans have never heard of the Weimar Republic, Germany's democratic interlude between World War I and World War II. Those who have usually see it as a prologue to the horrors of Nazi Germany, an unstable transition between imperialism and fascism. In this view, Hitler's rise to power is treated as an inevitable outcome of the Great Depression, rather than the result of a decision by right-wing politicians to make him chancellor in early 1933.

Historians reject teleological approaches to studying the past. No outcome is inevitable, even if some are more likely than others. Rather than looking for predictable outcomes, we ought to be looking to the past to understand how systems operate, especially liberal capitalist democracies. In that sense, Weimar Germany holds many useful lessons for contemporary Americans. In particular, there are four major points of similarity between Weimar Germany and Weimar America worth examining.

1. Austerity. Today's German leaders preach the virtues of austerity. They justify their opposition to the inflationary, growth-creating policies that Europe desperately needs by pointing to the hyperinflation that occurred in 1923, and became one of the most enduring memories of the Weimar Republic. Yet the austerity policies enacted after the onset of the Depression produced the worst of Germany's economic crisis, while also destabilizing the country's politics. Cuts to wages, benefits and public programs dramatically worsened unemployment, hunger and suffering.

So far, austerity in America has largely taken place at the state and local levels. However, the federal government is now working on undemocratic national austerity plans, in the form of so-called "trigger cuts" slated to take effect at the end of 2012. In addition, there's the Bowles-Simpson austerity plan to slash Medicare and Social Security benefits along with a host of other public programs; and the Ryan Budget, a blueprint for widespread federal austerity should the Republicans win control of the Congress and the White House in November.

2. Attacks on democracy. Austerity was deeply unpopular with the German public. The Reichstag, Germany's legislature, initially rejected austerity measures in 1930. As a result, right-wing Chancellor Heinrich Brüning implemented his austerity measures by using a provision in the Weimar constitution enabling him to rule by decree. More notoriously, Hitler was selected as Chancellor despite his party never having won an election -- the ultimate slap at democracy. Both these events took place amidst a larger backdrop of anti-democratic attitudes rampant in the Weimar era. Monarchists, fascists and large businesses all resented the left-leaning politics of a newly democratic Germany, and supported politicians and intellectuals who pledged to return control to a more authoritarian government.

Democracy is far older in the United States today than it was in Germany during the early 1930s. But that doesn't mean that democracy is actually respected in practice today; it only means that attacks on it can't be as overt as they were in Weimar Germany. From the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling to Republican voter ID laws to austerity proposals that bypass the normal legislative processes (remember the Supercommission?), American democracy is under similar direct threats now.

3. Enabling of extremists. Well before Hitler was made chancellor in 1933, leading conservatives and business leaders had concluded that their interests would be better served by something other than the democratic system established in 1919. During the 1920s, they actively supported parties that promoted anti-democratic ideologies, from monarchism to authoritarianism. Nazis were just one of the many extremist groups that they supported during the Weimar era. In fact, initially, many on the German right had attempted to exclude the Nazis from their efforts; and as chancellor, Brüning had tried to marginalize the Nazi party. However, his successor, the right-wing Franz von Papen, believed he could control Hitler and needed the support of the Nazi members of the Reichstag. Conservative German leaders ultimately decided their hunger for power was more important than keeping extremists at bay -- and their support finally gave the Nazi Party control of the country.

Tea Party activists aren't Nazis. But with roots in the 20th-century radical right, the Tea Party's attack on the public sector, on labor unions, on democratic practices, and on people who aren't white mark them as the extremist wing of American politics; and they bear many of the hallmarks that characterize fascist movements around the world. In recent years, Republican leaders have been enabling these extremists in a successful bid to reclaim political power lost to Democrats in 2006 and 2008. We don't yet know where this enabling is going to lead the country, but it's hard to imagine it will be anywhere good.

4. Right-wing and corporate dominance. One of the the most prominent German media moguls in the 1920s was Alfred Hugenberg, owner of 53 newspapers that reached over a majority of German readers. The chairman of the right-wing German National People's Party, Hugenberg promoted Adolf Hitler by providing favorable coverage of him from the mid-1920s onward. Major German corporations such as Krupp, IG Farben and others spent money in the 1920s and early 1930s to support the rise of right-wing political parties, including the Nazis, as part of a strategy to undermine democracy and labor unions. Even if Hitler had never taken power, that strategy had already achieved significant returns on their substantial investment.

Here in the United States, one only needs to look at Charles and David Koch, Fox News and other right-wing funders and their media outlets to see the analogy. By funding right-wing politicians who promote austerity, undermine democracy and support extremism, they are active agents in the creation of Weimar America.

The Road Not Taken
None of this means that the United States is about to fall victim to a fascist coup d'etat as Germany did in January 1933. Remember that no outcome is inevitable. Nor would it be accurate to say that the United States is repeating the exact same events and taking the same course as Germany did during the 1930s, because many other important details are different.

For example: Germany was a nation saddled with huge debts and lacking the global political power it needed to reverse its situation; but even with today's high unemployment rates, the United States remains the globe's largest economy, and therefore doesn't face the same fiscal constraints Weimar Germany faced. In fact, a better current analogy may be Greece, which is in a far more similar predicament now.

Yet the underlying similarities ought to be troubling -- and are enough to give us pause. The combination of austerity and well-funded right-wing political movements hostile to democracy destroyed Weimar Germany. And Spain and Italy both experienced a similar situation in their slide into authoritarianism in the 1930s. In those cases -- and in ours -- as people saw their own financial position weaken, and as their democratic rights were increasingly limited in favor of giving more power to the large corporations, the future of a democratic society with a strong middle-class was increasingly jeopardized. Fascism is what happens when right-wing plutocrats weaken the middle class, and then convince it to turn its back on democracy.

Will Weimar America face the same disastrous fate Weimar Germany did? On our current path, democracy and shared prosperity are both in serious trouble. We owe it to ourselves, to our children, and to our world to look to the lessons of history, find a way to change course, and get to work building something better.

3 Wings of the Republican Party

(And the reason Republicans tend to be more successful in their political campaigns, as well as campaigns for or against certain issues, is because they are not afraid to be afraid--in other words, they set their fears (of Obama, communism, terrorism, feminism) to seep into the electorate, and they aren't afraid to violate ethics, break laws or destroy lives in their attempts to control the govt. The Democrats are afraid of everything. They mostly are afraid of not being re-elected, so they are afraid to oppose the will of corporate entities who might dole out some campaign cash. And they are afraid of the Republicans, who have bullied the Democrats since Reconstruction. Sadly, Democrats don't seem to be afraid of shitting on the constitution, or facing their constituents with yet another measure that costs us money, services, or most importantly: our rights, what little we have left.--jef)

++++++++++++++++++++

Crazies, Corporatists ... and Democrats

Democrats must endorse progressive principles again and hammer home the distinction between the party that cares about everyday Americans, not just the wealthy.(Too late!--jef)

By Drew Westen, AlterNet
Posted on June 20, 2011,

Today's Republican Party has three wings: the psychiatric wing, the corporate wing, and the Democrats.

The first wing, the psychiatric wing, is defined by severe psychological and intellectual impairments, exemplified by the inability to read a birth certificate. Sarah Palin's recent foray into American history, replete with her description of Paul Revere as the man who rang alarms, bells, and buzzers to signal his support for the Second Amendment years before there was either a United States or a Bill of Rights, provides an example of the kind of "gaffe" that is, in fact, psychologically meaningful. This level of intellectual dysfunction, equally common in the pronouncements of Michelle Bachmann, once disqualified a candidate for high office. That was until the "lamestream media" decided to turn elections into reality shows, where the only real criterion is celebrity (defined as the state of being or becoming famous), and where commentators may poke occasional fun but no longer communicate to the public the seriousness of intellectual deficits in someone running for high office who would actually have to make decisions in which "facts" occasionally matter. (The dangerousness of that level of media indifference to reality should have been a lesson of George W. Bush's tenure in office, but things have sadly only gotten worse since then.)

This is the wing of the Republican Party that most endangers the party's chances to turn a dismal economy into an electoral victory in 2012, because it is so far to the right of mainstream America that you can see Russia from its porch (even if it locates that porch in Minnesota). The problem for the Republicans is that this wing of the party constitutes such a large percentage of GOP primary voters that it is hard to imagine any nominee emerging from the primaries without having had to produce so many general election campaign ads for the Democrats that President Obama may well defy political gravity and get re-elected no matter how high the unemployment rate drifts.

The second wing is the corporate wing, also known as the wing-tip wing. Once the home of moderate Republicans such as Bob Dole, this wing used to be slightly to the right of the American center. Its advocates held beliefs now seen as "quaint" by modern-day wing-tips (e.g., that humans evolved the same way other animals did, that a fertilized egg does not hold property rights any more than an omelet does, and that cutting the jobs of hundreds of thousands of teachers, police, and firefighters does not reduce unemployment).
Today's wing-tips, in contrast, are defined by three articles of faith.

The first is that whatever ails you (whether budget deficits, unemployment, or kidney failure), the solution is tax cuts for the rich.

The second is the belief (this one true) that whatever ails them can be fixed within any two-year election cycle by an infusion of venture capital from the Chamber of Commerce, Wall Street, Big Oil, the Pharmaceutical lobby, or whosever interests could be served or threatened by some piece of legislation. These venture firms now require a controlling interest of 51 percent of an elected official (whether Republican or Democrat), but the futures market for political votes seems to be the only market that is working efficiently in America today. (Word has it that Larry Summers considers the deregulation of the commodities market for politicians one of his signal achievements, although to give credit where credit is due, he had an assist from the Roberts Court in its Citizens United ruling, which held that money need no longer be exchanged under the table, and reaffirmed that money is speech, making political payoffs a high form of rhetoric.)

The third belief that defines the wing-tips is that deficits present a grave threat to our way of life -- except when Republicans are in power, at which point deficits are deficit-neutral. This deep and abiding concern with deficits (under Democratic administrations) stands in sharp contrast to their relative indifference to unemployment, which they consider a luxury good consumed by people with too much time on their hands (after all, they're unemployed), whose "whining" is really annoying to lawmakers, lobbyists, and Washington pundits who want to get on with the real business of cutting budgets, and who have more important things to worry about than people who, for God's sake, can't even keep a job now, can they.

These are the Paul Ryan and John Boehner Republicans, whose virtue is that they seem genuinely to believe what they are paid to say. Some of them, like Ryan, can even do so with earnest looks on their faces (something Boehner has not mastered, even while smearing his mascara). This is an impressive feat, given that what they have been saying lately is that they would happily throw their own grandmothers under the bus, although they know this will never come to pass because they don't believe in public transportation (hence the absence of buses, ergo the safety of grandmothers).

The Wing of Icarus

And that brings us to the third wing of the Republican Party, the Democrats. Their standard-bearer, President Obama, has proven himself perhaps the strongest potential challenger to Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination if he decides to join the debates, having established his conservative bona fides on a wide range of social and economic issues:

• Deporting more immigrants and breaking up more families than George W. Bush (or to put it in more business-friendly language, increasing U.S. "exports" of poorly documented human capital).
• Coming out in support of expanded off-shoring drilling just before the BP catastrophe in the Gulf; repeatedly touting production of a mythical substance (seen only, legend has it, by industry executives) as "clean coal" (widely believed to be found in the Fountain of Youth); and calling for the building of more nuclear plants, which the Japanese have shown to be a safe complement to offshore drilling (perhaps with the hope that water contaminated with radioactive materials discharged into the ocean might prove useful as a dispersant for oil).
• Extending the "Hyde Amendment" to allow GOP lawmakers to exclude abortion coverage from even private health insurance.
• Cutting 120 billion in taxes for the rich while proposing billions in cuts to "entitlements," such as home heating subsidies to people who are poor or elderly.
• Making sure the nation's largest banks remained solvent so they could continue to foreclose on the homes of millions of Americans, whose tax dollars supported the multi-million-dollar bonuses of the executives who continue to refuse to renegotiate their mortgages.
• Saying virtually nothing as Republican governors and state legislators around the country attack organized labor (e.g., remaining almost entirely mum on the Wisconsin law stripping workers of the right to negotiate their contracts).

But that's just the president. We can't blame the party whose name he never utters for the actions or inactions of its titular leader, who prefers to remain "post-partisan."

So with nearly 15 million Americans unemployed and millions more working two and three jobs just to get by to feed their family, how are the Democrats saying they're going to solve the problems of ordinary people?

Consider the following five-point statement of conservative economic principles from ABC's This Week a couple of Sundays ago, which concisely describes what conservatives believe the Obama administration should do to solve our nation's economic ills, and how the Democrats responded to it:

• Our effort now ... should be to get the private sector, to help them stand up and lead the recovery. [T]he government is not the central driver of recovery.
• Now, we must live within our means.
• We've got to rely on government policies that are trying to leverage the private sector and give incentives to the private sector to be doing the growth. And ... so ... these tax cuts ... will continue over the rest of this year.
• Put in place this regulatory review in which all of the major agencies are going to go through, find any outmoded regulations, ones that are excessively costly for their benefits, find ways to streamline.
• The free-trade agreements, trying to increase exports, which are rising at 15 percent annual rates.

So there you have all the elements of the ineffectual conservative Republican response to a severe recession bordering on a Depression: let the private sector lead and the government step out of the way; cut the budget, exercise austerity, and "live within our means;" use tax cuts as the primary stimulus to get the economy moving again (because they worked so well under the Bush administration); eliminate excessive regulations on businesses, because we all know that excessive regulations are what threw us into the Great Recession and are what are hindering the business community's ability to create economic growth; and implement free-trade agreements so the sticky fingers of the invisible hand of capitalism can work its wonders across international borders, just as it has done for the millions of Americans who once had manufacturing jobs, but just don't understand the fine points of the theory of comparative advantage in economics (by which countries with the "comparative advantage" of having the 2/3 of the world's workers who are willing to work for less than $2/day get jobs as factories in the U.S. shut their doors).

Surely this was an easy target for a Democratic counter-attack. After all, this is Hoover economics, all of which has been thoroughly discredited, if not by the Great Depression, more recently by the Bush administration and the Great Recession that capped off that glorious eight-year period of economic growth during which we managed to double the national debt and crash the economy at the same time.

So what was the Democrats' response?

Actually, that was the Democrats' response. This statement of conservative economic principles was actually from the Chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisors, Austan Goolsby.

To his credit, Goolsby, one of the smartest, clearest-headed, plainest-speaking progressive economists around, looked very uncomfortable having to recite Hoover's plan for economic recovery (actually, Hoover was substantially more proactive and progressive in his vision as the economy sank into the abyss), and he announced his decision to resign the next day, I suspect out of a sense of futility and disgust that there's not much he can do with both of Uncle Sam's hands tied behind his back.

Who Misplaced the Democratic Party?

So how did we get to this point, where Democrats in Washington are looking increasingly difficult for the average American to distinguish from Republicans, as the two parties focus with equal fervor on how to find $50-60 billion in budget cuts after passing twice that amount in tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and then wring their hands that the deficit is out of control ("there's gambling in this establishment!")?

At first it looked as if the Democrats were graciously going to accept Paul Ryan's gift (Medicare cuts that poll about as well as Wall Street bankers, particularly with a voting public of which 40 percent are age 55 and older, who punished the Democrats in large numbers in 2010 for helping finance health care reform with promises of cutting hundreds of billions of cuts in Medicare "waste." Ryan and his party's insistence on a draconian form of "austerity" for older voters, the majority of whom live on less than $20,000 a year, would have placed the differences between the parties in stark relief -- and might well have won the Democrats back the House. Now, however, for reasons that are impossible to fathom, Democrats are unilaterally disarming in advance of negotiations again, making clear that they plan to let the Republicans off the hook by "putting Medicare on the table," as if seniors will either understand or care which party seems to be selling them out more (or more efficiently) in what will become a he said-she said that is completely avoidable.

One could point to many factors that have led the Democrats to occupy the center-right wing of the GOP, but three are among the most important.

First, apologists for the president and the Democrats rightly claim that their hands are tied: the Republicans just won't let them pass any legislation that might move the economy forward, so their only tools are ineffectual ones such as tax cuts and exhortations to the business community to invest.

But what this account leaves out is that this state of affairs is entirely of the Democrats' creation. Had the White House and the supermajorities the president started out with for two years simply done what the voters asked them to do -- and what the House actually did do with remarkable speed in 2009 -- the Democrats' hands would not be tied today.

Voters were terrified when the president took office, and they were looking for him to do something dramatic -- anything -- that might turn things around, just as voters had done with FDR 75 years earlier. The economy was hemorrhaging ¾ of a million jobs a month, the Dow had dropped by over half, and credit was impossible to obtain.

Had the White House not chosen to cut the stimulus package almost in half from the size suggested by virtually all competent economists and then larded it up with $300 billion in tax cuts they already knew were inert because they had been the staple of Bush economics for the last eight years, and had the president simply foreshadowed to the American people that it might take two or three more shocks from the paddles of deficit spending to get the blood circulating again in an economy whose heart had stopped, the president and his party might not have led the average American to conclude (with a little help from some unanswered creative story-telling from the other side) that the stimulus was a failure (instead of having to argue the counterfactual that had they not half-stimulated the economy with their half-stimulus we would likely have gone into a second Great Depression).

Second, by running scared and adopting Republican talking points on economics, Democrats have created a self-fulfilling prophecy. Listening to the same pollster-industrial complex that advised them in 2002 to support George W. Bush's trillion-dollar unfunded bloodbath in Iraq, Democrats have joined with Republicans in offering massive giveaways to millionaires and billionaires and then telling working and middle class Americans that the sky is falling and we (they) have to tighten our (their) belts. Democrats inside the tightened beltway (with the exception of a strong contingent in the House and a dozen or two Senators) appear to have become convinced by the new conventional wisdom in Washington, that Americans aren't really concerned as much about jobs as they are about the deficit.

If you stop and think about it for a moment, that notion is absurd on the face of it. Is it really possible that Americans who have lost their jobs or fear losing them are more worried about an abstraction -- the budget deficit in Washington -- than about the realities of their lives -- that they face a budget deficit around their own kitchen table at the end of every month when they're trying to pay their rent or make their mortgage payment on their rapidly depreciating home?
And as it turns out, this view is as mistaken empirically as it is intuitively.

Can a pollster who believes or wants to show that Americans are as or more concerned about the national debt than jobs or the economic insecurity they face every day write questions in such a way as to get what he or she is looking for? Sure. Does this reflect what working and middle class Americans feel as they watch their economic security disappear? Not in a million years.

Consider the following statement about budget deficits, which began a message that beat a tough deficit-focused, budget-cutting message taken straight from the mouth of John Boehner with a large national sample by over 30 points with the general electorate and by an even larger margin with swing voters: "The best way to reduce the deficit is to put Americans back to work. There are 14 million Americans who've lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and they'd be happy to be paying taxes again instead of drawing unemployment insurance."

Put this way, there is nothing the other side can say that can beat this message. And that's on an issue -- budget deficits -- that's supposed to be the Achilles heel of Democrats and progressives.

What we have witnessed in the last several months is a phenomenon described in a classic book nearly 20 years ago by the political scientist John Zaller. What Zaller discovered is that public opinion tends to follow the lead of party leaders and pundits, as partisans turn to their own leaders and trusted sources for cues on what they should think and feel about the central questions of the day. Normally, when the two sides offer competing views, the 40-45 percent of voters on each side follow the lead of the "opinion leaders" on their side of the aisle.

But when leaders on one side are voicing a strong opinion -- in this case, the Republicans arguing that the sky is falling on the economy because of deficits, tax and spend liberalism, and over-regulation of business -- and the other side is either silent or echoing GOP talking points -- the average voter hears what sounds like a consensus and starts to mouth it.

Then pollsters start to pick up in their polls precisely the view they have been promulgating and elites have been putting into the minds and mouths of ordinary citizens, rendering elected officials all the more afraid of bucking what is now the conventional wisdom. And the result is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So now both the president and Congressional Democrats are making the same mistake Democrats chronically make: When the going gets rough, adopt GOP talking points.

Unfortunately, that's bad politics and bad policy. It's bad politics because no one is going to believe that a Democrat is as serious as a Republican about cutting spending, especially the kind of "discretionary spending" (a term that if Frank Luntz didn't make it up, he should have) that disproportionately hits working and middle class people and the most vulnerable. It's bad policy because, as Nobel-Prize-winning economist after economist has told us, GOP plans for "economic growth" will kill hundreds of thousands of jobs, and if you really want to restore "business confidence," the best place to start is by putting Americans back to work and restoring consumer confidence.

You can't create robust growth by frightening or impoverishing everyone but the upper 1 percent, who spend the smallest percent of their income, if you want to sustain demand.
Americans need a choice again between two parties, not between two strains of Hoover Republicanism. The more Democrats offer them the latter, the more they will both sink the economy and blur any distinctions left between the parties. Frankly, if the question is, "Who can do the better job slashing programs to finance tax breaks for the rich?" I would vote Republican. If you want trickle down, vote for people who really believe in it, not the ones who say they believe in it when they are too frightened to say what they really believe.


Three Wings, One Air Supply

 

That brings us to the third reason so many Democrats have created a third wing of the Republican Party: because they're competing for the same corporate money, which leads them to support the same policies. The major difference between Republicans and Democrats is that virtually all of the Republicans are quite comfortable being bought because it fits their ideology, whereas most of the Democrats who are beholden to one industry or another are conflicted about it -- but not conflicted enough to pass a fair elections bill when they had the chance last year that might have taken away some of the advantages of incumbency but restored integrity to our electoral system.  (And thus, it is clearly demonstrated that our "two party" system is anything but...it is a uni-partisan fascist state. Fascism, simply put, is corporate control of government. And yes, we have that here. And it pretends to be a democratic republic; pretends to let us think we have a say or a choice in our political system. We don't. The wealthy of this country pulled off a bloodless coup and installed their fascist oligarchy where democracy once struggled.--jef)

From the standpoint of voters across the political spectrum, who overwhelmingly endorse statements such as, "It's time we returned to government of, by, and for the people, not government of, bought, and paid for by big corporations," or (in reference to the tax cuts to the rich), "In tough times like these, rich people ought to be giving to charity, not getting it," they have no idea where to turn, because neither party seems to be standing up anymore for working and middle class Americans, let alone for least fortunate among us. What they hear from Democrats are talking points like the following from a Senate press release, which is indistinguishable from the disingenuous pabulum coming from the other side, and does little more than reinforce the conservative economic message: "It's time for Republicans to join Democrats to cut spending in a smart, responsible way that reduces our deficit while creating American jobs, not destroying them."

In other words, let's cut our way to growth.

Somewhere Ronald Reagan is smiling. (make no mistake, hell is where Reagan is smiling.--jef)

The Democrats are at a crossroads. They can continue to populate the third wing of the Republican Party, fundamentally accepting the premises of Reagan's narrative about government the way Republicans from Eisenhower through Ford accepted the premises of Roosevelt's New Deal. If they choose that course, they will continue to marginalize, antagonize, and demoralize not only their base but the vast majority of swing voters, who don't give one whit about ideology but simply want someone to represent their interests and values -- most importantly, the idea that America ought to work again for people who work for a living.

Alternatively, they can return to progressive principles, starting by articulating for themselves as well as the American people what those principles are. (Personally, I have no idea what it means to be a Democrat anymore, other than to "talk about jobs," as if talking about them will somehow magically create them, while searching for compromises with Republicans at each successive "budget crisis" -- this time the debt ceiling -- that will endanger even more jobs.)

If they choose to endorse progressive principles again, they will need to hammer home the distinction between the party that cares first and foremost about working and middle class Americans, those who want to join the ranks of the shrinking middle class, and the small businesses that create two-thirds of all new private sector jobs for working Americans; and the party that cares first and foremost about the rich and well-connected, the big corporations that ship American jobs overseas and rake in massive profits without sharing that prosperity with their workers, and CEOs, Wall Street bankers, and their bloated bonuses.

That would be a change we can believe in. But the Democrats would have to mean it this time.

+++++++++++

(The Democrats, as expected, have nothing they can use to oppose the GOP's "austerity" destroy the poor plans. They can't stand up to the GOP for any purpose. The only hope I have is that a bunch of us progressives, libertarians and former democrats can band together and come up with some realistic strategies while also having the balls to oppose the Republicans and their corporate masters. The only good Democrat is a former Democrat. The only good Republican is...wait...hold on, there has to be somebody...uh? No he resigned...OK, joke's on me, there are NO good Republicans.--jef)

The Budget Mess: A Crisis in Legitimacy

by Sheldon Richman, April 26, 2011 - The Future of Freedom Foundation

Reality has finally caught up with the ruling elite, and its members inside and outside government are in a panic. They have freely spent the taxpayers’ money for generations building a corporatist warfare-welfare state, and when that wasn’t enough to finance their projects, they borrowed just as freely. For a long while it paid off handsomely in power and wealth, but now even they realize things can’t go on as they have for so long.

This fiscal year the government will spend $3.8 trillion, more than 40 percent of which will be borrowed. In the last full year before the current administration came to power, outlays were just under $3 trillion. Earlier this year, the Office of Management and Budget estimated that under President Obama’s budget, spending in 2016 will rise to $4.5 trillion. The FY 2008 deficit stood at less than half a trillion dollars — an astounding amount in its day. It hit a record $1.88 trillion in 2009. According to administration estimates, the deficit won’t fall below a trillion dollars until 2013, then will begin rising again 2016.

Deficit projections of course depend on assumptions about economic growth. When the public is clamoring for action on the deficit, officials have an incentive be unrealistically optimistic.

Also, budget discussions overflow with opportunities for deceit. As we saw with the recent compromise over the 2011 continuing resolution, in Orwellian Washington a spending cut is really an increase.

Deficit spending has had a deep structural effect on America’s political economy. In mid April the national debt was $14.3 trillion, about 98 percent of GDP. Last year the administration’s Mid-Session Budget Review projected the debt would hit 100 percent of GDP by 2012, and would double by 2020, exceeding 100 percent of GDP for the rest of the decade.

To see the yearly budget impact of that, in 2010 the U.S. government paid more than $400 billion in interest, a little less than the Medicare budget — the fourth largest budget item. This year the government is on track to exceed that amount. It is estimated that in 2019 the government will pay $700 billion in interest.

Obama’s profligate spending should not lead us to think he succeeded a budget hawk in office. On the contrary, the eight years of George W. Bush saw outlays go from $1.9 trillion to nearly $3 trillion and the debt go from $5.7 trillion to $10.7 trillion.

Virtually everyone agrees that the current situation is unsustainable. It’s easy to see why the ruling elite think so. They are concerned that if some control is not achieved over spending, by 2025 all revenues collected by the national government will be swallowed up by Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the debt. But then how will the politicians do all the other things they do: subsidizing pet projects (many of which are carried on by well-connected businesses); policing the globe for political and economic reasons (fighting overt and covert wars and channeling billions to the military-industrial complex); and generally centralizing power in Washington, D.C.?


The regime faces a double crisis. The first is fiscal: Unless it does something, it won’t have the money to maintain the gravy train. The other is a crisis in legitimacy. People are catching on that the borrowing power hides the cost of government, imposing burdens on future generations. If politicians don’t appear to fix things their careers are in jeopardy.

Hence, Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s House-backed meager “Path to Prosperity” and Obama’s expression of support for modest budget cuts (plus tax increases on the wealthy). But both approaches, whatever their differences in detail and style, have one overriding feature in common: Both aim to preserve the corporatist warfare-welfare state. Neither represents a serious rethinking of the role of government. In the end, there will be little change, no matter who prevails.

Ron Paul, Ralph Nader agree on progressive libertarian alliance

Ron Paul, Ralph Nader agree on ‘progressive-libertarian alliance’
By Nathan Diebenow
Saturday, January 22nd, 2011

In this corner, a libertarian, tea party hero who ran several campaigns as a candidate for US president on the Republican ticket. And in that corner, a progressive icon of the left who also ran several campaigns for the US presidency but on the Green Party ticket.

One might think the two men, seemingly ideologically opposed to one another, would rather argue than help one another.

However, on Wednesday's broadcast of Freedom Watch on the Fox Business channel, Judge Napolitano sat down for an amiable interview with Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Ralph Nader to discuss a progressive-libertarian alliance in the 112th session of respective chambers in Congress.

Nader, who has recently called this coalition "the most exciting new political dynamic" in the US today, explained that it works well because both groups stand against corporatists who believe government should be run in the interests of corporations.

"I believe in coalitions," Rep. Paul echoed. "They talk about we need more bipartisanship, and I say we have too much bipartisanship because the bipartisanship we have here in Washington endorses corporatism."

Paul added that he agreed with Nader on a host of issues, such as cutting the US military's budget, ending undeclared US wars overseas, restoring civil liberties and civil rights by dumping from the Patriot Act, and withdrawing from the NAFTA and World Trade Organization agreements.

"I think we should come together and work together, and I think we can," he said, noting that the coalition had previously worked on deficit financing solutions.

Rep. Paul and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the most conservative and most liberal members of their respective chambers, joined forces last session to fight for an audit of the Federal Reserve, a private institution that handles America's monetary policy, which Nader explained is under no legal control of Congress.

"The banks fund the Fed," Nader said. "It doesn't go through the congressional appropriations process as it should under our constitution."

Paul is the current chairman of a congressional subcommittee that would conduct oversight on the US Federal Reserve bank

He explained, however, that he would not have the subpoena power to force Tim Geithner, US Treasury Secretary, and Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, to testify under oath about the Fed's policies. That power is in the hands of the chairman of the full committee, he said.

"But that doesn't mean we'll go lightly on digging up for this information because Ralph is absolutely right on this thing," Paul said.

When asked, Nader stopped short of endorsing a full repeal of the Federal Reserve.

"The Fed, whatever it does, should be a cabinet-level, accountable institution," he proposed instead.

Paul also reiterated his stance that spending on overseas bases in US military's budget should be cut and that US troops should be brought home.

Will Only Another Great Depression Save America?

The economic crisis is really a political struggle between the rich and the rest of us.
By David Rosen, AlterNet  on January 20, 2011

Americans are increasingly aware that the Great American Century is over. A November 2010 Rasmussen poll found that just over one-third (37 percent) of respondents believe America's best days are still ahead. Sadly, nearly half (47 percent) say the nation's best days are in the past. They wonder what will come next.

Officially, the Great Recession started in December 2007 and ended in June 2009. Unofficially, the living recession grinds on with millions of Americans remaining unemployed and underemployed, millions continuing to lose their homes due to foreclosure, and millions more joining the legion of the homeless, hungry and those without health care. The U.S. is today marked by second-rate health care, educational and telecommunication systems.

The question haunting America is simple: if the American Century is over, what comes next? Will only another Great Depression save America?

* * *

The American Century was, symbolically, predicated on the Ozzie and Harriet myth of suburban home ownership; the popping of the housing bubble precipitated the Great Recession. As the myth of home ownership evaporates, the American Century ends.

In their important new book, Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer -- and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class, Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson paint a grim picture of the nation's present state of affairs.

The authors, political science professors from Yale and Berkeley, respectively, critically assess the current situation. "The Wall Street of well-heeled bankers are thriving," they note, "while the Main Street of ordinary workers struggled amid the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression." They detail how, since the early '80s, the U.S. has "drifted away from a mixed-economy cluster and traveled a considerable distance toward another: the capitalist oligarchies" of Latin America.

They provide four valuable insights.

First, the current crisis is the result of four decades of economic and social restructuring driven by the demands of the rich and super-rich, especially the financial services sector, to capture more of the nation's wealth.

Second, this capitalist class has effectively taken control of the political process, capturing the Republican party and the leadership of the Democrats as well.

Third, they have built a well-financed operation of think-tanks, lobbyists, astroturf shills, co-opted consumer groups, obsequious religious leaders, media bloviators and regulatory bureaucrats to make their message America's shared, self-evident truth.

And fourth, as a result of the first three factors, ordinary Americans, who they identify as the middle class, have not only lost their economic shirts, but their political influence and interest in politics as well.

Corporate capitalism has, over the last three decades, transformed America. Finance capital has come to dominate and manufacturing has been relocated from America's heartland to the lowest-paid machilador zones scattered across the globe. Corporatist policies, facilitated through federal tax, subsidy, trade and other programs, have left Detroit and other once-proud urban centers sinkholes of 21st-century underdevelopment.

Hacker and Pierson argue that the current economic crisis is really a political struggle between the rich and the rest of us. They document the process by which social wealth has been systematically expropriated by the rich from the American multitude. Ever so tasteful, the authors refuse to call this process "class war." However, the wealth of information they muster and their careful analysis makes it impossible to draw any other conclusion. America is in the grips of a bitter class war and the American people are losing.

At the heart of this intensifying class war is growing income inequality.

One example the authors offer is most illuminating: "The share of [national] income earned by the top 1 percent of Americans has increased from around 8 percent in 1974 to more than 18 percent in 2007." Going further, they add, "the only time since 1913 … that this share has been higher was 1928." More alarming, they note that the average annual income of the nation's top 1/10th of 1 percent (some 10,000 households) jumped from $4 million in 1974 to $35 million in 2007.

Other analyses, like those at the Economic Policy Institute, push the statistical data even further. The EPI argues that in 2006, the top 1 percent controlled 23 percent of all income and that today's super-rich have regained the position they held just prior to the 1929 stock market crash when they controlled 24 percent of all income. As the Great Recession grinds on, few can anticipate that the share controlled by the top 1 percent has not increased.

The great post-WWII income normalizer was the progressive income tax and, in the intervening decades, is disappearing. Between 1963 and 2003, the top bracket saw their tax rate decline to 35 percent from 91 percent.

Reagan's counter-revolution cut the tax rate for the richest from 70 percent to 28 percent. Under George H.W. Bush, the rate nosed up to 31 percent and increased further to 39.6 percent under President Clinton; it decreased to 35 percent under George W. Bush, where it stands today and -- with the new "bipartisan" financial agreement -- for the immediate future.

* * *

In the wake of the 2010 elections, there is even less likelihood that the issues that caused the erosion of the American Century will be addressed. Rather, we are likely to see a deepening -- and increasingly vitriolic -- gridlock in Washington as the 2012 presidential election approaches. Unless there is a remarkable turnaround, Obama will likely fail in his reelection bid and the Democrats will suffer a further shellacking.

This could catapult a viciously right-wing corporatist clique into power, fueling ever-greater economic inequality, evangelical moral intolerance, neo-fascist and racist immigration policies, and a growing surveillance state. The worst tendencies in the American character will dominate and all will suffer.

In the short-term, over the coming two to five years, a meaningful, if modest, recovery may well take place. The jobless rate could decline to 6 to 7 percent, consumer-spending increase modestly, home purchases pick up and the stock market continue its upward tilt. However, the quality of life for the vast majority of Americans is likely to further deteriorate, with more people chasing minimum-wage jobs, unions further eviscerated and non-documented immigrants rounded up. Some are calling this possible short-term recovery the "new normal," a darker time marked by significantly lowered expectations signally the end to the American Century.

While relatively tolerable, the new normal gives us little faith in America's long-term prospects. There has been much blather from politicians and their paid talking-head pundits about a "new" or "green" economy. It sounds great and, in truth, it is the only way forward. Sadly, there has been little commitment to transform the national economy.

America's long-term future seems pretty bleak for the vast majority of the people. The legacy of a half-century of restructuring social wealth will likely buffer the baby-boomer generation and its children. But what happens to the following generation, the grandchildren of baby boomers, and their offspring? The nation's long-term prospects looks dismal.

* * *

If the great American prosperity party is over and the new normal really becomes the new normal, what lies ahead? If, as can be realistically anticipated, America slowly devolves into a second-tier country, will it come to resemble France, Netherlands or Finland (which would not be bad) or is something far worse likely? In either case, what can be expected in terms of the quality of life for the average American?

The contours of America's future are visible. Prosperity is being replaced by a frayed social safety net; crime and incarceration rates increase; and ceaseless and costly foreign military misadventures will continue in replace of a meaningful internationalist policy suited for the 21st century. Making matters worse, the extraction industries will continue to drive up carbon levels, thus upping the chances of a global environmental catastrophe.

Sadly, the American ruling elite will likely continue to pursue their single-minded objectives of gobbling up more of the social wealth and maintaining global imperial hegemony. One can only wonder if the forces of reaction have set the stage for another Depression? Is the recent banking crisis a precursor to what is just around the corner?

Does today's capitalist class share the same shortsighted, self-interested blindness that marked their forefathers, those who facilitated the 1929 stock market crash and cataclysmic Great Depression?

Unbeknownst to these class warriors, a second Great Depression might be the only way class tyranny can be broken. Is there another way by which the interests of the many can reassert themselves over the gluttony of the few?

Structural changes in capitalist development make this prognosis all the more disturbing. Walter Benjamin famously proclaimed Paris the capital of the 19th century. New York, embodying America's glory days, was surely the capital of the 20th century. Who doubts that Shanghai will be the capital of the 21st century?

Today, the U.S. economy is in free fall, returning to the worst of Gilded Age obscenities. America's post-WWII prosperity developed out of nearly two decades of Depression and world war. Luce's American Century took root when private corporations were weak, still vestigial organs of war-capitalism, ultimately rejuvenated through massive federal financing.

Is America poised to enter an era that can only be conceived as post-modern feudalism? Are we witnessing the nation state and the private corporation being replaced by a global oligarchy that rules as malevolently as the nobility of old?

The Heart of Corporate Darkness

The Gulf of Mexico, It Dead
By STEPHEN MARTIN

‘Mistah Kurtz, he dead’ 

Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness.

It really is so very difficult to attempt to understand what is going on in the World today, though perhaps the point as made by Karl Marx; that the priority is not to understand the World but to change it is valid - and we certainly live in time of change - sense of ‘Sic Transit Gloria Mundi’?

This small article seeks to examine what amounts to Political horror; that horror which is Corporatism become synonymous with ‘Ecocide’, and describable as ‘Heart of Darkness’.

These small quarters write as a ‘Prole’, sense of George Orwell’s abbreviation of ‘Proletariat’; and it is certainly the case that Orwell had a sublime consciousness. His concept of ‘Inner Party, Outer Party and Prole’ holds approximate sense of Gini Co-efficient today in most parts of the Western World - as does his vision of ‘Geopolitical Power Block’ as ‘supra National’; sense of ‘Eastasia, Eurasia and Oceania’, express prescience?

The Proletariat, and indeed the ‘Lumpenproletariat’ or ‘Proletariat in rags’, are growing in number daily in the Western World given the shrinkage of the middle classes under the onslaught of Economic Depression - and are increasingly liable to be viewed as ‘superfluous’ accordant the growth of power of ‘Inner Party’ as ‘Masters of the Universe’ or ‘?bermenschen’?

‘Population Control’ is a euphemism as can be employed by ‘Philanthropists’ who see themselves as ‘?bermenschen’, and to whom ‘Genocide’ concerning the elimination of ‘Prole’ as ‘?ntermenschen’ is but only a further step along the Corporate line in an Orthodoxy demanding seeing others as less worthy of Life - and as to be so ‘constrained’?

So it goes.

It is a questionable proposition that the engineering of an Economic Depression constitutes Population Control?

The horror!

These small quarters write expressive of a psychophysical consciousness which is reflective of a neurophysiological integration, involving an ‘anamnesis’ as put by Socrates, and within context of a ‘Paradigm’ as would be determined by Empiricism. It is ultimately through Empiricism that Corporatism as an Orthodoxy has been spawned, much along the lines of ‘Dialectic’ as enumerated by Marx concerning relationship to means of Production determined by Science as a fruit of Empiricism - as it is also through same Empiricism as paradigm Corporate that a mere Prole is not ‘meant’ to use words such as ‘psychophysical’ or ‘neurophysiological’ - as Orwell in his concept of ‘Newspeak’ acknowledged?

The point being made is that the ‘Heart of Darkness’ is not only ‘out there’ in Cartesian sense of particular best laid scheme being played with ‘matter’, but is also ‘in here’ sense of best laid scheme being played with ‘mind’?

The point is also that the ‘Inner Party’ as Stateless Bastards imposing Orthodoxy for gain ‘Utilitarian’ have a variety of ways of ‘grinding’ Man down through the imposition of illusion directed at destroying Hope; or at the very least rendering it capable of being described as ‘audacious’?

Asking the ‘right questions’ in a Panopticon comes with the risk of being ‘unintelligible’ or labelled ‘derogatory’ - such the control as they who would have wrong questions asked have attained – never mind the truth that ‘hope springs eternal in the human breast’ as Pope stated?

The pragmatism of the Corporatist Age in which we currently ‘live’ will surely be viewed in the future as being ‘Dark’ as Lichtenberg proposed; and in such illumination the Horror of the Age as illusion imposed will necessarily be faced and recognised for the denial it was?

‘Grundrisse’ as outlines critique of Political Economy is Marx’s prescience concerning the inevitable effects of concentration of wealth as a polarisation of power- and the degeneration of Capitalist Democracy to Corporatism?

That ‘History is written by the ‘Victorious’ was illustrated through alternative interpretation expressing a transcendence of such ‘paradigm’ by Howard Zinn - as an iconoclast concerning Orthodox American History?

For as there are certain Men as cannot be ‘ground down’ sense of Illegitimum non carborundum, and who retainthe right to have own opinions, idiosyncratic or offensive as they may be, but whose consciousness constitutes the attempt at ‘CounterPunch’ against Corporatist illusion in the denial of denial; so there is orthodox propaganda founded in a cynical pragmatic of the materialism which Corporatism has come to represent at the level of hegemony?

Squeezed out to the margins through technologically enhanced Hegemony of Orthodoxy; the narrative of those as are able to refuse reduction to the cynicism of pragmatism and deny imprisonment within the paradigm of illusion yet remains a vital sign of ‘Political Life on the Planet’ -though there exists an ongoing effort to render such not only ‘illegitimate’ but ‘unintelligible’? Corporatism ‘works’ by means of invisible restraint as of ‘unwritten rule’ concerning what is palatable, what is acceptable, what will be ‘rewarded’ - and in the final analysis what is comprehensible?

As Orwell put sublimely in 1984:

“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?… Has it ever occurred to your, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?…The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."

For we all exist in a ‘cage’ do we not, such as ‘Yellow Submarine’ as song sung of represents ‘imprisonment’ of sensibilities, and for some such a ‘tubular cage’ is more constraining, and not just in the singularity of ‘One Dimensional Man’, as Marcuse put, but also by way of multiplicity; as in the context of ‘Realpolitik’ the imperative exists of division, as of by way of the Roman maxim which has rationale of ‘conquering’, by way of illusion become as between ‘Republican’ or ‘Democrat’ concerning the power of ‘Inner Party’ - and as there can be ‘cages within a cage’?

The Corporatist Orthodoxy demands a uniformity which has the inevitable developmental line of marginalising Humanity through abrogation of Life as denial of Truth in the propagation of Death - as the acceptance of Lie as an unconsciousness; as in ‘no need to think’?

The tragedy of such Darkness’ as would be even at ‘Noon’ sense of Koestler, is that such cage will become ever more confining but yet would be ‘unseen’ under the illusion which is expressive of ‘power of mind over mind’.

The tragedy of America contemporaneous is of the Darkness of a Panopticon, such as the Heart of Corporatism would ‘pump up the volume’ to point of incapacitating level; as in where Man cannot hear himself or herself think – and so gives up the ghost’ concerning the imperative of consciousness?

Concerning Politics as ‘moral economics’, there is a Manichean aspect; given the acknowledgement of ‘morality’?

These small quarters seeing the trend contemporaneous in Western World as being primarily evil, as evident in the infliction of sufferance epitomised by Corporatism.

At present these small quarters can only speak as a ‘mushroom’ kept in a particular darkness the intent of power of mind over mind. In such darkness there exists as ‘foodstuff’ a certain kind of ‘shit’ which defines the demanded illusion of ‘geopolitical power block’. The unity of such power block is expressed in the currency, or money which is believed in, and controlled as of the exercise of a hidden taxation - to the ‘wetting of the beak’ in Mafia parlance by the ‘Inner Party’ as International Financier?

That ‘The Heart of Corporate Darkness’ is to be found within a ‘Continuity of Memoranda’ relating to identifiable horrors is the proposition of this small article.

In mind here is the ‘Ford Pinto Memo’ as real and demonstrable - and a Memorandum as must exist somewhere concerning the ‘Gulf of Mexico’, which summates the mechanics of deliberation concerning disaster as a series of pragmatic calculations within an obscene and warped Orthodoxy, realised in the denial of Life?

Increasingly mere ‘Proles’ such as these small quarters are being ‘asked’ to ‘suspend disbelief’ in the face of a crafted illusion which is wreaking ‘havoc!’, given ‘unleashing’ of the Corporatist ‘Dogs of War’; where ‘War’, as in the multiplicity concerning context of restraint apropos ‘cage’ above, is a polymorphous horror: ranging from a wrought Economic Depression with its ‘collateral damage’ of millions impoverished, to the abuse of military force against Nation with its ‘collateral damage’ of millions killed, to the destruction of Ecosystem with its ‘collateral damage’ of millions of lives lost - as considered across a wondrous diversity of species.

America, Iraq and the Gulf of Mexico exemplify respectively.

The horror!, the horror!, the horror!

Yet the manifold forms of Warfare as ‘Racket’ are not just for Mind, they are ultimately for Soul, such the ‘what it is all about’ concerning the pump of the Heart of Darkness - as every beat of dark bastard heart leads to further sufferance reflecting breakdown of ‘Life’; which in the case of America means making a mockery, to point of tragedy, of the best Political Constitution which the World has yet seen, through the destruction of ‘Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness’ evident through impoverishment of the Citizenry - and the diversion, under Orthodoxy, of precious resources to a Military Industrial Complex which projects ‘Empire’ fearful to point of ‘shock and awe’ under such pitifully perverse illusion as the imposition of Democracy by force in an Irony far from sublime as the grubby racket it represents by way of expropriation?

The horror!

Americans need not look far to see what such horror as irony means; for every American Citizen reliant on Food Stamp to survive, every American Citizen under threat of foreclosure and homelessness, every American Citizen living in fear of losing livelihood, is a testimony to the Obscenity of the Orthodoxy of Corporatism which would continue to propagate cruel illusion denying the horror of such actuality?

Welcome to the ‘Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave’ - such the ‘Doublethink’?

It is not without meaning that the last two published articles by these small quarters this exemplary Journal of Democracy have ended with one particular extract from the Political Constitution of the United States of America as an understanding of what Corporatism represents way of what it can deny - and what is held to be self evident.

For what is held as self evident these small quarters is the destruction of America by an enemy within as would be unseen; the takeover of power to issue money as a ‘permit’ being as a fatal blow to Democracy, as cannot be hidden despite the truly expensive efforts of Corporatist illusion to deny what is become so clear as it is so tragic, - and given awareness of the concept of ‘opportunity cost’?

It is become inevitable, such the Dialectic as reflecting the mechanics of deliberation as can be epitomised in a Memorandum; and as continuity demands consideration of Memoranda, that in America today there is a tragedy of homelessness, a tragedy of businesses closing, a tragedy of immiseration through impoverishment as unemployment and dependency upon food stamp represents; a tragedy which is of the ‘cages within cage’ of Corporatism - given the prevalence of fear, almost Universal such context as the beat of a ‘Heart of Darkness’ inevitably pumps out sufferance form of the destruction of Constitution by way of a Panopticon condemned to destroy Truth?

The horror!

It is a tragedy as would be unseen, unmentionable to the pathological state of ‘mind’ become dominant which is as Corporatism representing the ‘ascendancy’ of an Orthodoxy through which an Oligarchic Collective ‘survives’, as within such ‘Gutenbergian Galaxy’ become digitised, as per McLuhan, such medium contains a message indeed, and it is fearful as it arises from ‘Darkness’ - as of ‘enough never being enough’, such the greed as driven maniacal as abrogative of Humanity - or as Satanic as would destroy the Joy which the ‘Gift of Life’ represents?

‘Less than Zero’ such the ‘Luciferian Burn’ as the avoidable death of People in a Ford Pinto become magnified in the avoidable death of Life in the Gulf of Mexico as vehicle of the ‘buy in’ to illusion - form of trust extended or as permit granted? It is a tragedy of continuity as in a denouement expressive of the degeneration of ‘Citizenry’ and ‘Democracy’ by a ‘Coterie’ as constitutes Oligarchic Collective; it is a tragedy of the slow but sure strangulation of the breath of Life to the point beyond whimper whence last gasp of despair concerning materialism exists; at the end of the ‘day’ sense of the termination of the period of sunlight direct, such tragedy is of ‘cide’ can be summative; as in the ascending scale of obscenity represented by, ‘sui, ethno, geno, eco’ to such suffix.

Rather than ‘side’ as within humane context of debate as prefix of ‘for’ or ‘against’, the ubiquity of ‘cide’ as a suffix context of inhumane Warfare is a tragedy of expropriation, arrogation and abrogation, such the sadness that mere Corporatism can eliminate Democracy in the marginalisation of Humanity to point of ‘hollow man’ become dominant - such the ‘patter of rat’s feet over broken glass’. -T.S. Eliot was in his own way above and beyond the mechanics of deliberation?

Corporatism is a tragedy because it is unnecessary; because it is an avoidable abrogation of potentiality, because as simply put in colloquial vernacular: ‘it don’t have to be this way’?

The challenge for Corporatism is to sustain and perpetuate a life denying illusion which calls into ever greater question the ability of Man to refuse to believe the evidence of his or her own eyes. The dynamic or dialectic is of the suspension of disbelief given a growing disparity between the illusion as would be imposed, and the day to day reality for the ever growing Majority as truly suffer ‘impoverishment Utilitarian’. Orwell saw within such challenge a form of illusion he described as ‘Doublethink’, encapsulated within the slogans:

‘War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, andIgnorance is Strength.’

The motivation for adoption of life denying illusion is as simple as the biological ‘rationale’ for the diversity of parasitical life; it is material gain and the occupation of a comfortable niche with minimal expenditure of effort and provision of return. It is ‘survival’ as an imperative experienced as ‘superseding’ the need to speak up, sense of as Neimöller wrote - for all those who give up the right to ‘speak up’ experience an inevitable execution through joining the ‘chorus’ of a Moritaten, or ‘Ballad of Death’ concerning ‘consciousness’?

If humble parasites such as leeches could speak and dream, such would tell of Corporatism as a ‘rise’ above mere hematophagy and the feed upon lifeblood of an individual host; such would tell of money and power and corruption, and control and manipulation towards the end of ever greater expropriation from a greater diversity - as of all other life become as ‘host’?

Such a horror of the Necrotrophy as has destroyed the American Dream?

The Ford Pinto Memorandum is a testimony to the mechanics of deliberation which epitomises Corporatism as Orthodoxy. ‘ It is ‘Life’, Jim, and just as we have come to know it’’ more the horror, such as a ‘Trek amongst the Stars’ it is not; but closer to the scatological ravings of perverse degenerates such as coprophagiacs become as Hegemony; such the ‘existence’ for Man when lunatics take over an asylum. Because the reduction of any life to mere dollars and cents in concept of ‘worth’ is obscene, and reflects a level of perversity to which the sadness of Coprophagia as a state of perverse degeneracy could represent ‘improvement’?

The irony being that Corporatists exist on the premise of People ‘eating’ the shit of Propaganda; sense of illusion being swallowed as Orthodoxy accepted - and evidence of Man as has own eyes denied?

The Ford Pinto Memorandum concerned Corporate product as designed, built, marketed and branded which had a design flaw which meant an increased risk of the product bursting in to flames in a collision. Given recognition of this flaw, some sad bastard of Corporatist Orthodoxy sat down and ran calculations of contingency within margins of levels of confidence, ultimately expressed in levels of ‘bottom line’ of dollars and cents reaching a conclusion in terms of ‘EMV’ or ‘Expected Monetary Value’ concerning ‘recall and replace’ or ‘recompense for fatality/injury’ as part of a ‘decision tree’. The answer being as History demonstrates, such the discovery of what ‘life’ can mean in a paradigm of Obscene Orthodoxy.

Every person burned to death - or lucky enough to escape with ‘degree of burn’ - in such a product of Corporatism contributed to a profit as would be maximised under costs minimised - so the Orthodoxy goes.

The hypothetical ‘Gulf of Mexico Memorandum’ posits a development of the above horrific obscenity, written by an even sadder bastard than the author of the Ford Pinto Memorandum.

Why sadder?

Because the calculations concerning the ongoing tragedy of ‘Deepwater Horizon’ would have to reflect an even greater ‘incorporation’ of diversity of life denied, evidenced in bigger figures concerning dollars and cents, such the scale of obscenity as ‘Homicide’ can be represented as ‘mere’ when it comes to ‘Ecocide’; such the failure, such the Denial. We are not just talking of children as passengers or drivers as parents burned alive as the Ford Pinto Memorandum ‘incorporated’; we are talking of the diversity of species encompassed by an ecosystem ‘incorporated’ as a cost, sense of dollars and cents, and as can determine the choice between a number of courses of action -where ‘denial’ is the inevitable outcome of obscene Orthodoxy.

The hypothetical Gulf of Mexico Memorandum represents the ‘Big League’ of Corporatist Orthodoxy; commensurate with resonance of the illusion as to ‘Where has all the money gone?’ realising Genocide in an Economic Depression as disastrous illusion become ‘Where has all the Oil gone? in an Environmental Catastrophe of Ecocide as illusion would seek to deny – such the ‘Too big to fail’ premise as the illusion of Corporatism demands the inevitable imposition of sufferance and denial, variant only the prefix of the ‘cide’, such the obscenity.

But yet the failure of Corporatist Orthodoxy is all too evident, sense of the loss of life, sense of the magnification of expenditure of resources gone in to the support of illusion, sense of the Depression being as denial of Life - and of the Joy which it is as a wondrous gift.

The horror!

To reiterate a point made in a recent article by these small quarters, the drill of Corporatism as an Orthodoxy died in the Gulf of Mexico, and that is not tragic, but long overdue. What is truly tragic is the horror of the sacrifice it has taken to bring about the death of such Orthodoxy as an assassin of consciousness; for it is a sacrifice which many lives, and not just of Man, have yet to ‘enumerate’ - sense of acknowledgement of Truth as the absence of denial?

Citizens as People of America, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico, are beginning to open their eyes to what this current ‘evolutionary trajectory’ represents - as they are beginning to see the illusion of Corporatism for what it represents as the denial of Life?

At a pragmatic level given sense of horror reflected in ability to hypothesize, concerning the continuity as of ‘Memoranda’, what this means for Orthodoxy is that People have to be eliminated – and for People read Citizenry; read Majority; read ‘Prole’?

To parallel of a journey to the Heart of Darkness, way of the river of the Mississippi rather than the Congo as in Conrad’s Novella, and as in a Memorandum as somewhere exists as parallels ‘Ford Pinto Memorandum’:

‘The Gulf of Mexico. It Dead’

-How such horror expressive of an Obscene Orthodoxy such as Corporatism has come to prevail in a Nation which has a Constitution enshrining:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

is a right question, as ‘they’, sense of Inner Party, would have not asked – as they indeed would not have the consequences of such truths as above find meaning in ‘Right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’?

As a fact becoming increasingly self evident, such the horror of the pump of the Heart of Corporate Darkness.

The horror! The horror!