Ideas in Flight

I don't suppose there could be a better day all year to start off a post by talking about public transportation – even though that will turn out not to be the main thrust of the discussion. But I have to credit public transportation with at least serving as a muse in this case. There's nothing like standing in an airport security line to get one thinking... like, how did things come to this sorry pass? I thought we were living in the “land of the free”, etc. (As a sidebar, I should comment that airport security is, for most middle-class people, the first opportunity they have to experience the “America” that the lower classes experience on a daily basis – a landscape of frowns, suspicion, paranoia, random searches and friskings, obtrusive questioning, etc. And this, I submit, is what has airline passengers – the vast majority of whom are middle-class – the most upset. They feel they are being treated inappropriately for their social status, not on an absolute basis.)

I'm old enough to remember what might be termed the “golden age” of air travel – or at least its twilight years. In those times, you could walk right up to the gate even if you weren't “ticketed”, either to greet someone or see someone off. The airlines served hot meals on real china and with real silverware and linen – not some poor imitation of fast-food carry-out, with everything embalmed in plastic bubbles. And on the first jumbo jets – ah, the memories! -- there was a bar at the top of the winding staircase from which even the “coach class” passenger could look out, in a leisurely and luxurious way, upon the moving landscape.

Now, this is not to say there was not a downside – the main one being the absurd custom of having “smoking” and “non-smoking” sections on a sealed airplane. Whoever thought that up has to have his bust included in a pantheon of marketing geniuses – but he'll certainly never win any awards from the American Lung Association.

But those days are gone with the wind, and now all but the most privileged must stand in a line fit for refugees from some Eastern European conflict – gray and dismal, punctuated only by crying babies and the occasional outburst from a fed-up passenger. And of course the TSA personnel, like everyone else who experiences real power for the first time, lord it over the crowd like concentration camp guards, tripping you up with ever-changing, arbitrary, and senseless rules. Not only are no two airports alike when it comes to security provisions, but it turns out that no two security lines are alike! The randomness works itself down to the smallest and most trivial details – and it's all designed to keep people off balance, to render them helpless in the face of authority.

So really – aside from the privileged few, as I said – air travel is no longer a pleasure, but is a gigantic pain in the ass, if you'll pardon my French. Not that train travel is a whole lot better – I mean, there are no luggage restrictions and no security lines, and the seats are larger, and there is more leg room, but the food is execrable, the schedules are surreally sparse and bad, and American trains have the curious habit of running hours (or even days) late, even though weather is, to say the least, not quite the factor it is with air travel. And then there is bus travel... and I'll spare you the horrors of contemporary bus stations, all of which seem to be situated in the very worst parts of town. And... well, really, so much for public transportation! Americans, who value the freedom to travel far above all other freedoms, are more assaulted and mistreated when it comes to travel than anyone in Europe and a good proportion of people in Asia. We sit over here in this benighted desert of public transportation turning green with envy every time we contemplate the transportation systems of Europe, Japan, and (increasingly) China. They somehow managed to make it happen – but we couldn't manage it with all the money in the world; therein lies the mystery.

I suppose that, in an odd kind of way, public transportation represents, for most Americans, a kind of capitulation – a giving up of the real thing, travel-wise, which means the freedom to drive one's own car wherever and whenever one pleases. Compared to that, all other forms seem vaguely socialistic, somehow – compromises. I mean, would Jack Kerouac have written “On the Road” about bus travel? Would “Easy Rider” have been the same if it had happened on a train? “Travels With Charley” on airplanes? No – the whole thing is absurd, a violation of a big part of the American dream. What began as a simple, practical means of colonization, settlement, and the movement west gradually morphed into an American ideal and icon; the closing of the frontier did not end the American urge for movement, it only forced it to morph in a different direction. Rather than “heading west” we now head, basically, wherever we aren't at present. Americans are restless and migratory – and it's no accident that this characterizes a society built primarily on ideas rather than a sense of place. Because to think of America-in-general as a place, we have to be motivated not by a reality, but by an idea of America – by a myth, in other words. When people think of a real place, they think of a home town, a neighborhood, a farm – not an entire country, and seldom even an entire state. People who think in those latter terms are likely to be “rootless cosmopolitans” -- to resurrect an old expression – who may or may not be deracinated (i.e. deprived of racial, ethnic, and religious roots, either voluntarily or by force) but who certainly have no loyalty or consideration for the land. Even the old-time wanderers, hobos, “rolling stones” -- celebrated in song and story – were “from” somewhere. (They often had nicknames that included their point of origin, like Cincinnati Red.) What we have now is a nation of people, many of whom are from nowhere – I mean, they had to have grown up somewhere, but they have no sense of place, either past or present. And it's hardly necessary to point out that the great American suburb is the worst place, and the most aggravating factor, for this sense of rootlessness... of “nowhereness”. And sure enough, when the central planners and “urban renewal” enforcers wanted to deracinate and demoralize a given racial/ethnic/religious group, where did they send them (or force them to go)? Why, to the suburbs, of course! A different city neighborhood, or even a small town, might have enabled them to keep some of their culture and sense of identity intact, and surely we can't have that.

So in a sense, the current, residual fetish for travel that infects Americans is a symptom of this deracination and displacement – an endless and futile search for that which is lost. Who knows? It might be just around the next corner, or over the next hill. So the quest goes on – and we wind up in a state of despair that does not know it is despair, to use an expression from Kierkegaard. There are many American pathologies, and this may not even be the most severe, but it certainly has a huge impact on our sense of being and identity as individuals and as a people.

But let's return to our cozily depressing and humiliating security line for a moment. A young traveler won't notice that anything has changed; he or she will assume it has always been this way, and might vaguely wonder why, but decide not to worry about it – the way most people simply accept the fact that there are always long lines at the DMV. (Imagine the shock and disorientation of a typical Russian who woke up one morning after the breakup of the Soviet Union and found that he didn't have to stand in line 3 or 4 hours to buy a loaf of bread!)

But for people like me, who remember the “golden age”, questions arise. The TSA was supposedly formed to guard against “further terrorist attacks” -- and if you look at the numbers, you might almost think they were succeeding, except for all the newspaper articles that point out repeated failures (most of which have non-fatal consequences, at least). You can only credit something with success if you can count the number of times it has kept something bad from happening – and this is, of course, impossible with an outfit like the TSA. For all I know, they have been successful – wildly so. But there is no way of proving it, so it quickly sinks into the usual bureaucratic quicksand and starts to exist for the sake of existence, like most other government agencies. My theory, as I've explained before, is that 9/11 was “mission accomplished” for the “terrorists”, or whoever was responsible, and that it doesn't need to happen again – no repeat performance necessary, since we are being bled white by endless wars in the Middle East, our economy is in a shambles, and our national morale is on life support. What better reward could any enemy hope to gain than that? The events of 9/11 did not bring down the American Empire in a single blow... but our actions since that date have served just as well, if not better. The terrorists didn't have to lift a finger to do anything else over here; all they have to do is keep things hot in the Middle East, and they have their revenge for all real and imagined offenses by America over the years. If, by a single act, you can get your enemy to destroy itself – well, that has to rank as one of the cleverest tactics ever devised... and yet it seems to be working. (And in fact, it works no matter who was ultimately responsible for 9/11; the model is “robust”, as they say in statistics.)

So OK, if our security-line woes are the fault of TSA, and if their existence is the fault of “terrorists” (or whoever), and the trigger for all of it was the 9/11 attacks, then what caused those? The best answer, still, is the one provided by Ron Paul, which caused Rudy Giuliani to suffer an apoplectic fit right on stage: “They're over here because we're over there.” OK then, why are we over there? And this is where the arguments bifurcate. Some will say the necessary and sufficient reason is the “defense” of Israel (a euphemism for “fighting their wars for them”). Others will say it's oil. Others, a combination of the two; neither one would have been sufficient for us to make that much of an investment. To which I have to add, there is also the factor of a new Crusade – this time preached by the Protestants – a new war on Islam, which might not hinge on either Israel or oil as essential elements. This might sound unlikely, but have a look at what is coming out of the intelligence agencies and the military commands these days – a relentless propaganda campaign (for the morale of the troops, of course) that says nothing about either Israel or oil, but plenty about Islam – not just as a source of “terrorism” but as an evil in its own right. Yes, this is actually being preached to military personnel and intelligence personnel, with the help of “advisors” from the Evangelical community – to which I say, whatever happened to “the wall of separation between church and state”? I think the answer is that the warfare is asymmetrical, in that it involves a secular state (us) against a religion (Islam). So “terrorism” is the excuse, but religion is the basic motive – for us as well as for them. Notice what a hard time we have deciding how, when, and where to try “terrorists”? It's because we can't decide what their status is, and that's because we can't decide what sort of conflict we're engaged in, and that's because there is no provision in the Constitution for wars of religion – and yet that's what we're fighting.

So in a broad sense – and as Ron Paul's statement implied – 9/11 was a self-inflicted wound. Some form, or aspect, of American empire building had inexorably led to it – and once it occurred, what was our response? To rethink our foreign policy and our overseas military and economic adventures? Not a bit of it. Our response was, predictably, to double down on our “commitments” overseas, or – to put it another way – everywhere but at home. The surest sign of a dying empire is that the citizenry starve while the military prospers, even in the most remote, out-of-the-way locales. This process did not start with 9/11, but those events solidified the pattern and established the process as one which is unstoppable until it leads to utter destruction. And sure, we will have our Mideast oil for a while, and will “defend” Israel for a while, but in the long run it is all doomed. That is, if we follow the trajectory of every other empire known to history – and what makes us think we have the will or the power to be any different? But it's another trait of empires to perpetually think, “we're different” -- we can dodge fate, we can sidestep karma. Yet it's that very attitude that accelerates the process of destruction, decay, and annihilation.

And I might mention as another sidebar the latest farce to come down the pike, namely our supposed “getting tough” with China – on economic, financial, trade, and “human rights” issues. When I was over there recently, I couldn't help but notice that every map of the country included the South China Sea, with a scattering of islands. Yes, they are totally convinced that that is their territory, and to heck with any “law of the sea” treaties. So now we are about to challenge them on this, as well as some other things? We, who owe China trillions in national debt? We, who can't keep a lid on two completely-wrecked countries in the Middle East, are now about to challenge China for dominance in East Asia? A country made up of sane people would immediately move to lock up anyone who came up with an idea this crazy – but when everybody's insane, only the few sane ones get that sort of treatment.

But really, it's all just huffing and puffing – no genuine confrontation with China is contemplated, simply because none is possible, and it wouldn't work; we'd just make fools of ourselves. What counts is not the reality, but the playacting, and I suspect that China is complicit in all this. In other words, they are perfectly willing to allow us to blow off steam once in a while, just as we allow them to – as long as nothing comes of it, which it never does. I mean, when's the last time they took our advice... on anything? All they have to do is wave that huge I.O.U. in our faces, and the conversation comes to a screeching halt. And yet it's considered politically expedient to mouth words once in a while... like we insist on having a “presence” in East Asia and in the Pacific. Well, fine – we can have all the “presence” we want, as long as it doesn't alter the power structure. Can't you see that it's nothing more than a desperation move to distract people from our abject failures in the Middle East? (Not to mention from our economic woes.) Oh yes, by all means – let's expand the American empire, already in its death throes, to another entire area of the globe. It's pathetic, really.

But there's another question I want to deal with here, and it goes back to my excellent adventure in the airport security line. Given that the events of 9/11 took a good chunk out of the American dream – or maybe woke us up from it, at least temporarily – what, precisely, is it that we have lost? And I don't mean the convenience of air travel; that's much too superficial an issue. There is a widespread feeling that we have lost some of “what it means to be an American” -- not just in convenience but in self-image and self-respect, not to mention various "freedoms" and "rights". The biggest worry is that we might, someday, become “just another country”, just another place on the map, with no extraordinary charism... no mandate to go and conquer the world in the name of “democracy” or some other idea. Now, you'll notice that we're talking about ideas here, and only ideas – not anything tangible that people traditionally value... things like race, ethnicity, religion... and “place”, as I discussed above. Nothing really “died” on 9/11; our innocence was long gone (thanks to Vietnam etc.). But what suffered a stunning blow was our notion that just having the right “ideas” was enough – enough to merit our claim to world domination (politically and economically). It turned out that there was a big, wide world out there that didn't give a fig for our ideas, but preferred either its own, or (perhaps worse) no ideas at all. That was one blow. And the next was, again, self-inflicted – the fact that, in order to defend ourselves against “terrorism”, we had to start canceling the freedoms that the “terrorists” supposedly despise... the very reason they attacked us, in fact! Because they hate our freedom! (This either sounded absurd when Bush said it, but sounds reasonable when Obama says it, or vice versa, depending on your party affiliation.) So they attacked us because they hate our freedoms, with the result that we were forced to give up some of those freedoms, which means they win! Right? But, of course, that wasn't the reason they attacked us at all, and only the most shameless demagogue would claim that it is.

But aside from this massive exercise in irony, it must be admitted that we are, indeed, a different country than we were in those – now seemingly cheerful, innocent, and sepia-toned – days prior to 9/11. We have lost some obvious things, but some less obvious things as well. With each stunning blow – starting at least as far back as the Civil War – we lose another piece of our self-image and, truth be told, our self-esteem... although the latter effect can be indefinitely delayed through the use of bluster, propaganda, and military adventures. And why is this such a bad thing? After all, every nation suffers setbacks from time to time. Our problem is that we have nothing to fall back on; if our ideas fail, and if our ideals turn out to have feet of clay, we are devastated. This nation was founded with, among other things, an explicit mandate to do away with all of the old verities – things like race, ethnicity, and religion (of the confessional, vs. deistic, kind) – and replace them with ideas. So the “American character”, of which much has been made over the years, has no real solid basis; it's one part abstraction and one part accident. We fancy that we are, as a people, what we say, or think, we are – but all of those ideas are easily disproven by historical evidence as well as current events. The beauty of the old verities was that one could identify with them without their having to be perfect, or without the act of identification having to be perfect. A bad Frenchman was still a Frenchman, in other words – whereas a bad American is really not an American at all, since he has failed to live up to an abstract and impossible-to-achieve ideal. You can't go home again if there is no such place.

And national character – when founded on the old verities – had a funny way of surviving even the severest tests. Frenchmen were no less French after their revolution than they were before, even though that revolution was the most idea-laden event in history. The Russians were certainly no less Russian after their own revolution, or after their own reign of terror... and I found out, by first-hand observation, that the Chinese are still very much Chinese, despite all the best efforts of Mao and his Cultural Revolution. In other words, if there is one strong thing in human history, it is national (or regional, tribal, whatever) character, which is a composite of race, ethnicity, and religion as well as language, the arts, and countless other traditions, customs, mores, habits, and so forth. And yet, in the name of “ideas”, we have been more than willing – anxious, even – to give all of this up for the sake of becoming some kind of universal, generic exemplar of “democracy” or “freedom” (as we define it). And if the long-term goal of our revolution, and our founding, was to turn out a race of deracinated, culturally-sterile androids, we have succeeded to a great extent. This pure American type – a counterpart to the New Soviet Man – is alive and well (so to speak) in all American suburbs, and in other enclaves of the middle class. Their strength is that they have no loyalty to anything but ideas. Their weakness is... well, the same as their strength. As long as the ideas remain on the winning side, all is well – but when things start to fall apart, what is there to cushion the fall? Nothing, really – and this is the real source of the middle class's current spasm of discontent, as expressed in the “tea party” movement. The secular god we have been worshiping for all these many years has failed... the scales are falling from many eyes... and people are realizing they've been robbed. They traded the birthright of every man down through history – the right to pride of place and of belonging to a group defined by objective criteria – for a mess of ideational pottage that, as it turns out, most of the people in charge never believed in anyway. They were, in other words, fooled, duped, and misled by a bunch of cynics – and they continue to be! Nothing has changed except that the consciousness of a few has been expanded a bit. But they will soon be swamped and carried back into the vast sea of ignorance and subservience that everyone else calls home.

Down and Out in Omaha

It's notorious that every American city, even ones of relatively small size, has at its heart (if not its exact geographical center) an area known, euphemistically, as the “inner city”... less euphemistically as “the ghetto”... and, by those who live nearby, as a “bad neighborhood” -- which almost always is code for “black”, although the Hispanics are gaining ground in this race to the bottom. This is a feature unique to the American landscape, and -- lest anyone wonders how things got this way -- it was not an accident, but part of a meticulously-conceived and implemented plan. The best outline (I say that with a touch of levity, because it's 668 pages long) of this is found in E. Michael Jones' “The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing”. It also helps explain why there are “inner cities” in some of the most unlikely places – places where you would not think black people would settle of their own free will... places like Omaha, Nebraska, whose inner city represents a small island of blackness in a vast sea of white. In places like that, I want to stop black people on the street and ask, “How did you get here, anyway? I mean... surely your ancestors didn't live here a hundred years ago. How did this all come about?” And mainly, if they, or their forebears, moved there of their own accord, for, presumably, good economic reasons, why have they nonetheless slid into the same inner-city doldrums that characterize places like Washington, DC and Philadelphia?

What started me thinking (again) about all of this was a recent late-evening excursion through Omaha in search of food – a search which started out with “interesting food” as a criterion and ended with “_any_ food” as a criterion. I've been out in that area enough times now that I ought to be able to remember that you can't get anything to eat after 9 PM – I mean zero, zip, nada. Even the fast-food places close at 9, except for the odd drive-through window. It's definitely a plot against effete Eastern urban elites like me -- to show us that we don't belong. So I was in a state bordering on starvation when I happened to find myself in Omaha's modest but not-to-be-trifled-with “ghetto”, and sure enough, what to my wondering eyes should appear but a McDonald's, and it was open! And I also remembered that I had resolved to finally have a crack at this “McRib sandwich” that has received so much hype of late. (Its reputation is slightly overblown, to say the least, since it consists of, basically, a squashed loaf of mystery meat with a halfway-decent sauce, but on the usual balloon-bread bun. Plus "a fries" that, if allowed to cool off, dies a horrible and malodorous death right before one's very eyes. Nuff said.)

And actually, it wasn't until I walked into the place that I realized exactly what neighborhood I was in... but I soldiered on, figuring that if I can survive West Memphis, Arkansas I can survive anything. So now... the staff, all black of course, were jovial enough even if overly-loud and boisterous to my ears, so that was all OK. The customers, on the other hand, with one exception (which I'll get to soon), were all black, all hooded, all baggy-panted, and all sporting some sort of earpiece, connected, visibly or otherwise, to some sort of electronic gadget that was, I suppose, spewing out some sort of brainless, hypnotic “music”. And this is something one sees in those neighborhoods – everybody is tuned in to something else... some event that is occurring, or has occurred, at some other time and in some other place. And who can blame them? If your own life, as (apparently) dictated by your environment, is “nasty, brutish, and short”, as the saying goes, then why not try and escape it as best you can and for as many of your waking hours as possible?

And I guess the most adept of all those present at this exercise was a guy at the next table who had to, number one, have weighed in at at least 400 pounds. Not only was he hooked up to a laptop, and had something in his ear, but he kept humming loudly the whole time... and then punctuated the humming with the occasional combination cough/sneeze that would have exceeded the average shotgun in decibel level. Twenty-four hours in a room with this guy, and you'd be ready to confess to anything! But actually, the most unusual personage in the place was the one I dubbed “the ketchup dispenser ogre”. He was also the only white guy in the place – besides me, that is. So his shtick was to sit so close to the ketchup dispenser that, in order to get any ketchup, you had to violate his personal space, in return for which you got this helter-skelter glare, like “how dare you?” So that was all very pleasant, and added immeasurably to the overall atmosphere.

It is, in short, a world where sudden, explosive violence alternates with long periods of numbness and depression – not unlike a war zone, in fact. So yes, it's no wonder that the people who live in that world don't really live in it; I mean, they are there physically, but mentally or psychologically they are somewhere else (or nowhere at all). And the fact that this phenomenon can be fully manifested in a place like Omaha, Nebraska, is, in my opinion, worthy of note.

What Drives the Regime Bonkers?

Well, nothing, really. Everything is firmly under control, and don't be fooled by the gyrations of the EU or by our own government's responses to the economic “crisis”. Remember that continuing crises are the health of the Regime, the way war is said to be the health of the state. How did Chairman Mao consolidate power, for example? Why, by coming up with the Cultural Revolution and its cutting edge, the Red Guard. The rest of the world saw what appeared to be anarchy – revolution from below – but in fact it was revolution from above, and not even revolution, but consolidation of power. The object was to eliminate, or at least intimidate, the people in the middle – use the lumpen proletariat against the settled, complacent middle class, for the ultimate benefit of the ruling class, after which the proles could be exterminated like flies... which many of them were.

And this all bears a striking resemblance to what is happening in this country today. The “usual suspects” -- the rent-a-mobs and malcontents of every sort – are being augmented in their efforts by the “Occupy” movement, in order to get the middle class – the bourgeoisie – shaking in its boots, while the people who are really in charge look on placidly. And just as with the Red Guard, the Occupiers should expect no mercy from the Regime once their work is done and their usefulness is at an end. At that point, they will become just as much enemies of the state as the tea partiers – bourgeoisie all – already are.

Chairman Mao also used the massive propaganda apparatus of the state to further his aims, the way the Regime of our time uses the mainstream media... but at least the mainstream media have some competition, in the form of a small but feisty independent press and a substantial sector of the Internet. And yet those are not enough to prevent, or even slow, the continuous concentration of power... the “trickle-up effect” to the upper reaches of power and finance.

So with that as an introduction, let me go back to what I indicated, in my previous post, would be my next topic: “If the Occupiers are not a threat to the Regime, but the tea partiers are, what else is, or would be, a threat? How can one determine where the Regime has vested interests? And the best place to start answering these questions is, once again, with the mainstream media.” In other words, if we assume (and this is not a difficult assumption) that the media are the obedient, servile voice of the Regime, then we can say that whatever seems to get their attention – and to disturb, upset, or enrage them -- is also what the Regime would like to see go away. Or to put it another way, whatever the media accept as being natural and right and not subject to change – not open to discussion – is also what the Regime wants to remain in place in perpetuity.

But right away you might ask, if things are completely under control as I said, then why should the Regime even bother sending out its media attack dogs on a regular basis? Why not just let things run their course? This, I think, is primarily a question of convenience and efficiency. It is more convenient, and less trouble, for the Regime if the vast majority of Americans remain silent and distracted... and if the few who do speak up are, whether they know it or not, supporting the Regime's agenda. A restive populace is certainly more troublesome than one that is placated and anesthetized; even quiet despair is preferable to protest. After all, a happy slave is part of the solution, productivity-wise, whereas an unhappy one is a drag on the system. Plus, as I've said before, we are an ideational culture, and blind adherence to the politically-correct ideas can serve to cover a multitude of actual ills, hardships, and inconveniences. As long as most people believe that whatever the government does is “for the good of...” something-or-other, there will be more cooperation and less resistance.

So with that in mind, let me present an at least preliminary list of things the Regime cares about enough to sic the media on anyone who thinks differently. These are things which are, by and large, status quo – since the Regime has had decades to consolidate its power, and there are very few pockets of resistance left. In that sense, we're dealing with a profoundly “conservative” entity here – but one that, paradoxically, requires a certain amount of “anarchy”, as described above, and the occasional taste of revolution, to keep in optimum operating condition. The dynamics of this are quite subtle, in fact. The Regime has at its disposal an army of entitlement junkies and malcontents, who need very little in the way of suggestion or stimulation to take to the streets (or the Internet). So when things start to get slack – when the lower classes start to become de-politicized – it's time for an intervention, in order to tighten things up a bit and put us firmly back on the class warfare track. And likewise, when the middle class starts to realize that it's eating grass – to reference a classic Gary Larson cartoon – it needs to be lulled, and intimidated, back into silence and mental oblivion.

Note also that contrary voices are very seldom subject to frontal assault or overt oppression; that's a tactic of totalitarian regimes of the past, and it has a tendency to backfire. No, this is much subtler, more subversive process which, in the case of the media, involves simply ignoring certain people or suppressing certain stories. In this way, the media, for all intents and purposes, define not only what constitutes “news” but also what constitutes reality. And the centralization of power is such that it leaves most people with only the media as a source of information; direct experience with the issues of the day is extremely difficult to come by. People who are unemployed, for example, know that they're unemployed – but they seldom know why, and no one is about to tell them. And how many Americans, even in uniform, have ever visited Iraq or Afghanistan? And how many have the vaguest idea of what the Federal Reserve is, or what it does – which is why Ron Paul's call to “audit the Fed” falls on deaf ears? Might as well send a crew of astronauts to the Moon to see if it's really made of green cheese; that's about as remote as the real issues are for most people. And don't think that this centralization of information as well as power is the least bit accidental; it's all part of the plan to alienate people from processes and events that are not right under their nose (and even those get “spun” continuously, until people start disbelieving their own eyes and ears). You see, government doesn't have to be entirely cloaked in secrecy in order to operate in what amounts to a secret, mysterious way; all that's necessary is that all the decisions that count are made by other people – preferably people unknown, unelected, and inaccessible. So with all of that in mind, here's the list:

PERPETUAL WAR. This is the ultimate in non-negotiables as far as the Regime is concerned. What it does is enable a continuous accumulation and consolidation of power. It also provides a convenient means of redistribution of wealth from the productive to the non-productive (a category which includes overt as well as covert war, and nearly everything masquerading as “defense”). And it also provides something for the ideationally-trained and conditioned populace to latch on to – relying on, among other things, the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance, as I've explained before. (“Anything that costs this much must be worth doing”, in other words.) And if we remain on a perpetual war footing, there is none of the pain and inconvenience of transitioning from a peacetime economy, and peacetime politics, to a wartime economy and wartime politics; it's all the same at this point.

THE “WAR ON DRUGS”. This is the counterpart to perpetual war on the domestic side. And again, it provides a means for the accumulation and consolidation of power, and for redistribution of wealth from the productive to the non-productive. It has an ideational savor, relying on Puritan concepts of morality and that universal tendency to profit (psychologically) from the sufferings of others. It is also, by the way, a huge generator of jobs – in law enforcement, the courts, “corrections”, and so on. And – perhaps most importantly of all – it serves to make a huge proportion of the population into criminals... not that they are all caught and rounded up, but that they lose all respect for the law, and all expectations that the government is fair, rational, or concerned with their welfare. Thus, and also very importantly, it makes a huge proportion of the populace subject to arrest at any time, certainly a resource when you're trying to suppress dissent in other areas. So this will never end, as long as the Regime has anything to say about it; it just serves too many agendas. And I might add that even though the War on Drugs represents a uniquely American obsession, or fetish, it has not for that reason found disfavor with the Regime, which has an international base. It not only serves to energize one part of the American populace in an unhealthy way, but creates a demoralized, legal underclass – both fit subjects for further predation.

PRIVATIZING SOCIAL SECURITY. Hey, if you had access to the world's biggest bank account, and could raid it any time you wanted without the people whose money you were stealing even knowing about it, would you want that system to end, or be changed even slightly? I don't think so.

AUDITING (or doing anything else about) THE FEDERAL RESERVE. Well, you control the economy, and therefore all economic activity, and therefore the populace, by controlling the currency, right? And if you want to reduce the populace to a state of perpetual penury, nothing beats tempting them into ever-greater debt while at the same time reducing the value of their money. In the old days slavery was defined around things like slave collars and leg irons; now it's simply a matter of making everyone into a debtor on paper, and thus binding them to the system that is responsible for their woes. In this sense, the government – the Regime – has become the ultimate pusher; tempt people to buy into a system that is bent on their destruction, and then keep them alive just enough to continue to work in a state of economic slavery.

ABORTION. This isn't going away because the Regime has already decided what the optimum population levels (broken down by class, race, religion, etc.) ought to be in order to foster world dominance – a kind of “Goldilocks” approach to population: Not too many, not too few, just right. Now clearly, unlimited access to free abortion “services” is more important when dealing with the “Third World” than with “industrialized Western” countries – but the U.S., for example, has its own internal “third world” -- namely the inner cities or “ghettos”. And those are prime targets for the international population controllers.

SUBSIDIES/BAILOUTS/DIRECT PAYMENTS TO “PRIVATE” INDUSTRY. I use the quotation marks around “private” since, at the upper reaches, there is no such thing any longer – either in this country or in Europe (or probably anywhere else). And this is not because private industry has become an arm of the government; it's just the opposite. Government is the means by which, once again, wealth is redistributed from the truly productive – i.e. people who are providing goods and services that people actually want, and are willing to purchase on the free market – to the non-productive... especially those whose main “business” is the massive, speed-of-light manipulation of paper, resources, “securities”, accounts, currencies, and entire economies. There is a continuous, as I've said before, “churning” in the financial/economic world by which the resources of ordinary people are continually buffeted about, taxed, subject to fees, inflated, and so on – a hidden and gradual bloodletting, not severe enough to kill the host (in most cases) but enough to keep the machinery of the Regime operating at top speed and efficiency.

STATES' RIGHTS. This is a, by-and-large, American issue, but it does have echoes in the various “breakaway”, or would-be breakaway, provinces, states, and regions in Europe. It's a complete non-starter for the Regime because, once again, centralized control is key, and “regionalism”, which means having some regard for cultural differences, is highly frowned upon. I mean – you let people develop a feeling of pride as to their home turf and native culture, and who knows what might happen next? They might develop skepticism as to the desirability of central governments, globalism, perpetual war... all the earmarks of 21st Century totalitarianism. So states' rights, and the equivalent ideas in other countries, have to be strictly suppressed.

CLASS WARFARE. This, as indicated above, has to be kept on the front burner, with the heat turned up, at all times. Nothing so distracts the proletariat as the feeling that they're marching into battle with “the man” (AKA “the establishment”, “the oligarchy”, “corporations”, etc.)... but their exertions are quickly and skillfully turned against, not the people who are really in charge, but the hapless middle class. And likewise, the bourgeoisie are mesmerized by visions of “welfare queens” and thus made blind to the real source of their troubles. The Regime keeps these groups busy fighting each other so that it may have more time to work its will on all.

THE “ENEMY” INDUSTRY. This goes hand-in-hand with perpetual warfare. Please notice how readily the “enemy” -- those whom we have to keep in our cross hairs at all times – morphed from the Warsaw Pact (and communism in general) to Islam. It only took 10 years, and in the meantime we had a smattering of minor-league conflicts to keep us amused and to keep our military from getting rusty, fat, and lazy. So let's see... we had the Cold War to keep us busy for 45 years or so, then a brief “vacation from history” in the 1990s, and now we've embarked on a war on Islam that, if history is any indication, ought to be good for at least 100 years or so... and we've only been at it for 10! Truly, there are no jobs more secure than those in the Pentagon. The bottom line of all this, media-wise, is that anyone (like Ron Paul) who questions the basic premise that Islam is the inevitable and perpetual enemy of the American way of life, and of all that is good, is dismissed as a nut case.

THE EDUCATION RACKET. All this means is that the public education system is designed to produce citizens who are all totally “down” with all that the Regime has in store – from unquestioning adherence to the dictates of the Regime to unquestioning adherence to all of the political, social, economic, and moral propaganda that goes with it, to the willingness to become addicted to whatever the Regime offers up in the way of popular culture and “entertainment”. Again, it's another variation on the Matrix principle – not that people are totally unconscious, but what they are conscious of is a totally artificial creation designed to keep them from thinking or perceiving reality.

THE HEALTH CARE RACKET. This has now switched into high gear with ObamaCare, and it's designed to accomplish a number of things: (1) Accelerate and maximize the transfer of wealth from the middle class (i.e., people who have to pay for at least part of their health care) to the arms of the regime represented by “Big Medicine” and “Big Pharma”; (2) Suppress any awareness of alternatives in medicine and nutrition, because that will only hurt business; (3) Maintain the public in a kind of state of low-grade infection, where they are dependent on government for not only their (perceived) health, but for their very lives. This will insure, among other things, a greater attitude of awe combined with submissiveness, as though we were all perpetually gazing upon the visage of the great and powerful Wizard of Oz. The last thing the Regime wants is a populace that is empowered, health-wise. Much better to severely limit individual choices (not unlike what happens with presidential elections) and sanction those who dare wander off the health care reservation.

And I'm sure many more examples could be cited. But I hope I've demonstrated that anyone who questions, or expresses skepticism, about any of the above topics is instantly subject to the disciplinary actions of the media – ignored, or when impossible to ignore then suppressed, censored, defamed, called every name in the book, and so on. We think that totalitarianism ended with the dissolution of the notorious “bad” regimes of the 20th Century – Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, and so on. No, what actually happened is that totalitarianism changed its strategy and its tactics, and underwent a geographical morphing process. Perennial enemies like France and Germany have now united against the rest of the EU – especially the hapless “PIIGS”, who were, once again, provided the most addictive drug available, namely an implied “backing” and safety net for all of their foolish policies and programs. But the pusher will have his way in the long run, and at this point the “PIIGS” belong, body and soul, to the master pushers in Paris, Berlin, and elsewhere among the more sensible and sober countries. And there is nothing the least bit accidental about any of this – it's all part of the plan. Once again, what looks like chaos and like a “crisis” is simply a stage in the full flowering of the plan. And likewise, what appears to be a “crisis” in this country is part of the same plan – or of an even bigger plan. Please note that we, mysteriously, find ourselves on the hook for the misdeeds of European banks and economies. How did that happen? Simply because there was a secret marriage among many national economies, including ours – nothing that the American voter had anything to say about, for sure. People who worry about this oil pipeline between Canada and Texas would be better advised to worry about the hemorrhage of wealth between the U.S. and Europe, which is already well underway.

Power is a Feeling

As the “Occupy” movement seems to gain momentum and spread to the remotest parts of the fruited plain, I keep having to deal, on a daily basis, with vivid feelings of deja vu. Wasn't there some other movement fairly recently that behaved in the same way? Oh yes – the “tea party”... and while it hasn't quite yet been absorbed into the Republican Party blob, it stands in imminent danger of being so – the question (for the Republican establishment) being, do they “need” the tea partiers or can they get along just as well (if not better) without them? And while the tea party movement may have receded a bit, the tea party idea, or set of ideas, still has enough traction to occupy some of the attention (or annoyance) of the Republican establishment. But will it make any difference in the long run – and particularly in the 2012 elections? Will the candidates elected under the tea party label in 2010 remain under that label, or will they have sold out? And, will new candidates claiming that label come into view? And will the tea party movement have any impact, however slight, on the Republican nominating process? (My guess is a resounding “no”, since the nominee of choice seems to be Rockjaw Goodhair, who has nothing whatsoever in common with the tea partiers.) All of this is, of course, contingent on Obama continuing to pursue his collectivist/socialist/totalitarian programs, which he shows no signs of letting up on – indeed, he continues to aggravate the situation, on the assumption that his base is secure and hoping that the “undecideds” will finally see the light. Plus, he knows that the Republicans are pure evil; he says so every chance he gets. His main problem is convincing everyone else of the fact – everyone but his base, that is, who already feel that way because they always have.

Obama is in a peculiar position, in fact – a “man of the people” and yet he feels constrained to pronounce a good portion of those people fools and ignorant dupes – and their duly-elected representatives fear mongers, haters, bigots, etc. It seems to me that a politician ought to take a bit more of the high road than to just automatically call anyone who disagrees with him on any issue an idiot – but that's apparently what plays well among his base, so he keeps it up. And the fact that he does so in that resonant, Martin Luther King-wannabee tone, rather than in the whiny way Bill Clinton always used, certainly helps. Clinton always took everything personally, including any kind of political opposition... whereas Obama at least presents an image of not being so thin-skinned. He basically lets things roll off his back – or, better yet, ignores them – whereas Clinton was an easy sucker for any kind of political bait that was thrown his way. So in that sense Obama is a better politician – but he still takes the low road much too often.

But let's get back to the “Occupiers”. They feel their star is rising... it's springtime in America (even though it's fall)... those of like mind across the land are getting up in the face of the oligarchy, the corrupt, the exploiters, the robber barons, and so on. (And never mind that their man Obama is one of the Regime's loyal servants!) But there is already an air of futility... of the pathetic... about the whole thing. The “Occupy” movement represents – if not strictly in the economic sense, then certainly in the socio-political sense – the rabble. These are the people who, for instance, supported Obama because they expected him to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan – which already shows you what their delusional quotient is. They believe, as I've discussed before, that “the people” still have a voice – surely another delusion, but at least one that runs across the political spectrum, since few people from anywhere on that spectrum have given up voting. They have – as has been pointed out – more of an “anti” program than a program... and I don't claim that that's an entirely bad thing, at least not in the early stages. I don't fall for the notion that you have to have answers before you start asking questions – or an alternative plan before you're allowed to protest the way things are now. This is a rhetorical scam perpetrated by the establishment in order to avoid confronting the issues. But it seems to me at this point that the Occupiers are running out of their no-program grace period.

I also suspect that the Occupiers' tent cities will disappear with the first snow fall. Ever wandered around lower Manhattan on a bitterly cold and windy winter day? All you can think about is where, and how soon, you might be able to get indoors. But that's not going to discourage anyone at this point, because “the people” -- the “99%” -- are on the rise! To the barricades, mes amis! And it's this intoxication with... not with real power, but with imagined power... that so energized past movements – not just the tea parties, but the civil rights movement and the anti-Vietnam War/anti-draft movement. The trajectory is familiar; we've seen it all before. And the main differences among these various populist outbreaks is how they are resolved. Either the issue goes away, or the movement disperses, or it gets co-opted and absorbed into something else... there are many ways in which the waters become smooth again. The civil rights movement, for example, actually accomplished many of its goals – its original goals, that is, which included equal rights as opposed to affirmative action, which was added on later as a way of upping the ante and keeping the movement in business. Civil rights activity since blacks gained equal legal rights has been focused primarily on the attainment of equal (or greater than equal) outcomes – a demand that even the federal government, even under Democratic administrations, finds tough to meet. So the civil rights movement did not perish from its own success, but at least became relatively defused bordering on the anemic... and ridiculous at times. (Compare, if you will, the gravitas of the likes of Dr. King with that of Al Sharpton. 'Nuff said!)

Then you have the anti-Vietnam War and draft movement (and I conflate the two because I am increasingly convinced that neither would have existed without the other) – and the way the Regime dealt with that was to (1) end the war, and (2) end the draft. How clever! And I think they realized, on some level, that there are very few true pacifists in America... that everyone has some idea about the kinds of wars worth fighting. For the Democrats, this means any war presided over by a Democratic president – even ones he inherited. And for the Republicans, it means any war supposedly intended to “spread democracy”, or “defend the American way of life”, or support Israel. So yeah, it's hard for any genuine pacifist movement to gain traction in this country, since the vast majority of our leaders, as well as of our citizens, is pretty much willing to go to war at any time, in any place, and for any reason. And the traditional concept of “just war”, to which the Vatican keeps trying to introduce American leaders, gets lost in the shuffle.

Let's put it this way. How many American politicians have been voted out of office, or not voted into office, for being against war – either war in general or a specific war or wars? Versus how many have been voted out of office, or not voted in, for being pro-war, or in favor of starting or continuing a specific war or wars? You do the math. I think you'll find that being against war of any sort is a non-starter for anyone seeking office on the national level. And the U.S. is certainly not unique in this sense, except for the fact that our wars are almost invariably ideational in nature, i.e. not designed to increase the general welfare of Americans one iota (even though this is at the top of the list of rationalizations).

But the “Occupiers” don't really say anything about war, do they? This is because they don't want to say, or imply, anything against Obama, whom – on some mysterious level – they still believe in. And they certainly don't say anything against big government, because they see that as their principal weapon against the predatory behaviors of Wall Street. So let's see... not against Obama, and not against big government, even though both are the abject slaves of Wall Street. See how hopeless their cause is already? I mean... at least in the case of the civil rights movement, and the anti-Vietnam War movement, there was a line of logic and reasoning behind it, and some notion as to what should change and how. There was, in other words, a vision; the criteria were operational and feasible. But the Occupiers have no discernable program – and neither do the tea partiers, for that matter. The tea partiers are hobbled by that fact that they like big government at least half the time – when it's waging war overseas and abominations like the “War on Drugs” on the domestic front. So, just like the Occupiers, they want someone – Superman, I guess – to go in and, with surgical precision, remove all the parts of big government they don't like, and keep the rest intact. And what's funny, of course, is that the tea partiers and the Occupiers want almost the exact opposite things excised or left alone. So I guess if they joined forces either nothing would change or everything would change... but that's not going to happen.

Now, allow me to shift gears a bit and talk about the reception the Regime and its organs have given to these respective movements. To begin with, the mainstream media – the barking dogs of the Regime – are treating the Occupy movement with total respect and diffidence, whereas they couldn't find enough bad things to say, often enough, about the tea parties. Now, does this mean that the Regime is “pro” the Occupiers while being against the tea parties? Don't be silly. All it means is that they see absolutely no threat from the Occupiers, whereas the tea parties are a bit disturbing. And why is this? It's because the Occupiers are, as stated above, rabble – by and large. Fairly or not, they are seen as the same people who complain about everything else... the chronically dissatisfied, chronically outraged and demanding, by and large infantile, and hopelessly powerless. Perennial losers, in other words – with clothing and grooming choices to match. When the Occupiers start hollering through bull horns, all the elite in their high, blue-tinted towers hear is a faint buzzing. The tea party, on the other hand, is made up almost entirely of white, middle-class people – the very people the Regime depends on to provide not only labor and support (and votes if needed) but also to remain silent. While it's true that the Regime is, over time, depending less and less on the middle class as a source of transferable wealth, they aren't quite ready to put them all in camps yet – but they are most certainly not ready to put up with the complaints that follow when the scales fall from the middle class's eyes. So it's the middle class – contrary to almost any socio-political theory out there (with George Orwell being a notable exception) – that must be kept down... kept content, and distracted, and wed to ideas that benefit not them but the Regime. There are plenty of games and circuses – and addictive substances – for the proles; we don't care what they think. Whereas the war on the middle class is, as much as anything, a war of ideas – mainly that any ideas that didn't come out of a middle-school social studies textbook are most unwelcome. The matrix is designed for the bourgeoisie.

So the media, following the lead of the Regime, practices benign neglect when it comes to the Occupiers – looking on in a paternalistic way wherever the tent cities spring up. But when it comes to the tea party, it's total war all the time: These people are evil! Reactionary! Haters! Racists/sexists/homophobes! And all the rest of it. And this is despite the fact that the tea partiers are not really against big government, as I pointed out above. We're talking about what happens when some members of the middle class wake up to the truth about their situation, and about the system. And granted, they are only half awake, and know only half the truth at best – but that's enough to threaten the Regime, and thus to energize the media.

But aside from the media, how else is the Regime responding? One way is through law enforcement – and I guarantee that if the tea partiers were setting up tent cities in public (or private) parks across the land, there would be plenty of push-back on the part of federal, state, and local troops and police. But as it stands, benign neglect seems to be the policy, nearly always – and again, it's because these people are no real threat. The Regime can pretend to look on benignly, the way an indulgent parent surveys the antics of a two-year-old... because the situation is completely under control, not only physically but politically and psychologically. There will be no revolution from this quarter -- not now, not ever.

But now, you might ask, if the Occupiers are not a threat to the Regime, but the tea partiers are, what else is, or would be, a threat? How can one determine where the Regime has vested interests? And the best place to start answering these questions is, once again, with the mainstream media. This is the topic I'll deal with in my next post.

The Curse of "Inevitability"

As I've indicated before, the mainstream media have clearly already picked their man in the race for president – on the Republican side, that is... the Democrat side being trivial. That man, of course, is Rockjaw Goodhair, aka Mitt Romney... and the reason he's the people's choice (the people who work in the media, that is, who are all that count) is that he's the least threatening to their agenda, and he doesn't cause a one of them the slightest pang of conscience. And ironically, even though he belongs to what some consider a “cult”, he appears the least religiously-motivated of any of the top-tier candidates... compared to whom the likes of Perry and Bachmann are Bible-thumping, perspiration-streaming, tent-meeting rabble-rousers.

But as I've also pointed out recently, the MSM will only make a choice of this sort predicated on who is likely to win, because Job One is to protect their candidate – namely Obama. So the dynamic of this is as follows: If Obama were in real trouble, which he is not, then they would be supporting one of the more conservative, “extreme”, marginal, “radical” Republicans, i.e. one of the less-electable ones. But since Obama is not in real trouble, and can still beat the pants (or pantyhose) off anyone in the Republican lineup, they can afford to be... scratch that... to _appear_ moderate, centrist, and reasonable in their support of someone like Mr. Goodhair.

Now, please bear in mind that by “support” I don't mean anything like actually coming out and declaring for a given candidate; nothing that proactive. No, what I mean by “support” is engaging in non-stop slander, dirt-digging, and character assassination of everyone else except the preferred candidate. In other words, attach all kinds of “negatives” to everyone else, so the one they want will be the only one left standing without a thick coating of fecal matter oozing down their bodies.

But... why should the MSM ever be “reasonable”, you ask? Aren't they already known for being wildly biased in favor of liberal/Democratic candidates? True, and they will never couch their hypocrisy in anything but terms like “We vastly prefer the Democratic candidate, but must reluctantly observe that the least amount of catastrophic damange will be done to the United States if the following non-Democratic candidate should be elected.” Talk about faint praise! If, on the other hand, they feel like emulating Rush Limbaugh's “Operation Chaos” and advocating someone showing a sharper contrast with the Democratic candidate... well, wouldn't their hypocrisy show through, bright as the Sun? It might – but we forget how subtle they can be. They can always find “a good reason” for hard-core Republicans to vote for any given candidate, no matter how unelectable he or she might be. How much, for example, maneuvering by the MSM did it take to get Bob Dole nominated for president in 1996? He won out over more credible (OK, photogenic) (OK, more lifelike) candidates who might have been able to beat Clinton, who was in a bit of trouble. And! Not to forget, Ross Perot wound up with 8.4% of the vote – and did the media do anything to stop him from running? Not a bit of it. Perot's total plus Dole's could have put Dole closer to Clinton than Bush was to Gore in 2000 – and Bush won!

I think the only Democratic candidate the MSM have ever totally given up on during the campaign was Jimmy Carter in 1980 – they knew he had fouled his own nest so many times that he was a lost cause, even against a “right-wing radical conservative” like Reagan. Plus – in their sly way, I think they were hoping Reagan would make such a mess of things and turn so many people against him, and against conservativism in general, and against the Republican Party, that the Democrats could come back in 1984 and establish a dynasty that would last 1000 years. And just to show you how badly that strategy turned out, the Democrats ran Walter Mondale in 1984 – an act of despair comparable to the running of Bob Dole in 1996.

Admittedly, this is a far-from-complete analysis... and the situation is often way more complicated than implied. But I just want to point out that the MSM have a very large spoon which they're more than willing to dip into any pot – Republican ones included – in order to influence elections in favor of their agena. And the spoon this time around seems to be coming up with a thin, flavorless broth with Rockjaw Goodhair's name on it – hence the plaint, “Waiter, there's a Goodhair in my soup!”

OK, that was a cheapie, but who could resist? But! The point of this whole meditation is that if anyone, including the MSM, declares a candidate to be “inevitable” too early in the game – and let's all agree that over a year to the elections is way too early – it can place an undue burden on that candidate and offer breathing room to all the others. From here on out, Romney is going to have to be perfect... flawless... totally in command... unflappable. His image has already been built for him by, ironically, his enemies – and they are expert at setting the bar impossibly high. They have arranged things so that he seems inevitable (if not invincible), but have included some delayed-action fuses... some land mines... in the mix, as they always do – to be set off at just the right time down the road.

And, after all, how much of a guarantee is inevitability anyway? Let us recall, for example, that, a mere four years ago, there were two inevitable candidates aspiring to succeed George W. Bush – Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. Oh sure, they had rivals, but they were each riding, or so it seemed, white steeds to victory. But then things started to unravel a bit – because, as I said, they had time to unravel. Giuliani had a conniption during a debate over something Ron Paul had said – for which we should be eternally grateful to Dr. Paul, by the way – and then decided to base his entire campaign on the votes of expatriate New Yorkers living on the East Coast of Florida. Fail! Hillary, on the other hand, discovered that people were starting to notice the decaying corpse of her husband – or of his administration – hanging around her neck. Too late for a divorce! Darn! And then she had to confront the Black Messiah – the man who walked the hills and valleys of America promising to heal all wounds, fill all bellies, and make the rough places plain. Compared to which, John Kerry promising to raise Christopher Reeve out of his wheelchair was a cheap parlor trick.

So, by declaring a candidate “inevitable” the media effectively set him up as a target – and they, and anyone else, have 12 whole months to take aim and fire. Not that they will take the lead, mind – he's been chosen for a reason, as detailed above. And I'm sure they have someone else in mind just in case: “Regrettable that no truly moderate Republican candidates are in the running now that Gov. Romney has retired from the field”, etc. It's kind of... well, it's kind of like walking into a rug store. Which rug are you going to be interested in buying, one that is lying neat and unsoiled on the stack, or the one in the middle of the floor that people are tromping on with their muddy shoes day in and day out? You get the idea.

Anyway... it's all part of the fun, and it is instructive how the media have a way of hedging their bets on these things... not unlike the way the biggest Wall Street firms donate generously to both major parties. It's more important not to make enemies than to be seen as anything but a manipulative, scheming, calculating hypocrite.

The Semi-Triumph of the Will

George Will didn't quite hit one out of the park with today's column comparing the tea partiers with the Occupy Wall Street crowd, but he came awfully close. He rightly describes OWS as a progressive movement, according to which people should have a perpetual right to support by the state regardless of their contribution (even Lenin didn't believe in that sort of nonsense), and the government should provide, basically, everything else required for the good life. (This, I hardly need point out, has been the basis for European government programs and policies going back as far as World War II, and we see the result quite clearly in today's headlines.) He characterizes another OWS demand as “forgiveness of 'all debt on the entire planet period'” -- which leaves one wondering, what if this jubilee year really came? Would anyone, from that point on, even assuming they had the resources, ever be willing to loan any money to anyone ever again? Seems unlikely. If we forgive all debts, then we effectively forbid all loans and all borrowing... and it's hard to see how that degree of Puritanism would yield up a net benefit to the human race. Surely there has to be an acceptable in-between point... something like what Kiva is doing, for instance.

Will refers to OWS as a “countermovement” to the tea party – although I have pointed out that, in many respects, they are opposing the same thing. The problem is getting them to realize it. On the other hand, the OWS crowd's visceral opposition to work for pay, higher education having to cost anything, and -- implied -- property in general (when held in quantities exceeding those required for mere survival) would not sit well with most tea partiers, who are solidly middle-class with values attached. And I don't suppose the tea partiers' adherence to conventional religious creeds would sit well with the OWS crowd, which, I suspect, has an unnaturally high incidence of atheists, skeptics, pantheists, and the like. When it comes to war, the picture is bit less clear, since the OWS folk don't seem to say a whole lot about war per se, and yet surely they realize that it's war that keeps most of the corporations they are protesting against in business. The tea partiers, on the other hand, like war for war's sake, no matter which president is in charge – as witness their stunning silence on the matter of Obama's having embraced the role of a war president.

And yet, as I said, there is a common ground... or there should be. But neither side sees the big picture enough to realize it. Even George Will doesn't realize it, or so I suspect. What he sees are “the tea party's splendid successes” -- I'm not sure how “splendid” they've been as yet – and that the OWS movement may be paving the way for a conservative reaction, the way the anti-Vietnam War movement supposedly paved the way for Nixon's election in 1968. Well... but you'll notice the hand-off of the Vietnam War from LBJ to Nixon was slicker than greased bear crap on glass... and I suspect the same will happen if a Republican should replace Obama in 2013, vis-a-vis both the wars and the economy. They're all working for the same master now – a fact that Mr. Will doesn't seem willing or able to perceive.

But in the meantime, he does aim some pithy observations straight at the progressive heart of OWS – and they hit the target. “(OWS's) meta-theory is... clear: Washington is grotesquely corrupt and insufficiently powerful.” Ouch! This statement could be made of the tea partiers as well, of course; it's not about size of government but its priorities. And how about this: “Government of the sort progressives demand... is not just susceptible to corruption; it _is_ corruption.” Wow. One doesn't often hear it put that way... and it's probably because progressives' good intentions tend to defuse criticism – at least early on. But in the long run, every “progressive” program turns into just another tentacle of government, with all the bureaucracy, corruption, finagling, and waste of any other government program without such benign pretenses. What has the FDA done for you lately? It's probably keeping you from drinking the beverages you'd like to drink and eating the foods you'd like to eat, taking the supplements you'd like to take, and undergoing the medical treatments you'd like to undergo. It is, in short, totalitarian – and progressives have nothing, in principle, against totalitarianism, as long as it's for a good cause. The supreme irony of this is that progressivism is a subset of populism -- which supposedly believes in the wisdom of the common man. And yet every government program or policy ever dreamed up by progressives implies just the opposite -- that the common man is an idiot, and a sheep, who needs constant attention and guidance in order that he might not destroy himself.

But really, as I've said before, there are no degrees of freedom left for the tea party, OWS, or any other movement to operate in. All the cards have been taken off the table – which is why the administration and its state and local appendages have shown so little concern. Oh sure, the mainstream media have kept up a non-stop diatribe against the tea party ever since it was named... but that's just their job. The fact that the Regime, and its servants in government, have ignored both it and OWS is the best indication that they feel they have absolutely nothing to fear. (You'll notice, by the way, that they have not yet come to the point of ignoring threats from “third parties” -- they still fight like demons to keep them suppressed and in check... which tells you something about how much the “two-party system” means any more. When third parties are as good as outlawed, that means that there aren't two major parties, but only one.)

So... all I'm saying is, don't get too excited about either the tea party or its left-wing, through-the-looking-glass doppelganger. They are no wiser than any two of the blind men trying to figure out what an elephant looks like. That they each suspect that something is terribly wrong is commendable, no doubt – but, in the tea partiers' case, they have already been at least partially co-opted and absorbed by the Republican blob... and who knows, the OWS crowd may suffer the same treatment from the Democrats before long. Unlikely, you say? But you'll notice that they never blame Obama or the Democrats for anything that's going on; only big business. Problem is, Obama and the Democrats are the servants and enablers of big business, every bit as much as the Republicans are. But again, that is part of the big picture... way too big to be seen by people camped out in Zuccotti Park.

No, Pat, No!

I often fancy that I'm engaged in a friendly debate with Pat Buchanan, regarding issues near and dear to paleoconservatism. Of course, the truth is that he doesn't know me from Adam, although we have had eye contact once or twice at the Latin Mass at Old St. Mary's on the edge of Chinatown in Washington, D.C. And the point – that I have made on many occasions – is that he is right 99% of the time, and I would not say that about very many other human beings, the late lamented Joe Sobran being another example. Where Buchanan is “wrong”, or slightly off the target, it's usually based on his admirable patriotism, which occasionally seems to edge into nationalism. But he is under no illusions that our constant overseas meddlings are anything but destructive to our economy and our national life; that is not the question. It has more to do with what I call “nostalgia for a past that never was” -- for a nation that, at one time, stood for what it should still stand for. But in fact, I see our history as one that was flawed from the start – which contains within itself a “heart of darkness” that is a compounding of secular humanism, deism, the revolutionary spirit (i.e., revolution for its own sake), Freemasonry, and a marriage of Enlightenment idealism and Puritan fervor... with, early on in our history, an overlay of Manifest Destiny, “making the world safe for democracy”, and all of the follies that have followed. America may, in fact, be the first purely ideational society in history... although it was followed fairly closely (if less durably) by France, and much later by Russia, China, and their various clones in the Third World.

And an ideational founding really is radically different from a founding based on what I call “the eternal verities” -- race, ethnicity, and religion. What it means, for starters, is that the entire nation becomes infected with a kind of missionary zeal, and that self-defense takes second place (at best) to the spreading of ideas – and to their implementation, no matter how difficult cultural differences make it. Note, for example, the irony in our use of words. We call wars on behalf of ideas “defense” whereas most nations call wars on behalf of race, ethnicity, and religion “war”. You'd think it would be the other way around.

Now, in France's case, the revolutionary fervor was pretty much snuffed out by the time of Napoleon's ascent, and it became just another empire-building state (but with the founding myth and language unaltered), and enjoyed awe-inspiring success, at least for a while. (And has any nation worshiped a spectacularly-failed leader the way France worships Napoleon? I don't think so. This is another example of how an obsession with ideas separates people from reality.)

But the ideational motive did triumph, for many decades, in the case of the Soviet Union, which made extreme sacrifices in order to spread communism world-wide – and this, ironically, in the face of Stalin's fight with Trotsky, the hard-core internationalist, which Stalin won. And Cuba – a Soviet clone – made sacrifices in order to spread communism in places like Angola. Even China, as much of a basket case as it was in the Maoist era, managed to lend considerable support to fellow communists in Vietnam and Korea – and elsewhere in East Asia. In the meantime, we were busy spreading “the American way” through whatever means necessary, starting in earnest in World War I and continuing right up to the present day. (Imagine! Nearly a century already of trying to spread the American way – and, by and large, failing – and never learning the slightest lesson from the experience!)

So what I'm trying to point out is that “ideas” trump welfare – of the domestic sort, that is. (And the spread of ideas trumps considerations of individual liberty – as can be seen every day in this country.) And this is not, actually, a brand-new phenomenon, as witness the Crusades. There again, extreme sacrifices were made for the sake of an idea – but at least that idea was based on faith of the religious sort, vs. faith of the purely secular sort which is the dominant force in our time, thanks to the “Enlightenment”.

What makes men willing to die for ideas that have no bearing on eternity? It's a mystery. What I will say, at least, is that it's a co-optation, or short-circuiting, of higher impulses – motives that should be directed toward spiritual ends are misdirected, instead, toward purely material, secular ends – and not even those directly benefiting the actor, but benefiting other people. Again, I say that the Regime uses things like this to exploit people. They set up things like “spreading democracy” as a secular religion, and expect people to adhere to it the way the crusaders of old adhered to their faith. And the damnable thing is, it works! At least often enough for the abomination to persist.

So with all of that in mind, let's look at what Pat Buchanan has to say in a column from last Saturday. His point is that, with the major parties deadlocked in terms of budget issues – what to cut and what to maintain – the only option left on the table is to cut defense. (I call it “war”.) He even says “the Pentagon will be first to ascend the scaffold”. Great imagery there! Right out of “A Tale of Two Cities”. Problem is, it ain't gonna happen – not in any serious way. His point is that the Republicans are going to hold the line on new taxes, and the Democrats are going to hold the line on entitlements. No argument there. So what's left? Defense! But hold on a minute. We didn't get into this fix by passing balanced budgets every year. Au contraire, we borrowed trillions in order to “balance” input vs. spending... and there is no sign that it's going to stop. Has anyone told us that they're not going to buy any more of our debt? Not that I'm aware. They know that this is the best way to acquire a death-grip on our economy and foreign policy.

OK, so “defense already is scheduled for $350 billion in cuts over the decade”. Whoop-de-do! That is so totally chump change... and not to forget, most of the time the “defense” budget doesn't even include the costs of ongoing wars! And – even if we do pull all the uniformed troops out of Iraq, there will still be a mercenary army there, working for the CIA, with a budget that is top-secret. In other words, any funds that are allegedly taken from defense will be kicked right over to “intelligence”, and life will go on. (Although, it must be said, the mercenaries are probably better at their job than our uniformed troops are at theirs; for one thing, they don't have to abide by the Geneva Convention.)

See... it always amazes me that no one ever asks where all the wealth goes. It's like someone in a boat that is filling up with water not even vaguely entertaining the idea that there might be a hole in the hull. We are, supposedly, a “prosperous” country, blessed with endless natural resources, “human capital”, and plenty of good, old-fashioned American “get up and go”. And yet all we hear are cries and moans of complaint and discontent. We're on a weird kind of starvation diet – the kind that makes you fat but leaves you malnourished. Conservatives blame it on the parasites – the tax receivers and entitlement junkies – and that's partially true. But there are much larger and more powerful vampires sucking our blood on a daily basis. Some are on Wall Street... some are in the armaments business... some are in the international financial cartel... there are many sources of our discontent. But we soldier on, believing in our “divine mission”, even if our leaders don't and view those who do with contempt.

And then there is the so-called “supercommittee” -- a body which apparently has awesome powers heretofore not witnessed within the Beltway. Either they come up with some cuts, or defense gets chopped! In other words, defense is being held hostage. Yeah, right. What Pat fails to mention is that the Republicans are as immovable on defense as they are on taxes – even more so, frankly.

But here's the key line in the column – and there is always a key line, and it's always easily overlooked. Among the dire consequences of a defense cut is “a 'hollow force' unable to meet America's commitments”. Well yeah, gee whiz, we can't have a “hollow force”, now can we? But that's not the key. The key is the term “America's commitments”, and it begs the question, to whom? And why? And, did the American people agree to any of this? And, if it means the destruction of our economy, do those “commitments” still hold? Are they to be honored, no matter what – right down to the last man and the last dollar? See, these are questions that are never – and I mean NEVER – asked... on the floors of Congress or anywhere else. At what point do those “commitments” become null and void? When we're bankrupt? (In which case, they already are null and void.) Or, when we cease to exist as an economy (coming soon to a theater near you)? Or when we cease to exist as a society? Sooner or later, someone has to say “game over!” and declare all “commitments” null and void.

But here's where I differ with Pat Buchanan. He thinks that defense cuts will be the only thing left. “America approaches her moment of truth.” The alternative is to raise taxes – not only on “the rich” but on everyone. And my point has been that raising taxes on “the rich” doesn't work, because “the rich” are smart enough to avoid taxes. So raising taxes on the rich really means raising them on the middle class, who are not smart enough... and thus we revert to the Clinton era, where anyone who wasn't feasting on cat food at least once a week was considered “rich” for tax purposes.

Along similar lines to the “commitments” issue is Buchanan's statement that “... the United States must retain a surplus of power to defend all of its vital interests and vital allies...” And what, pray tell, would constitute a “surplus of power”? We already spend more on “defense” than the rest of the world combined; is that enough? Isn't there a point at which the term “overkill” becomes relevant? And when it comes to “vital interests” -- that's usually a code word for oil. But the last time I looked, all the oil-producing countries on Earth were perfectly willing to sell us their oil for the right price, so why is this a “defense” issue? And as to “vital allies” -- well, once again, for the 1000th time, there is no such thing as a permanent alliance; it's all a matter of politics and pragmatism. And who are these “vital allies”, anyway? The only one I can think of that is always described that way (if not as an “eternal ally”) is Israel, and frankly, the best thing that could happen to our foreign policy and our economy would be to cut them loose.

So what does Pat propose as a means to cut defense? What he talks about in the column is pulling troops out of places like Europe, South Korea, and Japan. Funny he doesn't mention Iraq or Afghanistan – but he has criticized overseas adventurism often enough, so I'll let that pass. And yes, he does have the big picture, but maybe not quite big enough. My point has always been that we're no longer even fighting wars over “ideas” -- for which one could gin up some small amount of respect. No, now we're fighting either on behalf of other countries or entities, or on behalf of our own war industries. In other words, we're fighting for the lowest and coarsest of reasons, despite the hysterical pronouncements of the Evangelicals and Neocons. The Evangelicals have been tools and dupes of the Regime, and the Neocons, basically, _are_ the Regime – or an important arm thereof. I don't think they believe in ideas any more than anyone else... but it's the language in which they feel they have to speak.

The other flaw in Buchanan's argument is one of premise. He seems to think that our government, and our wars, and still under the control of sane people... and that they will make sane decisions when the chips are down. But I think we've had more than ample time to come to the firm conclusion that our foreign policy, and our military, are under the control of lunatics – either that or traitors.

Let me explain. If our foreign policy is doing absolutely nothing to enhance the welfare of the American citizen, and yet is spending him, and the economy overall, into bankruptcy, then something is seriously wrong. Either the people in charge are working for someone, or something, other than the American people – ample justification for a treason charge – or they are totally deluded in their notions of reality. If there's a third possibility, I don't perceive it. If our leaders are sane, then they must be working for someone else, because they certainly couldn't be working for ordinary Americans or their interests. If they're insane, then it really doesn't matter who they're working for, or who they think they're working for, because the end result is disastrous either way.

And the question arises, which do we prefer? Sane but cynical, corrupt, and evil people running the nation, its economy, and its people into the ground for the sake of someone, or something else? Or certifiably insane people who are doing what they consider the right thing? And here I have to comment that even when the overall trend is one way, elements of the other can enter in. For example, the armaments makers can be considered simply cynical and greedy, whereas the Neocons are motivated by both power and ideas... and the Evangelicals are motivated purely by ideas (which are wrong). So, if one is motivated entirely, or largely, by ideas, and the result is failure every time, then the persistence of those ideas has to be considered insanity – which means that whereas the Neocons are half-crazy, the Evangelicals are cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs... and sure enough, this is what we see whenever we read or hear pronouncements from either group. And yet I say that the topmost layer is anything but crazy... especially the portion of it that resides somewhere off our shores. The Regime may be cynical, but it's in no way crazy; they know exactly what they're doing, which is why I'm always skeptical when I read about all the alleged economic woes of Europe. Since that is where the Regime's power base is, I suspect this economic crisis is nothing but an elaborate act designed to, among other things, open a new spigot to more speedily drain blood out of the American economy and taxpayer – and sure enough, this process has already begun. Whenever you read that the IMF or the World Bank is going to “participate” in some bogus cliff-hanging, lifesaving scheme on behalf of European banks or economies, you can be sure that “World Bank” and “IMF” are code words for “the American taxpayer”. So we will be bled white long before any form of sanity gains the upper hand – and I don't expect it to happen even then.

See, if you disallow sanity and/or patriotism from the motives of our leaders (not to mention their masters in Europe and elsewhere), then all bets are off, and no one can expect any policy decision to be reasonable. Which means, overseas bases will not be closed, and we will continue to borrow. And yes, eventually taxes will be raised on the middle class, disguised as taxes on “the rich”. And defense, rather than suffering drastic cuts, will remain untouchable... or, let's say, the defense/intelligence cartel will remain untouchable. And all of this is a perfectly natural, predictable stage in the decline of empires; it has happened any number of times before in history. While the citizenry collapse from hunger in the streets, the armies remain strong and spread across the map. I'm sure there are cases in history where the armies even survived after the home country had vanished – such is the durability of armies, which can at least live off the land wherever they happen to find themselves. And this is how it is going to be with us – for one thing, we are the Regime's fighting force; there is no other. And so they will do whatever it takes to keep that force in the field, while draining the life blood from its home nation; they won't be finished with us until the last soldier is killed by the last IED... but by that time, the U.S. will be a barren waste. And, as “fast-forward” as world events seem to move these days, this particular denouement may take quite a while to occur – not centuries, certainly, but possibly decades. But the plan is in place, and the mechanisms are operating... and our politicians and leaders have been bought, bribed, threatened, or deluded into submission. And no amount of “tea partying” or “Occupying Wall Street” is going to turn back the tide; it is way too late for that. If the American people has stood up decades ago, there might have been hope... but, again, the ideational nature of our society has, among many unfortunate consequences, a way of causing people to worship government in a way other societies would find insane and laughable. To lose faith in government! Not only is this not the American way, but it seems to contradict all of the most closely-held premises on which the nation was founded. Surely government of, by, and for the people cannot turn, overnight, into government of, by, and for someone else? But as I've pointed out before, this did not happen overnight. The realization of it might have happened overnight for some people, but the transfer of power and resources from the people to the ruling elite has been going on for many lifetimes. And we might have awakened to all of this sooner if we hadn't been hypnotized by “ideas”. But hypnotized we were... and now that a few of us have awakened, we find ourselves wandering through a landscape in which most people are still hypnotized. They are living, comfortably and secure, in the Matrix, and the rest of us are strangers in a strange land – one that we were born in, and yet it has turned into a monstrosity before our eyes.

Did "The People" Ever "Have" America?

Surely you will indulge me for a moment while I present a take-off on “Particle Man” by They Might Be Giants. (It's more fun if you listen to the original on YouTube and read these words at the same time!):

Tea party man, tea party man
Doing the things a tea party can
What's he like? It's not important
Tea party man

Is he a fool, or is he a schmuck?
Maybe he's nothing but a hockey puck.
When his house is underwater does he get wet?
Or does the bank get him instead?
Nobody knows, tea party man

Wall Street man, Wall Street man
Wall Street man hates tea party man
They have a fight, Wall Street wins
Wall Street man

Neocon man, Neocon man
Size of the New World Order man
Always blind to a smaller man
Neocon man

He's got a watch with a minute hand,
Millennium hand and a Zionist hand
When they meet it's the Promised Land
Powerful man, Neocon man

Person man, person man
Hit on the head with a frying pan
Lives his life in a garbage can
Person man

Is he depressed or is he a mess?
Does he feel totally worthless?
Who came up with person man?
Degraded man, person man

Wall Street man, Wall Street man
Wall Street man hates person man
They have a fight, Wall Street wins
Wall Street man

Well, that was fun. And as you can see, I didn't even have to change some of the verses. The point being, we're in a situation where a number of different gangs who barely speak to each other dominate the political scene. We have the “tea party”, “Wall Street” (which represents the money power – i.e. the international finance facet of the Regime), the Neocons (who represent the political/foreign policy facet of the Regime and who are inseparable from Israel), and then the average schmo who doesn't know what to make of it all, but mainly doesn't want to get involved. And why should he? He suspects, on some level, that he is totally powerless, and has decided to adopt that as this baseline and spend his time on more productive pursuits. The tea partiers, on the other hand, persist in believing that “the people” somehow have a voice in how things go – in how the country is run. So Wall Street and the Neocons, who make up a large part of the oligarchy, look down with barely concealed contempt on the ordinary, non-committal “person man” types, and laugh at the exertions of the tea partiers.

But now a new element enters the scene (and there was no room for them in the song) – namely the “Occupy Wall Street” protesters, AKA (by some people looking for a buzzword) “leftist tea partiers”. And they're on to something to the extent that both the tea party and the OWS types are populist movements, dedicated to the proposition that “the people” still have a voice... or ought to. The problem is that they have wildly differing conceptions of what constitutes “the people”. To the tea partiers, “the people” refers to an increasingly-disenfranchised and stressed-out middle class, who see the economic flood waters rising enough to get their feet wet, and also see that their values are under constant attack. And – the more perceptive among them realize that there is a connection between the two. To the OWS gang, “the people” refers, I guess, to themselves – a rag-tag bunch of humanists, leftists, populists, graduate students, etc. who don't feel disenfranchised because they never felt enfranchised. They are trying to reclaim something that, in fact, they never had... whereas the tea partiers are under the illusion of having, somehow, “had” America at one time, but no longer.

Now – why can't these two groups join forces against the oligarchy? Well, it's because they don't share the same core values; all they share is the suspicion that something is terribly wrong. But the tea partiers are hesitant to blame Wall Street and big business, etc. because they grew up thinking that those entities exemplified the American Dream... and that any boy (or girl) born in a modest bungalow in Levittown could grow up to be CEO of a Fortune 500 company. The OWS types have, at least, never trusted Wall Street or big business, and even if their distrust might have been ill-founded at one time, it's perfectly reasonable in these times. But they also have little or no regard for private property, and probably little regard for religion or traditional values – so the gulf between them and the tea partiers would be a very tough one to bridge. And besides, despite the fact that Wall Street and the government are, for all intents and purposes, a single entity, they persist in believing that government is the cure for all human ills. I don't think you'd find many libertarians among the OWS crowd – could be wrong, but that's what I suspect. And by the same token, you won't find many libertarians among the tea partiers; they too think that government is the cure for... if not all human ills, then a great many. When they say they want “smaller government”, they don't mean so small that it can't go out and defend traditional values in the fashion of Saudi Arabia's Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.

What I'm trying to say is that the Wall Street protesters and the tea partiers share the same ambivalence toward government. They don't like what it's doing now, but believe that it can be set upon the path of virtue. And this, as any libertarian can tell you, is a fatal misconception. And what the Regime is highly skilled at is taking advantage of these ambivalences and co-opting the people who suffer from them – offering to fix whatever ails the nation but then turning around and using the power granted to them by the people against those same people. The OWS types are just the latest in a long line of progressive movements – and the progressives, after all these years, continue to moan and groan about what a monster the government has become – when it is they, and their views, who have as much to do with the growth of government as anyone. The tea partiers, on the other hand, think big government is just groovy when it comes to “force projection” and a “muscular” foreign policy, but resent it when the same resources are turned back on them on the home front. And just try telling either of these groups that they can't have it both ways! It's impossible. So they just march on, and rave on, and the people in charge chuckle and shake their heads.

But there is one question plaintively asked by these groups that bears some thought. They both ask, on a regular basis, how “the people” “lost America” -- as if “America” (whatever that means) was, at one time, something that “the people” had, or possessed. Now, certainly if one reads the founding documents and other historic pronouncements, it does give the impression that the people's voice was intended to count for something – although one can question whether this country was ever intended to be a “democracy” in the radical or literal (as in “rule by the people”) sense. I think the term, “consent of the governed” expresses it better; after all, radical self-rule would be hard to distinguish from anarchy. So what does “consent of the governed” imply? At the very least, it should imply that people elect representatives to governing bodies who share their values and priorities, and are willing to promote those values and priorities in the process of governing. In other words, we don't vote for Dr. Jekyll and wind up with Mr. Hyde in Congress – which is what happens more often than not under the current system. I've discussed before how big government corrupts those who are part of it, even if they did, at one time and in all sincerity, promise to work for the benefit of their constituents; the temptations and pressures that impinge upon crossing the Beltway are too overpowering for all but a very few secular saints to deal with.

The main point is the both the tea partiers and the OWS crowd act as if the transfer of power from the many to the few is a recent event – the implication being that anything that happened that recently should be relatively easy to undo. What I say is that, while public figures were mouthing words about democracy and representative government, the Regime was gaining strength and gradually taking over... and I don't think this is a recent trend at all. One has to trace it at least as far back as the Civil War, and probably to the Mexican War. And speaking of war, when was America's last “good war”? Some will say World War II... possibly Korea. Me, I nominate the War of 1812. Every war since then has been, to a greater or lesser degree, a racket, and has been started primarily to benefit those in high places – politically and financially. And I would say that the degree to which the people “rule” is negatively correlated with war – the more wars we fight, and the greater a portion of our resources and productivity that goes into them, the less the people have any voice in things. When, for example, is the last time the American people actually voted yea or nay about getting into a war? The answer is that they never had that opportunity. And if a choice of this magnitude is kept out of their hands on a recurring basis, how much power do the people have? Very little, I'd say. So what does that tell you about what has become an economy based on perpetual war, with the required political, propaganda, financial, and “intelligence” infrastructure? It's the biggest single piece of the economy and it has a larger impact on national life than any other factor – and yet the people have absolutely nothing to say about it one way or the other. To the average schmo -- “person man” -- war just happens, the way recessions just happen. To the middle-class tea partier, dropping real estate values just happened; he doesn't know why and no one can (or will) explain. So what they are all faced with is an increasing frequency of events that make them feel helpless – but unlike the Great Depression, which featured a kind of universal fatalism, people now have at least developed some modicum of skepticism. They're not sure that everything they are told by the government is true – and that is certainly the beginning of wisdom. But it is also, I suspect, way too late – which is why the tea party protests and the Occupy Wall Street protests are exercises in futility. Not only has the horse escaped from the barn, he's been rounded up and turned into dog food – and yet people persist in thinking that if the barn door is made secure, the horse will somehow be reconstituted and come back to life.

The “bottom line” to all this – if there even is one – is that, on some level, the concept that “the people rule” is not only an illusion now, but it always has been. Like the new car that starts losing value the minute it's driven off the lot, vested interests started to erode the people's power from day one – and the Civil War proved how far that process had progressed in a mere “fourscore and seven years”. And yet, the illusion persisted, and continues to persist right up to the present day – as witness the efforts of the Progressives, the left during the New Deal, the anti-war movement during Vietnam, and the people currently protesting Wall Street or big government. And this is not to say that the Progressives accomplished nothing, or that the left (including the labor movement) didn't have some impact on New Deal programs. If fact, rumor has it that the New Deal came about as a way to head off revolution – which, if true, shows you how much has changed just since then. Imagine entertaining the thought of a “revolution” of any sort these days? The last one of any significance, I would say, was our own cultural revolution of the 1960s, which was relatively bloodless... but the funny thing is, although it did change the face of America, the power structure remained completely intact. Things had gotten to the point of almost complete consolidation at that point – more than in the New Deal era, even, and certainly more than in any earlier era. The possibility for change – real change – had pretty much vanished by the post-war era, for the simple reason that – I'll say it again – the war enabled the power structure to consolidate and tie up all the loose ends, and the result was the Regime as it stands today.

So this notion that “the people” (of whatever stripe) once had, or owned, America but somehow lost it along the way is misguided, and a source of considerable frustration. What we have lost is not America but our illusions – and even that has been a gradual process that not everyone has shared in. Most people just keep their heads down and try to stay out of the way. The reason that the “tea party” is so dramatic is that it consists of people who were non-boat rockers from birth, but who have finally gotten fed up. And yet, the notion of a middle-class revolution is a contradiction in terms; they don't have the persistence or – dare I say it? -- the capability for violence that must always be part of a successful revolution. And that motley crew down on Wall Street... well, they're about as effective as the freakazoids who come out to protest at G-20 and IMF/World Bank conferences. And to suggest to either group that they might find common ground with the other... well, you'd get every expression of revulsion and disgust ever invented. It would be “those long-haired, pot-smoking, oversexed hippies” all over again, on one side... and “those bourgeois, uptight, square churchgoers” on the other. Ne'er the twain shall meet – and yet if they did, what a bonfire we could have!