2024 -- Another annus horribilis?

2024 is looming, like one of those hurricanes out in the Atlantic that's not yet causing much damage, but just wait until it reaches land! I don't want to be just another alarmist (the field is much too crowded already), but I'm afraid that the Republican convention next year may make the Democratic convention of 1968 look like a tea party. (And the Republicans won't have a Mayor Daley to back them up – and I can't imagine the Milwaukee police department will be much help, since they've probably fallen prey to defunding and other forms of demoralizing and neutering.)

This is, of course, predicated on (1) Trump not being in jail at that point; (2) Trump still being in the race (or, Trump being in jail but still being in the race – hey, it could happen!); (3) The mainstream Republicans not having succeeded in keeping him out of the primaries; and (4) The mainstream Republicans accepting primary results that favor Trump, rather than declaring them null and void and going to a caucus, AKA “smoke-filled room”, system.

Note that the Colorado Supreme Court has already barred Trump from both the primaries and the general election, and they are likely to be followed by many other state supreme courts across the land – and in the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, etc. (How exciting it is to keep an ex-president from running for president!  And just about anyone can play!) – but especially in states with high population levels (all you need is the West Coast and the Northeast). While Trump's base is justifiably outraged by this – as are a handful of commentators on Fox News – the Republican mainstream is strangely silent on the matter. Perhaps it's because they're glad to have someone else do the dirty work for them so they won't get in trouble with Trump's base, and/or they see it as an example of how easy it is to keep someone out of the primaries, as in “Hey, why didn't we think of that?” (Actually, they did, when it came to Ron Paul.) (OTOH, RFK Jr. has been subjected to a total media blackout, probably because, like Ron Paul, he has a lot of good ideas. But they can't make fun of him because of the family name – unlike Ross Perot, who at least had amusing ears.) To put it another way – I suspect that much of the Republican mainstream is secretly celebrating this, oblivious to the fact that if it can happen to Trump it can happen to any of them as well.

You can see the run-up increasing in intensity on a daily basis, primarily in the mainstream media but also in statements by Biden lackeys, certain academicians, certain “entertainers”... all reading from the same sheet of talking points, of which #1 is always “Trump is Hitler” (not “will be Hitler”, note, but he's already Hitler, in some kind of mysterious reincarnation phenomenon). The Ministry of Propaganda aside, what the Fox News folks call “lawfare” is also well underway, and is merely a seamless continuation of the impeachments while Trump was in office – with many of the same people calling the shots as during Trump's administration. Of course the “bloody shirt” that is constantly waved in the air is January 6 – a date that will live in infamy! – but it's far from the only weapon in their arsenal (heck, even the Russia collusion hoax is still alive and well in the fever dreams of many of them).

But behind it all – the thinly-concealed threat, if you will – is the very real possibility that the troops are already being organized to show up in force at primaries and at the convention – and yes, I mean the same folks who did all the burning and pillaging and vandalism back in 2020 (and who continue to do so at selected locations just to keep in practice). And this goes way beyond the time-honored “rent-a-mob” technique on the local level (often, depending on the issue, with Jesse Jackson and/or Al Sharpton parachuting in to add spice to the mix).  As in 2020, these so-called anarchists (totalitarians in disguise, I mean) will arrive from all over the country, brought in by plane, train, bus, and automobile, and with pockets full of cash from their billionaire sponsors, who – recalling a phrase from the war in Vietnam – believe that it's necessary to destroy the country in order to save it.

So what it really amounts to is a protection racket of sorts (remember the “long hot summer” threats of times past?). Keep Trump on the primary ballots and this is what will happen – and just try nominating him and putting him on the national ballot! Cities will burn! And the mainstream Republicans, ever the gentlemen (and gentlewomen), will, I expect, bow to mob rule and disown that troublemaker – i.e. Trump – once and for all, rather than just being passive-aggressive about it the way they were during his administration. And we'll wind up with some garden-variety neocon who won't ruffle the Democrats' feathers – Nikki Haley* being in the lead for that role at this point (and please note she's getting support from some Democrats simply for being the anti-Trump). And then, in turn, if the Republicans come up with another uninspiring, ho-hum candidate, that person will lose the election to Uncle Joe or whoever the Democrats have called up from the bench to replace him. (And – highly likely – the Trump base will simply sit out the election as a form of protest, thus giving Uncle Joe even more of a mandate than he would have had otherwise.)

So – bottom line – the protection racket will have worked. And no, it's not democracy or even a pale semblance thereof; it's strictly mob rule of the kind that can be found in many “banana republics” and other pseudo-democracies across the globe. But if this is what we've come to, well... some will call it karma, others will say it's the way empires decline and fall, and many of the citizenry – thoroughly demoralized already -- will just shrug and say (or think) “Eh, what do you expect?” Faith in government, anyone? I'm afraid that's already extinct at this point. Rule of law? The Colorado Supreme Court certainly doesn't have any use for it. There's just enough residual faith for some people to think that voting might actually make a difference; the rest of us are either cynical, or pessimistic, or just plain realistic – and if you can tell me the difference these days, please let me know.

* This just in – she failed to denounce slavery! Looks like the establishment has already administered the kill shot.

The Ruling Class and its Discontents

A recent op-ed piece by William Rivers Pitt of Truthout celebrates, in no uncertain terms and with more than a touch of gallows humor, the decline and fall of the Bush dynasty as exemplified by the miserable failure of Jeb Bush, who has dropped out of the presidential race. His essay can be found here:

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/35193-please-clap-the-bush-dynasty-has-been-broken

A word of caution is in order, however. At least one commentator has speculated that Jeb, who notoriously stated that his strategy was to somehow win the nomination despite losing the primaries, is being held in reserve by the Republican powers that be, ready to “parachute in” to the convention and save the day – i.e. snatch the nomination away from Trump and Cruz (pushing lesser mortals like Kasich aside like so many dust bunnies, of course). The idea, apparently, is to fit Jeb with a pair of tights, a cape, shiny boots, and flashy headgear, and style him as some kind of superhero whose sole mission is to save the Republican Party. (“It's a bird! It's a plane! It's Bushman!” Oh... wait...)

Well... lots of luck with that, is all I can say. But in this wackiest of all wacky election seasons, who knows? The Republican establishment is certainly acting desperate, and grasping at straws – resurrecting Romney from the political graveyard to do a hatchet job on Trump (which, of course, backfired very badly; they should have left Mitt in the toy store with the other Ken dolls) and cooperating with the Democrats to send rent-a-mobs to any and all Trump rallies.

Now, the immediate revelation from all of this, for those who hadn't already figured it out, is that there is, in fact, only one “establishment”, and it consists of the power structure of both of the major parties. Trump is, if nothing else, the ultimate anti-establishment candidate, since he doesn't care who he offends from anywhere along the spectrum. What counts above all is to preserve the integrity of the establishment and keep it in charge, little matter which party is nominally in power. This is the kind of insight that is normally avoided by maintaining the faux kabuki drama of the election season, in which the parties pretend – like professional wrestlers – to be in dire opposition, when they really are in one accord on nearly all points. But these are desperate times, and they clearly feel that it's worth letting the cat out of the bag – at least on this occasion, counting on the brain-dead electorate to go back to sleep and forget all about what they are now hearing and seeing, like the guys in “Men in Black”. It's a strategy that has worked time and time again, so why not give it another shot?

But there are other implications to all of this, and they should not be overlooked. One is that the power structure – the ruling class – operates in subtle and surprising ways at times; they are more agile than we give them credit for. One would think, for example, that an elite bunch like the Bushes would want to keep their name in lights and to win at all costs. They are, after all, part of the perennial power structure, and they want to keep it that way – or so one would think. And yet even those at the top of the heap have to make sacrifices once in a while; someone has to be picked, when the need arises, to “take one for the team”. Consider, for example, that the Rockefellers, who are indisputably at the very top of the hierarchy (at least in this country), nonetheless feel obligated to offer up some of their members on the sacrificial altar of politics -- with mixed results. Consider that the Kennedys had to offer up some of their sons to the gods of war, and that one of them didn't come back alive. This is all along the lines of maintaining some sort of credibility with the impulsive, delusion-prone American public, who – enamored as they are with “American royalty” -- are nonetheless still a bit resistant to the idea that we have rulers like unto the royalty and nobility of the Old World. The delusion of democracy must be maintained – or at least it has been so far, but it has started to seriously erode of late. And the ruling elite are not – as irritating as it must be at times – completely immune from the requirements and needs of “democracy”; lip service must be paid, even if from their lofty perches, to “the people”, lest “the people” start to murmur, and resist, and even – heaven forfend! -- rebel.

The age of revolution is, of course, over with and long gone... and ruling elites around the globe are no longer in the sort of danger that engulfed the hapless Romanovs, for example... or the Chinese dynasties... or the French aristocracy. We are now in the age of the technocrat... the pragmatist... the globalist (another talking point for Trump)... and are ruled by a centralized power whose main tentacles are not so much armies as banks, stock exchanges, and “defense” contractors. But it is precisely because the trappings and prerogatives of ancient royalty are a thing of the past that control by other means must be maintained – through instruments such as the media, the “entertainment” industry, “free trade”, and the dominance of a vast array of rackets from agribusiness to big pharma, big medicine, prisons, centralized food distribution, consumerism run amok... and all the modern equivalents of the “games and circuses” and “free bread” of old. Empires, in short, do what they have to do, and they do, in fact, have to adjust to the times.

Consider, for example, that there are no longer any “idle rich”; they are nowhere to be found. The richest people on earth nonetheless have to work for a living, after a fashion. Society has been restructured to the point where a hundred years ago you had the working poor and the idle rich, and we now have the working rich and the idle poor. And yet, ultimately, the same people are in charge now who were in charge then, and the vast majority of them are – gasp! -- white men. We can fantasize all we want about “diversity”, and “access to power” by “minorities” of all stripes... and, certainly, the Regime knows how, and when, to throw a few bones out now and then... but the basic hard facts remain the same. Any boy born in a log cabin, figuratively speaking, can rise up in the system to where he is invited to weekend retreats at Sea Island, Davos, Mackinac Island, Bilderberg, the Bohemian Grove... wherever... but despite their feeling of having been anointed, they are, ultimately, tools, poodles, and window dressing... and, most importantly of all, dispensable. (And scapegoats, when the need arises – as witness George W. Bush.) Surely you don't think that once Hillary Clinton, for example, has outlived her usefulness she won't be dropped, along with her reprobate husband, into the Regime's dumpster; it has happened before, and it will happen again. In fact, this could be said to be the case for nearly all politicians and, frankly, all “world leaders”.  More often than not they are tools, lackeys, and sock puppets -- and the puppet masters are the faceless few at the very top – and they are, and remain, faceless for a reason.

But (with all due respect to the conspiracy community, of which I am a member anyway) there is no such thing as perfect control, and the world remains full of surprises. Did any of them anticipate, for example, the rise of militant Islam? Sure, no doubt they are using this phenomenon to their maximum benefit... but their jobs would have been easier if the scales had not fallen from the eyes of the Islamic world (albeit decades after the end of formal, classical colonialism). Did they anticipate the rise of the Internet and “social media” as, not only a tool for thought control of the masses, but as a means by which the masses (some of them, at least) would start to ask questions and connect the dots? Thus, another irritant that has to be dealt with – and we see in the news every day evidence of their exertions to do so.

So yes, “uneasy lies the head that wears a crown” -- or whatever the modern-day equivalent of a crown is (and do not doubt that some of the actual remaining “crowned heads” of Europe are very much participants in this struggle). Plus, we have the natural paranoia that inevitably haunts the very few when they are confronted, in whatever form, by the very many. The mob... the masses... the rabble... are greater in number than they have ever been in recorded human history, their demands are becoming harder to meet (because they keep upping the ante), and they are showing signs of restlessness. You can award some of them membership in the middle class, which is a guaranteed neutralizer... but that still leaves quite a few – a majority, in fact. You can even allow them to, occasionally, have a voice – from the social media right up to the ossified and dysfunctional United Nations – but, again, you're not really solving anything, only postponing the consequences.

And yet, power remains – as it has down through human history – the ultimate narcotic. Better than sex, better than money (although these are, let's admit, universally fringe benefits). To sacrifice people by the million, and even entire nations, for the sake of power, is nothing new – and to hold onto it once it's gained is nothing new. What changes and evolves is the means... the mechanisms... the tools... the iconography... the narrative. Every culture has its myths, legends, and fairy tales – that's a given; that's human nature. It's what people believe – what they are led to believe – that determines outcomes, and those outcomes become solidified into what we call “history”. Once in a while people become more sophisticated, slightly better informed, and more skeptical – and so the means, mechanisms, and tools have to evolve as well, and morph into a new mythology. We tend to forget that not only do power and control go together, they are the same thing. How can you have one without the other? And yet we go around worshiping men (and women) of power, but chafing at the control they exert on us. One consolation, at least – perhaps the only one – is that even the power elite... the ones at the end of every string and binding chain... have to pay their dues as well. The fate of Jeb Bush – a very small person in this grand scheme – provides an example of this, and it may serve as small comfort. 

But he may be down and out, but he's not “out out”, despite Pitt's optimism, so to speak.  Just be prepared for, somewhere down the line, the moment when you hear someone say “they're baaaaaack”.

The Trump Test

If there's anything more amazing, startling, and amusing than the Trump candidacy it's the reactions of all the usual suspects. It was said of a politician of an earlier era (I forget which one) that everyone hated him except the people – and it seems that Trump is in the same category. What's ironic is that, in our time, everyone pretends to be a populist but only Trump and Sanders are the real thing – populism, by definition, being a movement against the establishment – whatever that happens to be. So we, as I've commented previously, are seeing bimodal (bipolar?) populism – a pull from both the right and the left, as personified by The Donald and The Bern. And the establishment is fit to be tied – and I include in that both liberal and conservative, the near-left and the near-right (assuming there is no functioning middle, which is a pretty safe bet these days). The MSM pour hot coals on his coiffed head on a daily basis, as does Fox News and any and all neocons (which includes all other Republican candidates) – the worst invective coming from people who, one would think, would resonate, or at least understand, what Trump is all about, and at least empathize a bit. George Will, for example, whom I respect for his usual wisdom and sterling prose, is absolutely over the top in his hostility... my local paper, neocon-dominated although they do make space for libertarians now and then, is aghast at The Donald, right down to, and including, the house editorial cartoonist. The “argumentum ad Hitlerum” has been brought out in full force – and, let's admit, der Adolf was a populist of sorts, much to the dismay of the establishment of his time.

I'll tell you who isn't afraid of Trump – the libertarians and the paleocons (including Pat Buchanan). They “get it” -- not that they necessarily agree with Trump on all, or even most, issues, but they understand his appeal and don't attempt to blame it on sheer demagoguery (or racism, xenophobia, not being nice, etc.). They realize that a large portion of Americans, of every shape and size, feel threatened, oppressed, ignored, ridiculed, left out, and exploited – and they sympathize. And who is consistently speaking to them in language they understand? Nobody but the Trumpster. They might wish it otherwise – that, for example, the mainstream Republicans would “man up” for once and stop all the pathetic me-too-ism that has been their meme for so many years and election cycles. Any time a libertarian stands up in the midst of a Republican gathering he is booed, hissed, and firmly ushered out the door – as witness Ron Paul & son. Any time our delusional, fanatical, bloodthirsty foreign policy is questioned or criticized, whoever dares to speak up is immediately plastered with the usual labels, starting with “isolationist”, “abandoning our allies” (by which they mean Israel, and none other) – the term “peacenik” having gone out of fashion, apparently.

A current American Conservative (paleocon, note) article gives Trump, along with Kasich, a C in foreign policy – which is their best rating other than a B for Bernie... but I imagine they would give Bernie a triple-F for domestic policy, so we can consider Trump a winner overall. Here is the article:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/a-2016-foreign-policy-report-card/?mc_cid=b9ed6b64b9&mc_eid=9b64b44470

But – let's face it – the American voter is motivated primarily by domestic policy issues, which is your doctor's word for “pocketbook”. We don't think a whole lot about foreign policy until someone we know is sent to some craphole overseas and comes back in a body bag or with missing limbs, and then cognitive dissonance forces us to allow that, well, it must have been worthwhile, considering the price that was paid. Military spending, most of which can be marked down to empire building rather than true defense of the homeland, doesn't seem to enter anyone's mind as a real expense, in competition with domestic spending – as if our infrastructure doesn't suffer when we spend more rebuilding countries that we've destroyed than we spend on our own highways, sewer and water systems, power grid, etc. It's as if those funds are not fungible – or are, but only under the most extreme circumstances. The fact is, any and all military spending imposes opportunity costs on any and all domestic spending. But apparently we'd rather live in squalor and have a mighty military than enjoy the wealth we have created here at home.

And granted, Trump is very gung-ho when it comes to our military activities overseas, but at the same time seems more hesitant than most candidates when it comes to taking on new burdens in that arena. As the article notes, he “can't seem to make up his mind. He supported regime change in Libya in 2011, but wants to withdraw completely from Syria. He would review the Iran deal and has made comments that could indicate he supports a smaller defense budget, but offers no concrete stance.” But he doesn't have blood in his eye (or anywhere else, ahem) about Russia, and is not itching to go into Syria with the same doomed-to-failure approach we took in Afghanistan and Iraq. He actually comes off as something of a pragmatist (vs. dogmatist or Cold War revivalist) when it comes to foreign policy – and this is sure to enrage all the mainstream “conservatives”.

So, basically, the Trump Test comes down to this. If whoever, or whatever, it is displays nothing but hysteria and seeing Hitler under every bed, you can confidently ignore them, because what it means is that (1) they are sold out to the idea of empire; and (2) they don't really understand, or care, about the plight, grievances, and attitudes of a good portion of Americans (who, admittedly, don't live less than an hour's drive from either coast, so their opinions can't possibly be of any value, and those people don't count in any case); and (3) they have no sense of humor (or, aren't cynical enough, which is probably the same thing when it comes to politics).

Trump is, in short, a symptom – but hey, isn't all of politics symptomatic in some way? Isn't it all about not liking the way things are and wanting them to change? The only question is, for any given candidate, does one agree with their assessment, and with their notions as to what has to change, and how? It's a political issue – grist for dialogue, discussion, and debate... and not for running around with one's hair on fire. We should know by now that any candidate will seem like gift from on high to some, and a lunatic to others.  Clearly, the people who react most hysterically are the ones with the most to lose -- and yet, one wonders, in many cases, precisely what they are so terrified of losing?  What is George Will afraid of?  What is my local paper afraid of?  Are they really so sold out to the establishment that any threat to it is seen as an existential threat to themselves?  In which case, shouldn't we, perhaps, be a bit more skeptical when we read what they have to say?