The Real Reason America Is Drifting Towards Fascism

George Washington's picture

Step 1: Demonizing the Enemy

War is always sold by artificially demonizing the enemy.

Countries need to lie about their enemies in order to demonize them sufficiently so that the people will support the war.

Everyone knows that “truth is the first casualty of war“.

As Tom Brokaw said:

All wars are based on propaganda.

Posters prepared in foreign countries demonizing Americans are an obvious form of propaganda. For example, here are samples from Nazi Germany:

2qwq4d1 The Real Reason America Is Drifting Towards Fascism

The Soviet Union:

8 The Real Reason America Is Drifting Towards Fascism

(the American is supposed to be the guy on the left)

North Korea:176 Gu Yuan1951 The Real Reason America Is Drifting Towards Fascism20080310 Korean%20war,%20anti%20American%202 The Real Reason America Is Drifting Towards Fascism

Anti American Propaganda Poster The Real Reason America Is Drifting Towards FascismThese are disturbing images, because we as Americans know that they falsely depict who we are.

But Americans have demonized our enemies as well. For example, in World War II, anti-Japanese posters such as the following were used to whip up hatred of the enemy:

WWii Poster The Real Reason America Is Drifting Towards Fascism

Anti-German posters such as this were also widely used:

destroy this mad brute wwi propaganda poster us version The Real Reason America Is Drifting Towards Fascism

And, at times, Americans have even demonized other Americans, such as during the Civil War:

copperhead cartoon The Real Reason America Is Drifting Towards Fascism

Modern America’s Unique Form of Authoritarianism

The unique modern strain of American fascism can be traced through Leo Strauss and the University of Chicago.

Leo Strauss is the father of the Neo-Conservative movement, including many leaders of recent American administrations.  Indeed, many of the main neocon players – including Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Stephen Cambone, Elliot Abrams, and Adam Shulsky – were students of Strauss at the University of Chicago, where he taught for many years.

The people pushing for war against Iran are the same neocons who pushed for war against Iraq. See this and this. (They planned both wars at least 20 years ago.)     For example, Shulsky was the director of the Office of Special Plans – the Pentagon unit responsible for selling false intelligence regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. He is now a member of the equivalent organization targeting Iran: the Iranian Directorate.

What did Strauss teach?

Strauss, born in Germany, was an admirer of Nazi philosophers such as Carl Schmitt and of Machiavelli (more on Schmitt later).

Strauss believed that a stable political order required an external threat and that if an external threat did not exist, one should be manufactured. Specifically, Strauss thought that:

A political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat . . . . Following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured.

(the quote is by one of Strauss’ main biographers).

Indeed, Stauss used the analogy of Gulliver’s Travels to show what a Neocon-run society would look like:

“When Lilliput [the town] was on fire, Gulliver urinated over the city, including the palace. In so doing, he saved all of Lilliput from catastrophe, but the Lilliputians were outraged and appalled by such a show of disrespect.” (this quote also from the same biographer)

Moreover, Strauss said:

Only a great fool would call the new political science diabolic . . . Nevertheless one may say of it that it fiddles while Rome burns. It is excused by two facts: it does not know that it fiddles, and it does not know that Rome burns.

So Strauss seems to have advocated governments letting terrorizing catastrophes happen on one’s own soil to one’s own people — of “pissing” on one’s own people, to use his Gulliver’s travel analogy. And he advocated that government’s should pretend that they did not know about such acts of mayhem: to intentionally “not know” that Rome is burning.  He advocated messing with one’s own people in order to save them from some artificial “catastrophe”.  In other words, he proposed using deceit in order to  demonize an adversary and artificially turn him into a dangerous enemy.

Genesis of the Meme: Carl Schmitt

Banzai The Real Reason America Is Drifting Towards FascismPainting by William Banzai 7

But to really understand Strauss – and thus the Neocons – one must understand his main influence: Carl Schmitt.  Schmitt was the leading Nazi legal scholar and philosopher who created the justification for “total war” to destroy those labeled an “enemy” of the Nazi state.

Strauss was a life-long follower of Schmitt, and Schmitt helped Strauss get a scholarship which let him escape from Germany and come to America.

Not only was Strauss heavily influenced by Schmitt, but Strauss and Schmitt were so close that – when Strauss criticized Schmitt for being too soft and not going far enough – Schmitt agreed:

Schmitt himself recommended Strauss’s commentary [on Schmitt's writing] to his friends as one that he believed saw right through him like an X-ray.

Schmitt’s philosophy argued that the sovereign was all-powerful in being able to to declare a state of emergency.  As Neil Levi explains:

The sovereign is the name of that person (legal or actual) who decides not only that the situation is a state of exception but also what needs to be done to eliminate the state of exception and thus preserve the state and restore order.  Note the circularity of the definitions: the sovereign is the one who decides that there is a state of exception; a state of exception is that which the sovereign deems to be so.


The sovereign eliminates the state of exception to restore order, but the content of this order is historically contingent, because it is dependent on the sovereign’s will. All that matters to Schmitt is, as Slavoj Žižek puts it, “the decision for the formal principle of order as such.” Similarly, Schmitt says nothing, can say nothing, about what it is that makes a [principle] worth defending with one’s life, what substance and concrete content could or should compel one to make such a commitment to preserve this form.

Indeed, Schmitt says that “politics” is not the process of debate, making trade-offs, building consensus or letting the best ideas win.  Instead, the sovereign – through an act of will – makes a decision, and then the political system should carry it out, and the military effectuate it.

George W. Bush’s statement that he was the “decider” fits in nicely with Schmitt’s theories.

Moreover, Schmitt argued that war against one’s enemy is total – lacking any legal constraints – but the sovereign can use ever-shifting definitions of who the enemy is:

War is the existential negation of the enemy.




As with the state of exception, there are not rational criteria for distinguishing friend from enemy.  All conflict is situational conflict.

Similarly, Al Qaeda has been our “mortal enemy” since 9/11 … but now they are our close ally.

Indeed, Schmitt said that those who are like our “brothers”, who are as much the same as different from us, must be demonized so that we don’t feel any compassion for them.  They are either “with us or against us”, regardless of whether or not they are good people, or how close to us they may be.

The Georgetown University Law Center notes:

Schmitt denounces all “neutralizations and depoliticizations,” which for him are the hallmarks of liberalism. There are no neutralizations: if you are not with us you are against us and we will destroy you: “If a part of the population declares that it no longer recognizes enemies, then, depending on the circumstance, it joins their side and aids them.”

Indeed, Schmitt believed that demonization and war must be maintained for their own sake, or else a horrible world where peace and culture reined would be created:

Schmitt writes that if war became impossible, then “the distinction of friend and enemy would also cease” and what remained would be “neither politics nor state, but culture,  civilization,economics, morality, law, art, entertainment, and so on”….

A continuous “state of emergency” is required for the type of leadership advocated by Schmitt and Strauss.   In 2002, Slavoj Žižek pointed out how this continuous state of emergency works:

A notable precursor in this field of para-legal ‘biopolitics’, in which administrative measures are gradually replacing the rule of law, was Alfredo Stroessner’s regime in Paraguay in the 1960s and 1970s, which took the logic of the state of exception to an absurd, still unsurpassed extreme. Under Stroessner, Paraguay was – with regard to its Constitutional order – a ‘normal’ parliamentary democracy with all freedoms guaranteed; however, since, as Stroessner claimed, we were all living in a state of emergency because of the worldwide struggle between freedom and Communism, the full implementation of the Constitution was forever postponed and a permanent state of emergency obtained. This state of emergency was suspended every four years for one day only, election day, to legitimise the rule of Stroessner’s Colorado Party with a 90 per cent majority worthy of his Communist opponents. The paradox is that the state of emergency was the normal state, while ‘normal’ democratic freedom was the briefly enacted exception. This weird regime anticipated some clearly perceptible trends in our liberal-democratic societies in the aftermath of 11 September. Is today’s rhetoric not that of a global emergency in the fight against terrorism, legitimising more and more suspensions of legal and other rights? The ominous aspect of John Ashcroft’s recent claim that ‘terrorists use America’s freedom as a weapon against us’ carries the obvious implication that we should limit our freedom in order to defend ourselves. Such statements from top American officials, especially Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, together with the explosive display of ‘American patriotism’ after 11 September, create the climate for what amounts to a state of emergency, with the occasion it supplies for a potential suspension of rule of law, and the state’s assertion of its sovereignty without ‘excessive’ legal constraints. America is, after all, as President Bush said immediately after 11 September, in a state of war. The problem is that America is, precisely, not in a state of war, at least not in the conventional sense of the term (for the large majority, daily life goes on, and war remains the exclusive business of state agencies). With the distinction between a state of war and a state of peace thus effectively blurred, we are entering a time in which a state of peace can at the same time be a state of emergency.

Columbia Law School professor Scott Horton notes that Schmitt’s philosophy formed the basis of the famous torture memos:

Where exactly did [Department of Justice torture memo author John] Yoo come up with the analysis that led to the purported conclusions that the Executive was not restrained by the Geneva Conventions and similar international instruments in its conduct of the war in Iraq? Yoo’s public arguments and statements suggest the strong influence of one thinker: Carl Schmitt.




Perhaps the most significant German international law scholar of the era between the wars, Schmitt was obsessed with what he viewed as the inherent weakness of liberal democracy. He considered liberalism, particularly as manifested in the Weimar Constitution, to be inadequate to the task of protecting state and society menaced by the great evil of Communism. This led him to ridicule international humanitarian law in a tone and with words almost identical to those recently employed by Yoo and several of his colleagues.


Beyond this, Yoo’s prescription for solving the “dilemma” is also taken straight from the Schmittian playbook. According to Schmitt, the norms of international law respecting armed conflict reflect the romantic illusions of an age of chivalry. They are “unrealistic” as applied to modern ideological warfare against an enemy not constrained by notions of a nation-state, adopting terrorist methods and fighting with irregular formations that hardly equate to traditional armies. (Schmitt is, of course, concerned with the Soviet Union here; he appears prepared to accept that the Geneva and Hague rules would apply on the Western Front in dealing with countries such as Britain and the United States). For Schmitt, the key to successful prosecution of warfare against such a foe is demonization. The enemy must be seen as absolute. He must be stripped of all legal rights, of whatever nature. The Executive must be free to use whatever tools he can find to fight and vanquish this foe. And conversely, the power to prosecute the war must be vested without reservation in the Executive – in the words of Reich Ministerial Director Franz Schlegelberger (eerily echoed in a brief submission by Bush Administration Solicitor General Paul D. Clement), “in time of war, the Executive is constituted the sole leader, sole legislator, sole judge.” (I take the liberty of substituting Yoo’s word, Executive; for Schmitt or Schlegelberger, the word would, of course, have been Führer). In Schmitt’s classic formulation: “a total war calls for a total enemy.” This is not to say that in Schmitt’s view the enemy was somehow “morally evil or aesthetically unpleasing;” it sufficed that he was “the other, the outsider, something different and alien.” These thoughts are developed throughout Schmitt’s work, but particularly in Der Begriff des Politischen (1927), Frieden oder Pazifismus (1933) and Totaler Feind, totaler Krieg, totaler Staat (1937).




A careful review of the original materials shows that the following rationales were advanced for decisions not to apply or to restrict the application of the Geneva Conventions of 1929 and the Hague Convention of 1907 during the Second World War:

(1) Particularly on the Eastern Front, the conflict was a nonconventional sort of warfare being waged against a “barbaric” enemy which engaged in “terrorist” practices, and which itself did not observe the law of armed conflict.

(2) Individual combatants who engaged in “terrorist” practices, or who fought in military formations engaged in such practices, were not entitled to protections under international humanitarian law, and the adjudicatory provisions of the Geneva Conventions could therefore be avoided together with the substantive protections.

(3) The Geneva and Hague Conventions were “obsolete” and ill-suited to the sort of ideologically driven warfare in which the Nazis were engaged on the Eastern Front, though they might have limited application with respect to the Western Allies.

(4) Application of the Geneva Conventions was not in the enlightened self-interest of Germany because its enemies would not reciprocate such conduct by treating German prisoners in a humane fashion.

(5) Construction of international law should be driven in the first instance by a clear understanding of the national interest as determined by the executive. To this end niggling, hypertechnical interpretations of the Conventions that disregarded the plain text, international practice and even Germany’s prior practice in order to justify their nonapplication were entirely appropriate.

(6) In any event, the rules of international law were subordinated to the military interests of the German state and to the law as determined and stated by the German Führer.

The similarity between these rationalizations and those offered by John Yoo in his hitherto published Justice Department memoranda and books and articles is staggering.

In that light, take another look at this Nazi propaganda poster branding America as a “terrorist” because of its “culture”:

2qwq4d1 The Real Reason America Is Drifting Towards Fascism

Horton continues:

Carl Schmitt was … marked by a hatred of America that bordered on the irrational. He viewed American articulations of international law as fraught with hypocrisy, and saw in American practice in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries a menacing new form of imperialism (“this form of imperialism… presents a particular threat to a people forced in a defensive posture, like we Germans; it presents us with the greater threat of military occupation and economic exploitation” he writes in 1932 …. He saw in the peculiarly American notion of consensus-democracy an unsustainable foolishness, and in the Jeffersonian vision of small government with a maximum space for individual freedom a threat to his peculiar Catholic values.




Yoo’s views on international humanitarian law have absolutely nothing to do with the Founding Fathers. They are a cheap, discredited Middle European import from the twenties and thirties. Viewed this way, it becomes increasingly clear where they would lead us.

A Perennial Problem

While it might be tempting to blame the implementation of Schmitt and Strauss’ ideas on George W. Bush alone, this is not borne out by the historical record.

After all, Dick Cheney dreamed of giving the White House the powers of a monarch long decades before Bush became president. Likewise, indefinite detention, widespread spying on Americans, war throughout the Middle East, North Africa and Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, militarization of the police, and most of the other Bush-era abuses were launched or contemplated long before Bush was sworn in.

Indeed, the demonization of the enemy through dishonest means has been going on for thousands of years.

And these Strauss/Schmitt policies are being faithfully continued by president Obama – a supposed liberal.

O The Real Reason America Is Drifting Towards FascismPainting by William Banzai 7

For example:

  • A top legal expert says:

President Obama … says that he can kill [any American citizen without any charge and] on his own discretion. He can jail you indefinitely on his own discretion.

  • The government uses arbitrary, shifting definitions of enemies.  For example, while Al Qaeda has been our “mortal enemy” since 9/11 … now they are our close ally.   Yet the government might label anyone anywhere in the world terrorists if they do what we do … without our permission.  And government agencies under the Obama administration are labeling the most mundane, normal American behavior as potential terrorism

Indeed, there is overwhelming evidence that the U.S. is quickly drifting into tyranny.  See this, this, this, this, this, this, thisthis and this.

We would argue that the problem of tyranny goes beyond Obama, or the Neocons or Strauss or even Schmitt.

The problem is that 4% of the the population are psychopaths.  Unless people evolve to the point where they can spot the sociopaths in our midst, we will continue to be controlled by them, and to suffer at their hands.

Why We Are Drifting Towards Fascism (And What We Can Do About It)

Ultimately, we are drifting towards fascism because the majority of people aren’t standing up for ourselves.  We are letting the authoritarians have their way.

The good news is that the longest-running sociological study ever shows that only 25% of people are authoritarians.  And most people are not psychopaths.

The truth is that we have overwhelming numbers (and see this).  If we worked together we would win.

We need not be victims to the psychopaths who would want to control us.  We can evolve and empower ourselves.

At a deeper level, if we are disconnected from out own thoughts, our own feelings and our own soul, then we will look to others to tell us what to do.  We will follow the strong leader protecting us from imagined crises and made up enemies, as advocated by Schmitt and Strauss.

Only a re-connection with ourselves, our communities and our souls will act as antibodies to the insane ramblings of those who would manipulate us in order to gain total control over society and to carry out their infantile fantasy of destroying all enemies.

Schmitt, Strauss, Yoo and all of the other boneheads who have adopted a crazed disconnection from reality are worshippers of “thanatos” … the “drive towards death” diagnosed by Freud and others. Many of them write lustfully about the beauty of the noble death on the battlefield.

Sanity lies in reconnection with the beauty of the everyday: the beauty of nature, of lovers, of children, of community, of an intellectual insight, of a brilliant engineering breakthrough, of a life of service, of art, of quiet prayer and meditation.

We need to reconnect with the beauty of life … and the fact that deep down inside (despite different clothes, languages and customs) everyone’s blood is red, and everyone wants the same basic things: a little food, a little comfort, a little love, a little inspiration.

In the end, the brutal murderers and tyrants are children. Real men stand up to fascism.

Fear makes people stupid and cowardly … and willing to follow the authoritarian leader into the depths of hell.   On the other hand, real courage and strength comes from love for life and passion.

Insanity may be contagious.  But courage is contagious as well.  And as scared as we may be of the powers-that-be, they’re even more terrified of us.

Love and courage are the antitodes: they are what make us fully human, and able to defeat the psychosis of Schmitt, Strauss and the perennial crazies who would crush humanity.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
smacker's picture

Agree with most of this, particularly the influence he had on his American Neocon disciples (Wolfowitz et al).

Leo Strauss is often described as an "international socialist" (aka international statist) and his endless views about meddling in society and economics certainly confirm that he was not a believer in free market economics and believed in the big authoritarian state, as we see gathering momentum in America and elsewhere. Is there a single market that operates "freely" today? Nope. Every one is being manpulated by the central banks and their paymasters in government and banking.

I recall saying 15+ years ago that fascism will return but next time round they won't be wearing military fatigues and doing the goosestep. It'll be Armani suits and limos. That is roughly where we're at today. However it morphs, fascism is all about corporatism, police-state authoritarianism, corruption and ultimately: war.

blindman's picture

Renaissance 2.0 - Financial Empire - Full Length - Damon Vrabel
The truth has never been clearer. We're living in a voracious empire

based on people ownership, i.e. subjugating humans to increasing debt servitude to Wall Street and the global banking establishment. This debt system has morphed economics from a study in human progress to an engine of human enslavement. Spirituality ("sense of meaning") and psychology have been crushed as a result. Any sense of a meaningful life has almost been vanquished as the corporate system that serves Wall Street has replaced truth with fake media PR and replaced our communities with narcissistic hierarchy.

The good news is that this system is on its last leg. It will end. ..."
damon vrable

Open For Offers
by Steve Keen on October 19th, 2012 at 4:23 pm
with a lively comment section.
ladies and gentlemen, you have owners. they construct
governing systems, by law and or decree, as it suits
them, attention given to time and place and value to be
extracted and incorporated into their multi year plans
and ongoing infrastructures, assets and capital.
there are no hard and fast standards or rules other
than avoiding their own self destruction if possible.
they teach the doctrine of humanities essential worthlessness, see poverty and helplessness and
starving "natives", except as the individuals potential
to become a tool of their slave debt system. people
embrace this and create of themselves "narcissistic
projections" formed of coincidental gatherings and
digital or physical meme-oids.
they can call it capitalism or communism/socialism and turn either into fascism in a heart beat but notice the actual structure does not have to change nor does it change !
all the elements are there in one form or another ,
built into the structure of the money system, or the
payment system, or the "who owes what to whom"
with one decision or appointment or law the entire
edifice of government can be recast as something
else. people will then gather around it in support.
doesn't really matter what it is called or how it is
described so long as the payments and payouts continue.
so long as the ownership arrangement is not disturbed,
so long as the monopoly on the value of the distribution
system of the payouts is maintained.
the owners want to be paid first, after all they own
you and all of it through the institution of government
they created and stole fair and square, so pay them.
if you like to call it capitalism or communism or fascism
that is up to you, just make sure you pay them their
rent, or note, or tax, or fee or whatever it is called,
toll, premium, whatever. they don't care, just come up
with the legal tender and pay. they don't care if there
is no such instrument available for payment they will build a prison for you to work.
when you die they will charge you 10,000 dollars for
a good fire. people have owners and everyone is trying
to join them in their delusional pot by means of
self created narcissistic projection. but, it doesn't
work , the projections do not comport with the truth/s
that sustain life, so ,
something has to change

Panskeptic's picture

The article is interesting, but contorted and incomplete. The real reason we are drifting towards fascism is the Revolt of the Rich.

There is no ethnic or imported component to this, it is homegrown American One Percenters who are attempting to hijack the political process for their own purposes. Mitt Romney's name is conspicuously absent from the article, yet he would repeal none of the abuses attributed here to Obama.

The rich have always written the rules in this country, but now we are facing a radical attempt to reshuffle the cards and return to a 19th Century form of primitive capitalism, accompanied by extreme income inequality and newly-frozen social immobility. Who your parents were now determines your lot in life far more so here than in Western Europe.

If we mention Adelson, we must mention the Koch Brothers as well. If we mention Barack Obama, we must mention the unapologetic errand boy for the super-rich, Mitt Romney. I don't care who Romney's advisors are, he's a big boy and can take responsibility for his own words and deeds.'s picture

Great point. Now that the economy is in crisis and we have a large portion of populace which is unedicated, bitter and busy with culture wars, the rich will finish their coup de gras.

The first step was propping up bankrupt banking system by taxpayer bailouts and unending Fed QE subsidy.

Then came the "down with the government" Tealiban financed by Kochsuckers

Next step is to elect unapologetically fascist (private industry = government) overlord Romney, start another war to keep military occupied and well fed.


roadhazard's picture

Neocons = assholes. It's a natural transition to Fascism that does not need a teacher.

geno-econ's picture

Revealing interview of Sands President who  reports to Adelaon ,chairman of Sands Las Vegas and large political contributor. He claimed" it is Fear that prevents the consumer from spending as he should". In other words he wants the consumer to spend, spend ,spend including on Gambling at his casinos so that some of those profits can be directed to the interests of certain foriegn nations and NeoCon intersts. He also stated that the chairman of Sands firmly  believes in America and Israel.  Who runs the interests of America?? Another example of brainwashing which should be challenged in the way political influence is exercised

midtowng's picture

As always, an excellent essay.

El Diablo Rojo's picture

It was a great read this morning.  Thank you GW.

AnAnonymous's picture

The question is:will it be REAL fascism? Since it is all about being real or not.

AnAnonymous's picture

These are disturbing images, because we as Americans know that they falsely depict who we are.


And that is why they are allowed to be.

When images picture 'americans' as they are,with a subversive potential, 'americans' destroy them.

See, for example, the US congress voting for the destruction of the torture pics because preserving the pics would give 'american' torturers a bad name.

Widowmaker's picture

"These are disturbing images, because we as Americans know that they falsely depict who we are."

These are exactly who the USA was.  Now, the nation is FAR WORSE, what rock have you been hiding under? If the mighty USA is so good, why are things getting so much "better?" (as defined by the bureaus of bullshit and horseshit and NYC SS police).

The USA is a bunch of lawless adolescent war mongers in the name of monetary oppression (faggots call it capitalism but that is far from the TBTF monetary self-interest the USA has become).  Pull your head out of your incorporated ass.

The reason Fascism is alive and growing is nothing but DENIAL!  Denial that the USA is dripping with Fascism already, as in right this moment.  

Fascism IS our money, it IS our laws.  


(spare me the retort on a Fuck-a-Kardashame commercial break)

northerngirl's picture

What then do we do to change the path in which we are walking?  Most Americans are more happy than not to live in a country in which one is not required to think too much about anything.  The mind is a terrible thing to waste and even more dangerous than Fascism is the great waste land of rotting minds that are roaming this country.  Again, what do we do?

Widowmaker's picture

As identified, nowhere is Fascism entrenched more than USA  money and crony-government (TODAY!).  

The only reason the fiat dollar exists is taxation without representation - think 85% opposition to TARP, AND you lose your fucking house -obvious-.

Minimize using the dollar for commerce, and toss every single encumbant out of office from local to national.  You want politicians in office with guts to slash and burn the size of Fed Gov Inc. and ceade that power back to the States.  If you aren't ready to end the entire department of education (for example) you are the problem.

If you are not educating family and friends to cease use of the electronic dollar (credit) and close all business with TBTF you are in the way.

Lastly, you need to get off your ass and fight back.  When some faggot is worshiping money at a social event shut them the fuck down.  Change the conversation to the misery their bullshit "success" is based on.  You won't make friends, but then again resistance will illuminate who the real "friends" are.

It will surprise you how "not-alone" you will find yourself.'s picture

Fascists would kreep to power on Federal or State level. There is no difference.

Widowmaker's picture

Indeed, but that power would be contained/dissipated wouldn't it. 

It ain't going away, but you can't fight it head on.  Starvation, however, can defeat a city of countless.

The mechanism of fascist oppression is "their" wealth, denominated and quantified in "their" own [fraud] currency.



Tommy Gunner's picture

What is this fucking horseshit?????

America IS the evil empire - it is the demon from hell - it is the aggressor that pillages other countries!!!

No other country has murdered so many people in history - starting with the genocide of native americans > vietnam > and the lie that is iraq.


Any demonization of America is NOT propaganda - it is TRUTH.  America is a monstrosity from hell

Radical Marijuana's picture

Americans, as controlled by the International Banksters, were just the "best" at doing what everyone else was doing too! That is why that system was able to prevail, and then runaway towards its own mad self-destruction. You promote false fundamental dichotomies in your comment. What you are saying is objectively true, but then, America was selected to be the triumph of Neolithic civilization spreading out to be able to conquer the rest of the world. Its systems of lies, backed by violence, became the "best" of those, and therefore, was able to overwhelm all others, through genocide or assimilation. It is symbolically appropriate, that Neolithic civilization has now returned to where it started, in the Middle East, to transform itself, in one way or another. For Neolithic civilization to spread out all around the world, to then return to where it started, is not too surprising. That spiral will lap itself, and/or either go on to another level of evolution, a Translithic level of civilization and/or destroy itself, or rather some hyper-complicated mixture of both!

Peter Pan's picture

The middle class was once defined not just by its income but also by its standing and involvement in the community whereas today vast swathes of the middle class succumbed to consumerism and investment strategies of the worst kind. Too many have not only lost their income and assets but also their intellectual and moral integrity.

Widowmaker's picture

Lawless money and the perverted political corporation obliterated your community.

Rest assured it will decimate everyone elses too.

Vlad Tepid's picture

This is an important article and I slaute you George for introducing me to the perfidious influence of Carl Schmitt.

lolmao500's picture

Women voting.

They think the government is our big mommy and must control everyone's behavior all the time. They are mostly all control freaks.

GMadScientist's picture

Well if Republicans had known in the 20s that women would insist on controlling their own bodies, they wouldn't have even bothered. Now they're going to have to go to all this extra effort to re-disenfranchise them.

Besides, shouldn't you be telling someone whether or not they're allowed to have birth control, or vote, or work in this country; you know, since you're not "a control freak"?



El Diablo Rojo's picture

Wait...... We gave women the right to vote? 

Dr. Sandi's picture

Nah. We took it when you weren't looking. Along with your wallet.


Dr. Sandi's picture

Great pickup line. Try it at a bar when you're old enough.

Cathartes Aura's picture

best git yerself a mess o' guns & head for the beauty pahlor son, bag somma dem bitches that voted in all these gubbermints and ruined yer fine cunt-tree. . .

Cultural Capital's picture

Ya'll want a real education, marinate on this here book: 

State of Exception by Giorgio Agamben (you can thank me l8r)  ;)

GMadScientist's picture

Wouldn't one marinate "in"? Or did you mean 'micturate'?

williambanzai7's picture

Yes, that is the essential companion reading to Schmidt. It's on

Svendblaaskaeg's picture

First picture, language is in Danish:

"Culture - terrorist"

(man holding a sign) "USA will save European culture from destruction" - "Who gave them permission?" (to do that)


are we there yet's picture

Too many words.
Big centralized government is bad.
If Thomas Jefferson woke up he'd have a cow.

GMadScientist's picture

I know he slept around, but that's just freaky deaky.

Dr. Sandi's picture

I'll have one too. Extra marbling and plenty of gravy, please.

seataka's picture

Courage, like a muscle, gets stronger each time you use it.

pfairley's picture

Why does zerohedge publish so much of this stuff?

pfairley's picture

Why does zerohedge publish so much of this stuff?

Monk's picture

U.S. politics and economics are based on accomodation. In this case, the government, corporations, and households are dependent on a propped-up petrodollar to maintain business as usual. That is why government was providing tax cuts and government services to get the vote, corporations easy credit in exchange for deregulation and thus more profits, and households easy credit and tax cuts to prop up a middle class lifestyle in exchange for the vote.


Mark Noonan's picture

I think you're stretching it well beyond the breaking point when you claim that Schmitt - and advocate of the Hitlerite regime - was a major influence on Strauss - a German Jew who would have been done to death by that same regime. 

Fascism once upon a time meant something - from its precursors seen in the "Black Hundreds" of late Imperial Russia to the real thing developed by Mussolini, the fascist ideal was an attempt to find a way out of the opposed falsehoods of both Capitalism and Marxism.  Unfortunately, the fascists could think of nothing better than a bizarre amalgamation of the two - as complete Capitalism and complete Marxism are anti-human and heretical, all fascism did was to double down on the folly.  In today's world, however, facism has become mostly meaningless - not quite as meaningless as "progressive" has become (because nothing can be as meaningless as something which was perfectly meaningless from the get-go) but still pretty much emptied of content.  Anyone is free to put whatever they want under the "fascist" label and then go about warning people against it.  I, myself, use it - though I think I'm on firmer ground when I discuss "liberal-fascism" because there is certainly a gigantic strain of authortarianism coupled with a revolt against traditional values in modern liberalism (and fascism was nothing if not a revolt against what was before - or, more accurately, what fascists - as well as Marxists - thought had come before).

It must be remembered that all the "isms" cropped up, in succession, after the final collapse of the "old regime" in Europe - the Catholic unity which prevailed from the 5th to the 15th centuries.  They were all attempts, one after another, to find a replacement for that Catholic unity.  Their ultimate problem was that they were fundamentally unmoored from truth (in fact, had to use as a starting point some sort of denial of a fundamental truth) and thus could never develope a workable alternative.  They were all just a series of "I've got it!" proclamations - all of them fundamentally flawed and all of them doomed to ultimate failure (Capitalism failing last because it at least allowed a measure of prosperity to build up - for a time, until the whole system was taken over by usury, fake money and entrenched politico-economic interests).

What is creeping up on America isn't fascism - no more than it is communism.  It is an "ism" of whatever name you wish to give it:  a heretical denial of truth, just with different emphasis depending on which particular part of the "ism" one likes the best.  You will fail to understand our true peril until you understand this:  to one degree or another, all of the various types of threats deny certain, self-evident truths.  One may deny free will, another may deny the creator, yet another may deny an absolute definition of truth.  The only way to fight against it - whether you want to call it fascism or communism or man-on-the-moonism - is to re-assert the truths being denied.  Demand that it be firmly enshrined in law and custom that our will is free, that we are created and that there is absolute Truth and all will come out well for you - you will win the fight.  Do it any other way and the best you'll do is delay destruction.

AnAnonymous's picture

Ummm,let'see: maybe that is 'americanism' that -ism name that is looked for.

Radical Marijuana's picture

ALL the "isms" were false fronts. What exists is runaway PLUTOCRACY, which uses every possible "ism" to advance its agenda. THE FACTS ARE A SMALL MINORITY USING EVERY POSSIBLE FRAUD TO ROB MORE FROM EVERYONE ELSE.

ALL the political parties are factions of the PRIVATE PROPERTY PARTY, which is a system of huge lies, backed up by lots of violence, in a social pyramid system that has been growing since Neolithic civilization began. The commonwealth is being carved up into pieces, that various people stake a claim on.  All of the "isms" became rationalizations and justifications for what actually has been happening, which is the astronomically sized growth of a global social pyramid system. The original methods of organizing human society in the form of Neolithic civilization have spread out and conquered the whole world, with their systems of organized lies, operating organized robbery.  All "isms" are either false fronts to justify that, or impossible ideals which backfire while pretending to oppose that. In the end, human reality is ALWAYS organized systems of lies, operating organized robbery. The PROBLEM is that those who benefit the most from doing that were also the best at lying about it, and wiping out any effective opposition to them doing that, while allowing only fake opposition "isms" within that overall system. The final result has been the RUNAWAY PLUTOCRACY, of "ownership" based on lies, backed by violence, operating fraud and robbery, that is NOT effectively counterbalanced through a better human ecology.

The only "isms" that could be genuine would be based on the facts that there IS, and MUST BE, some system of organized lies, operating organized robbery, and which endeavoured to maintain a better dynamic equilibrium of those. All the other "isms" were being operated by professional liars, and immaculate hypocrites, to conceal what they were doing, or were tolerated as controlled opposition which would not effectively counterbalance what was actually happening. Therefore, the RUNAWAY PLUTOCRACY, as fewer and fewer people, at the top of a steeper and steeper social pyramid system, with more and more at the bottom, as the established systems of lies, backed by violence, carry through their frauds and robberies, to create the social stories which deliver "ownership" of more and more of a privatized planet.

The radical truth is NOT "that there is absolute Truth." The "ultimate Truth" is ALWAYS paradoxical, namely that everything that human beings "know" is necessarily a relative lie, operating a relative robbery.  Therefore, "the best" we will do "is delay destruction."  The actual way forward is to muddle through evolving an ecology of the the different systems of organized lies, operating organized robberies. The PROBLEM is that the fundamental basis of resolving conflicts has been militarism, which was based on the triumph of those who were the best at being dishonest. That has evolved to make political economy become the triumph of frauds: "the whole system was taken over by usury, fake money and entrenched politico-economic interests."

My point of view is that BOTH this George Washington article, as well as this comment by Mark Noonan, demonstrated what I call classic reactionary revolution. It blames those who adapt to the realities of militarism, and the money system that depends upon that militarism, for creating the chronic political problems, which otherwise would not exist, but for the evil choices of those who operated that combined murder/money system. 

What I always assert is that the chronic political problems are inherent in the nature of life. The chronic political problems are not merely innate in human beings, they are ubiquitous throughout all possible life forms, that share the basic definition of being alive, which is that they can reproduce, and their reproductions can reproduce, at potentially exponential rates, and that, as soon as one defines those reproducing units as separate, or SUBTRACTED, from their environment, then they must engage in ROBBERY, across their defined boundaries, in order to keep on living, and as they reproduce more, then they must rob even more.

All human beings operate as gangs of robbers in their environment. All living things, as soon as we perceive and define them as such, are necessarily living in the same way. They are fires that can make more fires, and which need more fuel to keep burning. Those are the inherent and innate characteristics of LIFE, and those generate chronic political problems which are resolved by the evolution of ecologies.

Our human ecology and political economy were the expedient evolutions, along their own paths of least resistance, of solutions to chronic political problems. Blaming the dominating elites, at the top of the social pyramid systems, for the existence of those problems is profoundly wrong! The elites merely evolved the most expedient set of solutions, which benefited them, to enable them to continue.

I find it to be a perpetual political problem that people adopt a silly, and superficial view, based on false fundamental dichotomies, that our problems are due to the elites, and that without those elites, then those problems would not exist!  I think that is way too shallow a way, especially since all the rest of our sciences and technologies have made quantum leaps of progress, through profound paradigm shits, which have tended towards understanding unitary mechanisms. Therefore, I always recommend that we have to have better militarism, and better money systems, and what I mean by that is the OPPOSITE of what those who promote impossible ideals usually mean. That is, I assert that it is impossible for there to be no murder system. All "solutions" based on stopping social robbery always backfire, and only make the runaway robberies get more unbalanced. The genuine solutions are to do what the elites do BETTER.

There should be better system of death controls, not none. There is never going to be any "absolute Truth" ... only, perhaps, a better dynamic equilibrium between different systems of lies. The only "absolute Truth" has to be perfectly paradoxical! Mathematical physics has already come to better terms with that epestimolgical problem. However, political science is totally dominated by the biggest bullies' bullshit social stories that do their best to deny that ... Thus, in my opinion, works like this article by George Washington, and  this comment by Mark Noonan, are just more of the same old Bizarro Mirror World bullshit, from reactionary revolutionaries, who basically still adopt the false fundamental dichotomies and impossible ideals of the elites, except try to apply them in reverse, which always fails to function, but rather backfires badly, again and again.

"The Real Reason America Is Drifting Towards Fascism" is that almost all the opposition is controlled, and therefore, supports the same old-fashioned big bullies' bullshit views, except it takes up the opposite pole. Therefore, such "opposition" becomes doubly mistaken!


Almost all the opposition to the runaway fascist plutocracy, inverted totalitarianism, in the USA gets everything BACKWARDS. It may reveal some of the realities regarding the established lies, and robberies, BUT then asserts there should be "Truth" and an "end" to the robbery instead. That is profoundly mistaken and backwards, on level, after level, after level ... The paradigm shifts that we should go through in our political science are radical, on level, after level, after level, and far, far, far more radical in their ways of thinking about these things than anything presented in the mainstream, or in the fringe, or in the fringe of the fringe, of the opposition! ... Indeed, there can keep on being more and more resolution of those phenomena, as one travels through the infinite tunnels of deceits.

The most important problems we face are due to progress in science and technology making human beings become billions of times more powerful, while our social system and political science is still almost totally old-fashioned religions and ideologies. Therefore, coming to terms with things like weapons of mass destruction, that are trillions of times more powerful, is extremely problematic!!! There is NOTHING comparable to the revolutionary paradigm shifts in other sciences within political science. Instead, there is only more reactionary bullshit, like this article, and this comment upon that article, which continue to get everything BACKWARDS, because they still want to believe in the same impossible ideals that the biggest bullies' have always been promoting! For those bullies, that makes sense! They benefit from impossible ideals always making the opposite actually happen in the real world. The pyramidion people benefit from being the best professional liars and immaculate hypocrites, up holding their false fundamental dichotomies.

However, it is because the overwhelming majority of the controlled opposition continues to do the same things, that the actual world systems continue to be runaway Neolithic civilization, with astronomically amplified fraud and robbery, threatening to destroy itself from too much "success." This article and this comment upon it, typify the BACKWARDS, and SHALLOW ways that the controlled opposition blames the elites for the problems, and does not actually provide any better solutions, because that controlled opposition adheres to the same old basic ways of thinking about those problems that those elites have been advancing for thousands of years!

Oh well, we are committed now to going through the process of paradigms shifts in things like physics and biology FORCING political science to adapt to those new realities ... which must be done by more destruction, and more creation, than any time before in human history, by several orders of magnitude!  It is not for nothing that the USA is being destroyed. It is because too many Americans are too attached to their own bullshit, and propose solutions to their problems which continue to be inside of that context of the same old bullshit!

There are chronic political problems, which always existed, and will exist, as long as any human beings survive, or as long as any other intelligent life forms exist, that are aware of their own existence.  Resolving those problems requires radical paradigm shifts in the ways that we think about those problems, which are more consistent with the sciences that have amplified those problems many orders of magnitude to more astronomical sizes. Since the vast majority of Americans, and indeed, practically the entire global civilization, adamantly refuse to do that, it can only happen through them being forced to do so, after their established systems drive themselves through to insanity, and the survivors of that madness are forced to think in new ways, because of those events.

My kind of political science fiction is an attempt to catalyze those processes. However, I expect that to not work in any significant way, in the foreseeable future, and after the MAD situation that exists now plays through, I have no way of predicting whatever might still exist on the other side of those transformations. Things like understanding atomic energy, and the DNA code, etc., are brand new. They have not been around as long as people alive now have been. No wonder all of the ways that are proposed to cope with that are ridiculously nostalgic and BACKWARDS! It is wildly off the scale of anything that can be imagined how, or even IF, human beings will adapt their systems to being pumped up billions, then trillions, then quadrillions of times, by advancing science and technologies. That is especially the case because almost everyone that I know about who talks about that are either mainstream morons, working for the continuation of the established elites, or reactionary revolutionaries, who rely upon the same way of thinking as the elites do, except they try to apply that in reverse.

Until our basic political science is made more consistent with other sciences, then one must expect our human ecology and political economy to be growing more and more MAD!  I like to day dream about social psychiatry in that context, but, of course, that is merely more vainglorious political science fiction at the present time.

I expect more excellent analysis of our social situation, followed by more bullshit solutions being offered, for as far in the future as I can imagine, within my life time. The elites will continue with their runaway agenda, while their controlled opposition will oppose them through ineffective ways. Therefore, America, and the whole world, will not merely drift towards more fascist plutocracy, but will pick up speed and run off that cliff as fast as it can, and, while falling, will probably keep on saying "so far, so good."  We are deep into Mutual Assured Destruction, and far, far, far away from paradigm shifting our militarism, and money system! We are already way too far gone into MADness, and therefore, it is almost impossible to propose better political science fiction, regarding what may be on the other side of those events!

Mark Noonan's picture

Private property is an absolute necessity for a truly free and rational society - just don't make the mistake that someone owning a million acres is actually exercising a right to private property. It would be like defining marriage as a man having one million wives.  But there must be property that is private and it must be able to generate wealth for the individual and the family without let or hindrance from others.  If you don't have that, then you will not be free.

Radical Marijuana's picture

Private property does not exist outside of some system of public violence.

I am not against the basic idea of private property, as long as it is not mistakenly taken to be some sacred thing. Private property is simply our culture's way of bundling up its systems of organized lies, operating organized robbery, into something that can be labelled ... Then tons of bullshit was piled on top of that.

There is no ultimate private property, just more relative systems of lies, backed by violence. Nobody owns anything, except that they stake a claim and back that up with violence. States evolved as complicated systems of doing that.  Neolithic civilization organized that into a vast social pryamid. However, staking claims to resources is as old as any organisms with enough internalized model of their world to identify those resources, that their lives depended upon. "Property claims" are found throughout nature as pecking orders. Human beings, with their bigger brains, made bigger models of their world, and are relatively more self-aware of doing that. Therefore, we elaborated more complicated ways of staking claims, and fight each other, (including within that, organizing bigger groups, that would cooperate, to fight other groups more effectively.)

Then, the history of that triumphant militarism drove the money system. Thereby, more and more claims were staked, and backed up with more and more violence. The problem, as I said in my earlier comment, is that has become a runaway system: global electronic fiat money frauds, backed up with atomic weapons, claiming more and more, for fewer and fewer people, as the owners.

Ownership is nothing more than a system of making claims, which only have meaning if they can be backed up. States evolved, with sovereigns, as the greatest gangs of of robbers, with a symbolic figurehead of that system. The rule of law, therefore, became mostly about property relationships. Many other cultures developed their concepts of "property" through kinship, with marriages being extremely important aspects of that! LIKE YOU WROTE, IT BECOMES INSANE WHEN ONE MAN HAS A MILLION WIVES, WHILE ALL THE OTHERS HAVE NONE! As well, a major aspect of culture were the rules about where the property claims would go, after the death of a previous owner of those claims.

The essential paradox is that the state, and the rule of law, has no higher guardian than some natural selection. Thus, when people pay for the state apparatus to be their means of violence to back up their personal claims to private property, eventually that state system morphs into a monster that becomes the main threat to those people's property. NOBODY GUARDS THE GUARDIANS! The worst guardians of state power take control of that, as illustrated in the philosophical history shown by this article. Those who are the best at taking over control of the powers of the state apparatus were those who were the best organized gangs of criminals, which thereby transform the state apparatus from being the protector of the people, to becoming the worst enemy of most of the people. The system of artificial selection that we call "government" transforms from within into a monster, by evolving its original nature, in a runaway fashion. Where is the correcting power to fix that, other than for it to destroy itself? That is the only thing beyond the systems of artificial selection which identify "property."  As your ealier comment said, what HAS happened is that the power of the rule of law, and the power of "We the People" has been taken over, so that that power to rob has delivered more and more of the ownership of the private property to fewer and fewer people. The MAIN way that has happened in American history was the usury of the privatized fiat money, made out of nothing as debts, controlled by a tiny elite, against the interests of the vast majority.

When the ownership of private property is widely distributed, then the rule of law, and therefore, the police and courts, etc., work for more of the people. However, as the ownership of private property becomes more and more concentrated, then the police, and the courts, etc., more and more are working for those few owners. That concentration of ownership and control, working through the powers of government, IS "fascism."  THAT is the primary reason why American is heading towards a worse and worse fascist police state, serving a fascist plutocracy.

Private property ONLY serves "freedom" when it is widely distributed, and each individual thereby has more ability to influence their own environment. I am not against that concept. What I am against is regarding what "property" is in ridiculous reified ways! That enables the runaway madness of triumphant frauds, stealing almost all of that, from future generations! Our fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting system cuts the world up into pieces, in ways that they then can not survive being so isolated. The problem of privatizing the oceans, or privatizing the atmosphere, are OBVIOUS!

My view is to recognize that private property is the local systems of lies, backed by violence, which are innate and inherent to how all animials must live their lives, in one way or another, and especially how self-conscious human individuals are living their lives. Furthermore, as I wrote in my earlier comment, since living things are fires that can start more fires, and those need more fuel, clearly putting fires out, i.e., death control, is central to managing the ecological problems created by the original existence of the ability of fires to reproduce themselves, and to therefore need more fuel. Total bullshit about those realities is WHY the established systems have been able to runaway, and more and more destroy the freedom that private property was supposed to enshrine and protect for individuals to be able to enjoy, in balance with other individuals. Since our murder system evolved via militarisms, whose success was based on the maximum deceits, our money system has become based on the maximum frauds. We operate totally impossible ideals, that always backfire, regarding the death controls, and therefore too, regarding the debt controls. We are within a system that talks about always having more and more fires, always being fed by more and more fuel. The insanity of that is banished from rational recognizition, due the established elites enjoying their historical position from being able to lie the best about what they were actually doing! I continue to think that you are still doing the same thing, with your magical attitude towards the concepts of "property" and "freedom." Your concept of private property is like entering a building through the attic, while ignoring the basement foundations. You basically have it BACKWARDS. IF you want what you want to WORK, you should think about private property in very different ways! Otherwise, the real freedoms of the individual Americans will continue to be actively destroyed worse and worse, by them still believing in the same old bullshit ideals!

The "drift" towards American fascism, which has more become a runaway rush these days, can not be ameliorated as long as bullshit ideals about private property are maintained. Those are based on false fundamental dichotomies, and those will continue to cause their opposite to be what continues to happen more and more. The deeper problem for our times is that it is no longer possible for planet Earth to support exponentially more people, doing exponentially more things. HOW that stops, and when, are the primary questions within the forseeable future. That problem has become symbolized by a social system based on more and more debts, in a debt slavery system, which has grown to its numberical size of debt insanity. Unless the basics of that reality are more deeply appreciated, then those problems can not be resolved in better ways. No old-fashioned ideas about owning stuff can do that!

Mark Noonan's picture

Transport you and I to a deserted island and we'll very quickly have private property - there will be things which are yours and things which are mine.  That you and I would be far better off cooperating with each other to build shelter, gather food and whatnot doesn't change the fact that nothing would work if I could just haul of an grab something of yours without so much as a "by your leave".  If you made the fishing pole and caught the fish then it is your fish - you may choose to share it with me, but you also may choose to "sell" me part of it for half of the cocounut I obtained by making myself a ladder and climbing the tree.  There is no need or even implication of violence in this - unless, that is, you manage to obtain all the food and all of the tools to obtain food and then refused me any of it unless I became your servant (and at that point - once you have, in effect, all of the property under your control - we have left the realm of private property and come to oligarchy...and then its time for me to make a club and start a revolution).

Private property is an absolute necessity - we each of us must be able to obtain by our own efforts property and we must be able to transmit it unhindered to our choosen heirs.  If we don't have that, then we can't be free.  Ever.


Radical Marijuana's picture

The proverbial deserted island shiboleth always depends on THAT island, (THAT ENVIRONMENT)  It depends on the chances of being rescued. If the chances of being rescued are high, then that is the most important thing, because we are still living inside of a much BIGGER ENVIRONMENT, and being rescued by that is the most important thing.

Your rhetorical question only makes sense if we boil it down. If there are enough natural resources on the island for both of us to survive, for the rest of our lives, (and we will never have any children), then we may evolve an interpersonal culture to coexist, or even cooperate. Without environmental limits to force us, then the living could be easy. However, that pleasant situation does not require competition, and does not need to drive the circumstances behind private property.

If there were not enough natural resources on that island for both of us to survive, then we would both stake a claim over one or more of those scarce resources. We would have to fight to survive, and one of us would kill the other one. The survivor would have their claim to the property backed up by murder. The one who was killed would have their claim to that property destroyed.

If things were bad enough, then one of us might turn into a cannabil, and kill and eat the other one, which would be the most extreme manifestation of the the most extreme pressures of the environment driving our behavior.

As long as there can be no reproduction of more people on that island, then the main driving force of culture, in the form of human ecology, does not exist. IF there is any growing population on a finite island, then there are enormous problems! When the island is too small, and population overshoots, then the culture can become insane, and everyone can die. If the island is bigger, then some may survive and adapt to their circumstances by developing some culture that limits the size of their population. Some kind of "private property" may evolve (although they do not have to call it that.)

The way that you set up your story begged the question. or provided a circular answer.

The most telling thing that you said was that if the other claims everything, so that you can no longer survive, "then its time for me to make a club and start a revolution."

What I was asserting in my previous comments what that ALWAYS was happened in history, over and over and over again! The society that we live in now is the globalization of the Neolithic civilization that developed the best organized gangs of people with clubs, killing each other, in order to assert their claims to natural resources, as their private property.

When you say "each of us must be able to obtain by our own efforts property and we must be able to transmit it unhindered to our choosen heirs" in order to be "free," I would generalize that. You are using the word "free" as a poetic way to express the ability to take natural resources and transform them, in order to survive. In general the Western world, and especially Americans, LOVE that poetry about "freedom." What they actually mean is their ability to continue to assert claims over resources, and back that up with violence.  They just have an elaborate system of the biggest bullies' bullshit social stories surrounding those realities.

The whole "freedom and democracy" thing is about a gang of people justifying their power to rob, in the sense that natural resources were always there, and any other group could also take them, and transform them, but one group claims those resources, and backs those claims up with force.

Like I said, I am not against the idea of "private property," and I do not dispute that there must be some functions like that in order to be "free" What I am saying is that you express those fundamental facts through a kind of floating magical language, that can not be connected to basic physics and biology.

Those kinds of transcendental poetry, about sacred property rights and freedom, are the ways that especially Americans, as those who were the best at doing that, within the relatively recent past, talk about their political predicament, through the language developed by their biggest bullies to stake their claims, and back them up with violence.

"Private property" and "freedom" are a coded language about staking claims to parts of the environment, and backing those claims up with violence, in order to be able to survive.  Americans in general, (and especially the Zionists that have effectively captured control over American politics, and dominate American policies) are simply the most extreme manifestation of Neolithic civilization, driving its own ultimate paradox of final failure from too much "success!"

All of the world's major conflicts are different factions of the Neolithic civilization system, which are different factions of the Private Property Party, fighting each other, although they are all survivors of the selection processes of history that made them that way.

Your deserted island metaphor is more and more about the planet Earth as a whole, because the Earth is an island in space. Planet Earth is a space ship, and we are all living inside off that spaceship.

Different groups of us have been developing our abilities to stake claims to different parts of the planet Earth, and developed our abilities to back those claims up with violence.

What I have been saying in my previous comments is that the nature of all life drives us to have conflicts. The elites were merely the ones that adapted to fulfil the roles of the top carnivore functions in the human ecology and political economy. They have taken the basic reality of "private property" to stake claims and enforce them, the furthest, and are planning on driving that far further!

They have explained their methods of survival using language like "freedom" and concealed their use of force behind language like "democracy." As science and technology enables us to do those things orders of magnitude more than ever before, then the threats from our mistakes, and the distortions due to our bullshit, become amplified as well.

We need more truth to be able to adapt better. That is extremely problematic because those who were the most successful in the past tended to be the best at lying to others, and to themselves. The elites developed the best biggest bullies' bullshit, and teach that way of thinking and talking to everyone else, and enforce that bullshit through rewards and punishments.

Thus, our entire Neolithic civilization has become more and more insane. ... And that is probably what would most likely happen IF we were stranded on a desert island, and not rescued.  Everything we learned in a different environment would become useless, and adapting to a completely different environment would more likely result in driving us to become insane, and self-destructive, rather than driving us through to a new sanity, adapted to our new reality.

Right now, space ship Earth is in a state of mad mutiny, with MAD military strategies backing up a MAD monetary system. We are NOT adapting sanely to pumping up Neolithic civilization with science and technology that are many orders of magnitude more powerful than anything that existed before in history. Instead, our "leaders" have become insane, and the people they "lead" are even more insane.

IF we were stranded on a desert island, we would have to adapt, if we were going to survive. However, we could also, and more probably would, go insane, and not survive.

The future, at the present time, looks like human beings are going to become much more psychotic and self-destructive, than we can imagine now. The ONLY alternatives are to adapt to science and technology becoming orders of magnitude more powerful, by changing our human ecology, and all of its culture, by paradigm shifts, and transformations which also span as many orders of magnitude.

Bullshit about "private property" and "freedom" has to be treated like ore to be smelted down, and recycled and recast. What we called "capitalism" has to be composted. We need to transform how we staked claims and backed those up with force.

However, personally, I expect that we will mostly destroy each other through our Mutual Assured Destruction MADness, rather than adapt more sanely first, ... until after that insane destruction mostly happens, and then the survivors finally may adapt afterwards.

I find it practically impossible to have a rational discussion with our "leaders" and even less possible to have a debate with their followers.

As this article above repeated, "truth is the first casualty of war" and "all wars are based on propaganda."  Basically, EVERYTHING human beings do is based on organized lies, operating organized robbery. Those who were the best at doing that are our "leaders" while those who were the most tricked by that are their followers. Given those social realities, our real political situation is an out-of-control runaway psychotic insanity.

I have spent most of my time for decades attempting to understand that, and do something about it, only to mostly demonstrate, over and over again, that everything I did in that respect was a waste of time, like writing this is almost certainly a waste of time.

Neolithic civilization IS based on huge lies, backed up with lots of violence, which has been astronomically amplified, but STILL it does NOT want to understand itself, but only wants to continue to be able to back up bigger lies with more violence. Since, like this article above stated, our society is dominated by the people who most believe in keeping the established systems going by telling bigger lies, and thereby tricking more people, our real future is going to be the result of being controlled by huge lies, which will become worse and worse INSANITY!

American culture was always triumphant Neolithic civilization governed by a Private Property Party. Its magical attitudes towards those things have become dangerously detached from reality. The runaway triumph of lies and propaganda is almost in complete control of what American society is doing at home, and all around the world.

GMadScientist's picture

The problem is not the model, but rather mistaking same for reality.

Ownership need not lead to violence any more than a system for checking out library books does; it's the ratio between haves and have nots that makes the difference.


Radical Marijuana's picture

Yeah, I agree. That is the spiritual way out of the trap of "reality" where we take too much for granted the stories we tell. The original subtraction of parts from the whole is what defines the boundaries, across which the robbery takes place. If we do not define parts to be separate from the whole, then there is no parts which eat other parts, there is only the continuous flow of energy through transformations. However, the stories that human beings tell themselves are profoundly old! They go back before human beings evolved, to the earliest ability of beings to build mental models of their world, and themselves. Spiritual enlightenment may approach understanding what was always true, namely, the parts were never separated from the Whole. When we approach that, then the Whole just flows through. Therefore, it is a serious philosophical mistake to take our finite story for the infinite absolute Truth. BUT, obviously, we take very deeply for granted that we have needs for air, water and food, and shelter space, and so forth. We evolved precisely because we survived by caring about that. Cultures evolved by caring about those things collectively. 

Any rate of exponential growth, certainly within a few thousand years, becomes absolutely impossible to continue. Therefore, any society that stays in the same place for several thousands years MUST evolve an ecology, regarding HOW they care about their ability to have water, food, or space, etc.. The ability of human beings to reproduce MUST create the problems, over and over again, that there will eventually NOT be enough water, food, or space, etc.. Since human beings are living fires, that can kindle more and more fires, and those need more and more fuel to keep burning, over and over again, there develop systems where there are haves and have nots! The ratios of haves to have nots automatically runaway, and require ecologies to evolve. Neolithic civilization was one such style of human ecology (the social pryamid system) which was then able to keep growing, by spreading out to conquer the whole world, by strip-mining the high grade resources of the planet, to keep itself going. It is not clear where the limits of that may be. However, there must be some real limits somewhere!

Your metaphor about library books is too pleasant to capture the problem of the NEED for water, food, or space. You propose an example were it is not obvious that people have to fight over library books to survive, because there are not enough library books for everyone. In the real world, given the possibility of exponential growth of the population, there is always too little, ... or, if there is enough for a while, then there will soon be even more people, and therefore, no longer enough then.

Again, that relates to my point that the elites do NOT create the basic problems. The elites have merely evolved to provide their kinds of solutions to those problems, which benefit them. The social pyramid system evolved so that, when things get tough, the people at the top survive, while the people at the bottom perish. At any place and time, from a short-term perspective, it always looks, then and there, that there could be enough for the wealthy to share with poor. However, that is NOT true, except for a short while. That is the basic Malthusian dilemma, always in operation, not just for human beings, but for all other living things, due to their fulfilling the definition of life, as we so subtract them from their environment, and observe how those defined entities behave.

The problem with Neolithic civilization is that its short-term success was based on being able to liquidate the natural capital that nature had provided, faster and faster, in more and more places. Neolithic civilization is based on strip-mining its way through all the high grade natural resources. Neolithic civilization turns natural resources into garbage and pollution as fast as it can, and its method is to not worry about the longer-term consequences of doing that. Thus, under that system, Malthus was an optimist!  Instead of us evolving to live at a subsistance level that is the sustainable level of population and activity, we have greatly increased our population and level of activity, by consuming natural resources at far, far faster rates than they are being naturally produced. Indeed, our entire system ONLY cares about being the best at being dihonest, and violent, NOW, in order to prevail and survive in emergency situations, of military conflicts, and THAT is the way we build our financial accounting system, out of fiat money, which has nothing to do with the conservation of energy, and evolving an ecology that respects such laws of nature. Rather, everything Neolithic civilization does is about being the best at being dishonest, and engaging in the maximum possible robbery, against others who would do similar things.

Therefore, that Neolithic style of civilization is running itself off a cliff, as fast as it possibly can. The people controlling that civilization do care about anything, but continuing to be able to run their systems of fraud and robbery, on an ever increasing spiral, like they have been doing in the past, for thousands of years. Our "leaders," and the people they "lead" are those who have adapted, through the history of conflict, to maximum their short-term benefits, over and over, without regard to the longer term consequences. ... The PROBLEM is for how much longer can that exponential growth continue, and what happens when it no longer can???

The privatized fiat money-as-debt system, inside of the Neolithic social pyramid style of civilization, has generated the situation where its debt slavery has produced numbers that represent debt insanity. Any more doubling and doubling of the total debts, to keep that system going is getting to be impossible, although it may well continue for a while yet ... That symbolizes the overall problem of the total amount of human numbers and human activities on the planet also continuing to double and double ... That is absolutely impossible to continue forever, and the rate at which any doubling reaches its real limits is VERY FAST.

So far, there is NOTHING inside of established system which can adapt to that in any sane ways. Instead, the ruling elites are planning on the same old strategy, of starting genocidal wars, and imposing democidal martial law, to resolve the problems that intensify as Neolithic civilization reaches some real limits to any more exponential growth. All of the runaway evils of the established elites, and the ways that they philosophically rationalize that, as developed in this article, are INSANE. However, there is nothing else, yet, that works any better, due to all the reasons I gave in my previous comments above. By definition, as the doubling reaches real limits, then there MUST be more death controls, to stop starting more living fires, requiring more fuel.  The entire history of militarism was not merely people wanting to be evil, and making a free psychological choice to do so. There are real, chronic political problems, and Neolithic civilization developed ways to resolve those problems. By and large, our "leaders" specialize in not admitting the truth about what they are doing, and their opposition reveals some of the truth about what those "leaders" are doing, but then assert that NOBODY should do that.

Although I agree with the spiritual escape hatch, that we do not have to mistake our particular story about the parts for their Whole, and therefore, the transcendental Truth is a truthless-Truth that goes infinitely beyond any finite being, or finite story, and although, therefore, I agree that we should not mistake the stories we tell, for that which they attempt to describe, which is infinitely beyond them, I STILL MAINTAIN THAT, WHEN HUMAN BEINGS TELL ANY STORIES, THEN THE MURDER/MONEY SYSTEM STORIES ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT.

AnAnonymous's picture

This 'american' comment will make my day. So fine.


Ghordius's picture

excellent thoughts

several points where I'm in agreement if rephrased:

- for fascism's rise the key ingredients are the proto-fascist's rejection of socialism and capitalism and a degree of conservative rage

- what we have now is not fascism, it's a more general rise of authoritarianism that could usher fascism

- the two paradigms that were fighting in the 20th century were liberal-democratic capitalism & nationalistic imperialism vs international socialism (here fascism and national socialism were meant as "third ways" but failed)

- the two paradigms that are fighting in the 21st century are transnational corporative capitalism (driving globalization) vs international/globalist "statism".

- the two confrontations (old and new) are similar - up to a certain point. what is new is the degree of independence that corporate power has gained from it's host, the nation state.

Mark Noonan's picture

It can, indeed, be phrased in many ways - which is why I more and more prefer to call the whole bag of them what they are:  heresies.  That word, heresy, of course is well out of fashion - but all it really means it to make an exception; to take out (or deny) from a complete scheme some vital part thereof.  Such as any person who purports to support the whole concept of democracy, personal liberty, etc and yet denies that the human will is free.

I am very much ready for the Revolution - the day will dawn when all the records of Bank of America and the Department of Education are set afire by a revolutionary mob determined to enforce the notion that anything "too big to fail" better surely be killed.