The Least of Two Evils is Now Too Evil

Mussolini's message; DEFEND!

Trump resonates with the frustration of conservative voters through scapegoating immigrants, types of people, and labeling protestors as terrorists for what Wall Street and multinational corporation have done. This law and order theme of most new dictatorships—Nazi’s and the Jews, Italy and the Communist and so on. It is easier to name a seen enemy, but the real enemy is corrupted financial institutions which parade the free market while living in socialism at our expense. 

DRIVE THEM OUT!

Hillary says the situation isn’t that bad, that just a little further down the same road we are on, and our suffering will end. As a representative of their bankrupt ideas, there are few better than her (see last blog entry). Eight years ago “we chose" a black man. It turns out to only be a different face to represent the same establishment regime. With charisma and hope, many thought this unprecedented development would begin to restore some justice to our society. Instead, this celebrated diversity was used to increase injustice. *

Collectively these multinationals are anonymous, without a figurehead. They are an "inverted totalitarian" plutocracy: Clinton's coronation is only a simulacrum of our democratic republic.

Strangely, the other side was allowed to choose an outsider. (If, of course, Trump is not in cahoots with Clinton from the start; for example he shamelessly soaks up attention, entertains and distracts voters, and, most importantly, is easy to beat.) Wow, thank you, new global order!

As the last few moves of a monopoly game, it’s just a formality—they have won.

1. Bailouts for the billionaire classes, austerity for the masses.
2. The assassination of an American citizen without due process, now, even within the country.
3. Ending with force peaceful assembly across the nation. 
4. Punish any whistleblower with no quarter, (because they are the only source of power's actions). the list goes on and on and on

The Democrats' Hypocritical Diversity

 
Why do the Democrats pretend to champion diversity? ..yet are equally facilitating the further growth of grotesque inequity and oppression?*  Obviously for votes, oostensibly because they care for the poor and racial injustice. The modern Democrat needs only a small expression of their support of diversity because the alternative Republicans are typically ignorant on race issues, you might say a-racial.  So then why such a parade of diversity at the Democratic convention if it were unnecessary? 

Diversity is the strongest selling point of any difference with the Republicans that Democrats have. We have a Corporate State no matter the party. The issues that frame the entire context of the possible debate is decided long before voters can screw it up. TransPacific Partnership is a obfuscated example of this fact. This agreement needs obfuscation because no citizen, Democrat, Republican, or otherwise would want it. If understood its’ approval would be universally repulsive, except for the multinational corporations that wrote it.

*Bill Clinton, and Hillary;

1.  Reformed welfare reducing aid to the poor by millions.
2. Championed NAFTA
3. Facilitated the private prison system which today profits wildly off their incarcerated slaves.
4. Reformed the criminal justice system which made the US have more incarcerated per capita than any other industrialized nation
5. Repealed the Glass-Steagall Act--a necessary condition of the 2008 collapse.

Dear neoliberal, your 40 year experiment has gone wrong

Can a corrupt throne,
one that creates trouble by law, become Your ally? 

attributed to David the king of Israel, approx. 500 BC, Psalm 94:20

Your 40 year, neoliberal experiment has gone wrong for the vast majority of people.  We are in debt because you loaned us money to spend when our wages went flat.  You gave the richest unfair advantages through the law and made a virtue of exploitation. 

“This is only rhetoric, not facts.”  True.  But it is rhetoric now much truer than yours. 

Contrary to your ideas, the government grew enormously when you tried to limit it.  When you limited government by the repeal of Glass-Steigal, to fabricate a 700 trillion dollar elitist gambling bank, i.e. derivatives market, the government had to pay for your inevitable losses.  The businesses you worked to privatize; military contractors, prisons, pharmaceutical, hospital, health insurance, the mortgage (Fannie Mae) and higher education loan industries (Sallie Mae) are behemoths of deficit spending paid to your privatized businesses.  

Still you clamor about the waste in the 11% of the budget spent on hardship programs while your privatizing ebbs away at our military 18%, and health care 24% budgets.  And still you hope to privatize Social Security 24%, for your finance industry. 

The communist USSR was horribly unjust and cruel to its people because they were loyal to their ideas.  From a pride-blindness oblivious to looming destruction, they held firm to their beliefs about economics.  They were performing a radical experiment which was theoretically sound.  Are you, neoliberal, really the opposite of them?

The original political conservative respects traditions even if he or she doesn’t understand why they are there.  They acknowledge their myopic limitations when juxtaposed to the centuries.  Change, yes, radical blind faith, no. 

“But I am no radical!” you say. What did you leave behind when you took over in the 80s?  

• Top bracket income tax rates of 70% which promoted reinvestment instead of conspicuous consumption,...now our robber barons are cajoled, worshiped, and hopelessly emulated instead of ridiculed as radical and impractical leaders of economic destruction. 
• Regulations and laws that limited monopolies and allowed opportunities for smaller businesses to compete,...now our hometowns and cities are clones of transnational corporations that crowded out local entrepreneurs, community reinvestment and jobs.  We are left with the possibility to start a “niche” business—and,...you’ll take over if they are too successful.  

L. Anton Feriozzi

Intelligent people should know that strict ideologies are dangerous.  

It is easy to pick out the active ideologies of the right as they have been supremely dominate in the US, England and Australia for a generation—and growing in Europe during the last few decades.  Severe social service and pension cuts should result, they say, from a chronic government debt crisis (made critical due to a neoliberal mindset which allowed excessive speculation via the collusion of government policy makers, banks, and the derivative’s market).  

So the right's ideological break with reality is that the lower and middle classes need austerity because the elite lost a bunch of money, included theirs, and now must be nursed back to health.  As long as they are doing good, everyone else will--eventually.  It was a good, applicable theory, but it is no longer working in today's economy.

I will not again detail 40 years of stagnate wages during the doubling of major sector productivity, economic growth/consumer spending financed by the credit boom, the unleashing of the elite's $700,000,000,000 (trillion) derivative's market, and the like as I have in past posts.  People that don't get this, ideologically don't want to: this is my point.  Strict Ideologies will maintain loyalty within people despite reality, trample human dignity, and finally themselves.  They always have--at least for all of written history.

This should be easy enough to see if one can have some objectivity, understanding and discernment.  What is less clear is to pick out the currently dangerous ideologies of the left.  They have been off stage, nursing their wounds from the Communism as practiced in the USSR, and revamping their theories.  I suspect some of their potential neoHegelian ideologies could be just as dangerous.  Next I will examine what the loyal opposition has to offer us in the way of destructive ideologies which could—given 40 years or so—set us back just as have the Ayn Rand, neoliberal ideologies of today.

L. Anton Feriozzi

       Multinational corporate interests will continue to anonymously control our government with either party in power. Most honest, thinking people have awoke to this fact. Even the original Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street agree on this.

     Yet the two party system controls the system so completely as to get people thinking, “I’ll do it one more time,” or, “I’m just wasting my vote on this third party." or maybe they just enjoy rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

       

      The most viable solution within the legal system is to start voting for the strongest third candidate until the two parties are forced to confront the issues corporations fearfully crowd out of the public dialogue.

You Have To Read This, So Another Preemptive War...

Advertising is the art of arresting the human intelligence just long enough to get money from it.
— Chuck Blore

You have decided without knowing it!

      So here we go again, the warmongering military-industrial-media complex has us in 70% agreement with another preemptive war.  The only debate is whether the President is "tough enough."  How's that for democracy?  

      Stranger still is the absence of any serious talk about it.  Wow, the level of control the military-industrial-media complex has to completely shut down dialogue, dialogue that was possible when we had a free and independent press,... back when we had a representative government.

     It's gotten so easy; just show a couple plausible, emotionally-charged videos--they know it bypasses our rational brain-- have the corporate media repeat 24/7, and BAM!, $500 million down payment on our country's most corrupt business.  Maybe they can squeeze another 1.5 trillion out of the taxpayers with no lasting effect like last time?  Meanwhile we can wave Old Glory and feel good about how we are still the strongest country on Earth, for now,...kinda like Rome in the 300s.  Anyways, it's easier than thinking.

What's to blame, the elitist amygdala (emotional brain).
      I believe those elite leaders behind this new war convinced themselves they are doing a good thing, that's what the emotional amygdala does: it short-circuits the rational parts of the brain with it's drivenness for something it wants.  The leaders making the decisions are like a drug addict, "I need this, we need this" I imagine them saying to themselves.  
    
    and our brain stem...
    For the 70%, if your emotions for revenge (amygdala) and your fear-fight-brain stem  is activated by fear from someone getting their head chopped off, it tends to short-circuit your rational brain.  This technique is used expertly by advertiser and public relations people before you know it happens.  

Your rational brain will rationalize the decision your more basic brain(s) made without your knowledge.  I wish more people knew about this, makes me wonder why.

If you want something emotional,
    What about the soldiers?  Their families?  Their mental health?  They're the ones that really have to live with these warmonger's decisions, they're the ones ordered to make "pink mist" out of people which have never threatened them or their country! 

It's a lot easier to go, than to come back.

...and let's not forget

ISIS is not that powerful.

It's a regional conflict,

and what will count as victory?

Sincerely,

Lawrence Feriozzi

James Foley : US Atrocity Propaganda?

    Why would ISIS be so stupid as to provoke the American military with the recent beheading of James Foley? Certainly they know they have a better chance of gaining power without provoking the United States?

Why are no corporate media outlets asking this basic question?
Or perhaps this is just part of the US government's plan described by General Wesley Clark years ago:

Video of Gen Wesley Clark Reveals US Plan To Invade Iraq, Syria, etc... in 2007

   I hope to God its not true. But we have seen these types of emotional claims "leak" before that serve the powers that want war in our government and military industries.  What of the female genital mutilations ISIS was perpetrating that turned out as faked?

Then there is the most famous of all atrocity propaganda:
  Nayirah testimony Oct. 1990 to Congress

Of babies being taken out incubators to die in Kuwait hospitals by heartless Iraq soldiers which testimony in Congress led to the narrow margin of congressional support for the 1st Gulf War.  This was a just war but presently I'm sceptical about further engagements that cost so much money and the young lives of our soldiers and foreigners who's children grow up to hate us.

In sincere hope our government is telling us the truth this time,
Lawrence Feriozzi