Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Exposing The New Face Of Fascism: Privatization
It may be hard to fathom, but I can remember since I was a kid, hearing that big brother was coming. In school we had to read George Orwell’s book 1984. We would debate whether it would really happen, and as the year 1984 came and went, I can remember being relieved that everything seemed still the same. It was the 1980’s and except for some laid off air line workers, everything seemed fine. It seemed that the totalitarian threat forecasted was false.
Boy were we ever snuckered…..
The violent government clampdown we all where watching for never materialized. Instead a soft, friendly form of fascism was snuck in, in it’s place. This new form of government does not require a Gestapo ordering you around at gunpoint. It’s much more subtle, and it’s made up of people we know around us. The neighbor down the street. The telephone operator. Maybe even your friend on facebook?
FBI Created Infraguard
It is estimated that the security state now partners with some 800,000 civilians. Just like you and me. Most voluntarily. Some believe they are helping keep America safe from various threats …terrorists…illegal immigrants…etc. Some just do it to feel important. I would call it identifying with the oppressor, but we won’t get into the psychology of it.
The following is from an essay by Steven Yates and based on the work of Joan Veon who used the term “Soft Fascism” and Bertram Gross who called it “Friendly Fascism” to explain the system of control that began in the 1940’s and is taking fruit in front of our eyes currently:
A public-private partnership will always have as its goal a business-making venture that requires some form of “governance.” The question is, since the players will vary in experience and wealth, who has the most power? We know from life itself that whoever has the most money has the power. For example, when a public-private partnership is comprised of governments such as the County Department of Environmental Initiatives, the State Department of Environmental Resources; a number of private entities such as a land trust(foundation) and the Nature Conservancy (nonprofit); along with a corporation such as Black and Decker, the players with the most money control the partnership. In this case, it would be the Nature Conservancy with assets of over 12.1 billion, and Black and Decker Corporation with a capitalization of $1.6billion.
Representative government loses. By this method, then, citizens are deprived of private property rights and control over their lives and business activities. When private companies must compete in an open market for the best employees and for customers, that is free enterprise capitalism (or laissez-faire). However, when they form partnerships with government, or when either one “partners” with foundations or nonprofit sector entities, or even, I would argue, are legally able to borrow money from banks created according to the fractional reserve system, free enterprise is compromised.
The economic system begins its move from a one based on liberty and productivity to one based on control and plunder. If corporations have the most money—as is often the case—they will obtain levels of power that make them as dangerous as any government not on a constitutional leash. Fascism is the name we give to the ideology which merges the power of the purse(business, foundations, nonprofits) with the power of the sword (government) in order to create policy, impose it by methods ranging from subterfuge to force, and take a society in a desired direction. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines fascism as “a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized, autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.” Perhaps still better:
Although the classic fascists openly subverted constitutional democracy, they took great pains to conceal the Big Capital-Big Government partnership. One device for doing this was the myth of “corporatism” or the “corporate state.” In place of geographically elected parliaments, the Italians and the Germans set up elaborate systems whereby every interest in the country—including labor—was to be “functionally represented.” In fact, the main function was to provide facades behind which the decisions were made by intricate networks of business cartels working closely with military officers and their own people in civilian government. Today’s public-private partnerships have these same ingredients even if the main power players have changed. The process of “reinventing government” that took the country by storm during the Clinton years is the best means of understanding the political environment in which public-private partnerships are most at home.
American history discloses two broad philosophies of education, what I will call the classical model and the vocational model. The classical model incorporates the full scope of liberal arts, including history and civics, logic and philosophy, theology, mathematics as reasoning, economics including personal finance and money management. Its goal is an informed citizen who understands something of his or her heritage and of the principles of sound government and sound economics generally. The vocational model considers education sufficient if it enables the graduate to be a tradesman or obedient worker. History, logic, etc., have little to contribute to this, and so are ratcheted down, as in the School-To-Work models. Mathematical education, for example, will be sufficient if it enables students to use calculators instead of their brains. Government schools, over recent decades, have been increasingly bent in the direction of the vocational model. This is known colloquially as “dumbing down”.
The result of this process is a graduate who will follow his leaders, be they governmental or corporate, directly into public-private partnerships because, having no knowledge of their problems both economic and constitutional, he has no other points of reference. In our situation, vocational programs “school” students to fit the needs of the “global economy” seen as an autonomous, collective endeavor, instead of educating individuals to find their own ways in the world, shaping the economy to meet their needs. This system is fascist since it involves corporations and governments working together to make policy; it is soft fascist because (due to the lack of genuine education) it is not overtly totalitarian.
CIA and In-Q-Tel / Google Partnership
Tyrannical controls are barely needed, because among the mind controlled workers and future workers there is little resistance. Most go along, fearing unemployment. After all, as George Orwell once observed, “Circus dogs jump when the trainer cracks his whip, but the really well-trained dog is the one that turns his somersault when there is no whip.” Soft fascism thus employs behavior modification rather than obvious acts of tyranny. It is guided by an incentive system rather than overt acts of coercion Thus for much of the population, there is no whip. Those who do not turn their somersaults—perhaps out of a realization that their choices have been artificially reduced—are marginalized and eventually able to find only menial jobs.
(1) global economics, built up as managed-capitalism in order to exploit the enormous wealth available through corporations of all sizes, especially multinational and transnational;
(2) global government seen as necessary to regulate trade within this global economy, also built up through progressive regionalization, as “the end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece”.
Achieving (1) means (for example): appearing to advance global free trade while actually destroying private property rights, existing prosperity, and government by consent of the governed. It has involved employing pseudo-free trade agreements (e.g.,NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA, etc.) and other devices where necessary (e.g., SPP) to bring about a migration of power to transnational organizations such as the UN, GATT, the WTO, the Bank for International Settlements and the World Economic Forum, among others. It is important to realize, with a nod to Orwell, that in the contemporary setting, “free trade” no more means free trade than freedom means slavery. This does it exclude allowing “pockets” of economic free choice if they serve special purposes, such as locally owned small businesses being forced to close when people choose to shop at the newly opened Wal-Mart.
Achieving (2) calls for the erosion and eventual elimination of national sovereignty, a natural outcome of the processes just sketched. The gradualist regionalization process was championed by Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book Between Two Ages. This book laid out the entire agenda that has been pursued under the Orwellian “free trade” rubric in the chapter entitled “The Third American Revolution.” Gradualist regionalization was again championed at Mikhail Gorbachev’s first State of the World Forum in 1995.Arguably it has been almost achieved under the auspices of the European Union, and its advocates in our hemisphere are using the EU as a model to create a “North American Union.”
FBI Deputizes Businesses
Progress on the first two areas began at least in the 1940s, which saw both the creation of the UN and GATT; it began to pick up speed in the 1970s following the publication of Brzezenski’s book and David Rockefeller’s creation of the Trilateral Commission. The1980s saw the creation of enterprise zones, under the realization that carefully managed capitalism would more easily evolve into a workable global socialism than the “actually existing socialism” in places such as the Soviet Union, the collapse of which was engineered under the watchful eye of globalist Mikhail Gorbachev. In the 1990s, with NAFTA and the WTO, this agenda accelerated rapidly, and has continued to the point where it can be argued that we have, in fact, sacrificed a substantial fraction of our national sovereignty as well as seen much of our middle class destroyed.
Public-private partnerships are a key component of this overall process. They invariably involve “governance,” working under the assumption not merely that government cannot get the job done but that freedom cannot get it done. In so doing, they effectively merge large business and large governments in ways characteristic of fascism. Combined with education that stresses vocation at the expense of subjects such as history, logic, personal finance, comparative economic systems, etc., they lead to the rise of home grown soft fascism with which an unthinking mass will readily comply. Ultimately, this system threatens Americans with the equivalent of totalitarian controls— as those who stop their somersaults, will lead to the coming of the whips.
America’s Secret Police Network
The globalist plan for the world will, of course, eventually fail; the economics it requires(of massive borrowing and theft through redistribution of the world’s resources) is out of accord with the requirements reality places on us if we are to achieve genuine freedom and lasting prosperity. It will not fail immediately, however, and if allowed to run its course will wreak havoc across the entire globe, after having destroyed the one civilization that gave the globe ideals of liberty worth emulating. Exposing the growing edifice of controls on individual freedom contained within sustainable development through public-private partnerships is necessary if we are to get rid of this hidden threat to liberty in our lifetimes, and begin the job of restoring individual liberty and private property rights.
George Orwell’s 1984 ( Full Movie )
George Orwell’s Animal Farm ( Full Movie )
Posted by Ken Kearse