Taming Social Media

The federal Supreme Court has taken up the issue of how big social media companies, such as Tik Toc, X, and Facebook might be regulated.   As it is, these social media companies have become so big, with so much influence over society, with so many people participating on them, and getting their news from them, that the idea of regulating them like some kind of public utility is gaining some traction.  Consequently, this issue is being mis-framed as a question of how the government might use its power to force big social media to be better corporate citizens and use their information power in a way that is more beneficial to society.  There is a much better way to address this issue, getting a handle on big social media, which doesn't involve government monitoring, or in any way regulating, content.

The first thing we must do to tame social media is to examine the basic compact, usually implied but not openly stated, between individual social media users, and the companies that provide the platforms.  That basic agreement is that the companies allow people, provided by the company at little or no cost, the ability for the individuals to learn information, interact with other people, and simply to share in the social and cultural life of the world.  To gain these benefits the individual user implicitly agrees to allow their personal data to be used by the companies.

So far so good.  Over the years, however, the social media giants have decided to modify this basic agreement, and have allowed their platforms to become abusive and, increasingly, they engage in both subtle and overt forms of censorship. This can be a serious problem.

 

Consider the case of someone running a business using a Facebook site that is then suspended from Facebook for posting something that offends someone else.  Whether the offense was intentional or not is of no matter to the social media company, so in short order business owner is suspended from Facebook, the business suffers as a result, and it might even be driven to bankruptcy. 

Or take the case of someone like James Woods who uses social media to promote a cultural/ political point of view. In the course of a random X(twitter) war, he posts something that offends some hitherto unknown core value of the twitter “community” and loses his platform and voice in public affairs for the time of suspension.

Both these kinds of cases and multitudes of minor variations on the same themes (such as shadow banning) cry out for some form of legislative relief. However, we must tread carefully here because the quick and easy response of empowering the government to regulate content on the internet is a cure that would be worse than the disease. The Supreme Court would be wise to rule against such laws, like the Texas and Florida laws that they have accepted on appeal. Instead, we should wisely use government to establish a framework that provides civil empowerment to individuals in relation to the social media giants and doesn’t entail the government controlling any of the content online.

 Legislation along these lines would require the social media companies to prominently display links to their community standards and or terms of service, and would also require statements regarding their political/ cultural profiles and biases. Such statements must be in clear and concise language. Then any users could examine those standards and stances before joining, and decide if that platform was for them. The law could also require that any changes to the company’s standards, terms, or profile be posted to all users before going into effect, so users would always know where they stand and aren’t subject to surprise ambush.  Additionally, any suspension of service must, along with the notice that service has been suspended, provide clear definitions of which community standards are being referred to, and how exactly the post violated them.

Then, if a social media company violates their own standards by, for example, claiming to be politically neutral and yet it is found that they suspended someone from full use of their site because of political bias, even though the individual did not violate any stated guidelines, the company can be held liable for breach of contract and sued for damages in civil court. If, in their profile statement they admitted to a political bias they couldn’t be sued for holding to it, but if they claimed neutrality and then exhibited bias, they could be sued. An additional caveat to the law is that the algorithms these social media companies use to direct content, shares, likes, etc would have to be rendered legally transparent, and open to at least judicial, if not public, review. This would deal with secret shadow banning of individuals. That way, the individual user could get what they agreed to, a free and fair forum for exchanging ideas.

So if a social media company basically defrauds me about how I can use their services, I can sue them? “Good” some might say, but “So what? Big media would still control our data, taking our expressions of community and family, compiling them, and selling them to other corporations so as to exploit us.” True, we, or at least our personal data, might still be at the mercy of big media with us having not much choice in the matter. That is where another part of the law to empower us against big media comes in.

 There would be a three fold aspect to this part of the law. First of all, it would require the social media companies to have a “withdraw from platform” button, easily accessed with just one click from the user’s homepage. If you have ever tried to quit from Facebook, you might know how daunting that task can be, and that is simply not right. We shouldn’t allow corporations to treat citizens like mice walking into a trap.

 So leaving Facebook, or X, or snapchat or whatever should be easy, just one click on a prominent link on the home page, a pull down menu, and “withdraw from platform” a clickable choice from there. There could be some few dialogue boxes from that point, password required so that only the person who owns the account can withdraw and that kind of thing.

The next part of the proposed law would be where we, the people would gain some serious leverage in our  relationship with big social media. The second aspect of the law relating to withdrawing from a platform is that when you decide to leave one of them, all your data goes with you, never to be used by that company again (unless you go back to them in the future). When you leave, your contacts, links, history and everything is erased from their memory. In this way, the companies would have a lot to lose by losing users, thus the users would gain a lot of leverage in the relationship.  This would be fairly easy to enforce too.  Simply note when someone withdraws, and then a week or so later get that social media company to provide a data list that the recently withdrawn person had been on.  Say, housewives in Denver.  If that persons name appears on the new data readout, the social media company should be massively fined for once again, breach of contract.

The third aspect of this second part of the proposed law is that when you leave one of the social media platforms you are allowed to take your data (contacts, links, history, artwork, webpages, etc) with you, and to download it to some other platform if you so desire. In other words, the government can mandate that such data be made portable. This would provide for portability of our data, allowing us users to keep our work and efforts, some from over the course of many years, for our own benefit. Ensuring in this way that we individuals wouldn’t effectively get punished when we move our social media presence to another platform.  This would once again empower the individual in relation to the social media giants.

The governments, both state and especially national, have clear authority to enact these kinds of laws.  Given the unequal power relationship that big social media companies have to individual users, there is an obvious need for the government to step in and protect the individuals against the ravages and abuses of big social media.  Or to be more precise, the government can properly and safely use its legitimate powers to ensure individuals have their own powers to do the job of keeping these companies in line.

The government can accomplish this good by enacting just a few laws.  First of all require that all terms of service, are clear, concise, and reciprocal. Yes, the companies can suspend or cancel accounts that violate them, but individuals can sue the company for violating them as well.  Second, the law should require that all algorithms be rendered transparent and understandable in plain language, so that individuals can decide for themselves if they are willing to go along with any restrictions that have been placed on their point of view.  Third, the law can and should mandate that people can easily resign from any social media platform,  and take all their data (and their work) with them when they go.  

Laws like these will almost certainly pass any judicial scrutiny, since they in no way violate any constitutional stricture (they actually fit into, unlike many laws which have falsely been claimed to, the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce).  The companies would not have their content controlled and would still enjoy their exemptions from libel and slander laws.  The big change would come once the people have these powers at their fingertips.  We, the people would  then be able to whip those companies into proper working order in a very short time.

  

Open Letter to the Chinese People

An open letter to the Chinese people.

Greetings,

It is with great humility that I present this letter to the entire great Chinese people; those in the People’s Republic of China, those in semi autonomous Hong Kong, those in Taiwan, and even, or maybe especially to those in the Chinese overseas community (undoubtedly in every nation on earth, and probably in every town of any size on the planet).

First of all, let me say, WOW, you are an awesome people.  Your historical accomplishments and contributions are simply beyond description.  From ice cream and noodles to the compass, the Great Wall to taming rivers and irrigating immense farmlands, you have made innumerable contributions to the world.  Your works and work ethic continue to inspire and challenge the rest of us humans.

Without a doubt, Chinese culture has been one of the great civilizing influences in the world, but- important news flash here- it is not the only civilizing influence in the world, and is arguably not even the most important one historically.  One must also give a nod to, among other great civilizing influences, mathematics and philosophy from India and Arabia, science from Europe, and the art of self government and cultural integration of my own America. 

The point here, and the purpose of this letter, is that as China at long last ascends to her rightful place as one of the world’s leading cultures, it is important that she leaves behind some old attitudes from the past, attitudes of chauvinism and national superiority that are no longer helpful.  In short, as China, the People’s Republic of China that is, takes its place at the table of power; the leaders in Beijing should be encouraged to work on the issues of trust and credibility. 

These twin issues come up repeatedly in the list of concerns that follow.  These concerns, examined singly and as a whole, cause a neutral observer to suspect that the leaders in Beijing are using an understandable, even laudable drive toward national development to conceal a strategy to go beyond sitting as an equal at the table of world powers, and to instead sit as the dominant, hegemonic force at that table.  In other words, it frankly looks like they might be trying to take over the world.  Such a course would threaten the well being of the world, and the interests and well being of all the Chinese people. Let’s consider the list.

The first concern to look at is the South China Sea; specifically Beijing’s aggressive stance that the Nine dash line has somehow become an international boundary that other nations must respect.  This policy would essentially make the South China Sea a Chinese lake; violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China’s neighbors, like Vietnam and the Philippines, allow China to claim ownership of the ocean resources in this international area, and constitute an attack on the concept of freedom of the high seas, which is a pillar of international prosperity. The World court has already ruled against China on this issue, but the government in Beijing has ignored that ruling. This South China Sea dispute, by itself, causes the world community to question how much China can be trusted, and the credibility of her claims to benevolent international leadership.

The next concern to look at is China’s trade practices, especially as they relate to the United States.  Let’s face it, America has been giving China a break for a long time, allowing a huge, around half a Trillion dollars a year, trade surplus in China’s favor (and that is just a low ball estimate).  The unbalanced trade surplus is not, as Beijing claims, just a result of China producing lower cost goods, although that is a major factor in the trade disparity. 

In addition to low cost workers, China has been erecting trade barriers to American goods, manipulating her currency to lower the cost of Chinese exports, erecting unprecedented technology controls on American companies doing business in China, and then finally, just outright cheating and stealing America’s technological and intellectual innovations.  Some will deny that there has been technology theft going on, but just a cursory look at some of China’s military aircraft and the fact of their clone like similarity to American aircraft is strong evidence that industrial and military espionage has been going on.

Additionally, China along with Russia and a few other countries has long objected to the dollar being the world’s reserve currency, which is the currency that everyone uses, holds and trades with.  However, in the recent trade and tariff dispute with the Trump administration, the leaders in Beijing sacrificed the Yuan’s position moving toward reserve currency status by devaluing the Yuan to gain short term advantage against the dollar.  That move, along with the other questionable trade practices, call into question Beijing’s credibility and how much they can be trusted.

One of the most promising aspects of China’s development is what is called the “Belt and Road” initiative; a project to connect via infrastructure, the nations of Asia, Africa, and Europe.  The star of this project is the enviable Chinese high speed rail system. I understand that some of these trains operate at such high altitudes that the passenger cars must be pressurized for the safety of the public.  What an amazing technological achievement, one to be proud of.

No thinking person is against this kind of new development, as it generally helps to increase the prosperity of all. Consider how America’s infrastructure, connecting both coasts of North America by rail and truck, facilitates trade for all.  A shipping container unloaded in Los Angeles allows products to be sold in east coast New York for almost the same low prices as on the west coast.  The same benefits will hold true for the Belt and Road initiative, it will enhance the prosperity of all nations, but especially the prosperity of the nation at the center of the development.

However, even with this happy narrative, the powers in Beijing managed to hit a sour note.  While extending credit to many of their partner nations in this development, China’s government has enticed or pressured the partners to overextend their credit.  When those loans become due, and default looms, Beijing uses that situation to pressure the “partner” into signing away control of the developing ports or facilities, giving China permanent control.  This so called “debt trap” gambit makes it to where Chinese interests gather more than their share of the profits, meanwhile rendering the “partner” nation into a permanent state of impoverishment and dependence.  Once again, many are left wondering if Beijing can be trusted, and if their stated benevolent intentions are credible.

Another area of concern is the way that the Chinese government has been suppressing and persecuting religious minorities.  This includes Christians, members of Falun Gong, Muslims, and others.  This is very concerning.

Not to compare China to Nazi Germany, but early on in the Nazi movement, before it was time to disguise their true intentions, some of their leaders wrote that Christianity must be rooted out of the German mind, since the Nazis intended to carry out policies that would be abhorrent to Christians.  It is simply a fact that oppressive empires don’t thrive in free nations, but only in nations whose people are well controlled.  While it is true that religion in China is an internal affair for China, the policies squashing freedom of religion are symptomatic of a dictatorship readying itself for international domination.  Once again, sour notes questioning China’s trust and credibility are heard.

The final area of concern is Hong Kong, and that comes up as part of China’s trust and credibility problem because of the agreement the People’s Republic of China signed guaranteeing Hong Kong could keep her freedom and free self government for at least fifty years. It hasn’t been 25 years, and yet the PRC is pushing to dictate to and control politics in Hong Kong.  This stance is not very credible on China’s part.

At this point I wish to make a personal statement, taken from my life experience.  In 1989, at the time of the Tiananmen Square rallies and tragedy, I was living in the San Francisco Bay area.  At the end of the tragedy, there was a demonstration called to support the students, at Justin Herman Plaza.  I remember three important things from that day.

First of all, it is the only time in my life I was embarrassed to be an American because I was the only non-Chinese American to show up.  All were invited, but mine was the only reddish gray head, about a foot higher than most of the ten thousand people of Chinese ancestry in the plaza.

The second thing I remember was the wonderful classic music composition played with traditional Chinese instruments.  There were no words, but the music created in my mind the image of a dragon, and spoke of how good it is to be a friend with a dragon, and how terrible it is when the dragon turns on the people and becomes their oppressor.  I don’t know the name of the composition, but I am sure some of you do.

My third memory of the day was the debate I didn’t have, and wish I had.  There was one Chinese gentleman standing alone on a pedestal, wearing a sign criticizing the wild nature of American society, and extolling the virtues of a stable and peaceful society.  If I had not been the only European American in the crowd, I would have challenged this gentleman to a debate.  I would have asked him to take the part of Confucius, which I am sure he would have been happy to do since he was advocating Confucianism, while I would have been just as happy to take the part of Thomas Jefferson.

Once the terms of debate were set, I would have let the esteemed gentleman go first to make his point.  After he had talked about the anger, confusion, and violence in American society and compared it to the order and contentment in China, I would have made my only point.

“You assert that China is content and peaceful.  My objection is one of epistemology, which is the science of knowledge.  How, I ask, do you know that China is so idyllic? 

Any person who is not content is silenced, imprisoned or executed.  Any voice which disagrees with Beijing’s policies is silenced.  In such a vast nation, a nation with well over a billion souls, you have no credible way of knowing the conditions of people’s lives and the sentiments they hold.  Without the kind of free speech and freedom of the press that Thomas Jefferson extolled, you have no credible way of ascertaining if you are actually making progress toward your worthy goal of a Confucian society.

I see China as a nation on a theatrical stage.  The curtain is drawn in front of the stage, and on the curtain is painted beautiful idyllic scenes of life in a Confucian paradise.  However, once in a while, blood curdling screams are heard from behind the curtain, and even more rarely, some severed human body part flies out through an opening in the curtain.  It is quickly retrieved by a government official wearing a smiling face, assuring the audience that all is well.  But, we in the audience remain unconvinced.”

“By all means,” I would have finished in my debate,”Seek the good and harmonious society Confucius calls for.  I seek similar goals for America.  However, know that your quest can be successful, and credible, only if it is done in the free light of day, with the authorities at all levels of government being accountable to the people they are supposed to serve.”

I have long regretted that the debate was never held, but perhaps today is the day for it, since the issue of Confucianism versus American liberty seems to be boiling to the surface once again.  Certainly, the principle that liberty and transparent accountability must precede cultural harmony has never loomed larger.

Let me make three points to conclude this letter.  The first point is the sense or feeling that the government in Beijing, while it projects an image of single minded purpose, is actually very sensitive to the opinions and hopes of the Chinese people, even, and once again maybe especially, those of the overseas Chinese community.  If the Chinese people decide to lead in a different direction, the leaders in Beijing will surely follow.

My second point is that my reading of Chinese history reveals that the emperors in Beijing did not believe in treating with other nations as equals.  Either the other nation was in some sense a vassal of the emperor, or they weren’t allowed to be part of the Chinese economy.  Does the idea still hold sway in Beijing that any who would do business with the middle kingdom must be under Beijing’s thumb?  More importantly, does that idea still hold sway in the hearts and minds of the great Chinese people?  Is there no sense of doing mutually beneficial business among equals who treat each other fairly and in an open handed honest way?

The thinking that either I am dominant over others, or others will be dominant over me is a false, immature way of thinking.  This sentiment must be cast out of the hearts of the Chinese people and onto the dust bin of history, as only a world view that embraces an international structure composed of nations who stand equal to one another will sustain over time.  Constantly trying to establish and maintain an empire over others will provoke great opposition in the wider world, and stifling that opposition will drain China’s energy while perpetually increasing the causes of international conflict.

My third concluding point is that as things now stand, the lines of accountability are unclear in China, so it is not clear if the people hold the reins of the dragon, or the dragon holds the reins that control the people. 

The full technological development of the Chinese nation is inevitable.  Only a fool would try to stop that already speeding train.  When Beijing claims otherwise, and says that foreign forces are trying to stop that development, they are merely using a distracting appeal to nationalistic pride to continue on their agenda.  The real question of this time is whether or not the greater Chinese people can resist that tempting siren song of nationalistic pride, and instead insist that their government be transparently accountable, and work for the true best interests of the Chinese people, and not the short term greedy gains of the elite few in Beijing and Shanghai who are singing that seductive song.

I write this letter to directly plead with and warn you, the great Chinese people, that you would be foolish to follow the path of revenge for what is thought of as an era of national humiliation.  You simply must not allow a possibly criminally corrupt regime to use your prestige, your children, and your admirable culture to advance their evil and greedy machinations.  They will try to dominate the rest of the world in a way that will drain you; emotionally, culturally, morally, and eventually economically.

 If the great Chinese people can do that, can rise up above the well worn patterns of history and actually model the behavior of a well intentioned international leader, then her inevitable ascendance to leading nation status will be a long term boon to the Chinese people, and a blessing to the world for generations to come.

With Sincere Best Wishes,

 An admiring American Friend

Permission is hereby given for anyone so inclined to translate this letter into
the Chinese language and publish it far and wide.  The author asks only that any translation
be an honest one, and of the entire letter.

 2019-09-16

Racism and Small Pox

 

            If you are reading this because you think it is going to be about some evil soldiers and missionaries giving small pox laced blankets to Native Americans in the 1800’s, you will be disappointed.  In fact, that episode never happened, and falsely claiming that it did is one of the reasons that Ward Churchill got drummed out of academia.

            But I digress. The point of this essay is racism, and how we might end it.  The connection with small pox will be revealed in a little bit.

            Early on in the Obama administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said we are a “nation of cowards” for not having any real dialogue about race relations in this country.  I agree with him, it is a shame that we don’t talk much about one of our biggest problems.  But then, he and his boss haven’t done much to move things along, have they? 

            I think the biggest obstacle to an open and honest discussion about race relations is that we are burdened with a flawed definition of racism.  While you can look it up, and find a bunch of definitions that say judging folks or favoring them based on their ethnic heritage is racism, the definition the intellectuals use says that racism is a combination of prejudice and power.  This means institutional power, like in government, corporations, etc.  So that second definition, the flawed one that we are burdened with, basically says that racism is something that only white people do.  Thus, we are stuck with a situation where racism is considered the sin of all sins, but only white people can commit it. You can see this perspective confirmed at websites like stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com.  Be forewarned though, if you go there be ready for a convoluted, hard to follow logic.

            The connection with small pox comes up now, because as far as we can determine, small pox has, happily, been wiped from the face of the earth.  After years of careful research and hard work, that horrible, deadly disease has been eliminated. 

            This pertains to racism since we arrived at this happy outcome regarding small pox only because we went after it no matter where it showed up.  Even though some ethnic groups have less resistance to it than others, the only way we could completely eliminate it was to identify and attack it wherever it showed up.  If we had dealt with the physical disease of small pox in the same way that we are dealing with the emotional disease of racism, by trying to stop it only when it infects white people, then small pox would still be a scourge on humanity.

            Today, in the world as a whole (America included) racism is still a scourge, and I think that is due, in large part, to the fact that we are afflicted with that flawed definition.  The analogy with small pox goes further.  Since, at least in intellectual and governmental circles, it is thought that only white people can be racist, the problem isn’t even looked for in other cultures, and it is mis-identified in white culture.  It is as if small pox had been thought of as a disease affecting only whites.  Not only would cases in other groups be ignored, but other diseases, such as measles, chicken pox, pimples, and even just freckles occurring in whites would send the authorities into frenzies of outrage, shouting about small pox.

            That is how it is today with racism.  A lot of innocent, non-racist comments by whites send authorities and pundits into frenzies of condemnation and ridicule, and yet some deeply racist stuff, such as the kind of things Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton say gets accepted without comment.  Words like ”Chicago”, “Hussein”, “inner city”, “angry”, “Constitution”, “food stamp president”, “experienced”, and etc. are considered (by some liberals) coded racist words when uttered by (conservative) whites, and yet Farrakhan can call Judaism “a gutter religion” and he still gets accepted in polite company. This kind of uneven playing field will not bring about reconciliation, but it will keep the scourge of racism and racial division alive.

            The solution is for the mass of people to ignore the intellectuals, and use some common sense.  The best definition of racism I know of says that any thinking which determines the moral weight of any action based on the ethnic heritage of any of the participants is racist.  Consider how that definition gets applied.  Slavers said it was okay to enslave them, because they were black.  It was okay to lynch them, and deny rights, for the same reason.  Native Americans were denied rights because they were Indians. The perpetrators couldn’t be prosecuted, because they were white.  In all these examples, the moral weight, the right or wrong of an action, was determined based on the ethnic heritage of the participants.  That’s racism.

            Now, consider a more modern example.  A young man of one ethnic group gets assaulted by three young men of another group, because of race.  If the single guy is black, and the three are white, we all agree it was racism in action.  But if the single guy was white, and the three were black, the intellectuals say it wasn’t racism, because the blacks don’t have institutionalized power.  I say, that if you use my definition of racism, the intellectuals are being racist, because they are determining the moral weight of an action based on the ethnic heritage of the participants.

            So that is where we are today, unable to make much progress toward ending racism because we are saddled with a flawed definition of racism that is itself essentially racist.  Look into it. Even though it is hard for normal folks with common sense to believe; that really is the definition that intellectuals and government bureaucrats use.

            If we started using a different, more honest definition of racism, I think we would find that it exists in every group.  Yes, we might find that white folks have more of it than others, or maybe not.  But if we did start honestly identifying it wherever it pops up, we have a chance of ending it the same way we eliminated small pox.  That would be a very good thing indeed.

           

           

Fascism Defined

Some background about “Fascism” is in order. The best, and classic, definition of Fascism says it is a combination of the forces of big business (or more precisely, big capital) together with the forces of big government operating against the interests of the poor, working and entrepreneurial classes, and using the tools of modern science to control the minds and culture of the people.

Let’s go a little deeper to understand this definition.  Mussolini and the Fascists rose in Italy in the early Twentieth Century as an offshoot of Marxism.  Basically, the Fascisti (a term derived from the idea of gaining strength through bundling, standardizing and collectivizing) called for a form of Marxism that would leave much of the small business economy alone, and collectivize only the major industries, or in Marxist parlance, the major means of production.  In addition, Mussolini introduced the idea that this new form of Marxism should be advanced by using modern science to mold the minds and the culture of the masses, to as he termed it, be a totalitarian government, designed to control the total life of the populace. 

That basic concept of Fascism was changed during World War Two, when the tail of government found itself not capable of wagging the dog of the major capitalists, and the relationship reverted back to its historic arrangement with big money directing the government’s policies purportedly for the good of the masses but in reality for the good of the upper classes.  They nonetheless retained the Fascist image of populism and its tools of cultural molding and mind control.   In other words, the business and political elites joined together to rule over the masses like traditional despots, and used psychological control to keep themselves in power.  That’s what fascism has become in the modern real world. 

The real world small-f fascism is one, not of a particular political party, but rather it is the most accurate description of the real mode of government America has had for the last ninety years or so.  The way this American fascism has grown has not been so much a smooth creeping as a ratcheting between the big business party, and the big government party, mostly at the times of presidential elections.  While this process started with FDR in the 1930's, think of the following in terms of the transition to Kennedy from the Republicans in 1960, Nixon from the Democrats in 1968, Carter from the Republicans in 1976, Reagan from the Democrats, Clinton from the Republicans, Bush from the Democrats, Obama from the Republicans, Trump from the Democrats, Biden from the Republicans, and now, once again Trump from the Democrats.

            Say the Republicans are in power, giving the store away to the big business greedhead types.  We get sick of it, and the Democrats say “elect us and we’ll roll back the excesses of big business."  So we elect them, and we are perennially disappointed when they mightily increase the amount of government regulation and involvement with our personal lives and don’t manage to beat back corporate greed a bit (it might, in fact, get a little worse).

            Then, every four to eight years or so, after we are getting sick of the new governmental controls, the Republicans say, “elect us and we’ll get government off your backs”.  So we elect them, and they concentrate on increasing corporate profits. deregulating big business and ensuring that the already wealthy get even wealthier.  Big government intrusion into and regulation over our lives diminishes not a whit, but in fact grows a little.  Then, after we once again get sick of the runaway greed, along come the Democrats, repeating their promise of, ”elect us and we’ll roll back the excesses of big business”. 

And so it goes, on and on, back and forth, left and right.  At each election, there is a seemingly permanent national division around the issues of morality, peace, justice and the like.  These issues, which should mostly be settled between neighbors in community, have been nationalized by dubious court rulings or non rulings.  Consequently, those of us who care about them almost all feel compelled to vote for one side of the dichotomy or the other.  Then, when elected, the authorities of either party deliver just enough on the issues we care about to keep us passionately divided from our neighbors, and for the rest of their term advance the fascist agenda of more power and money to big business and big government.

Every one of these times of change acts like a social/ political ratchet, a sudden change that moves only in one direction, and stops at a new political equilibrium for a few years.  At every move of the ratchet, toward big business or big government, the combined centralizing forces of big capital and big government gain increasing power over our lives. 

This is why it is accurate to call modern America a fascist country, because even though “Fascism” per se, isn’t in the platforms of either major political party, the real world results of the interplay of the actions of both parties, when considered together, has tended to centralize and combine the powers of big government with the powers of big business, and use them to act against the interests of the working, entrepreneurial, and poor classes.  One can easily imagine the leaders of the two sides getting together over drinks in their private clubs and toasting one another's success at keeping this bamboozle going.

In addition, the aspect that makes this system distinct from old fashioned “despotism” is that the political and economic power over us is used, ala classic Fascism, to shape our minds and culture.  This involves the education system, the media, corporate advertising, and any number of culture changing court decisions. Mussolini originally proposed using the power of modern media and psychology to mold the minds of the people.  The idea was that humanity could be perfected by the strict enforcement of well conceived laws and the use of modern technology to mold minds. Sadly, the goals of this program of indoctrination seems not to be general enlightenment of the populace, but rather a general dumbing down of the people, with the aim of ensuring their continued compliance.

This culture molding can be seen in action in all the schools of fascism, from the Hitler youth of the Nazis to the Young Pioneers and Cultural Revolutions of the Marxists in China and Russia, to the social engineering advanced by the educators and social workers in the liberal welfare state started by FDR. The assertion here is that fascism is at the center of all the “isms”, and that communism, socialism, Nazism, and FDR’ism are all, when seen in light of being combinations of the power of the state with big capital against the people, just schools of fascism.

"Hold on," some will shout.  "Marxism/ Socialism want to end capitalism, not make alliances with it."  That naive sentiment is easily debunked, because it is impossible for any society to eliminate capitalism.

The definition of capitalism is the holding and accumulation of the proceeds of one venture, the profits, and applying that to some other venture.  The most elemental instance of capitalism is a farmer holding back some seed grain from one harvest so as to be able to plant next years crop.   When seen in that light capitalism has an organic, unbreakable connection to human culture.

Even in the most socialistic, planned economy it can't be escaped.  Say, for instance, some Marxist nation wanted to build a hydroelectric dam to generate electricity.  This is a worthy project which will yield great benefits to society, but to get it built will require a great deal of wealth, capital, which has to be derived from previous ventures.  Even if volunteers (slaves) are used, they will still have to be fed, and clothed, and housed, for the many years it will take to build the huge dam.  Tools will have to be provided, along with the materials, like steel and concrete, needed for the project.  All of the wealth to accomplish this huge, beneficial project must be gathered before any sane managers would start digging the first foundation.

Consequently, it must be conceded that even the most pure and fervent socialist nation has to engage in capitalism.  G.K. Chesterton saw this and called socialism merely "state capitalism."  With that insight let's revisit that original definition, that Fascism is the combination, or alliance, of big capital with big government against the interests of the people.  In that light it is clear that socialist and Marxist governments have only to turn against the people to become full blown fascist regimes, and that seems to always happen. 

In America's case, our particular form of fascism is best explained by looking at the symbol of American Fascism at the head of this post.  On the left face of our Fascist beast we see the big government types who want to control everyone (for their own good don't ya know) and are more that willing to join together with big capital to make that happen.  On the right face of our Fascist  beast is represented the big capital type of people, the big business folks who want to control everyone in the name of a "free," feudalism like, market, and are happy to form common cause with the big government types to make that happen.

Once we realize and agree that “Fascism” means a combination of big business and big government operating against the interests of the poor, working and entrepreneurial classes which also uses modern science to mold the hearts and minds of the people, we might become equipped to find an antidote.  But we had better get after it soon, because we can now see that a fascist oligarchy is certainly what we have today in America.  For that matter, a similar power structure is taking root over most of the planet; a growing and terrifying international fascist oligarchy with slaveship earth as its' goal.  It can be stopped, if we really want to stop it.

first post

This going to be my primary blog, and will focus on the fact that the United States of America has essentially become a fascist country, and how that effects our work life, political life, family life, church life, and community life.  The next post will get into what is meant by "fascism".