Obamatrade would destroy America – As Intended! A Process of Capitalist Logic That Has Been Evolving for Generations

I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power  than  by  violent  and  sudden usurpation’s.


The Nazi state was created by the same oligarchic financial and political interests who today control what we call the mass media and television. At the root of this experiment was the desire to create a New World Order based on reversing a fundamental premise of western Christian civilization: that man is created as a higher and distinct species from animals, created in the image of the living God and by Divine grace, imparted the Divine Spark of reason.

==Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (The Institution for Social and Policy St) (Scott, James C.)

Luther and Thomas Hobbes (the one of whom elaborated a religious and the other a secular version of a purely pessimistic analysis of man’s nature) human desires are regarded as inherently inordinate, and human character is believed to be practically devoid of inner checks upon expansive desires. In their opinion the business of government is to maintain order by repression.

==Reinhold Niebuhr: Major Works on Religion and Politics

contentThe following quotes are from what I consider to be one of the most prescient of books, Bertram Gross’s, Friendly Fascism, published in 1980, ten years prior to the fall of communism. It is must reading for any student of the global, transnational fascism that is unfolding with increasing speed and openness. Gross expresses a deep understanding of the evolutionary imperatives of capitalism, the rise of the transnational capitalist class and its necessary supportive marriage with the transnationalist State and the almost…. almost inevitable end point. First a somewhat benign, covert form of a modern, post nationalist fascism to be more than likely followed by a far less “friendly” fascist persona bestriding America and the world.

It makes for good headlines and it may be a turn of a phrase into an appropriate epigram that makes the process seem smaller than it really is, but also, perhaps, easier to pillory and defeat. “Obamatrade”, as it is now being called, is not remotely the progeny of the Obama administration, but its embrace by his administration should dispel those who have labeled this President “liberal” in either its progressive or classical sense, for he is not.

From nation diluting immigration, to the continued, now once again more visible, support for the military industrial complex and the total disregard for the law by capitalist power and so many other examples, this administration has proven itself to be nothing more than the political arm of the transnational capitalist elites and the supporting global NGO’s such as the IMF, World Bank, OECD and yes, even the United Nations that are, in essence, the elites enforcers for the establishment of the reign of transnational crony finance capitalism. The curtain is being pulled back as the machinations of the corporate powers are revealed through the bumbling incompetence of Obama and his minions at affecting the plans that have been prepared long before his duplicitous, Trojan horse of a Presidency.

Flickr-Prison-Planet-AZRainmanIs there hope? For a time, perhaps. The world-wide revolt against Monsanto, GMO seeds and Roundup, a long simmering populist movement, has been increasingly successful. There is now a worldwide, still relatively minor but growing rapidly, push back by the people against the corporatist fascism of the two major trade deals that American and foreign governments are attempting to cram down our collective throats. Derailing these efforts, both here in American and in Europe is critical.

If successful at burying the “free trade” process now it would be a huge and potentially contagious event that empowers the only force that can end the migration to a global corporate fascism, “friendly” or not so friendly. But it cannot die with what will likely be only a temporary setback to the transnational capitalist class. “Davos” man and all of the supporting characters will not roll over. They will fight and we will likely lose in the end. But the seeds of revolution will build under the coming tyranny of the 21st Century globalized fascist system.

A win here will likely be only of a battle in a long war, a war that has been going on for generations. Like the recent setback on Obama’s and the entire corporate complexes immigration, open border agenda, as well as the courts refutation of the totally unconstitutional destruction of the American citizens privacy rights there system will keep trying and will obviate restraints legally or not, these trade bills will not go away. The money and power behind them, as well as the full machinery of the all powerful corporate and state propaganda system,  will gear up for a more concerted assault, now or sometime in the not too distant future. Clearly, they underestimated the response. That will not happen again.

I would anticipate significant diversions going forward to enhance the ease at which what is left of any pretenses of democracy in American and the EU will be distracted or, for national security and economic reasons the goals of all of these three major potential setbacks are overcome. From racial civil unrest, false flag terrorist attacks here and in Europe, war with Russia or more significant battles erupting in the Middle East there are plenty of avenues for what could be called a globalized, transnational Cloward-Piven program of chaos, distraction and fear.

We are in the end game of an evolutionary process of capital and the State and the powers against freedom, nationalism, and even the modest, squeaky democratic voice now being heard are far too powerful and will not lose without a fight, likely one of the very unfriendly fascist kind. The coming financial and economic implosion, or course, will provide more than enough fuel for the justification of the tyranny that unfortunately lies ahead. But protests today may lead to the needed revolutionary changes coming sooner, but first the collapse, the elites battle to retain power, tyranny and then, and then hopefully freedom once again. 

HOW ARE THE LEADERS of the “Free World,” the Golden International, and the U.S.Establishment responding to the challenges that face them?

If one looks at any particular area, the prompt reply may be: “With cautious confusion.” When one looks at this or that part of the U.S. Establishment, one can  see  reactionaries  trying  to  “turn back  the clock of history,” conservatives who seem to favor the status quo and liberals who seek some system-strengthening  reforms.

But  as  I  survey  the  entire  panorama   of   contending  forces,  I  can readily detect something more important:  the outline  of  a powerful   logic of   events.  This  logic  points  toward  tighter  integration  of   every  First World  Establishment.  In  the  United  States  it  points  toward  more  concentrated,  unscrupulous,   repressive,   and  militaristic   control  by   a  Big Business-Big  Government  partnership  that-to preserve  the  privileges  of the ultra-rich,  the  corporate  overseers,  and  the brass  in the  military  and civilian  order-squelches the rights  and liberties  of  other people  both  at home  and  abroad.  That  is friendly fascism.

There is, of course, no master plan, no coordinated conspiracy.  There is no predestined path, leading step by step to a sudden seizure of  power by friendly fascists. I emphasize these points, if only  because  it is  easy for a confusion to arise. By trying to make my analysis systematic and explicit, I may give the impression that the reality will be equally system­ atic and  explicit.

On the contrary, the powerful leaders of the capitalist world  have no single secret flight plan. In fact, the major navigators are in constant dispute among themselves about both the direction and the speed of flight, while their most redoubtable experts display their expertise by nitpicking at each other over an infinity of potentially  significant  details.

At any particular moment First World leaders may respond to crisis like people in a crowded night club when smoke and flames suddenly billow forth. They do not set up a committee to plan  their response. Neither do they act in a random or haphazard  fashion. Rather,  the logic of the situation prevails. Everyone runs to where they think the exits are. In the ensuing melee some may be trampled to death. Those who know where the exits really are, who are most favorably situated, and have the most strength will save themselves.

Thus it was in Italy, Japan, and Germany when the classic fascists came to power. The crisis of depression, inflation, and class conflict pro­ vided an ideal opportunity for the cartels, warmongers, right-wing extremists, and rowdy street fighters to rush toward power. The fascist response was not worked out by some central cabal of secret conspirators. Nor was it  a  random  or  accidental  development.  The  dominant logic of the situation prevailed.

Thus too it was  after World  War  II. Neither  First  World  unity  nor the Golden  International  was  the  product  of  any  central  planners  in the banking,  industrial,  political,  or  military  community.  Indeed,  there  was then-as there  still is-considerable  conflict  among competing  groups  at the pinnacle of the major capitalist  establishments. 

But  there was  a broad unfolding logic about the way these conflicts were adjusted  and the “Free World” empire came into being. This logic involved  hundreds  of  separate plans  and planning  committees-some highly  visible, some less so, some secret.  It  encompassed  the  values  and  pressures  of  reactionaries,  conservatives,  and  liberals.  In  some  cases,  it  was  a  logic  of  response  to anti-capitalist  movements  and  offensives  that  forced  them  into  certain measures-like  the   expanded   welfare   state-which   helped   themselves despite  themselves.

Although the friendly fascists are  subversive  elements,  they rarely see themselves as such. Some are merely out to make money under conditions of stagflation. Some are merely concerned with keeping or expanding their power and privileges.Many use the rhetoric of freedom, liberty, democracy, human values, or even human rights. In  pursuing  their mutual interests through a new coalition of concentrated oligarchic power, people may be hurt-whether through pollution, shortages, unemploy­ment, inflation,  or  war.  But  that  is  not  part  of  their  central purpose. It is the product  of  invisible  hands  that  are not theirs.

For every dominant logic, there is an  alternative  or  subordinate logic. Indeed, a dominant logic may even contribute to its own undoing. This has certainly been the case with  many  strong anticommunist  drives-as in both China and Indochina-that tended to accelerate the triumph of  communism.  If friendly  fascism emerges  on  a full scale in the United, or even if the tendencies in that direction become still stronger, countervailing forces may here too be created. Thus the unfolding logic of friendly fascism-to borrow a term from Marx- sows the seeds of its destruction or prevention.

In the name of “full employment,” job creation, and “supply side” economics, promote new forms of open or hidden payments to big business. In the name of combating inflation, cut social expenditures and promote recessions that lower real wages and weaken labor unions. Hold forth the promise of greater profitability in the future. Dampen class conflicts by sharing the spoils of Third World exploitation with parts of the home population.

If exploitation of the Third World is less successful, resort to firmer treatment at home. In either case, “divide and conquer” by co-opting the leaders of potential opposition and nurturing class fragmentation and ethnic conflicts. Try to keep actual warfare  limited  to  small  geographical  areas and non-nuclear weapons. While calling for a balanced budget, expand arms exports (including the nuclear power plants that enable the pro­ liferation of nuclear war capabilities) and the  stockpiling  of  overkill while striving for “first strike” superiority. Reap the benefits from arms production as a factor in overcoming economic stagnation and a guarantee of profitable growth in the industrial-scientific-military complex. Seek larger armed forces, draft registration and conscription as instruments of military intervention, relief of unemployment, and promotion of militarist discipline in society.

Lippmann: The breakdown of forms of authority is a much deeper and wider process in modern history than the Vietnam War … The destruction of that threatens to produce the chaos  of modem times.

Steel:  You  see  this  as  leading  to  authoritarianism  or fascism?

Lippmann: It’s absolutely one of the things that will occur . . .

RONALD STEEL Washington post, 1973

 Writing in the National  Review  toward  the end  of  that decade  (1960’s) , Donald  Zoll  provided  an  example  of  the  possible  rationalizations.  Responding  to  the turmoil of  the antiwar and civil rights  movements,  Zoll argued in a spirit of  rueful  advocacy  that  in  the  face of  truly  serious  crisis,  conservatives must consider  expediential fascism.   They  should contemplate  abandoning the  “traditional rules  of  the  game” by  “candidly  facing  the  necessity  of employing  techniques   generally   ignored   or  rejected   by   contemporary Western  conservatives.” He therefore urged  “political  approaches that are totalitarian  in  nature  [though]  not quite  in the original fascist  sense that puts  all  aspects  of  life  under  political  authority,  at  least  in  the  general sense that political theory can no longer restrict  itself to general conditions and  procedural  rules.” His  alternative  to “totalitarian  radicalism”  would be  a  totalitarian  conservatism  uninhibited   by  “liberal  proprieties  as  to method.” Zoll  confessed  that  this  “might  imply  common  cause  with  the Radical  Right  or  even  some  form  of   expedential  fascism-hardly  an appealing  association.” s But  if  the  alternative  to  expedential  fascism is to “let America  die,” then-according to Zoll’s logic-better fascist than dead.

A similar note of urgency is trumpeted by General Maxwell Taylor who, in contrast with Zoll’s response to internal dangers, warns mainly against external dangers. “How can a democracy such as ours,” he asks, “defend its interests at acceptable costs and continue to enjoy the freedom of speech and behavior to which we are accustomed in time of peace?” Although his answer is not as candid as Zoll’s, he replies that such traditional and liberal properties must be dispensed with: “We must advance concurrently on both foreign and domestic fronts by means of integrated national power responsive to a unified national  will.” Here is a distressing echo of Adolf Hilter’s pleas for “integration” (Gleichschaltung) and unified national will.

It is hard  to grasp the unfolding  logic  of  modem  capitalism  if one’s head  is  addled  by  nightmares   of   spectacular  seizures  of  power.  The combined  influence  of  institutional rigidities, traditional  concepts  of  constitutional democracy, and rifts among powerful elites is so great that friendly fascism could hardly emerge other than by gradual and silent encroachments. Like the tyranny referred to in a New York Times edi­ torial, it “can come silently, slowly, like fog creeping in ‘on  little  cat feet.’

Many of the most important changes would be subtle shifts imperceptible to the majority  of  the population. Even  those most  alert to the dangers would be able to see clearly, and document neatly, only a few of these changes. Indeed, some important social and economic innovations in manipulation or exploitation (coming in response to liberal or radical demands) might well be hailed as “progress.” In other cases, dramatic exposure, attack, and hullabaloo could have smokescreen consequences, blurring and sidetracking any effort to uncover root  evils.

I deliberately   avoid   the   high-charged   attention-attracting drama   of  predicting   the  decade,  year  or  circumstances   of   a  sudden seizure  of  power  by the  friendly  fascists.  Like  Oliver  Wendell  Holmes, I have almost no faith in “sudden ruin.” Although friendly fascism would mean total  ruin of the American dream, it could hardly come suddenly let  alone in  any precisely  predictable  year.  This  is one  of  the  reasons  I cannot  go along  with  the  old-fashioned Marxist picture  of  capitalism  or imperialism  dropping  the  fig leaf  or  the  mask.  This  imagery  suggests  a process  not  much  longer  than  a striptease. It  reinforces the  apocalyptic vision  of  a  quick  collapse  of  capitalist  democracy-whether   “not  with a  bang  but  a  whimper,” as  T.  S.  Eliot  put  it,  or with  “dancing  to  a frenzied drum” as in the words of William Butler Yeats. In my judgment, rather,  one  of  the  greatest  dangers  is  the  slow  process  through  which friendly fascism would come into being.

For a large part of the population the  changes  would  be  unnoticed.  Even  those  most  alive  to  the  danger may  see only part  of the picture-until  it is too  late.  For  most  people, as  with  historians  and  social  scientists,  20-20  vision  on  fundamental change  comes  only  with  hindsight. And  by  that  time,  with  the  evidence at  last  clearly  visible,  the  new  serfdom  might  have long  since  arrived.

It would be easier to grasp the unfolding logic of modern  capitalism if the most powerful leaders in capitalist society could readily agree on the flight plan toward a still more perfect capitalism. As it is, the major navigators are in constant dispute among themselves about both the direction and speed of flight, while their most redoubtable experts prove their expertise by nitpicking at each other on an infinity of potentially significant details.

Besides, with weather conditions often turbulent and changing, forward motion sometimes creates more turbulence, and these are situations in which delays or even crashes may occur. Thus, in the movement toward friendly fascism, any sudden forward thrust at one level could be followed by a consolidating pause or temporary withdrawal at another level. Every step toward greater repression might be accompanied by some superficial reform, every expansionist step abroad by some new payoff at home, every well-publicized shocker (like the massacres at Jackson State, Kent State, and Attica, the Watergate scandals or the revelations of illegal deals by the FBI or CIA) by other steps of less visibility but equal or possibly greater significance, such as large welfare payments to multinational banks and industrial conglomerates.

At all stages the fundamental directions of change would be obscured by a series of Robson’s choices, of public issues defined in terms of clear-cut crossroads-one leading to the frying pan and the other to the fire. Opportunities would thus be provided for learned debate and earnest conflict  over the choice among  alternative  roads to serfdom  . . .

The unifying element in this unfolding logic is the capital-accumulation imperative of the world’s leading capitalist forces, creatively adjusted to meet the challenges of the many crises I have outlined. This is quite different from the catch-up imperatives of the Italian, German, and Japanese leaders after World War I. Nor would its working out necessarily require a charismatic dictator, one-party rule, glorification of the State, dissolution of legislatures, termination of multiparty elections, ultra-nationalism,  or  attacks  on rationality.

As illustrated in the following oversimplified outline, which  also points up the difference between  classic  fascism  and  friendly  fascism, the following eight chapters summarize the many levels of change at which the  trends  toward  friendly  fascism  are  already visible.

Despite the sharp differences from classic fascism, there are also some basic similarities. In each, a powerful oligarchy operates  outside  of,  as well as through, the state. Each subverts constitutional government. Each suppresses rising demands for wider participation in decision making, the enforcement and enlargement of human rights, and genuine democracy. Each uses informational control and ideological  flimflam  to  get lower and middle-class support for plans to expand  the  capital  and  power  of the oligarchy and provide suitable rewards for political, professional, scientific,  and  cultural  supporters.

flag_s640x427A major difference is that under friendly fascism Big Government would  do  less pillaging  of, and  more  pillaging  for, Big  Business. With much more integration than ever before among transnational corporations, Big Business would run less risk of control by any one state and enjoy more subservience by many states. In tum, stronger government support of transnational corporations, such as the large group of American companies with major holdings in South Africa, requires the active fostering of all latent conflicts among those segments of the American population that may object to this kind of foreign venture.

It requires an Establishment with lower levels so extensive that few people or groups can attain significant power outside it, so flexible that many (perhaps most) dissenters and would-be revolutionaries can be incorporated within it. Above all, friendly fascism in any First World  country  today would use sophisticated control technologies far beyond the ken of the classic fascists.

While the term “friendly” is useful (indeed invaluable) in distinguishing between the old-fashioned and the modern forms of repressive Big Business-Big Government partnerships, the word should not be stretched too far. The total picture provided by the following eight  chapters  may be thought of as a cinematic holograph of horror-all the more  horrifying if the reader finds himself or herself entranced, if not captured, by its compelling logic.

Despite my emphasis on the United States, this unfolding logic is not strictly American. It may be discerned in the other “Trilateral” countries (Canada, Western Europe, and Japan) and in the closely related capitalist societies of South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel. In all the more developed capitalist societies, corporate oligarchies tend to transcend the nation-state, while in the less developed ones-often with the rhetoric of socialism-State control plays a more decisive  role in fostering the growth of big capital and its entry into the larger world of the Golden International.

Moreover, the emergence of neofascism in the First World will often continue to be blurred by denunciation of old-style autocracies and military dictatorships as “fascist” in accordance with the colloquial identification of fascism with simple brutality or oppression. Often, the germ of truth in such denunciations is that under dependent fascism old-style dictatorship may often serve to nurture the growth  of big capital. On the other hand, when genuine neofascism emerges it may be associated with a relaxation of crude terror  and  the  maturation of more sophisticated,  effective,  and ruthless controls.

—Friendly Fascism-Bertram Gross


President Obama is on the verge of creating the New World Order. He is using Trade Promotion Authority — otherwise known as “fast track” — to pass his globalist dream: the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a sweeping 12-nation trade pact.The TPP, however, is much more than about “free trade.” It is a deliberate attempt to create a new Pacific Union — a supranational entity modeled on the European Union. It is an embryonic political and economic union that, if implemented, would destroy U.S. sovereignty, flood America with unlimited immigration and subordinate the Constitution to an unelected, unaccountable international tribunal.In short, it is a monster, an evil corporatist infant, which must be strangled in its crib.Yet, Republicans in Congress, who were swept into office to curb Obama’s imperial presidency, are betraying their voters — and their country.

[gview file=”http://www.troutinmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Kuhner-Obamatrade-would-destroy-America.pdf”]

Source: Kuhner: Obamatrade would destroy America – World Tribune | World Tribune

[gview file=”http://www.troutinmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Friendly-Fascism-Are-We-TherenbspYet.pdf”]

[gview file=”http://www.troutinmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/White-House-launches-frantic-campaign-to-save-trade-deal.pdf”]

[gview file=”http://www.troutinmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/The-Republic-For-Which-It-Stands.pdf”]

[gview file=”http://www.troutinmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Youre-a-Criminal-in-a-Mass-Surveillance-World-How-to-Not-Get-Caught.pdf”]