"When
fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It
will not be with jack-boots. It will be Nike sneakers and Smiley shirts …
Germany
lost the Second World War. Fascism won it. Believe me, my friend." -
George Carlin
Jack
Spirko of The Survival Podcast stated in some of his more recent
podcasts that he believes that the next president will be a 'strongman'
(or perhaps 'strongwoman'?).
I’ve kicked it around in my head for a time, and unfortunately I have
to agree with his prediction. I’ve already been expecting that society
would continue to turn increasingly authoritarian over the next decade,
and certain recent events and recent memes
in the media certainly support the notion of our next president being a
modern-day Mussolini.
Even for all of Obama's over-the-top belligerent and aggressive stance towards
Russia, we're still seeing shouts from both sides that he's too weak or
ineffectual
or indecisive to handle the new threats to the US. That's right, despite his overzealous push for going to war with Syria and an
abundance of drone strikes throughout the Middle East responsible for a
shamefully high number of civilian casualties, he's just not militant
ENOUGH. Last month Hillary Clinton was already busy
working that angle:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-11/hillary-clinton-blasts-obamas-dont-do-stupid-stuff-foreign-policy
"I
know that the failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the
people who were the originators of the protests against Assad -- there
were Islamists,
there were secularists, there was everything in the middle -- the
failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now
filled,” Clinton said in the interview.
......
“Americans
deserve to feel secure in their own lives, in their own middle-class
aspirations, before you go to them and say, ‘We’re going to have to
enforce
navigable sea lanes in the South China Sea,’” Clinton said."
Sounds
to me like Hillary is not only trying to distance herself from Obama,
but is also desperately trying to establish her strong(wo)man
credentials early.
And I suspect that most of the presidential candidates in 2016 are
going to be trying to out-do one another on their "strong, decisive
leadership" qualities, competing over who is the biggest hard-ass on
America's enemies. And the one that wins will probably
be the most aggressive, authoritarian, and militant of the bunch. The
escalation with Russia is merely helping set up the narrative of
"America's enemies are everywhere and so we have to be stronger and more
ruthless than ever". It'll be an ironic twist that
the new US president in 2016 will probably mimic many of Putin's own
repressive domestic and economic policies.
The
more conspiratorial-minded might say this is all part of some master
plan by the political elite to seize more power, whereas others might
say this is
simply a result of arrogance and overconfidence on the part of the
leadership of a declining power. While I favor the latter explanation,
it probably doesn't matter which one it is since the outcome will likely
be the same..... a strongman/strongwoman president
eclipsing the power of the Legislative and Judicial branches, more
government controls & restrictions in our lives, more moves to crush
or silence dissenters (as with the Sedition Act of 1918), more US
military involvement throughout the world (some being
proxy wars with Russia and perhaps later with China), and more calls
for the American people to make 'necessary sacrifices'.
The
sad thing is some, if not most, Americans will probably DEMAND such a person and
strong measures to "keep them safe".
As
the so-called economic recovery continues to leave more and more people
behind, we will see more incidents like the recent Ferguson riots.
Riots and
civil unrest tend to persist in environments where there are a shortage
of economic opportunities and options for upward mobility. As I
mentioned before in the Ferguson post, the shooting was merely the
spark; the anger and frustration and resentment that
allowed the civil unrest to happen were already present and waiting to provide the fuel for the unrest. As the current
economy continues to break down, we will see more people who've been
pushed to the economic fringes lash out violently. Sometimes it will be
at people or institutions they see as the cause
of their misery, and other times it may just be at anybody they
perceive as having 'more' than they do. And that is going to scare the
crap out of the Average Joe.
In
addition the politicians and the media will continue to hype up threats
such as ISIS, Russia, Ebola, ‘domestic terrorism’, and whatever else
they can dig
up. Why? Because they want you to be afraid, and they want you to feel
helpless in the face of it all. Now don’t get me wrong, there are
legitimate threats out there and some of these things are worth keeping
an eye out for. But for the most part they are
either greatly exaggerating real security concerns (such as ISIS
‘coming to America’) or largely fabricating them (Putin being the ‘next
Hitler’). Just about the only threat they cite that I feel they haven’t blatantly
exaggerated is that of cyber-warfare and cyber-attacks
on our financial and physical infrastructure. But even that is not
something I’m going to obsess about (I’ve already made what prudent
preparations I can make so there’s no point living in fear of it).
So
I expect these things will steer the American majority towards a
dictator-in-chief. Only later when they see that things have continued
to get worse and
see all they lost will they have their Homer Simpson "Doh!" moment. I
still have hope for America in the long term, but in the short term we
still have too many people that are willing to believe the comfortable
lies rather than face the uncomfortable truth.
Who
will end up as the final contenders for that position in 2016? I don’t
really know, but I think the odds favor Hillary Clinton for the
Democratic ticket.
On the Republican side I’m less certain, but I think it’ll probably
lean towards Mitt Romney. Rand Paul probably doesn’t have a chance in
hell as he’s not militant enough (I’m not saying it’s right, only what I
expect). But let me be clear; it doesn’t really
matter who wins because both parties favor the same outcome and will
pursue the same oppressive domestic and foreign policies. Sure you’ll
have your small assortment of social issues they will make a big game of
fighting over, but those are largely there just
to keep us divided and unaware of how we’re being played.
So
if I expect it’s already baked into the cake, then why do I bother
talking about it? Well, one of the things I hope for is that enough
seeds are planted
in the minds of Americans that the public will realize its mistake
sooner rather than later, and that the less people supporting the new
president the more likely it is he/she will hesitate to implement some of the
more heinous domestic and foreign policies they want to enact. It’s
not about changing the current political system, but more about
preventing some of the damage that the current system might inflict as
it dies its slow death. Second, the less energy people waste on this
political system that’s already beyond repair, the more
energy and thinking they’ll devote to improving their own lives and
thinking ahead about what kind of system they’d like to see replace this
old one. And last, I want people to think about taking steps to protect
themselves in such a political climate. Speaking
out against authority will be more dangerous, so if you plan to do it
make sure you ready yourself for increased retaliation. Which may
include anything from being actively monitored by federal authorities
and surprise IRS tax audits on the low end, all the
way to including freezing one's financial accounts or being charged with vague accusations like
‘supporting terrorist activities’.
In
the meantime, if voting for either party’s candidate doesn’t change
anything, you can at the least use your vote to make a statement or even have a little fun at
their expense.
I’ve already got my write-in candidate in mind…
No comments:
Post a Comment