Project Alamo Trump Builds an explicitly Fascist movement

Trump & Bannon aren't planning to go away after the election. Joshua Green writes in Bloomberg in an article called "Inside the Bunker" about Trump's long term plan to transform his candidacy for the Presidency of the United States (POTUS) in an Alt Right movement, whether Trump gets elected or not. He explains how Trump Staffers like Brad Parscale are using database, direct marketing driven methods to create and maintain, a network of followers that will, hopefully for the Trumpster, outlast the election. This is a less benign effort similar to what the Obama Campaign did in 2008 but with a different set of objectives.

Trump Channels Jeff Davis at Gettysburg

I had trouble finding Trump's Gettysburg address. One article that claimed to be about it was actually the transcript of one of his Florida speeches. The second was his prepared remarks, which he referenced but didn't read straight. I was trying to avoid actually listening to him so I wouldn't throw a shoe at my TV. He tried to sound like Gingrich. He wants another contract on America. I look at his contract and some of it might be acceptable, but most is not.

● FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;

The best way to impose term limits is by having public, well resourced and transparent elections.

● SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health);

This slanders Federal workers. It also is a hollow thing since the agencies wind up hiring more privateering contractors instead of permanent employees, which generates increased corruption and conflict of interest. But it sounds good to his base.

● THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated;

This caters to the corrupt and lazy business establishment which blame regulation for their inability to squeeze more money out of unemployed and underpaid workers.

● FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service;

This has already been tried. It doesn't work. The best way to avoid this is, counterintuitively, to reward public service and reduce the value of corporate lobbyists by increasing the power of ordinary citizens to lobby their government, to use ordinary courts to deal with disputes and to input on regulatory decisions and record grievances.

● FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government;

He'd have to fire his staff.

● SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

Same

Disrupting our Economy

● FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205

For all the complaints about NAFTA withdrawing from it would disrupt our economies and probably plummet our society into a depression.

● SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership

So much for that.

● THIRD, I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator

This is presumptuous, ignores the most basic rules of due process, and would provoke the Chinese to retaliate. A trade war with China would hurt us.

● FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately

This is something all our Presidents already do.

● FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.

Great idea, more communities to be poisoned, disrupted and then shut down when the Grifters leave town. We already are producing at a maximum.

● SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward

Keystone would have served an export market for Canada. Done nothing for US jobs.

● SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure

This sounds like a lot of money, but the country needs to invest nearly a billion dollars. Not the millions we contribute are nowhere near "billions".

This list is mostly symbolic, based on lies about the causality of our economic issues, and much of it would hurt the people who are screaming for it.

The Really Scary Stuff

The rest of his list is a mix of lies, unfunded promises and some really scary stuff. So I'll skip to the really scary stuff and hope I don't have to finish explaining why the rest of his garbage is demagoguery.

● FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama

He calls them "unconstitutional" but that his his opinion.

● SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States

Which means to him and fellow Cons, putting someone who will deny the right to privacy implied by "secure in ones papers and personal effects, and key to Roe Versus Wade

● THIRD, cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities

That would take a statute. But essentially he's promising retaliation to cities where Democrats are a majority.

● FOURTH, begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back

Rolling the cattle cars.

● FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.

War on Muslims. Applying the "bad skittles" fascist argument. Again with the cattle cars and concentration camps!

10 Legislative faux promises and Privateering

His ten legislative proposals are all things that benefit his corporate sponsors or things the GOP will not pass, because the GOP created most of them in the first place.

1. Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act.

He claims this is a plan that would benefit the middle class: "An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief, and lifting the restrictions on American energy." He claims that "the largest tax reductions are for the middle class. A middle-class family with 2 children will get a 35% tax cut." Which sounds good but such tax cuts are always tied either to revenue cuts to programs that pay out to the middle class. So essentially this sounds good but it is like lead acetate -- really a poison.

When he says "The current number of brackets will be reduced from 7 to 3, and tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The business rate will be lowered from 35 to 15 percent, and the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10 percent rate." he is talking about the bulk of his "middle class tax cuts" going to the top 1%, even more to the top .1% and to the billionaire classes, who really don't need it and will only hoard money and loan it at interest and use that to knock more people out of the middle class. It is a plan for destroying the middle class not helping them.

2. End The Offshoring Act Establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products back to the U.S. tax-free.

Since the GOP refuses to pass anything like this now, I doubt they'll do it for Trump. Although once he destroys the middle class they'll be willing to work for less than Chinese workers.

3. American Energy & Infrastructure Act.

He claims he'd "Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over 10 years." His claim that "it is revenue neutral" might be true in the short term, but shifting incentives to the private sector, privateering, shifts the revenues from energy and infrastructure to the pirates. And most our infrastructure and energy repair and upgrade needs that require public sustainment need to be directed in the public interest, or instead of lifting "all boats" they will simply aggravate our already oppressive economic inequality and boost it to new levels of misery.

4. School Choice And Education Opportunity Act.

"School Choice" "Redirects education dollars" in a fashion that gives some parents privileged access to public money, while denying the same right to others. Seeking to establish a "right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice" winds up starving public schools and denying resources based on income. His promise to "end common core" claims to offer to "bring education supervision [back] to local communities" but it won't do so as the centralization it legitimately criticized is generated by State power not Federal power. Trump claims he'll "expands vocational and technical education, and make 2 and 4-year college more affordable" but he's planning to cut funding for these efforts -- so he's lying.

5. Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act.

Likewise Trump means it when he promises to "Fully repeals Obamacare" but when he promises to "replace it with Health Savings Accounts" and "the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines" is a give-away to upper middle class and wealthy citizens but is at the expense of blue collar workers as is letting "states manage Medicaid funds" which they do presently under regulations that prevent them from stealing them. Trump's plan would continue the trend to deny healthcare to the working poor and tradesmen. Ironically, most of whom are eating up this proposal as if it will help them. Trump would also protect snake oil salesmen like himself: "Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA" Trump seems to think that cutting the red tape on the "over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval" will speed "the approval of life-saving medications." But either the FDA vets those drugs or people will find the unvetted medications life destroying.

Health Savings accounts and the like do nothing for folks making low wages or with unsteady jobs. Most people can't afford them, and most small employers won't be able to afford them even for themselves. His "reforms" are simply a return to the status quo ante and a means for denying access to health care.

6. Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act.

His proposal to "Allow Americans to deduct childcare and elder care from their taxes" is a give away to the upper middle class and the wealthy. It will do nothing for blue collar workers and most tradesmen. It sounds nice to "incentivize employers to provide on-side childcare services, and creates tax-free Dependent Care Savings Accounts for both young and elderly dependents, with matching contributions for low-income families" but these programs don't deliver to low-income families and are actually more costly than simple single payer approaches.

7. End Illegal Immigration Act

Trump claims he can "Fully-fund the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall" -- Which can only be enforced if Trump invades Mexico; "establishes a 2-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation" -- which also would divide mixed families and create the usual problems of injustice, along with his "5-year mandatory minimum for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations" -- I suppose the private prison system would like this. We already have "penalties for overstaying" and deny "open jobs" to undocumented or poorly documented aliens. These laws, without enforcing penalties on those who hire undocumented workers or put in the infrastructure to document workers better -- are worse than useless. They are designed to establish a pool of cheap labor either by driving more people underground or through prison camps.

And Trump pretty much threatened to wage war on Mexico in his Gettysburg Address.

8. Restoring Community Safety Act.

He wants to do yet another round of "Reduc[ing] surging crime, drugs and violence by creating a Task Force On Violent Crime and increasing funding for programs that train and assist local police; increases resources for federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars." So much for decriminalization, treatment and rehabilitation. The more people we put behind bars the more it costs us, short term and long term. This sounds good to Sheriffs, however, as they need the funds.

9. Restoring National Security Act.

Rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester and expanding military investment; provides Veterans with the ability to receive public VA treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice; protects our vital infrastructure from cyber-attack; establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values.

We presently spend more money than any two or three of our largest rivals combined.

10. Clean up Corruption in Washington Act.

Repeats Newt Gingrich's fake reforms to "Enact new ethics reforms to Drain the Swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics." These do little good without the power to enforce them, transparency and public financing of the electoral process.

Malice towards everyone -- Channeling Jeff Davis

I didn't want to do a point by point critique. But I couldn't help myself and someone needs to do it. And this is just the stuff his handlers wanted him to say. Daily Mail notes:

Trump "aired more grievances against the journalism profession and the parade of women who have accused him of unwanted kissing and groping years – and in some cases decades – ago" and said "after the election, he plans to sue them." Quoting Trump:

'Every woman lied when they came forward to hurt my campaign. Total fabrication. The events never happened. Never,' Trump declared. 'All of these liars will be sued after the election is over.'

Trump is also promising to persecute the Democrats for allegedly starting fist fights. So we'll be arrested and beaten up for letting Trump thugs arrest us and beat us up at his rallies. What makes this a bit dicey is that if Trump wins he'll also have the FBI, IRS, Secret Service, and his minions in local police, going after US!

His comments warning he won't accept the electoral outcome unless he wins, and promising insurrection, rebellion and retaliation, are more reminiscent of Jefferson Davis in 1860 than Abraham Lincoln in 1862 or 1863 when he gave the Gettysburg address. The Southerners invaded the North every year from 1862 to 1864. The last time they did so they tried to attack Washington and nearly shot Abraham Lincoln at the battle of Fort Stevens. Despite that Lincoln called for "malice towards none." Trump reeks of malice.

Prepared Remarks

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/CONTRACT_FOR_THE_VOTER.pdf

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3861392/Trump-prepares-Gettysburg-address-unveiling-100-days-agenda-aides-say-Hillary-just-waiting-clock.html

Hannah Arendt on Donald Trump's Mob

Trump's Mob

Watching this election made me pull out my copy of "The Origins of Totalitarianism" by Hannah Arendt.

Here is what she wrote about Trump's followers:

“The mob is primarily a group in which the residue of all classes are represented. This makes it easy to mistake the mob for the people, which also comprises all strata of the people. While the people in all great revolutions fight for true representation, the mob will always shout for the “strong man,” the “great leader.” For the mob hates society from which it is excluded, as well as Parliament where it is not represented.” [Origins]

bait and switch confidence scheme of conservatism

A friend of mine noted that "Trump rose on GOP's 3 pillars" [Trumps 3 Pillars]:

racism(birtherism),

xenophobia(build wall)&

Islamophobia(Muslim ban).

"Anybody who sez otherwise is full of sh!t",

....and I have to agree. But that is only part of what is going on. If you go to one of the Conservative Websites designed to recruit students. They will tell you that the "four pillars of Conservatism" are:

Bait:

1 liberty / freedom

2 tradition & order

3 rule of law

4 belief in God

Source: https://home.isi.org/pillars-modern-american-conservatism

This sounds nice, except the constitution explicitly prohibits inserting religion into politics, since it is generally divisive and there is no true catholic and orthodox religion unless authorities resort to authoritarianism and impose it; or religious authorities have the wisdom to stay out of areas where their knowledge fails to be helpful.

But nobody can argue with concepts like liberty and freedom. Nothing is wrong with tradition & order, except that imposing it on others means abrogating or infringing on personal liberty and freedom, and tradition is something that has to have some flexibility or it becomes a source for oppression.

So essentially liberty/freedom are in potential conflict with tradition/order -- so these pillars have to balance or they bring down the table they are supporting.

Conserving Things

Us Progressives argue that tradition should not be restraining on improving personal and public welfare. They'd agree on Items one and three, but argue with rigid adherence to authority. Tradition should guide us not bind us.

And of course there are religious progressives and religious conservatives. So on the whole most people are fine with all four traditions and just differ on the degree to which they feel bound by #2. Progressives included!

Progressives believe that "order" should not be an excuse to infringe on people's private behavior. We are the conservatives on matters of personal liberty, mostly.

So in theory conservatives would be environmentalists, conserving the traditions of public access to parks and recreation, our harmony with nature, and man's role as Gardner of the planet tending to God's creation. Conservation of Nature is a conservative value.

In theory conserving the public good would be a conservative principle. The bible enjoins conservatives to look out for "widow's and orphans" to help one's "brother", and to contribute to the public welfare. Under a conservative regime paying tithes would be mandatory and public welfare would be administered through the churches. In our secular society it is too much for Churches, who have no one to enforce their tithes. So those advocating dismantling the welfare state are not conservatives. They look for other excuses to nullify the constitutionality of such programs -- saying the Church should do them. But upholding that tithes should not be mandatory. Thus defenestrating Churches from doing that role.

I point that out because there is nothing conservative about building giant walls, abrogating treaties, or doing away with public welfare, privatizing public services and education, or turning over our resources to rich people. All that is not conservatism.

The Confidence Scheme

So what it is is that modern conservatism is a confidence scheme. Read the offered link and you'd think that conservatism is all about liberty and tradition, upholding the constitution and establishing order over criminals and terrorists seeking to invade and trouble the country.

But the sales of conservatism are aimed at convincing people that a particular religious ideology, a particular tradition and peculiar ideas of who, what, how and why we get and keep order in our society. Modern conservatives complain about Donald Trump, but he's only pushing ideas that the GOP has developed and used over the past 50 years in order to win elections by stoking fear, paranoia and anger. I could go into detail but I won't. I have other things I need to be doing right now.

Besides, I wrote on this 2 years ago, talking about Lee Atwater:

http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/09/southern-strategy-and-war-on-poor.html

People should read my article and it's references

But of course the 4 pillars are the bait in a confidence scheme!

The Switch

Unfortunately, the reality, the "switch" of the conservative confidence game is that the only thing conservatives are actually conserving is wealth.

Their economic distress is diverted, using scapegoating, to bigotry. Part of the con! Sell them on "conservatism" hook them with hate!

switch:

1 No liberty unless white

2/3 order & law = authoritarianism

4 belief in God unless Muslim.

So essentially the "4 Pillars of conservatism" translate to nativism and authoritarianism.

Trump is the creation of Lee Atwater, Reince Priebus and the GOP

I have a lot more to say, but I need to work on some other things right now.

Further reading

https://home.isi.org/pillars-modern-american-conservatism

http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/09/southern-strategy-and-war-on-poor.html

bait and switch confidence scheme of conservatism

A friend of mine noted that "Trump rose on GOP's 3 pillars"

[Trumps 3 Pillars], Grifters, Oligarchs and Pirates:

racism(birtherism),

xenophobia(build wall)&

Islamophobia(Muslim ban).

“Anybody who sez otherwise is full of sh!t”,

....and I have to agree. But that is only part of what is going on. Conservatism might have started out "conservative" but it has become more and more authoritarian over time.

Four Pillars

If you go to one of the Conservative Websites designed to recruit students. They will tell you that the "four pillars of Conservatism" are:

Conservative Bait:

1 liberty / freedom

2 tradition & order

3 rule of law

4 belief in God

Source: https://home.isi.org/pillars-modern-american-conservatism

The Trouble with These So Called Pillars

Hypocrisy on Liberty and Freedom

The Conservative movement obsesses about Liberty and Freedom the same way that the Fascists did in the 30s. But they obviously don't want freedom and liberty for everyone. Like their libertarian allies, they want liberty for the privileged, but economic slavery for labor and no rights for immigrants, brown people and anyone they decide to scapegoat. In otherwords their profession of being for "liberty" is hypocritical. Freedom for the wolf is death to the lamb.

The Trouble with trying to push Utility into a Free Market hole

Likewise they push a peculiar definition of “free enterprise.”, they extol "competition", and will quote early economists who talked about the power of free enterprise to regulate economy based on supply and demand and market theory, but they know full well that for a market to regulate prices it needs the freedom of multiple venders with freedom of choice:

• Private Property: the property exchanged must legitimately belong to those making the exchange,
• Freedom of Choice: Both Buyer and Seller free to enter and leave markets,
• Motivation and Self Interest: Both Buyer and Seller benefit from the trades,
• Competition: People need to be free to go to another vender if they aren't satisfied,
https://quizlet.com/18136377/5-characteristics-of-a-free-market-system-flash-cards/

A parent may give a child a choice between a red or a green shirt. That is not real choice. A genuine free market offers a panoply of choices. If players can't buy or sell any color, they are not free. Vital utilities cannot be governed on the same principles as a sook because both parties are not equally free. Doctors, lawyers, journalists, service workers, need to be fairly compensated and there need to be enough of them to serve everybody and to meet emergency needs. They are utilities not free markets.

Basic to free markets is good government. Judges who are fair to both parties in disputes. Laws that protect transparency so that people aren't swindled. For Profit Hospitals and medicine are a great deal for the monopolists who can offer crappy medicine for high prices, but they can never meet the attributes of a free market. Such markets are what I call "free-booting" markets. A market where weights, measures, prices can't be trusted, where there is no real competition by price, is a free-booting market. Even more so when the seller's idea of "free market" is "buyer beware" and economics as low level warfare. It's not a free market if prices are set by anyone's fiat. Those trying to turn healthcare, energy distribution or other vital services into a free market model, are conning you. It's a swindle.

https://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2012/07/starve-beast-destroy-democracy.html

The Trouble with Tradition and Order

Tradition and Order = regulation and rules. There is a tension between "liberty" and order. Even more so between tradition and liberty. Traditional societies didn't provide people with much liberty. They had to tythe to the church. They had to follow rules. Some of those rules are important. Some need to be updated to fit with current times. Many Conservatives have trouble distinguishing those traditions and things that need to be conserved from the arbitrary and convenient rules that they prefer to live under. I don't know too many bankers who take prohibitions against charging interest seriously. Paul might have prescribed women wearing head covers, but so does the Taliban. Certainly, Jesus is not recorded to have said a word about it, except when he endorsed "the Law" of the 5 books of Moses. But he broke with the letter of the Mosaic law, over it's expressed spirit.

Worse, "tradition and order" is often a euphemism for oppression and tyranny. Tradition and Order is about setting common rules and boundaries. Many things traditional now, were not 100, 500 or 2000 years ago. In some cases tradition and order is an arbitrary thing that represents dictates of long ago tyrants. Tradition and order are important. They are meant to be founded on basic principle. When they are arbitrary, they are not worth the ink and paper used to write them down, except as a template for discussing "why not" do certain things. Fearful people cling to Tradition. The wise revise and set new traditions. The trouble with "tradition and order" is that it is transmitted through very fallible people who like to set themselves up as authority -- instead of God.

Rule of Law

When a person talks about "government" they are talking about rule of law. Rule of law is massively important. There is no genuine liberty, no genuine freedom, without people under a "common rule, that all can accept." [paraphrase Locke] Private government of things that are a common heritage, like utilities, is privateering and tyranny by definition. Law that is exercised unjustly is unlawful. Unlawful law can be extralegal but it is unjustified and arbitrary. Corruption and injustice are also dysfunction. Rule of law breaks down when those who govern property and people rule arbitrarily. This is a conservative value more honored in the breach than the fealty.

Again conservatives talk about liberty and then immediately talk about:

• Tradition, order and Rule of Law,

while protecting monopolies, privatizing utilities and other monopolies into private rule.

A Genuine Conservative respects tradition, order, rule of law; while applying the related principles reasonably and justly. It's not rule of law when judges always rule in favor of business over labor. It's not rule of law if ANYONE (like Kavanaugh or Trump) is exempt from it. A genuine conservative preserves the principles of these things, so that everyone can be free. By this definition I'm more conservative than 90% of the cons backing Donald Trump.

The Trouble with Belief in God

As a pillar of conservatism "belief in God" sounds nice. Except for two immediate points:

1. The Constitution Expressly prohibits inserting Religion into Politics.
2. Faith in a Higher Power/Ineffable One/"God" is individual, difficult to verify, and wouldn't be "faith" if any of us had full proof that there is a God, much less that His Attributes are what any particular religious tradition asserts they are. It is easy for a demagogue, narcissistic con artist or charlatan to pretend to speak for God and cherry pick scripture to assert what that person arbitrarily wants. Moreover, people go to war of whose definition of God is whose, and many of the worst Demagogues claim to speak for God, when all they really have is a "lying spirit" from God.

Thus this sounds nice, except the constitution explicitly prohibits inserting religion into politics, and until folks get to fighting over who owns God (no one does), which God to embrace (My God, Your God --> what makes you think you can presume to own the "ineffable one?" Thus belief in God as a litmus test is incredibly dangerous.

Worse yet, a litmus test of belief is generally divisive. There is no true catholic and orthodox religion, unless authorities can reasonably explain their authorities. So the tendency is to resort to authoritarianism, demand obedience and impose it. Religious authorities should have the wisdom to stay out of areas where their knowledge fails to be helpful.

Conclusion

But nobody can argue with concepts like liberty and freedom. Nothing is wrong with tradition & order, except that imposing it on others, arbitrarily, means abrogating or infringing on personal liberty and freedom. The reality is that tradition is something that has to have some flexibility or it becomes a source for oppression. It has to evolve!

Unfortunately liberty/freedom are in potential conflict with tradition/order -- these pillars have to balance or they bring down the table they are supporting. And unfortunately as our country transitions into Fascism, leadership is more and more con and less and less conserving anything except power and wealth. Certainly not basic conservative principles.

Conserving Things

Us Progressives argue that tradition should not be restraining on improving personal and public welfare. It should grow and evolve as people grow spiritually. We argue not with the value of traditions but with rigid adherence to arbitrary authority. Tradition should guide us not bind us.

And of course there are religious progressives and religious conservatives. So on the whole most people are fine with all four traditions and just differ on the degree to which they feel bound by #2. Progressives included!

Progressives believe that "order" should not be an excuse to infringe on people's private behavior. We are the conservatives on matters of personal liberty, mostly. To be a conservative people need to be conserving something like the Environment, or the productive livelihood of the masses.

In an ideal world conservatives would be environmentalists, conserving the traditions of public access to parks and recreation, our harmony with nature, and man's role as Gardner of the planet tending to God's creation. Conservation of Nature is a conservative value.

Instead, too many are Cons

Conserving the Public Good

In theory conserving the public good would be a conservative principle. The bible enjoins conservatives to look out for "widow's and orphans" to help one's "brother", and to contribute to the public welfare. Under a conservative regime paying tithes would be mandatory and public welfare would be administered through the churches. In our secular society it is too much for Churches, who have no one to enforce their tithes. So those advocating dismantling the welfare state are not conservatives. They look for other excuses to nullify the constitutionality of such programs -- saying the Church should do them. But upholding that tithes should not be mandatory. Thus defenestrating Churches from doing that role.

I point that out because there is nothing conservative about building giant walls, abrogating treaties, or doing away with public welfare, privatizing public services and education, or turning over our resources to rich people. All that is not conservatism.

The Confidence Scheme

So what it is is that modern conservatism is a confidence scheme. Read the offered link and you'd think that conservatism is all about liberty and tradition, upholding the constitution and establishing order over criminals and terrorists seeking to invade and trouble the country.

But the sales of conservatism are aimed at convincing people that a particular religious ideology, a particular tradition and peculiar ideas of who, what, how and why we get and keep order in our society. Modern conservatives complain about Donald Trump, but he's only pushing ideas that the GOP has developed and used over the past 50 years in order to win elections by stoking fear, paranoia and anger. I could go into detail but I won't. I have other things I need to be doing right now.

Besides, I wrote on this 2 years ago, talking about Lee Atwater:

http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/09/southern-strategy-and-war-on-poor.html

People should read my article and it's references

But of course the 4 pillars are the bait in a confidence scheme!

The Switch

Unfortunately, the reality, the "switch" of the conservative confidence game is that the only thing conservatives are actually conserving is wealth.

Their economic distress is diverted, using scapegoating, to bigotry. Part of the con! Sell them on "conservatism" hook them with hate!

switch:

1 No liberty unless white

2/3 order & law = authoritarianism

4 belief in God unless Muslim.

So essentially the "4 Pillars of conservatism" translate to nativism and authoritarianism.

Trump is the creation of Lee Atwater, Reince Priebus and the GOP

I have a lot more to say, but I need to work on some other things right now.

Further reading

https://home.isi.org/pillars-modern-american-conservatism

http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/09/southern-strategy-and-war-on-poor.html

Started back in October 2016. I never finished this due to Trump being elected.

Trump is in no way a Conservative. He's a Confidence man.

The King and His Lament

Maybe when the battle is over I can pity the man

Whose Armies marched into my country

Raped and pillaged across my lands

But for now I must steel my heart.

 

I look at the army arrayed on this hill

Proud flying banners young naive soldiers

Brave, they don't know how brave, till they die

And already I can see them in the places they will lie.

 

I see them where they are standing, and I see them where they lie

Bent and broken things and blood every where.

They call this romantic, but for this grizzled hair I've had it.

I feel no glory, only shame. I sigh.

 

Maybe when the battle is over and the dead are buried

And this man and his armies are running, defeated and hurried.

I'll be able to try and understand his anger and his hate.

But I am standing with my army and the hour is drawing late.

 

And I must sound the horn to charge.

And now I go to my fate.

 

By Christopher H. Holte, channeling someone elses memories

Population Growth and Disaster, Rebirth of Malthus or Time for Enlightenment??

Review of Scientific American Article

Population and Sustainability: Can We Avoid Limiting the Number of People?

This article in Scientific American is comprehensive and deals with the subject really well. I think anyone who is savvy on the subject would agree with their thesis that:

"Slowing the rise in human numbers is essential for the planet--but it doesn't require population control"

It is worth reading though I have a few critiques on some of the points.

Three Dead Fingers

The dead don't care

Whether death came from a firing squad

Or from the air.

 

The dying don't care

Whether their enemies are religious

Or mindlessly shooting targets from a drone

 

The dead don't care

Whether the bombs that killed them:

Are stamped "made in the USA,"

"Russia,"

Home Grown,

Or made in China.

 

This old game

Is neither fun

nor Good for anyone

Or the least bit fair.

 

I hear the old ones

The fat, gray haired ones

In stuffed shirts,

Wearing uniform ties

and gray coats

Presenting their bombs in brief cases

As footnotes in floods of paper

Drowning the dead in words.

 

In rhetoric

About fanatic religion

And rebels

And no fly zones.

Pontificating

and pointing fingers

At each other

 

Like bombs of misunderstanding

Or wands of curses and imprecations

 

As if those words were the jet planes

RPGs and drones,

Rocks being thrown

Delivering up death.

 

They point

As if they were speaking spells

and they weren't all of them liars

And guilty instead.

Each revealing his own guilt

With three fingers.

 

These old Greybacks

Hominid standing gorillas

Send children to fight their battles

While playing at rhetoric

And objectifying the dead.

The dead are ISIL and rebels

Are Shia and Sunna

Yazidi, Christian and Jews

Tossed in makeshift trenches

In ecumenical horror

With lime thrown in to reduce the stench.

 

All the While the greybacks pontificate from the bench

And partisans rant and rage

At who is at fault

and who built this cage?

That is tearing people apart

And throwing the pieces in graves

Where they bury their own pretenses

To civilization.

Remember the three fingered thing

When you point.

 

Bombs of misdirection

Lies piled upon lies

And meaningless facts

Piled in manilla stacks

On bureaucratic tables!

 

Pooh pooh, the food won't reach you

We bombed the convoy

So your benefactors can number among the dead!

We send you our bureaucratic condolences instead!

Our cordon will kill the rebels

And their families, children, relatives, neighbors, friends

And enemies

In deadly efficiency

 

The machine of war has been unleashed

In all its efficient confusion

Assumptions leading to contusions

Well meaning horror

Generating even more misery

As folks use bullets to stop bullets

And bombs to stop bombs.

 

How much better to escalate?

Than to build mountains

Of mindless hate?

"I want revenge because I am scared of you."

And you want revenge on me too!

We have harmed one another

What else can we do?

We fight near magiddo

Yet another Armageddon!

And centuries of antichrists

 

3 fingers accuse me too.

And my ancestors.

We survive on grace

In hopes of atonement

But not merit.

 

The dead can't point fingers

Only the living can do that

Their fingers have been severed

And tossed in trenches

By guilty survivors

Who will point at one another

And say

"This is your fault"

That they were buried to day

 

And the three fingered principle

Says yes it is ours

 

I can only look on in horror

As once again mixed intentions

Spin out in insanity.

The Accuser does his job

Hoping someone will stop him

The Satan is a prosecutor doing his job

With a jury of angels

None of us humans can lie to.

It is just facts.

Bones in the ground

That tell a story of injury and fear

Hunger and privation

And cannibal violence done by man

Human graybacks mindlessly fighting

Over resources and power

Using fear.

 

The dead don't accuse us

But their spirits do

Each was a person

Not a skeleton

A friend maybe

Or a lover

Someone to get to know

Objectified in death

 

Only the suffering is left

In echos and waves of hurt and fear

In us, their relations.

That three fingered thing

Is also our hope for salvation.

 

When we no longer feel

For what we have done

We are numb

And we are dying.

 

It is the living who suffer

And we are fools

Because we see these things

Time and again

Yet we keep pointing at ourselves

Instead of pointing all our fingers

In outstretched hands

And clearing the rubble.

 

Christopher H. Holte

Who Fired General Michael Flynn?

I've been trying to figure out Trump's foreign policy. Key to my confusion is listening to Donald Trump. So I turned to Michael Flynn to try to resolve it. His views seem to have "evolved" from when he was still in the military to the present moment. Not too long ago he conceded that the rise of ISIS/Al Qaeda was the responsibility of George W. Bush and the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. At one time he was in charge of our Defense Intelligence Agency. During that time he was in charge of interrogations. He was in charge of "torture lite" while in the military, he did shut down the amateur hour "torture heavy" efforts. Now he says;

"I felt the country was at such risk and I was advising five of the candidates running for president. They all reached out to me … Carly Fiorina, Scott Walker, Ben Carson Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump. … They would ask me about national security, what’s happening in the world, my thoughts on particular issues." CNN_Flynn

Trump firt went to Russia while still:

"in the military [while director of the Defense Intelligence Agency]. I went there on a fully approved trip. I had a great trip. I was the first U.S. officer ever allowed inside the headquarters of the GRU [Russian intelligence]. I was able to brief their entire staff. I gave them a leadership OPD. [Professional development class on leadership] and talked a lot about the way the world’s unfolding." CNN_Flynn

He admits that:

"We were working closely with them on the Iranian nuclear deal." CNN_Flynn

Ultimately with Russian and Chinese cooperation we got a Nuclear Deal. Thanks to Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry's efforts. He, like Kerry, doesn't want to give them any credit for making such a deal for partisan reasons.

Bullying the Arabs

Flynn talks about demanding respect in return for continual aid from the USA. He maintains that we have to demand a relationship with Arab (and NATO) members:

"to be one based on respect and acknowledging that there is a cost for not doing that. There is a cost." CNN_Flynn

In that first part it sounds like he is talking about mutual respect. But he's talking about "respect" mafia style. He literally contradicts himself later in the same interview:

"you can put a different set of demands on these guys. Our conversations have been too polite. Our conversations have been political conversations with political people who try to be politically correct and not with people who can say, okay, what is it we want to have going forward? CNN_Flynn

Flynn is closer to Trump's views than Pence is. Like with Bush signing the Status of Forces agreement they blame Obama for, they criticize our involvement and then call for more involvement. Both seem to want to send in more troops, but bully the Arab states to pay for them. Maybe they want to invade Saudi Arabia next.

Why was he fired?

But I wrote this article as a vehicle for answering the question of why Flynn was fired. The answer is that apparently Flynn had his own ideas about Military Strategy. The Wasington Post reports:

"In 2010, Flynn rankled many of his counterparts in the intelligence community when he published an article that was sharply critical of the information that spy agencies were assembling in Afghanistan. The effort was so focused on tracking insurgents that U.S. military and diplomatic leaders got little to help them understand the political, economic and cultural issues driving the insurgency." [Washington Post]

The reality is that the article illustrated Flynn's frustration with fighting an insurgency that it was obvious the senior brass wanted no part of. The Washington Post reported:

"Flynn clashed with other high-ranking officials, including Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael G. Vickers. Officials said Flynn had opposed Vickers’ efforts to make significant cuts to large intelligence centers established to support the U.S. military’s regional overseas commands. A former CIA operative, Vickers has sought to model the DIA’s training and overseas presence more closely on its civilian counterpart, according to current and former U.S. officials." [Washington Post]

Flynn wanted the DIA to be more involved in the conflict. Not less.

Business Insider shared the "water cooler" arguments:

"Flynn attempted to push DIA analyses and operators into the field and other high-intensity operations. This ran counter to how the DIA saw itself, leading many to believe that Flynn's vision for the agency was disruptive." BI Article

He wanted to make DIA more like the Joint Special Ops Forces he'd run before coming there.

"Flynn's critics also maintained that his management style was chaotic and that his aggressive push for changes often did not include an adequate follow-through." BI Article

If you are going to integrate field battalion level Intelligence with Brigade level and Division level intelligence, then you institute policies to do so with the collaboration and cooperation of the people involved. Flynn wrote an article on the subject, but he doesn't seem to have followed through with his talk. And since he was the man in charge, it was his job to develop a plan and execute. He had taken over an intel operation that was using "Torture Heavy" techniques strait out of the Inquisition or the Russian playbook. He would implement less heavy handed "torture lite" techniques that met the Geneva Conventions (barely). He'd take credit for the "new" methods.

"Flynn previously served as a senior intelligence officer for the Joint Special Operations Command. During this time he was credited with creating innovative interrogation techniques leading to significant breakthroughs in counterterrorism operations in Iraq and Afghanistan." BI Article

I'm not sure what he actually did. But I can guess that he stopped the heavy handed methods and had his interrogators applying more FBI style questioning methods. I'm not sure he stopped the extreme isolation and sensory deprivation techniques, but I know Obama ordered him to.

Michael Flynn seems to have been actually booted for not respecting the chain of command, assuming that the Obama Administration and joint chiefs, had "no strategy" and for pushing for changes that would have required more boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, than anyone wanted to put there. His 2010 report "Fixing Intel" pushed for better intelligence integration, and more focus on understanding the local politics and culture. However, the strategy that the administration is pursuing is to pull out of direct action in Iraq and Afghanistan not to send in more Troops and DIA agents.

Calling Out Islamic Extremism

Of course he says he was booted for calling out Islamic Extremism. In a Washington Times Article:

“As brutal as Saddam Hussein was, it was a mistake to just eliminate him,” Gen. Flynn said. “The same is true for Moammar Gadhafi and for Libya, which is now a failed state. The historic lesson is that it was a strategic failure to go into Iraq. History will not be and should not be kind with that decision.” [Washington Times]

After saying that, he then contradicts himself! Saying we need:

"Iraq-style boots on the ground operation and the same type of coalition Mr. Bush assembled for Iraq is needed to defeat the Islamic State. He stressed the importance of giving Arab nations a leading role in the conflict, but he said Western troops would have to do much of the heavy lifting." [Washington Times]

Essentially he seems to want us to re-invade the Middle East!

Which is of course exactly the strategy he criticized when talking about President George Washington Bush! So the problem isn't that Obama and the Joint Chiefs don't have a clear strategy it is that he has his own ideas and doesn't like any strategy they might come up with. But essentially has no strategy that would reduce the human carnage of folks from the United States.

He also hints at the real problem with our efforts against ISIS:

“if we catch them financing, if they funnel money to IS, that’s when sanctions and other actions have to kick in.” [Washington Times]

He blames Obama for financing ISIL, but he neglects that our real problem is that our Sunni Allies are often on both sides, or ambivalent, about stopping ISIL, that the rebels against Assad are often half in the ISIL camp and that this is a thorny diplomatic subject due to the oil regime. The strategy he seems to want to pursue is to enlist Russia and Assad to help us attack ISIL, while bullying the Sunni Arab Gulf States. I'm sure that would work as well as invading Iraq or toppling Qaddafi. Meanwhile Trump talks about simply stealing the Oil.

Oye Vey!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/08/15/trump-adviser-michael-t-flynn-on-his-dinner-with-putin-and-why-russia-today-is-just-like-cnn/

http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-t-flynn-fired-from-dia-2014-4

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/1/michael-flynn-former-military-intel-chief-iraq-war/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/head-of-pentagon-intelligence-agency-forced-out-officials-say/2014/04/30/ec15a366-d09d-11e3-9e25-188ebe1fa93b_story.html

2010 Report "Fixing Intel: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/AfghanistanMGFlynn_Jan2010.pdf