The Trump election is the most significant thing that’s happened in the world since 9/11, in my opinion. I think even the first black president pales in comparison because it didn’t actually change our course. Trump’s presidency might.
The interesting question in my opinion, however, is not, “How did he get elected?” but rather “Why did he get selected?” I’m not at all interested in discussions of “populism” or “nationalism” or “racism” or any of the blowhard psycho-social analysis of why people voted the way they did. What I want to know is, what does it mean that power brokers from the left like Jeff Zucker at CNN all way to the neo-con team on the right at National Review played into Trump’s claims of being an outsider who scared the crap out of the establishment, while at the same time giving him billions in free advertising to drive that point home. (To wit, The National Review‘s gilded issue gives the impression Trump is already king–the “against” in the title notwithstanding.) Trump actually got more media coverage than any candidate ever and spent the least.
I don’t believe for a minute it was simply about ratings. Yes, the elite love money, and Zucker surely cared about that while crafting Trump & his show the Apprentice at NBC, but anyone who’s been watching mainstream media in this country over the past decades knows darn well there’s a bigger picture at work. I’m sure the government-media continuum is downright giddy that we fund our own brainwashing by actually paying for cable news on top of sitting through the commercials, but there is much more at stake for these players in the long term agenda these outlets push. They wouldn’t (and didn’t) give that kind of coverage to Ron Paul no matter how well he could drive ratings, nor did they ever harp on the fact that Dr. Paul really did scare the crap out of the establishment. Trump was another story.
Furthermore, nothing has changed my simple observation that the only thing arguing for free and fair elections in this country is faith in the governments that count the votes and faith in the media that are supposed to keep them honest. I have faith in neither. I do think it’s tricky to steal elections, but it gets done and it has for awhile. I believe the push from both sides to make a federally administered popular vote system is an attempt by the power elite to take the headache out of fixing the vote, but that’s just streamlining the process not initiating it.
So here I am, scratching my head as to what is really happening and why. The wall talk, the ban talk, the identity-centered protesters all smack of deliberate diversions. There is an agenda at work, that is for sure, but what it is I’m not so sure. My money is on just two possibilities:
- There is a cabal that sits above the two-party system that works for world government, centralization of power, a manageable population and, in Zbigniew Brzezinski’s words, “a highly controlled society.” They want to control all the assets and resources, which they do by working to get every individual, corporation and country into debt, which they own (rather than savings, which we would own). And they want to control all the people. To do this they must keep the population down (that’s why so many agenda items for them are designed to disconnect sex from procreation: from birth control to abortion to premarital sex to homosexuality to sex robots to porn to…well, you get the idea! and it’s why they want to control all the land and the food and the jobs or better yet institute basic income for total dependence); they also must have all the information they can on every individual, and they must control the ideas, thoughts and behaviors of individuals (through a combination of information overload and censorship) because ultimately the consent of the governed is the linchpin of those in power…. Perhaps this is the Aldous Huxley crowd with a Brave New World style where everyone takes
prozacsoma and is blissfully ignorant of their loss of humanity.
- That first possibility has been my working theory for years, but now I have to entertain another possibility: that there are two factions competing to shape and control the world. The alternate faction might be the Orwellian elite who believe the only way to truly control the masses is for a boot to step on the human face forever. Perhaps it’s as simple as a disagreement at the top over the answers to the questions posed in The Report from Iron Mountain: is peace possible and is it desirable? Is there an alternative to war for keeping the masses in line? The answers were unclear in the report. One proposal was a giant environmental hoax that would cause the people to be loyal to a world government. Another proposal was to create an enemy of despised people so the mainstream population would feel dependent on the government through fear…. Perhaps my original observation that there’s one cabal and this second manifestation of an alternate paradigm don’t actually reveal two distinct power centers, but merely reveal two paths of what is ultimately still a single power base–that is, two social experiments by the same cabal to test out how truly to control the entire world’s population for the first time. Or perhaps they are putting forth Trump as the crisis that will give rise to the solution: World Government…I really don’t know the answer, which is why I’m going to get back to basics….
What I’ve decided to do is to put on the back burner (if I can!) puzzling over what’s really going on and who’s really pulling the strings. Instead, I’m simply going to hold up events, policies, laws, etc., to the touchstones* of principle. I criticized the left when they failed to do it to Obama and frankly, I don’t think the who or why et al are actually very important if we just stick to principles. America’s founding principles were, after all, designed to restrain government, and if we stick to them we can all be safe–left, right and center–without placing blame or trying to one-up the other side’s power plays.
I have found that I may never be able to stay a step ahead of those who are able to manipulate major events, but I don’t have to if we always insist on principles. They are, after all, either given to us by a God who wants the best for us, or they have emerged over millennia as the enduring principles that immutable human nature requires to maintain stable societies. Either way, they are our only hope for liberty and justice for all–not to mention true human dignity.
Here are the touchstones…
- There is only one fundamental civil law: Don’t touch me or my stuff. All other “laws” simply tease this out when it’s not crystal clear. (For example, can you build a dam and deprive down river settlers of water? Developed law is useful for this. “The government owns all the water” is not a legitimate law according to this principle–or to me.)
- The Ten Commandments. Whether you’re religious or not, this is a good place to start. Christ’s Two Commandments are surely perfect, but the Ten Commandments never get old, especially Thou Shalt Not Kill and Thou Shalt Not Steal (Taxation is Theft!)
- The foundational documents of the United States of America. Frankly, I prefer the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution (The latter enshrines federal taxation, the former does not, and after all, Taxation is Theft!) I actually think the American Experiment was betrayed when the Articles of Confederation were illegal overturned, but I do accept (and defend) the Constitution because of how it was sold to the people and that is the standard to which it should be (but is not) held. The Bill of Rights, I love. If we just restored the Bill of Rights we would win this thing. And the Declaration of Independence. While not a law per se, it lays out the founding principles of the nation and is a touchstone for understanding what we the governed consented to (if anything).
- We must also remember that our founding documents contain declarations of rights we inherently possess, they are not gifts from government. That means everyone in the world should be fighting for all of these same rights and principles, and we should acknowledge and support their right to pursue liberty and justice within the confines of their own sovereign nations rather than interfering in their politics for “American interests abroad” which has no basis in our founding principles (nor in the Law of Nations upon which our founding relied and from which “American Exceptionalism” falsely claims a pass). And most of all, we have a moral obligation to limit violence committed by our agents in government to true self-defense according to the principles of just war at the very least, but ideally according to our own individual and fully informed consciences. (The Constitutional requirement for Congress to declare war and the difficulty presidents find when they try to get such declarations is an example of how merely sticking to our own laws will keep us out of moral trouble and physical danger without the brain damage of sussing through all the BS and false flags they throw at us to bypass these safeguards.)
These are the touchstones. I hope we can all have a mind to use them to tease out the rights and wrongs of what’s going on. These basic principles apply not only to personal liberty but to economic liberty. For example, there would be no immigration issue if government policy didn’t deliberately and drastically distort labor markets (in violation of the Tenth Amendment). Applying these principles to specifics the way gold is rubbed on a touchstone to distinguish it from pyrite (fool’s gold) is what I think will be desperately needed over the next months and years. I hope you will join me in my efforts!
*I love the term “touchstone,” which I first fully appreciated watching the great series “Connections” by James Burke. In that series, Burke discusses a handful of simple inventions which changed the direction of civilization. One of them was the touchstone. It was a stone which only gold would mark up in just such a way so that rubbing gold on the touchstone would prove it was gold. According to Burke, this facilitated commerce by allowing an easily verifiable medium of exchange and changed the course of history.