Aaron, Tax and Democracy

Posted: 05/09/2011 in Democracy, Finance, Struggle
Tags: , , ,

(Added to NWO page)

Watched the second Aaron Russo movie (“America from freedom to fascism”). It started well with its intro that democracy had been hijacked by bankers, and then went into income tax. Apparently there is an anomaly that in US law there is no legal requirement to pay income tax and send in a tax return. When he questioned various people in the movie they avoided the answer with usual prevarications – there is clearly a legal problem. Aaron’s arguments were all based in law, the legal system, supreme court and so on, it just sounded pointless to me. After all he had begun by saying the bankers had hijacked the system, so they have hijacked the law as well. I understand that making your arguments based in law is a sound tactic – use their own tools to defeat them, but he wasn’t doing that – he saw the law as some sacrosanct entity (my words). I usually describe the law as having two functions although the second is a corollary of the first. The law exists to protect the corporatocracy, one law for the rich and one for the poor, the corollary for the poor is that of protecting the rich – the need for general law and order – the second function. This second function for me is the more important, and it is this function that genuine law enforcers subscribe to. If income tax did become a controversial issue, the law would be changed so that income tax would be collected – it is integral for capitalist accumulation that money is accumulated from earnings by government for the bankers – part of the corporatocracy. I heard somewhere that one of the reasons for the fight for independence was to escape the taxes required by the British, historically taxes were understood in the US.

He then moved onto some very sound observations about the way the corporatocracy functions. I particularly remember noting some of the prescient quotes from erstwhile presidents. There was an attack on government throughout drawing no distinction between Democrats and Republicans, and whenever he was making the point that there was a dictatorship concern he would show the Soviet flag and describe the dictatorship as communist – a McCarthy man? In the end he called for unity within his campaign – “freedom to fascism”, demanding and end to the Fed. Interestingly he had researched who the shareholders of the Fed were and all he could find out is that they were bankers. Ironic really when you consider the recession. The bankers created the recession. They go to the government for bailout money, and the government does it. That would involve debt to the Fed so the bankers get bailout money and interest from loans from the Fed – crazy exploitation. The other issue that he focussed on was the RFID chips. I was worried about how far towards this chip the US had gone. Based on “what happens first in the US happens in the UK” this frightens me – sufficient reason to seek Thai citizenship. National ID cards are coming in and apparently these cards have the ability to send info – not just a recording media. I envisage that “jumped-up young pimples” that you phone will know all your details – frightening.

Let me begin by looking at the holes in his position. I have dealt with the income tax, although I hope there will be political mileage there. I suppose this is the Republican in him, but he kept referring back to the old presidents as if they were genuine people – not part of the exploitation. Whilst those people are not as bad as the stooges we have now, they were still in the hands of finance back then. Government has never been for the people, by the people, that is a sales pitch – good but a pitch. Maybe this is why these anti-corporatocracy people like Alex Jones are Republicans because they are harking back to the words of these early politicians.

This man is a danger to the movement. He has the capital to make this movie, from his early successes – Trading Places, The Rose. But he is a fierce individualist and demanding in terms of action. I could not imagine a civil conversation with him perceiving that any attempt to move his thinking on whether politically or spiritually would meet great resistance. Even though he exposes many things concerning the system and the way the corporatocracy functions, he is a danger to the movement because of the division his egotism creates.

The big question he raises for me is the issue of governance. I have always accepted government. I suppose growing up in the 60s Macmillan, Wilson, Heath, Callaghan were not pushed by the erstwhile corporatocracy into the extremes that Blair, Brown and Cameron are forced to go. When it comes right down to it, they are the same people – opportunist politicians. But I suppose I envisaged the possibility that there could be a democratic change. Yet I got sucked towards a party that demanded revolutionary change when I was an activist. Whilst their analysis was correct revolution is completely wrong because people don’t want it – whether class change is of benefit to them is a different question. So what is the relationship between government and the movement, what can the movement expect to gain in terms of government action. Government has become more estranged from the people in my lifetime. Now we have a problem in that during elections we have the lies of Blair, and even worse the lies of Obama. Actions are the only measure, and there is no doubt that the actions of Blair and Obama have been at the behest of the corporatocracy. I suppose the same was true earlier but the greed and inhumanity of the corporatocracy was not as gross as it is now. If there were increased democratic pressure what could it hope to achieve? I have no answer. The power and influence of the corporatocracy is increasing. Not only this but they are subverting one important protection the government offered – the need for a military. With the sophistication of weapons – the greater killing power of weapons, less soldiers are needed; well-armed corporate militias are enough. Eventually there will be no need for democratic acceptance of the corporatocratic policy through government delivery, and government control will be required less and less – isn’t this what Aaron wants but for different reasons? Maybe this is why the Alex Jones crowd is tolerated?

So the movement needs to protect collective organisation and democratic governance despite the way both have been hijacked.

Meanwhile individuals within the movement need to seek their own happiness and appropriate consuming. The movement is a job, it is something that needs to be done, to protect the lives of the people killed in our name, and to protect our own liberty – fears about the RFID chip are well founded. But to measure our lives by success in the achievements of the movement can only bring heartache. The movement is our duty as much as housework. Looking for success in the movement will only bring disillusion. Collective organisation and democratic governance are being eroded, we need to fight for these principles – even if we end up fighting for rights to have another Tony!!!

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s