Radical Implications

"The corporative State considers private initiative, in the field of production, as the most efficient and useful instrument of the Nation."

"State intervention in economic production may take place only where private initiative is lacking or is insufficient, or when are at stakes the political interest of the State. This intervention may take the form of control, encouragement or direct management."

That is an excerpt from Articles 7 and 9, respectively, of La Carta del Lavoro, also known as the Labour Charter of 1927, introduced by Benito Mussolini, and decreed by the Grand Council of Fascism.
Don't snap and declare me a crazy; feel free to make a counter-point.
Don't see red at the mere mention of comparing what's happening in the U.S. to what the history books teach as "fascism". Read it. Learn about it.

"Italian Fascism" was centered around a corporate economic system, which involved collaboration between corporation and state in order to set economic policy; the government's economic intervention was to consist of helping private enterprise. This was supposed to end "class conflict", and criminalized strikes and lockouts, prejudicial to the national economy.

Don't jump to conclusions. Don't take my word for it. This is the internet. Stop, learn, and think. I share with you what I find relevant. Please return the favor.

Now, onto other matters.
I'm sure you know that SOPA and PIPA have been shut down for now, many fear that they will return in some form or other.
In fact, have you heard yet about ACTA: the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement? It's actually rather strange how the text of the document seems to not be publicly available for reasons involving national security. Why do you think a treaty that deals with intellectual property would affect national security? Of course, you can read it here through the current glory of the internet.
Forbes magazine considers it worse than SOPA. They aren't the only ones worried.

Why is this relevant to my previous quip about the merger between corporate and state? Because on January 18th, the Internet Blackout caused quite a commotion. Websites that participated in this massive wave of collective political activism include Google, Wikipedia, Reddit, Wordpress, Flickr, 4chan, Craigslist, and countless others. Here's a slightly more extensive list.
And how did private enterprise respond? Well, Chris Dodd, a former U.S. Senator and current Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) posted the following in this statement:

“Only days after the White House and chief sponsors of the legislation responded to the major
concern expressed by opponents and then called for all parties to work cooperatively together, some technology business interests are resorting to stunts that punish their users or turn them into their
corporate pawns, rather than coming to the table to find solutions to a problem that all now seem to agree is very real and damaging. It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information and use their services. It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today. It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.
A so-called “blackout” is yet another gimmick, albeit a dangerous one, designed to punish elected and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals. It is our hope that the White House and the Congress will call on those who intend to stage this “blackout” to stop the hyperbole and PR stunts and engage in meaningful efforts to combat piracy.” 

What astounds me is that the people who claim that this sort of bill is necessary for the financial sustenance of the entertainment industry (or any facet of the economy that suffers from piracy) are almost exclusively those who RUN the industry. Most of the actors/artists/etc. who have spoken out about it are distinctly against it. So is piracy hurting them badly enough for something like SOPA? As far as I can tell, it isn't.

What is the best part of all of this fun? Chris Dodd publicly threatened on Fox News that he would not contribute to Obama's campaign for speaking out against SOPA.
Ah, the power of money.
...though I fully expect this election to accomplish little in terms of how corporate and state is merging.
Why do I think so?

Mark Patterson: Obama's current Chief of Staff of the Secretary of the Treasury, used to be a Lobbyist for Goldman Sachs.
William Daley: Was Obama's Chief of Staff [and Clinton's secretary of Commerce starting 1997], and was also on the Executive Board of JP Morgan Chase & Co.
Jack Lew: Obama's current director of the Office of Budget and Management, and is slated to become Chief of Staff in February. He was also a Chief Operating Officer for Citigroup.
Valerie Jarett: Senior Adviser to the President. Was the CEO of real estate development and management company The Habitat Company, board member of the Chicago Stock Exchange (Chairwoman for a while), and is on the board of trustees and directors for several other companies.

These people make articles like this seem kind of strange.


So why compare this with 'fascism'? Why be worried? Is the government catering more to private interest than the public good? Well, as I'm sure you know, the Occupy movement, which has been largely targeting big business and corruption in U.S. politics, has been rather active about political dissent.

So, the NDAA Passed. Congress has knowingly created a loophole that can deny the rights stated in the Bill of Rights to U.S. Citizens. This has been met with a LOT of hostility. In my opinion, rightfully so.
Was it bad enough? Apparently not.

Here's the kicker of this blog post:
On October 12th, 2011, Senator Charles Dent introduced the Enemy Expatriation Act. What does this do?
Well, it amends the Immigration and Nationality Act.Rebellion and Insurrection, Seditious Conspiracy, and Advocating Overthrow of Government all qualify as grounds for having one's citizenship revoked. This bill adds the following clause:

"engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States"

I encourage you to read through it, but here's my version of a summary: Actively advocating a change in the government that involves going against the current system is grounds for removal of citizenship. This makes anyone who acts in a manner that encourages structural change that is antithetical to the government's intention subject to whatever the U.S. justice system affords non-U.S. citizens. How does that make you feel?
Here are some other takes on this bill.

In grimly related news, the LAPD will be participating in a joint military training exercise in Los Angeles. AWESOME.

If you disagree with anything stated here, please don't be silent about it.