The National Debt, Our Elephant in the Room

The country Obama described last night is not the country we are living in. He said we have to be careful not to return to the policies of the past, which caused the housing bubble and the financial crisis, which is right—we can’t ‘return’ to those policies, because we never left them to begin with. The Fed has even lower interest rates than at the origin of the crisis, and the President asks for our permission to allow the hiring of MORE bureaucracy to ‘police’ the financial environment, so we will continue to implement the very policies the President is criticizing in his speech. Payroll tax cuts without cuts in spending do not benefit us, despite what any progressive spender may tout. Where will that money come from? It will be borrowed, as is all money we don’t have, which is spent on things that aren’t necessities, like war, and on a federal government bureaucracy that is in dire need of curtailing. We may be able to hold on to some extra money from our paychecks each week, but it will be worth even less, and that tax cut without any cuts in spending simply prolongs our enslavement to the Federal Reserve, which didn’t make it into his speech, just as our ever-growing national debt didn’t make it. Not talking about the elephant in the room does not mean it ceases to exist. It’s there, and it will be impossible to ignore for much longer if we do not address the problem. Our debt will be the end of us, and we must be willing to accept the fact that serious cuts need to be made on our country’s budget, and we must be willing to accept the fact that we must live within our means, rather than ignoring the issue and continuing to nurture our debt-financed prosperity. The only way to begin digging our way out of this debt is to adopt some much-needed frugality, and we will suffer for a while, perhaps more than we’ve suffered in a very long time, but it’s a more reasonable option than continue to spend both our dollar and our national sovereignty into oblivion. The collapse of the dollar promises chaos of proportions we dare not attempt to even conceive, and it is that chaos which those financiers lending us the funny money to go to war and to pay the bloated federal bureaucracy may well exploit to pitch their ‘solution’, an unchallenged world system of banking, free of regulations, and on their terms, and I, for one, am willing to do the impossible to avoid that from ever having any opportunity to rear its head.

J. González Solorio

Dear Mainstream Media…

Dear Mainstream Media,

I don’t know how to say this without hurting you, so I will just be straightforward. I AM LEAVING YOU. I can no longer stay in this relationship if you constantly lie to me. I know that it’s occasionally better to tell loved ones little white lies to spare feelings instead of the truth and destroying them; however, these white lies have turned into full narratives to keep my attention on anything and everything but the truth. You have abandoned your journalistic integrity in practically every regard. Please, don’t cry, we have grown apart. While you were busy producing reality shows and polluting the airwaves with idle and useless talking points handed down to your studios from executives in elaborate offices, I have grown weary and apathetic to the pseudo-earth shattering events going on in Trump’s boardroom or the Kardashian’s living room and no longer value the opinions of your so-called experts that have an opinion on every topic under the sun but have never gone out and actually done anything that was worthwhile in the name of service towards the public. While I was interested in the real news happening in the world, such as the passage of the 2012 NDAA, you thought it more important to concentrate on who won 8 votes in Iowa, leaving out the fact that many more votes had just gone missing. You downplayed Constitution-busting legislation and failed to mention that almost a 1000 dead individuals managed to cast ballots in the South Carolina Primary. Finally, you have seen fit to prop up two inferior individuals as viable candidates for the office of President of the United States when there are four men on the stage. For all these reasons and many more that are not mentioned I have decided to move on with my life, a life without you.

I hope that we can still be friends,

American Citizen

P.S. I’m keeping the house, kids, and the pets.
P.P.S I’ve been having an affair with your cousin (the internet)…just thought you should know.

J. González Solorio

Two Sides, Same Coin

I am not on here to defend either the Republican or Democratic Parties, because truth be known, I feel both parties deserve equal blame for the state of the union. I simply allude to the current administration’s actions and policies, both proposed and those already implemented, because it is what is of most relevance at this moment, and what we may have some sort of influence over. I am a libertarian (lower case ‘L’—not confined strictly to the Libertarian Party, but rather a true believer in the principles espoused by the libertarian philosophy), and do not consider myself a supporter of the identical agenda those two dominant parties prove to have by way of their increasingly bipartisan war on citizens.

To force people into healthcare plans which will ultimately benefit the healthcare industry most, especially in those cases concerning people who do not fully accept ‘traditional’ Western medicine and who choose not to partake in the consumption of pharmaceuticals or in the self-appointed authority the FDA and American Medical Association have held for countless years, is not congruent with the principles of a truly free market and free society, regardless of what short-term benefits this infringement may result in. It’s a band-aid intended to rally people of need—seducing them with short-term benefits—but which, in the long run, only further enslaves them, much like they’ve been enslaved by the central banking system.

The resistance to truly address the national debt, and to implement significant cuts in the budget for this runaway bureaucracy has come from both sides. Both Republicans and Democrats espouse the doctrine of endless spending, of ‘nation-building’, of both meddling in and creating conflict around the world so we may ravage a sovereign nation and have the most prominent corporations benefit from its reconstruction and from it being forced into the throes of a central banking system.

The actions of the Obama administration are no different than the actions of Bush II’s actions, and are no different than Reagan’s actions, because all have spent like there is no tomorrow, and it doesn’t matter what front has been used to justify those actions. It doesn’t matter if it’s the inflated spending on defense and military for wars which have proven once and again to be little more than well thought-out rackets. It doesn’t matter if it’s the inflated spending Obama proposes with the American Jobs Bill, so that we may ‘create jobs’ that only help expand our repression by again policing the very citizens of this once-free nation from a faceless ‘terror’ that very conveniently moves location to whatever resource-rich country we look to exploit next. It also doesn’t matter if it’s the inflated spending Obama proposes on this nationalized healthcare, which will only run our economy into the ground even more quickly. You don’t propose an extreme measure like ObamaCare, which would cost $2 trillion, at a time like this, when we are on the verge of a national economic catastrophe. We can simply not afford something like that right now, and it’s debatable whether something like that would ever truly be for the benefit of all, since it already undermines the very freedom our country was once characterized by.

It is very easy to win over a populace that is kept away from the truth when programs like the American Jobs Bill or ObamaCare are sold to us as measures which will magically save us all.  The truth is that such measures are huge EXPENDITURES that rely on more borrowing, and are part of  the blatant disregard the overwhelming majority of politicians have for basic economics.  You don’t avoid a budget deficit and you don’t reduce the national debt by lunging headfirst into an endless array of extravagant programs, regardless of what benefits their authors claim.  The only way there is by truly pulling our socks up, re-thinking our current strategies, and by making cuts on non-essential programs and policies.  There is no shortcut, and anyone who says differently is not being honest, and has an ulterior agenda to fill.  What we find ourselves doing again and again is the equivalent of an individual finding themselves tens of thousands of dollars in credit card debt and repeatedly opting to take out a new credit card, with an ever-increasing interest rate, in hopes of ‘bringing on an economic boost’ or of reducing their debt, and not only failing to cut their expenditures, but increasing their expenses more and more each year.  This does not work for an individual, and to think it will work for a national economy is either genuinely ignorant of the basics of economics, mistakenly believes our creditors will grant us an unlimited period of time to make good on our debt, or has consciously given up on the concept of freedom declared in the Constitution of the United States of America, and is pinning his or her hopes on some type of world government and/or economy to solve our problems.

It is no longer an issue of whether it’s the Democrats or Republicans who are to blame for our country’s woes, because it’s both of them, and my personal choice is for a man who happens to be a Republican, but whose libertarian philosophy cherishes and protects the very freedom our country was founded upon, and who defends the free market, allowing the consumer to determine what is in demand and what is not, rather than a private network of banks, which truly gives meaning to the term ‘conflict of interests’. I will abstain from plugging his name because I know those in the know are well-aware of the genuine change he represents, which is really the country’s last chance, and if you do not believe me, watch what occurs to our country should he not come to power this next year…

J. González Solorio

Security or Freedom?

‘We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class of necessity in every society, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.’

-Woodrow Wilson (1909)

 

I feel that those words go beyond what I see as progressivism. I find the taint of elitism inherent in that expression of Wilson’s no different than the elitism that may dwell within the most conservative, materialistic, self-serving capitalist. I feel that at a certain point, one’s ‘good deeds’ become less about morality or about one’s commitment to social justice and more about boosting one’s own ego, and about gaining a sense of self-satisfaction. The self- declared autocrat, who may begin with most pure and benevolent intentions, can easily succumb to the intoxicating effects that power and zeal deliver.

There are those who may see no fault in Wilson’s quote, defending his point, perhaps pointing out that every society needs groups to accomplish those tasks that most will not want to do. Maybe that is the case, but I find fault with a centralized, pre-arranged plan that justifies itself by claiming it aims for equality. Though that may be the touted aim, it is likely it will fall victim to some form of favoritism sooner or later. To say that an authoritative body, group of leaders, or association of individuals entrusted with privileges that are not granted to the average person can be absolutely trusted with unlimited or unchecked power is not only naïve, but truly dangerous.

It’s the situation we find ourselves in now. A group of individuals, who are supposed to be our collective voice, who are said to represent us, and who are supposed to remain vigilant of our rights, have rendered our opinions unimportant, and have undermined the value of our selfhood, abating the individual rights and liberties that once characterized our country.

For me, progressivism has brought about many benefits to this society, but where I find fault is at that instant when constructive, conscientious measures begin to infringe upon our foundation of freedom and liberty. At that point, it is a disservice to the individual. Progress turns into hegemony—rather than offering a new array of options to choose from, choices are curtailed, and one is often forced into a streamlined choice, which may be said to be for the good of the whole, but which is really an insult to the individual. It is then that man is no longer man, but machine. It is one of the major fallacies that I could not yet see in communist or sometimes socialist systems while growing up, when everything seems to be ideology—when one has not yet experienced what it is like to live while wondering whether one’s government works for us or if one in fact works for the government.

Those measures which do away with choice, that decide what we, as individuals, should be deciding, cage us, rather than bring us benefit. I find absolute freedom more valuable because it carries with it the risk of failure, which is what makes success truly meaningful, and that is absent in a sheltered, programmed life, which is devoid of creativity and the genuine character within each of us, and that strives to make copies of us all.

J. González Solorio

Big Government’s Affiliation Nation

Do we define ourselves, or do we surrender our individual freedom to choose and remain relevant to labels, group ties, and party affiliations? The true benefit gained from associating with other individuals comes from the exchange of ideas, which enables each individual to try on new perspectives, perhaps ones never encountered before on a personal level. I’m a staunch individualist, and have always been, and cannot imagine ever being any different. It is a true commitment to remain free-thinking in a country that is practically defined by the trademark, by the association—by the either-or mindset (you’re either ‘in the know’ or hip, or you’re not, and are thus rendered unviable). The brand of jeans one wears or the make of the car one drives carry so much weight in the personification of an individual, to the point that such banal material objects, or heavily propagandized ideas or buzz words often maneuver us, rather than the other way around.

Psychoanalysis had a major impact on humanity’s collective psyche through the middle of the last century, as it promoted the idea of repressing the dark, egotistical urges within each of us. It told us that those desires, often self-serving and fickle, should be ignored, downplayed, or dissolved by any means available to us. The 1960’s did much to bring about a backlash against that school of thought. It was the beginning of the proverbial surrender to the self, to the heart’s desire, to not only listening to our deep-rooted, self-serving whims, but to fully embracing and indulging in them. This switch in mentality became the most significant tool for the advertising industry, which simply converted freedom and self-expression into another commodity.

Since then, the very ideas and styles which have surged out of the need for change have eventually become corporatized, exploited for financial gain. The public has been convinced that rebellion means owning this specific brand of personal computer, or that carrying one’s belongings in this overpriced handbag with this particular label attached to it means we’re free. We’ve long ago surrendered our ability and right to define the principles that influence our everyday choices.

Much in the way we allow ourselves to be defined by trademarks, we often allow labels to define us in other aspects of our lives. One such example is in our political affiliation, by way of political party we see ourselves identifying with. It can be said that such loyalties serve no one more than the career politicians who rely on this very fallacy of individuals, who stop thinking when they surrender themselves to one of these very social associations, that thrive on dogma, and that pledge undying loyalty to a party, regardless of a representative’s record or personal platform. This stubborn loyalty serves the career politician because it assures them the allegiance of a significant number of constituents who are often mesmerized by the public relations campaigned used to reel them in and this then allows that candidate to focus on gaining the approval of those still undecided about him or her. This is of true detriment to all who believe in the ideals of a determined political affiliation because it does not challenge the candidate to remain true to those ideals, and it’s quite often necessary, to counterbalance the ‘influence’ placed by way of campaign contributions.

The onset of the era of the ‘progressive’ politician, who surfaces to serve as savior and great equalizer knows no better recent example than the rise of Barack Obama. The ideals placed in the forefront throughout his record-breaking advertising shenanigan became virtual products, ready to scan and bag up for the ride home. You could have expected to walk away from a rally with ‘hope’ in a box, or a battery-powered ‘change’ module of some sort to take with you. These very ideals that were uttered time and time again have long been rally points for the Democratic Party, but anyone able to remain a free thinker, anyone not still mesmerized and blinded by that commercial campaign of ’08 is able to say with much accuracy that it’s perhaps the most brilliant bait and switch operation ever devised and carried out.

When you look at each and every promise made on the campaign trail and then compare the actions and results obtained in these past three years of President Obama’s term, you cannot say he exemplifies the ideals the Democratic Party has long championed. It’s quite easy to divert from the issues at hand by bringing into the conversation other candidates and what they have or have not done. I believe in any man or woman assuming responsibility for promises made, and for the actions they take in either following through, or going against what has been promised. It is much too easy to say a man’s hands are tied because Congress would have not have ratified his plans when the man himself has gone against what he promised to do. Though I hold the same contempt for the overwhelming majority of Congress that is in office today, the responsibility for their actions rests on them, much as the President’s actions, or lack of, rest on him, solely.

Were we in a nation of individuals who cherish their individual freedom, liberty, and principles, the stubborn and unyielding loyalty to a politician that has reneged on virtually every promise would not exist. It is very common to hear people say things like, ‘I’m voting against him’, ‘I have to vote Democrat’, ‘I’d vote for him, but he’s not winning, so I’ll vote for the lesser of these two evils’, or ‘I would never vote for a Republican’. It is these very modes of thinking which assure that no significant change comes along. Career politicians who espouse endless war, debasing of our currency by way of borrowing and through the expansion of the already too-big government, and who take part in the ongoing war that’s been waged on the American people with the undermining of civil liberties under the guise of protecting us and our freedom do all these things, and it matters very little if they are Democrat or Republican, because a consensus has been reached by the overwhelming majority of candidates from both parties, since they all stand to gain when we lose.

Big government, that acts arrogantly and egotistically, devoid of true democratic participation, that acts without considering the will of the people, has proven time and time again that it does nothing but act for its own self-interest. It is why I hold such distrust for government that wishes to infringe upon more aspects of our lives. It will always claim to want to solve our problems, but the truth is big government is primarily the reason, not the solution, to most of our woes. It is why I have much more trust in people than I do in government. Charity has always benefited most from individuals, not government. It is not government or its corporate allies that give back most to a community, it is those who have least, who live life much in the same way as most others, in the middle or lower classes, that know the troubles of living paycheck to paycheck, who may wind up with a bit extra money one particularly prosperous year, and are thus compelled to give back to their community.

The great majority of politicians are already wealthy individuals, and too often have lost touch with the perils and challenges afflicting the working class. It is for this reason that I remain skeptical of those same politicians, who are usually influenced most on a financial level, rather than by principles or ideologies that serve people as a whole. When one stays away from granting government the power to choose for us we choose to trust in people instead of power-hungry men and women of wealth. There are men and women of wealth and power who remain in touch and who truly work to serve people, but they are the exception, rather than the norm.

Were the measures being implemented truly for the benefit of the nation, implementing measures or tactics that have proven effective in socialist economies, perhaps one could believe that big government’s intent was benevolent, and that it hoped to bring about change for the good of the nation. But as it’s been proven time and time again throughout history, the principles of an ideology like socialism or communism are truly diffiult to bring into existence because of the greed and corruptibility of leaders, regardless of ideology or political leanings. Power intoxicates and has a way of dissolving principles and it nearly always assures the reign of self-interest over the welfare of the masses. To surrender free thought to social associations of any sort is virtual suicide. Individuals who rely on his or her party to define the principles they hold dear, and who pledge unquestioning loyalty to fad candidates of no integrity—who are all bark and no bite—do so out of ideological intoxication and/or laziness, and are surely destined to completely surrender the very freedom which once defined this country.

J. González Solorio

The Drive to Procreate

I’ve always felt out of step with just about everyone I’ve ever met in the way I’ve yet to be overtaken with a desire to have children, as most everyone else has by their thirties, and even more true when you are Mexican, or when from any non-European Spanish-speaking country, in origin, at least. As an outsider on the matter, I’ve not been able to abstain from pondering what is the root of wanting to have children. Perhaps what I often see will never be politically correct to say, but many of the reasons I’ve deciphered have at least partially egotistical foundations to them. Reproduction is certainly a deeply-seated drive within us, hardwired in our DNA, but aside from that, what motivations or explanations do we arrive at in our minds that propel us to seek becoming parents?

One major factor which influences many people, from my view, is that becoming a parent is simply something you do, and like other traditions, whether it’s caps and gowns at graduation, kissing under the mistletoe, or brides taking on the groom’s surname, it is a practice that is carried out a great majority of the time, though not always. The way many traditions are simply accepted, without much questioning, is ample evidence that we often seek security with snowballing taboos, which gain momentum with the passing of time. We begin to look down on or alienate those who may choose to even consider the possibility of not following a certain norm or practice. Having children is surely one such example. I’ve encountered countless people who assume my disinterest in fatherhood signifies I am the possessor of some affliction—be it physical, mental, interpersonal, or some other form they may conjure. The idea that someone may not want something they not only want, but feel is simply invaluable and essential to happiness may in fact pull the rug out from under them, perhaps rendering them rather vulnerable, and this may trigger animosity towards that person who opts not to have children. Anxiety surfaces in the mind of a person who’s never considered the possibility of an alternative choice, in marriage, being a parent, buying a home, or any of a variety of firmly established rituals that are considered essential by most, or which stand as symbols of ‘making it’, or as steps to happiness. The anxiety may trigger skepticism, not believing the person’s for real in not wanting children, or feeling the person may be confused on the issue. Feelings of jealousy can surface as well, especially if the anxiety-driven individual has already had children, and even more so if those children were had at a young age. They may see the possibilities and freedom they in fact surrendered when becoming a parent, embodied in that other person. I don’t point it out to criticize the practice of having children, but I imagine having a child is a life-changing event, like it or not, and that includes a drastic decrease in freedom in various aspects, a more pronounced financial responsibility and feeling of duty to hold down a job, and the virtual death of selfish or egotistical tendencies one may harbor.

Another inspiration behind parenthood that’s come to my attention is the need for a continuation in our lineage, of extending one’s family into the future, of having a way of leaving a sort of mark on this world. It may sound a bit harsh, but many people do think of this as a motivator to procreate. A child is seen as a palpable confirmation of one’s visit to this planet, and the thought of that child procreating too seems to grant the parent a sort of relief, a feeling of being able to depart this life having made some peace, having left a legacy of sorts, and in a way living in on through their children and grandchildren.

A more archaic motivation is that of wanting children so that they may help one with the homestead or of assisting or tending to the parents in their old age. This was a more prevalent reason in older times, when life had not been as influenced and permeated by the Industrial Revolution, when more families did everything themselves, when strenuous chores at home were the norm. Modern times have pulled most away from the farms, meaning less difficult tasks, at least of a physical nature, and parents are more often on their own, and at times put in homes. This is less the case in Latino countries and even amongst first or possibly second generation Chicanos, or descendants of Latinos not from México.

Yet another set of reasons which propels some people to have children, which I feel a true disdain for, is of having children out of boredom, out of spite, seeking some form of financial security by way of child support, or out of the ignorant belief that bringing a child into the world is the way their unresponsive partner will start loving them or will become responsible. Couples often become couples, whether just in a relationship or in marriage, because of trouble of some sort in one or both of their homes. The courage to take a stand and move out of their home/s is often lacking and the only way they feel able to wage that move is to get pregnant, which basically makes it an issue of high urgency and which one or both of the people in the relationship allude to as a ‘kick in the pants’ or as ‘growing up’. This fallacy in thought leads to countless divorces, bickering amongst parents, neglect or animosity diverted towards the children, and the unfair dumping of children on grandparents, who had already raised their children, but because of poor planning or terrible decision-making are practically extorted into caring for them. The grandparents usually feel guilty in saying ‘no’, though some will, but it’s nonetheless an unfair practice to expect one’s parents to care for one’s children. Grandparents who opt to do that, who offer themselves, that’s a different story. This day in age there are still mothers who intentionally get pregnant, knowing the father is not interested in any form of fatherhood. These women feel they may have a chance of ‘reeling in’ the man in question, by some defect in their thinking pattern. I am well aware it takes two to conceive a child, but a woman has ultimate control over the situation, and if she is seeking a relationship with a man who is not showing interest in being committed, taking such a step as a last desperate attempt at hooking him is truly irresponsible. They may see it as a ‘win-win’ situation, thinking that should he still not fall, at least he’ll have to pay for it by way of child support, which very often fails, and the one who suffers most is that child, who did not ask to be brought into the world as a form of bait or as some type of revenge.

We must awaken, and become aware of the motivations behind what we do. Tradition for the sake of tradition, unchecked, unquestioned, done only to fulfill some expectation or to avoid animosity or alienation is ignorance. I defend the right of people to have children, but if the motivations are truly benevolent, not reliant on egotistical whims, if the parents are really able to accommodate the financial requirement, and are willing and able to invest the time, effort, and patience necessary to raise a child correctly. Too often we are creatures of habit, of unnecessary taboos on communicating on certain subjects, and of believing certain things are correct simply because all others do them, and too rarely do we question tradition, seek our motivations, and make decisions based on feelings and preferences that are genuinely our own. A child is not a means of acquiring some selfish whim or of escaping some undesired setting or situation. This is taken too lightly and too many times people don’t realize this until it is too late.

J. González Solorio

Fanaticism, Government, and Power

‘When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.’
-Sinclair Lewis

A friend of mine posted this highly astute quote earlier today and it certainly rings undeniably true, especially so in our country. Rule by the corporation has been the marker of our times, and the religious organization is no different than the corporation.  It may not be deemed a corporation in legal terms, but it if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

This trend, of a more pronounced influence and theocratic reverence for the religious organization by big government began with Reagan, weakened a bit under Bush I and Clinton, but returned with a vengeance with Bush II. Fascism of this species and caliber is very much alive today, and it’s proven every time a candidate touts this is ‘one nation under God’ while campaigning or forcefully citing specific religious ideologies as the basic motivation behind issues, like abortion, our continuing unflinching support of the Judeo-Christian state of Israel and our compliance and assistance in carrying out the genocide of Palestinians to further their cause, and the concealed and consciously sanitized racism used by rulers in this country to sway the highly fickle American consciousness into allowing and participating in the pillage and plunder of Arab nations that possess resources we have not yet exploited.

Today’s fascism, under Obama’s administration, has not relied on or utilized any specific spiritual or ‘religious’ ideology to further its desires. It comes more from the atheistic tradition of communism, as seen in the Soviet Union, Germany, and China in the past century. Don’t get me wrong, I am not at all defending the government’s use of Judeo-Christian ideology to vindicate its actions. When it comes to using irrelevant ideology I find no difference between the rhetoric and propaganda of the far Christian right, the Zionist Jewish tradition, or the oppressive fanatical Muslim faith. When one surrenders all will and logic and decides to accept scripture literally or the words touted by religious leaders verbatim and then allows this to navigate one’s life instead, it can be said one has been seduced into serving these very religious institutions unconditionally. No different than any Fortune 500 company, religious organizations have well-defined agendas to carry out, and thus employ tactics no different than the corporation, to spin, misinterpret, misinform, and omit facts for the purpose of accomplishing their very Earth-based goals. They know exactly what they are doing, and on top of it all, they are granted immunity from contributing financially to the nation. Free from taxation, but yet, they still lend severe and decisive influence to the nation.

The hope would be that we would perhaps question the motivation behind the idea of not asking of religious organizations what is asked of every citizen. It is no different than the excusing of the corporation when tax time comes, for the religious organization IS a corporation, operating under the radar, with tax breaks, for it helps further society’s somnolence. I am a proponent of the dissolving of taxation on income, but if we still insist on allowing and conspiring with the proponents and enforcers of taxation, equality should be demanded, of all individuals, and each organization, whether ‘faith-based’  or not, should be pressed with no regard for whether they are ‘moral’ institutions or not.  By encouraging deepest devotion from their members, the religious organization often operates by way of fanaticism, and it is this very fanaticism which pulls in the most vulnerable individuals, and which assures large sums of contributions, as a church presents itself as a virtual second home to those it seduces into its grasp.

It is no secret that a great portion of the atrocities committed throughout history, of man hurting man, have been carried out and justified by or in the name of one religious ideology or another. Religion has been one of the essential allies of government in retaining a level of control and subversion over a populace. It has served to grant vindication to acts which would otherwise be condemned by people at large. It is through the obliteration of the personal will of individuals and of their access to free thinking that religious organizations in general are able to deliver a valuable product to government wanting to gain, maintain or curtail power.

Those who come out in defense of one fanatical faction over another are simply sifting through equally putrid practices that exploit followers by way of praying on weaknesses, pinning them against followers of competing religious institutions (the antagonism evident between opposing religious factions proves it is competition, not different than the competition amongst corporations), and extorting them into funding their religious firms and like-minded candidates that will scratch the backs of said religious firms, with promises of eternal retribution or with the threat of eternal damnation for people who choose to do that moronic thing that people tend to do when left alone for too long—thinking.

J. González Solorio

Corrupt Pestilence Lingers in Washington

I’ve had an intuitive internal voice that’s sensed the economic downturn we still find ourselves in was carefully engineered some time ago, and the recent findings showing that the members of Congress were not only unaffected by it, but actually benefited financially from the collapse, only help to dissolve any doubt. It is no longer ‘conspiracy theory’ to point out that politicians are people who are capable and many times likely of choosing self-interest over the welfare of their constituents. The recent surrender of the last tier of liberty we possessed as citizens, along with the granting of virtually unquestionable, unlimited power to the federal government are such giant steps in the wrong direction.

A positive light of hope has definitely come with the entire Occupy Wall Street movement and with those growing increasingly frustrated with the current administration and with Congress. The fact that Congressman Ron Paul’s numbers in the polls have been surging steadily over the last months is yet another sign of a mass awakening, that’s absolutely fed up with what’s been done to us, what continues to be done to us, of the lies and growing financial disparity, and of the war that continues to be waged against our Constitution.

 

J. González Solorio

Authors, Not Characters

It’s become overwhelmingly apparent that we live in a country where being a free-thinking individual has largely become synonymous with forming part of the ‘criminal’ element. The extent to which the abstract intrusive father figure peers its head into our affairs with its judgmental and ultimately divisive intent disturbs me, but the relative willingness with which so many surrender their right for self-determination disturbs me even more. The stark similarity between our present reality and those dystopian landscapes of Orwell and Huxley is unnerving, and so much so that it appears likely the men at the reigns of our moment have adopted those soberingly nightmarish narratives as tacit templates by which to navigate.

The modern offensive waged against the individual comes not in forms recognizable to the minds of yesterday. It is not necessarily a war of bombs, nor is it a war of takeovers, at least not in the physical sense. Instead, our minds are reeled in, seduced by immediate, yet transient trinkets that help appease our attention and abort all will and ambition that seeks to lend influence to the contouring of our future. Collectively, our fears are intentionally and deliberately exploited by the American conjunct of plutocracy and propagandist journalism, and, as a result, our attention is steered away from matters of true, lasting consequence, and is instead diverted into maniacally paranoid frenzies of who may now be plotting, scheming, and coveting the very freedoms we’ve in fact been stripped of for some time now.

Our sense of security is continually and deliberately wounded with the planting of highly questionable paranoid delusions of persecution. Any unity amongst humanity is targeted and we are thus pinned one against the other, made to feel suspicious, immersed in a self-interest that only perpetuates division amongst us. While we’re polarized for the sake of our disempowerment, we’re still rallied around symbols—be they flags, ribbons, or slogans. We’re told we’re one as a nation, though it may well be a nation of suspicious, self-interested, and mindlessly obedient citizens. We’re made to feel proud of our commitment to security and to remaining vigilant of some exterior threat, yet never realizing we could be harboring a much more subtle and dangerous villain domestically, one that is drunk with power and that survives only when individuals are convinced into exchanging their freedom for a faulty sense of security. We effectively become both guards and prisoners in this self-imposed prison we’ve been encouraged to erect and are terrorized into maintaining.

It is a focused, malevolent entity that discredits our disquietude about the future, that calls our access to information and our right to protest ‘terrorism’, and that says it is unpatriotic and now even illegal to question our government. We are forcefully led to cheap superficial pleasures and to even cheaper ideals and values. Our true choices are limited in those affairs that matter and we’re more than drowned in choices for those things which mean absolutely nothing in the great scheme of things.

We’re at a point where the most banal and frivolous of people are becoming disgruntled and aware. We should allow history to be our most prized adviser, and we should avow a renewed commitment to the very liberty our nation was built on. No level of touted security is worth selling out one’s personal sovereignty. We need to build proactively on freedom, inspiration, and unity, rather than submissively disintegrating into slavery, hopelessness, and discord. The country is thirsty for more leaders, not for more followers. Any holder of power that disempowers its population and discourages the influence of decentralized leadership has become intoxicated in its self- appointed role of playing God. The individual has a part in this unwritten, ongoing narrative, which is not set in stone, as those at the reigns like us to believe. We must surrender the mindset of submission and of powerlessness and instead assume responsibility as authors of our destiny, not as scripted characters in a czar’s twisted delusions of grandeur.

J. González Solorio

Is It The End?

The truth is the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is strictly targeted at protecting the rights of Wall Street and providing a lethal tool for the government, which which should never be granted to any person or faction. The question in the past week was whether Obama would be vetoing the bill, because of the fact he’d raised a warning saying he may veto. But we’ve very recently learned that he did not veto, but for a much different reason: He did not feel the language in any way curbed his power. Those of us worried over what is happening to this country were believing that Obama possibly had some qualms about signing away what little remained of our Bill of Rights, but no, it turns out his raised flag—his cautionary approach—was motivated by the possibility that the wording on the NDAA-2012 may not grant the President completely unlimited and unquestioned authority to disappear people he deemed worthy—no charges, no trial—simply of his own choosing. I do not exaggerate, this may very well mark the end of this beautiful thing we’d created, the United States of America, unless the furor needed to defeat this monstrous bill is expressed, and expressed now.

J. González Solorio