There is a Great Big Thing that I can’t write about.

I write because it helps me cope with a lot of things. I haven’t been able to write lately because my mind is focused on a bunch of things that are connected, but not really in a concise way. What I am seeing around me is a kind of existential apocalypse. Part of it is the world around me, part of it is the realization that I live in a part of the world where I just don’t belong.

Writing is a way to let some of that negative energy out in a (mostly) harmless way. I have suffered some physical injuries in the past year, so my martial arts training weight lifting has been sidelined for quite a while, leaving me with video games and writing as my outlets. Lately writing has been hard, so I pretty much just play Skyrim.

The Great Big Thing is a kind of toxic complexity that has led to an existential threat at a global scale. I sense that our capitalist system is collapsing slowly under its own weight and the problem is so complex that not only can nobody see it, nobody can even face it. This reflexive/involuntary ignorance has left me with a kind of general malaise and a kind of ennui about evangelizing an alternative.

I have liberal friends who don’t understand nationalism or how white supremacists operate. I have conservative friends that don’t understand the shock doctrine or force multipliers. Neither faction seems to know the difference between fiscal policy and monetary policy, or what tax rates and margins are. The only friend I have that doesn’t want to just bitch about the presidential election is a batshit conspiracy theorist. What does that say about me?

I keep pitchin’ em and you keep missin’ em

Nationalism is a logical consequence to globalization. It is the result of the failure of politics to control corporate power, or possibly the corruption of politics via money by corporate interests. It’s what happens when people lose faith in institutions. Sure there is a racist/anti-immigration component to nationalism, but there is an equal, or possibly greater component that is economic. What you end up with is a population that is mad at the globe and wants to retreat inward.

Speaking of race and nationalism, modern white supremacists want to be judged and attacked for their beliefs, especially by other whites, because it plays into their whole “white genocide” narrative. It’s the exact same tactic employed by ISIS and the Westboro Baptist Church. ISIS wants the west to crack down on moderate Muslims because it empowers their “the west wants to destroy all of Islam” rhetoric. Westboro is a family of lawyers posing as radicals. They want people to assault them at their protests so that they can file lawsuits and collect settlements. Martyrdom is the endgame, and if you engage them, they win. They’re gonna get mileage off it, so you have to get even more.

What’s worse is that my liberal friends are calling for bans on this kind of speech. Hate speech in all forms is bullshit, but that’s not the point. The point is that awful speech is a kind of canary in the coal mine. It’s the way that you prove to the world that you are willing to stand up for all other (i.e. the important) forms of free speech. If you call for a ban on hate speech, how do you plan on enforcing it? The federal government? How will you keep that ban from silencing the people who need to speak the most? Bans by government at any level *WILL* be used against activists and protesters. Any move a government body makes against the Alt-Right *WILL* harm Black Lives Matter, Standing Rock, Occupy, and every other group that liberals think is cool. I have been called a “free speech apologist” by a liberal friend for pointing this out.

On the Conservative side, my friends don’t seem to understand the pernicious nature of authoritarianism. The shock doctrine is where authoritarian governments and leaders use crises to justify the maneuvers they make to restrict the rights of the people they govern. The neocons did this during the Bush administration after 9/11. That’s not a conspiracy, the PATRIOT act was a direct result. The intelligence apparat did the same thing during the Obama administration in response to various insurgencies in the Middle East following the Arab Spring.

Most liberals were quick to criticize Bush for letting the intelligence community build its mass surveillance apparatus, but they were curiously silent about Obama letting the intel community expand it and then equip it with murder drones. It’s not about the politics, it’s about the intel community and the industries that support it forming a kind of ‘deep state’ (I hate using that term) that’s immune to partisanship. The country swings from red to blue and back to red, but the Intel Community Apparatchiks gain more power with each cycle. Oh, and the American people are silently complicit. As Trump clashes with the Intel Apparat, liberals support the Apparat, as if they have forgotten about all the kidnapping and torture that has happened in the past. At this point, throwing shade at any president means that 50% of the time, I’m the bad guy every time.

Speaking of governmental overreach, my conservative friends are just as delusional as my liberal friends. A few of them seem to think that this is still 1776 and that they can fight *whomever* on equal footing. This is a willful disregard of modern military doctrine. A force multiplier is a technology or tactic that improves the combat effectiveness of a weapon, a soldier, or military unit. Satellite communications, navigation, advanced optics, and close air support are examples of force multipliers. It’s the tactical support that makes special operations so special, not beards and MOLLE gear. Don’t get me wrong, those operators are total badasses, but behind each badass operator on the ground there are dozens of people, millions of dollars in communications equipment, and thousands of man hours of intelligence gathering. You may be shit-hot at Call Of Duty, but you can’t call in an airstrike in the real world.

Because of this worship/obsession with special operations, a kind of cargo cult has formed around guns and gun culture as a result; a certain group of people think that carrying military-style equipment and weapons makes them one of these heroic badass operators fending off a mythical Golden Horde. AR-15’s, beards and vests don’t make you a badass, years of training and access to orbital technology does.

I have written elsewhere about geardos: non-military people, usually right wingers of some kind, who are obessed with military equipment. I can admit to making use of the modularity of MOLLE gear for carrying electronic equipment, so maybe I am more sensitive to this phenomenon than others. Also, I was in the Army in the mid 90’s and MOLLE gear is way more useful than the shitty Vietnam-era ALICE gear that I had to use. There are three basic types of geardos: 1) the 2nd amendment gun nut types, 2) doomsday preppers and survivalists, and 3) people who fantasize about the zombie apocalypse. There is a weird connection between all 3 types; in one form or another they all share this kind of male power fantasy about the proverbial shit hitting the fan. The point here is that once you remove the racist/right-wing fantasy, what remains is still fantasy.

So when some NRA gun-nut talks about using his god-given right to semi-automatics to “Don’t Tread On Me” against tyranny, don’t believe it for a second. The 2nd Amendment is real, and written into the constitution, so it’s not going anywhere. That doesn’t make it a hedge against tyranny. At all. If the culture wars blossom into a full blown civil war, the military will be the deciding factor, not the geardos. Whichever side the military backs will be the winning side in very short order. You could put the entire state of Kentucky, National Guard included, up against the First Infantry Division, and my money would still be on the Big Red One. The NRA knows this, which is why their thinly veiled threats are directed specifically at journalists and not at the left in general.

My side, your side, their side, we don’t know.

What I see around me is that the machinery of the western world is grinding to a halt, and I see a militarist/imperialist/plutocratic caste that is doing steadily crazier and crazier shit to keep the machines running. Meanwhile, everyone I know is arguing over what color we should have painted the machines last year. They are -Every. Single. One.- oblivious to the fact that the machine broke down like 20 years ago.

If all they did was argue about machine painting, that might be understandable, but that is not the case. They are so dug so deep into their paint-the-machines factions that they don’t see that they have basically switched places with each other. The memes and bumper stickers that rail against Trump are basically the same ones that railed against Obama. “Obama is a Socialist” has been replaced with “Trump is a Nazi”. One side looked stupid when they did it, and now the other side looks equally stupid. Again, it’s not about the politics, it’s about the blindness to the situation.

Both sides use the same hateful condescending language. Liberals have become the new bible thumpers. “Trump Supporter” carries the same vitriol as the word “libtard”. Saving the world from institutional bigotry is great, but the tools that they use are the same right-wing fundie bullshit: judgement and self-righteousness.

If you are a liberal and you are sick of conservatives clutching their pearls in judgement of your secular hedonistic lifestyle, you don’t respond by clutching your own pearls in judgement of their microaggressions. When my liberal friends attempt to deploy guilt and shame to enforce their world view, I want to scream “WHAT ARE YOU A FUCKING CATHOLIC?”

What it’s like listening to all of this

I can’t help but feel like Arthur Dent in “The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy”. I feel like the last sane person in a world that has gone mad.

“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see…”
“You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?”
“No,” said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, “nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.”
“Odd,” said Arthur, “I thought you said it was a democracy.”
“I did,” said Ford. “It is.”
“So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t people get rid of the lizards?”
“It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.”
“You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”
“Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”
“But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?”
“Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?”
“I said,” said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, “have you got any gin?”
“I’ll look. Tell me about the lizards.”
Ford shrugged again.
“Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happenned to them,” he said. “They’re completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone’s got to say it.”
“But that’s terrible,” said Arthur.
“Listen, bud,” said Ford, “if I had one Altairian dollar for every time I heard one bit of the Universe look at another bit of the Universe and say ‘That’s terrible’ I wouldn’t be sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin.”

It’s the Economy, stupid.

The thing that bugs me the most is that both sides seem to be arguing petty cultural bullshit while corporations seize power hand over fist. Liberals and conservatives call for economic reforms without having a concept of basic economic principles.

For example, the difference between revenue and income. Revenue is simply a measure of the money that comes to you, income is a measure of what’s yours to keep. Most people think about their personal income with regard to income taxes, but to the government, income is a different animal. For corporations, income is a much bigger deal.

The issue I see a lot of people discussing is raising and lowering taxes with no real understanding of the difference between rates and margins. The tax rate is the amount that you are supposed to pay, the margin is the amount of your income and holdings that you actually hand over to the government. You can lobby all you want to increase the rate, and if by some miracle you succeed it won’t make much difference because corporations don’t cheat on their rates, they cheat on their margins. You could double the tax rates on the rich and you might see a slight increase in tax *revenue*, but the government would likely end up with less tax *income*.

A better approach, in my opinion would be to adopt a flat tax, where everyone pays the exact same rate, and there are absolutely no deductions. The actual rate could lower, say to 10%, and if you close all of the loopholes for bonuses, losses (real or fictitious), and the like, the government’s tax income could increase significantly. It would also put an end to all of those tax haven schemes that are said to be hiding several trillion dollars (See the Mark Blythe video above). So, stop arguing for raising or lowering taxes. Argue for the 1% to actually pay their goddamn taxes.

The same is true for fiscal policy and monetary policy. Fiscal policy has to do with how the government spends money. Monetary policy is how the fed controls the money supply through interest rates. The two really don’t have much to do with one another, other than they sort of come into play at similar times. Low interest rates are supposed to spur borrowing, but they also discourage saving. Interest rates have gone about as low as they can, so not much else can be done by the fed to stimulate the economy. It’s up to the government to do the rest.

This is where the complexity comes into play. I have ranted about this before, so I will do what I can to not duplicate the issue here. I am frustrated by the discussions that I see because the left and the right are arguing based on two narratives that don’t tell the whole story. Basically, engineering an economy always has unforeseen consequences. Not engineering an economy always has predictable consequences. The New Deal was probably the most ambitious attempt at engineering an economy, followed by the Clinton and Blair administrations’ campaigns to deregulate the economy in the late 90’s. Both maneuvers are what put us in the state that we are in now. It’s impossible to get it right, but that’s not the point. The point is that neither narrative (pro-economic-engineering or anti-economic-engineering) captures the complexities of a national or global economy. Economies are made up of individuals, who may or may not act rationally, and may or may not act in their own self interest. Trying to create stability within these large and complex systems is foolish and will ultimately lead to nonpolitical forces seizing power. Non-political forces do not have to answer to voters, which is undermining people’s liberty and will continue to undermine the social contract.

This is what I mean by the machinery of The West grinding to a halt. The machine isn’t doing what anyone wants, and so everyone keeps adding and removing gears, rather than taking a look at the overall design and looking at making a fundamental change. Not just the economy, not just the political system, but to pretty much everything. This is where I should get on my soapbox about a movement based on post-Internet ideas and technologies to give the power back to the people, but I just don’t have it in me.