I feel like I have a mental bull by the tail. I am not certain I'll pull off shaping this rampaging thing going on in my mind into something coherent or not. I am going to give it my best.
I was putting together the daily 
What I am thinking about now I only began considering for the first time as I was writing that post. This means it may not be fully formed and that is why I refer to it as a bull by the tail as it is thrashing about in my head and hasn't calmed down into some orderly thing as of yet.
My journey took me through the mentions of the FCC planning to remove the Net Neutrality guidelines and specifically speaking this seems to be aimed at allowing ISPs to restrict which sites and content their customers are permitted to see. That doesn't sound particularly good to me, yet that was just the first stone in the path to this wiggly idea I have going on.
I knew that it was likely intended so they could legally coordinate with those ISPs to censor people that are saying things the "establishment" disagrees with. So yes, we're talking paving the path for legal censorship, end of free speech, end of free press. If you've been paying attention to what has been going on and which narratives are permissible even if they advocate violence and death, and which ones are not even when they advocate nothing like those things then the push for this ability for ISPs to censor makes sense.
I kept reading. I also had another article in my mind which was just lingering which I read earlier today and also heard reference to last week. That was the CIA deal for $600 Million with Amazon.com. It turns out this is an important facet of the new idea. Yeah, I am working my way towards the point. I figure that since I am still wrestling with it that perhaps sharing my path to coming up with the idea may be important.
Then I read an article about Amazon.com getting into Healthcare and concepts of what that could do to the healthcare industry.
I immediately thought, many Amazon.com is getting huge. They are getting into everything.
CLICK, LIGHT BULB, Holy sh*t!
There are a confluence of terms used these days and most people shouting against them clearly show how little they actually know about them, the history of them, etc.
Let's take fascism. This was typically a government operated by corporate interests. Historically they have had figureheads. I want to delve into the reality of this a little bit later as those claiming to be fighting fascism are actually the warriors bringing it to fruition and are aiming at the wrong target.
Let's take communism. This essentially puts all resources, and property into the commons. There is no private property, private businesses, etc. The idea is to have "too each according to their needs". To be clear there is a difference between needs and wants. A lot of communist ideas center around the idea of central planning, and many of them want to do away with the concept of currency. This has been a failing point as no central planner can adapt to changing situations and catastrophes the way a currency can. This is why it is such a useful TOOL. The people that would be the central planners are not omniscient Gods who have knowledge of everything and know how to do everything. So since they are limited by what they know, even collectively it is literally IMPOSSIBLE for them to plan accordingly for all the many things and nuances. This is but one issue among others, but it is the one that is important to this idea.
Then let's consider capitalism as it has an important role in this idea. Capitalism as with the other two terms above has different definitions and interpretations depending upon whom you speak to. It often depends on whether they are advocates for or opposed to the concept. Capitalism itself is pretty simple. You can own property. You have the right to what you make with your own hands and labor unless you have contracted your labor to someone else on behalf of one of their projects (aka jobs). The contract defines what you can expect in return. There is a term called Laissez Faire, also known as Free Market Capitalism. In such an environment supply and demand drive things. Competition is open, so if you can do something better you can get business. If a company is mistreating its employees perhaps you can create a competing business and get the best employees from the other company by treating them better. That is just an example. In history the periods where a truly free market exists have been very brief. When they have existed the areas have exploded in invention, entrepreneurship, and productivity. The lives of the people improve dramatically. This is where the BAD part of Capitalism comes into play and the part it's opponents fixate on. What about monopolies where a business can stifle all competition and prevent it? That is actually the biggest negative and most other complaints are simply variants or offshoots of that. Consider this. How do they do that? How can they stop me from wooing their best employees away? How can they block access to resources from me? The answer as far as I can find in all cases is Government. A monopoly that persists and grows in power as far as I've been able to find does so due to government favors, or blocking their opponents, or passing laws to prevent/restrict competition. This is NOT a Free Market. The moment a government begins doing such things the FREE MARKET is dead so any WOES that occurred at that point cannot be laid at the feet of a FREE MARKET. Many of us that are proponents of Free Market Capitalism instead of just generalizing all "capitalism" to the same thing will refer to this as Crony Capitalism.
Crony Communism, and Crony Socialism occur as well. Fascism is Cronyism by design. Yet, let's not get to fixated on Capitalism being the enemy. I've had some revelations that were significant for me.
Let's jump to the big idea I started to have. You remember that idea of centralizing power, and central planning?
Isn't that kind of what Amazon.com is doing? Yet they are doing it in the form of Fascism/Crony Capitalism. They are also being propped up by insidious elements of socialism.
Socialism tries to provide programs to help everyone. In general it tries to do magic bullet fixes where one idea is deemed to be necessary to apply to everyone. A big thing they push for is "free". Yet as I've written before there is no "free". Someone still has to do the labor, goods still have costs, and that all must be paid for. So if the government promises something free how do they pay for it? They do this by increasing taxes, which means everyone is being charged for things whether they personally will ever benefit from or use those things themselves. They also do this by another method, and sometimes they do it with both taxes and this method. The other method is to increase debt. Essentially they take out a credit card in your name that only the government is allowed to spend. There is a third method which is to print more currency which is really just a facet of debt as each additional currency produced dilutes the amount of currency in circulation and reduces the value of the currency you already had. At least that is mostly the case.
It is more insidious in virtually every country in the world as the Central Banks are NOT part of any government. They give the illusion that they are by choosing names such as "The Federal Reserve", "The World Bank", "International Monetary Fund", etc. Yet, these are all private institutions controlled by private families. It is a deep rabbit hole to explore and if you haven't done so, it is something I think EVERY person should do at least once. It is important. It reveals a great many things.
So by it's nature that would be a form of Fascism. It heavily took hold in the U.S. in 1913. That is when The Federal Reserve came into being and supplanted the Constitutional provisions for how the national currency should be handled. That not unrelated is also when the IRS was born. With it came an unconstitutional form of taxation. We've been stuck with it since then, and most other nations (perhaps all) are stuck with something similar. It spread like a virus. In many cases it seems to have been the actual prime motivation for attacking one nation or another. They usually were attacks against nations that had no "central bank", and after the attack they would have a new "central bank" which was actually a private entity. This isn't the only motive of course, but it is one of which there appears to be a strong correlation. Just remember Correlation Does Not Equal Causation.
So this means that virtually every nation in the world is being lead by Fascists. This includes capitalist, communist, and socialist countries as well. If they have a central bank then they have private entities not beholden to their government controlling all of their currency. That is technically fascism.
So what about Amazon? I don't know if most people realize they can give all the free shipping they offer due to government subsidies. They have moved into almost every aspect of business. They are being given vast no-bid contracts.
Is this becoming a central planner? Using technology melded with currency it may be able to do what central planning of Communist countries cannot. Yet it is still heading in a monopoly direction, and with the government collusion it is most definitely fascism.
That really was my main idea. I had the idea that many of the agendas the Communists and others were attempting and failing at Amazon.com seemed to be actually succeeding at, but not as communism. It is a capitalist and fascist entity without a doubt. It did get its start with competition in a niche, which it did well due to the growing internet offerings and being in the right place at the right time. It just continued to grow. Once it was in bed with the government that is when things became crony and fascist.
So now I'd like to mention something I've tried to explain before to the so-called "anti-fascists", and to those fighting "The establishment".
At the moment both of those groups seem very squarely aimed at Trump. They see him as the corporations. Thus, they see him as the fascist. They see him as the President so he must be "the establishment".
Both of these premises are not rational if you give it some serious thought. He was elected November 8th, 2016. He was not inaugurated until January 20th, 2017. So he couldn't actually DO anything until January 20th.
He did not create the Federal Reserve. He is the one that huge corporations (aka fascism) with a lot of crony ties into the government are trying to censor and bash. He is the primary target of the huge corporate media conglomerates. Almost all of the news media is controlled by five large corporations. They've been around for awhile.
This brings us to "the establishment". Wouldn't that more likely be those that have been calling the shots and pulling the strings for a long time? Would it be the single guy that hasn't even had the power to do anything for a year yet, or perhaps would it be the Senators and Congressmen who have had CAREERS as such? Meaning numerous Senators and Congressmen have been in office for more than THREE DECADES. That means 30 years. How have things changed in governance in the last 30 years? Do you like them? It doesn't matter which party was president. A president if they serve two "terms" would be 8 years each. That means many of these people have been in office through at least 3 presidents, some 4.
Now put those people into bed with corporations and lobbyists and observe how most of them make an insane amount of wealth while they are in office well beyond what the salary of the position pays.
To me that sounds like "the establishment". It also spans both parties. It also has its tendrils in your local and State politics as well. It's been growing like a disease for a very long time.
Yet, the anti-fascists, and anti-establishment protestors actually seem to be the mercenaries for the things they claim to be fighting. I believe this is primarily due to ignorance. It's easier to just be lead around by emotions, and because someone you think is "smart" tells you something is true than it is to actually really think it through, research, and learn.
Easier also can mean DANGEROUS, BAD, STUPID, or all of the above.
The United States has not been a Capitalist nation for a long time. It has some Capitalism, but it also has a ton of Socialist traits. It is a hybrid. It along with every nation but I believe three at last count is subservient to the central banks which makes them also fascist.
Remember that debt I talked about that the Government can use to fund the "free" services they offer when the politicians are campaigning (e.g. Bernie Sanders)? Well there are several ways that can happen. The most common way is to go to the Central Bank and say I need more money. The Central Bank says okay and prints more money, and now the government must pay interest to these banking cartels for money they printed out of thin air that is not backed by anything. So the government and by extension its citizens are now in debt to a corporation due to them saying "okay the money exists".
It is much like the "Emperor's New Clothes" in reverse. Instead of the Emperor thinking he is wearing some great clothing that he can't see, and everyone seeing the emperor as nude. We the people see this currency there that the entity creating simply had to adjust some numbers on an accounting table. They answer to no government.
There are many facets to the world's problems. It can be EASY (remember what I said about easy above) to pick one culprit and point at it and try to blame everything on it. "IF we just solved this the world would be better". This has gone on long enough that there are far more targets than one. It is NOT something easy to solve. Yet, we must still strive to solve it. One thing we need to do to solve anything is to actually KNOW what the targets should be as opposed to falling for appeals to emotion, authority, etc and going after the WRONG target.
Watch instead what the TRUE fascists do, and what the true establishment does. What are they for? What are they against?
When they are for something it usually increases their power. When they are against something it is usually due to it being a threat to their power.
An interesting thing. Left leaning news was pointing out the articles about the top 3 wealthiest men in the U.S. are actually combined worth more than half the population of the U.S. What they didn't bother mentioning is that these top 3 people are also Democrats, and while they control some of the largest truly fascist elements in the world they also push for socialism.
Why?
Socialism is a guaranteed check from the government. No competition required. Price increases just mean the government will take out more in taxes or debt, and the entity controlling that service or product will continue to maximize their profit.
The truth of the matter is none of the Communist or Socialist countries exist without Capitalism in our current world. It props them up. They also all have fascists calling many of their directives, funding them, and controlling the socialist programs.
"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws!" - Mayer Amschel Rothschild
Now my variant from a fascist in my imagination.
"The more socialist programs the better, as long as I control them." - fictitious business tycoon
If I remember correctly Jeff Bezos of Amazon.com was one of those three men in that article.
Do you still think Trump is the big boogeyman we should be focusing all of our efforts on, or is that simply a distraction and smokescreen to keep us from paying attention to those truly making the world into what it is?
How about all the race baiting, and political correctness insanity infecting the world?
That seems by design as well. It is a great distraction. While we are focused on elevating petty things to some point where they seem SUPREMELY IMPORTANT we are not paying attention the big events and moves happening at the same time. They are boring. Worrying about pronouns is important. Worrying about safe spaces is important. Worrying about virtue signalling is important. Worrying about whether we'll offend someone is important. In case you missed it, all of those sentences beginning with the word "Worrying" I intend to be read with a large dose of dripping sarcasm.
Thank you as always, for your time. Steem On!