Click here for a short video blip. (wmv)

                          "Progressive" Organizing

I recently read Howard Zinn's, "A People's History of the United States".  Among other things, this experience has helped solidify my suspicion that many of the seemingly "progressive" political groups actually work towards some not so progressive causes, like diffusing radical energy instead of utilizing it ... like preventing positive change instead of creating it.  Having read Mr. Zinn's book, I think I can make a stronger case for this hypothesis.  Why do I care?  Because the government is supposed to serve the people, but it doesn't, and because the people are supposed to be involved in political matters, but they're not.  Does this trend does not bode well for our children's future?

But there are a host of problems associated with organization.  How do you know if the political group you are associated with is a good one?  The very nature of certain groups can be somewhat of a red flag in itself, such as those touting vague objectives ("change") or monumental undertakings ("saving the planet").  It sure does feel like someone is playing on human emotions here.  Isn't it natural to feel skeptical?  And when we look at the actual achievements - or lack thereof - of much political organization, true colors really show.  Whether succeeding in bad objectives, or ultimately failing in good ones, the net result very similar, and supportive of the status quo.  A good group may emerge naturally out of conditions specific to a time and place, only to be tolerated, or even supported, by the elite.  Or, if the organized group cannot be tolerated, they are now on the radar screen, more easily dictated to, infiltrated, stereotyped, categorized, slandered, defamed.  Once a certain kind of organization occurs, you have lost a very powerful tool.  

Still other organizations are disingenuous from their very origins.  Have you ever been part of a group where your thoughts and feelings don't seem to be used fairly and democratically?  Have you ever sensed that the true feelings of the group membership are not reflected in the groups decisions, but are instead guided or railroaded into suppression, while some "group consensus", strangely supportive of the establishment and dovetailing nicely with the status quo, is embraced?  But how can you get anything done without organizing?  The dilemma seems to be that we have to organize without organizing.  The question is how we should define "organizing".   Is it possible that the best form of "organization" is not very organized at all?  So what kind of organization is effective?  What does the labor movement teach us about methods of organization?  Are sit down strikes effective on the whole?  Were the Bonus Army's march on Washington in 1932 or the storming of the Fruit Growers Express Company in 1931 favorable ways to organize?  Why didn't the AFL or the Wobblies succeed in their ultimate goals?  While some methods seem questionable, other methods seem much more favorable, like the fisherman's union in Seattle during the early 1930s, when fisherman bartered locally for produce with farmers in order to create local economy.  I believe this is something we have seen far too little of, while the labor movement and unions of yore, in general, have shown us how massive efforts, including thousands or even millions of people, much violence, can indeed achieve certain change, but never the fundamental problem of the rule of the few.  

Political groups, both inadvertently and intentionally, find ways to make a good showing, to feel good when the reality is anything but good.   Placating ourselves with "progressive" causes that aren't really very progressive diverts society's radical energy.  In so many ways, we live vicariously, tolerating cheap substitutes in lieu of the real thing.  Forming movements that we call "political" movements, but that are really just toothless, feel-good collaborations, has become common.  These may arise inadvertently, like a food or drug addiction, or they could arise intentionally, for the sole purpose of placating and reducing the atmosphere of dissent.  But either way, the effect is very similar, and detrimental to the chances of any real change, real reform, and movement towards genuine popular government.    Such movements are symptomatic of the structures of power in which we now live, whether deliberately or not.  Their historic track record is instructive.  Why were the unions not more successful?  After all, they aimed much higher than just achieving better wages and working conditions:    

"The members of a trades union should be taught … that the labor movement means more, infinitely more, than a paltry increase in wages and the strike necessary to secure it; that while it engages to do all that possibly can be done to better the working conditions of its members, its higher object is to overthrow the capitalist system of private ownership of the tools of labor, abolish wage-slavery and achieve the freedom of the whole working class and, in fact, of all mankind."     Eugene Debbs    

Why then did the labor movement fail to "achieve the freedom of the whole working class"?  And why has popular governance continued to be suppressed ever since?  The answers to these questions are undoubtedly complex, and it must be recognized that much positive change has been made.  Nonetheless, no one can deny that we have failed to change the fundamental structural underpinnings of society and the problems of consolidation of power and elite rule.  And often "progressive" reforms are supported, if not created, by the elite.  Much of the positive changes that have occurred would have happened anyway, with or without pressure from below.   After all, the strategy of the oligarchs has long since been to maintain their power while making just enough concessions to avoid revolt and maximize morale and productivity.  Some of Mr. Zinn's description of the New Deal is instructive here:

But the New Deal's organization of the economy was aimed mainly at stabilizing the economy, and secondly at giving enough help to the lower classes to keep them from turning a rebellion into a real revolution."  

             Howard Zinn, "A People's History of the United States",  p.393 

"The New Deal gave federal money to put thousands of writers, artists, actors, and musicians to work-in a Federal Theatre Project, a Federal Writers Project, a Federal Art Project: murals were painted on public buildings; plays were put on for working-class audiences who had never seen a play; hundreds of books and pamphlets were written and published. People heard a symphony for the first time. It was an exciting flowering of arts for the people, such as had never happened before in American history, and which has not been duplicated since. But in 1939, with the country more stable and the New Deal reform impulse weakened, programs to subsidize the arts were eliminated.

When the New Deal was over, capitalism remained intact. The rich still controlled the nation's wealth, as well as its laws, courts, police, newspapers, churches, colleges. Enough help had been given to enough people to make Roosevelt a hero to millions, but the same system that had brought depression and crisis-the system of waste, of inequality, of concern for profit over human need- remained.

For black people, the New Deal was psychologically encouraging (Mrs. Roosevelt was sympathetic; some blacks got posts in the administration), but most blacks were ignored by the New Deal programs. As tenant farmers, as farm laborers, as migrants, as domestic workers, they didn't qualify for unemployment insurance, minimum wages, social security, or farm subsidies. Roosevelt, careful not to offend southern white politicians whose political support he needed, did not push a bill against lynching. Blacks and whites were segregated in the armed forces. And black workers were discriminated against in getting jobs. They were the last hired, the first fired. Only when A. Philip Randolph, head of the Sleeping-Car Porters Union, threatened a massive march on Washington in 1941 would Roosevelt agree to sign an executive order establishing a Fair Employment Practices Committee. But the FEPC had no enforcement powers and changed little."

      (ibid,  p.403)    

The overclass has indeed given us just enough to keep quiet.  This may help explain why we organize so poorly.  In addition, isn't it likely that the elite are the ones doing much of the organizing, forming groups which masquerade as "progressive" entities?  We are drawn towards organization that is trendy and well-funded, well advertised, groups which scarcely have anything very transformative on their agenda.  I would suggest that such groups have become an important mechanism for stability in modern society, like a pressure release valve.  They provide, for many folks who acknowledge the corruption, a place to deal with their frustration.  But the groups always seem to evade the big questions, and they often show signs of supporting the establishment, whether they mean to or not.  In a cozy, anesthetized society, how many are interested in looking at who is printing the money and why that is fundamentally important?  How many of us are really committed to causing problems for the elite?  Amid such a dizzying array of creature comforts and pop culture, who is really interested to engage in civil disobedience and non-violent, non-cooperation?  Who even sees the importance of the local food shed, self reliance and a sustainable home economy, lets alone takes action?  We find comfort in Hollywood, the Super Bowl and credit cards, as well as phony, prepackaged religion and politics.  Such vicarious living placates us and overcomes any desire to confront a corrupt industrial system that is rooted in war, making us tolerant.  Many groups thought of as "radical" or "progressive" are instructive here, demonstrating how so-called "progressive" reform is often supportive of the status quo.  Why did the AFL discriminate against blacks?  Why did union leaders often enforce "no strike pledges" for the elite?  Why did union rank and file rebel against its own leadership?  Because "progressive" causes are so often corrupt.

"Thus, two sophisticated ways of controlling direct labor action developed in the mid-thirties. First, the NLRB would give unions legal status, listen to them, settling certain of their grievances. Thus it could moderate labor rebellion by channeling energy into elections, just as the constitutional system channeled possibly troublesome energy into voting. The NLRB would set limits in economic conflict as voting did in political conflict. And second, the workers’ organization itself, the union, even a militant and aggressive union like the CIO, would channel the workers’ insurrectionary energy into contracts, negotiations, union meetings, and try to minimize strikes, in order to build large, influential, even respectable organizations."        

          (Howard Zinn, "A People's History of the United States",  p.402)

"Attempts began to do with blacks what had been done historically with whites-to lure a small number into the system with economic enticements."

                 (ibid,  p.464

"There was a small amount of change and a lot of publicity. There were more black faces in the newspapers and on television, creating an impression of change-and siphoning off into the mainstream a small but significant number of black leaders."

            (ibid, p.465)

More recently, what has been the measurable effects of groups like "Move On", who call themselves an "antiwar" movement?  Have they had any effect whatsoever on war?  Have they made a public, formal apology for helping to put a warmongering, Wall Street puppet in the White House?  In fact, Move On looks very little like an anti-war movement, and a lot like a movement created to placate progressives and radicals, offering them token lefty agendas like "stopping the war in Iraq" while they somehow have no problem when their man Obama talks hawkish on Afghanistan, Iran or Pakistan.   Clearly the left today is being prodded and groomed to tolerate war, but not overtly, of course.  Overtly, they are "anti-war".  But in reality, they support it.  

And how about Al Gore's "Alliance for Climate Protection"?  What has been the measurable result of this group's efforts?  Zip, at least with regard to their ostensible mission.  Meanwhile, it's not very difficult to see Al Gore's real agenda, is it?  (http://www2.whidbey.net/zipmont/revamp/algore.html)  I'm sure there has been plenty of success there, plenty of success becoming obscenely wealthy. and pushing towards global governance (http://www2.whidbey.net/zipmont/revamp/globalistagenda.html)  Another great example of what "progressive" thought has become today. 

Some political movements may fairly be dubbed "grass roots", emerging naturally, spontaneously out of the needs of the local community.  But can the group demonstrate an understanding of the specific needs and uniqueness of the community?  Is the group but a chapter of a larger movement?  Can they be shown to be driven by traditional structures of power?  What is their funding?   Is there transparency?   To what extent is the group/movement dictatorial?  How are their results measured - specifically?  Are their problems/ambiguities with this method?  If the answers to such questions are not forthcoming, then neither am I.  "Grass roots" movements are not always good.  This status, by itself, is not enough.

Besides the problems associated with organization, there is also plenty of evidence illustrating the efficacy of disorganization.  The difficulty the North American indians presented to their conquerers is well documented.  They presented problems due to their lack of organization and power structure and their egalitarian way of life.  They were organized in a sense, but nothing like the invading newcomers.  There was no all-powerful king or landowner to deal with.  They didn't understand what it meant to sign a treaty or to sell land.  These ideas were foreign them.  Nor did they care to amass an excess of material wealth, above and beyond what was necessary to stockpile for the well being of the people, which was one with the well-being of the earth.  The indians thus provide us with a great example of how rethinking our values and organization can present difficulty for anyone interested in annexing, occupying, exploiting, controlling.  Can we take a lesson from native Americans regarding how to organize, or disorganize?

Strangely enough, guerilla warfare is also very instructive. Today's imperial warmongers love to talk of a war "with no end in sight", of a strange new, spread out, disorganized, irregular, difficult enemy which can not be engaged in traditional ways, calling for a long, drawn out "theatre of wars", in order to get us to change our expectations of war.  In other words, get ready for a lot of it.  But hidden in the subtext of these lies is a helpful hint.  Disorganized, scattered opposition is difficult to deal with and presents problems for would be despots, oligarchs, oppressors, conquerers...   Of course I am not advocating violence as a means to securing independence.  We can certainly protect ourselves, but violence is to be avoided, not only for the obvious reasons but also because it attracts unwanted attention.  It makes us easy to deal with.  Genuine, effective radical thinking has nothing whatsoever to do with violence.  It wants nothing to do with it.  In fact, flying under the proverbial radar precludes and proscribes violence.  

And how about your time?  How many of us are awash in spare time?  Does it make sense to give several hours of your 10-12 spare time every week to some organization that purports to be working to "save the planet", for example?  First of all that's a huge chunk of time - on the margin - especially when you're not really sure what effect you're having, and let's be honest here ... you're not.  Conservation is wonderful, but do you need to join some group to do that?!   A few hours a week may not seem like a lot of time when you consider the total hours in a week, but this is a poor measure.  What has much more meaning is how many hours you have to spare.  How much free time do you have every week?  Look at the hours you volunteer as a percentage of this - not as a percentage of the total hours in a week.  When we think on the margin, we make better decisions about how we spend our time.  Shouldn't we be giving that time to our families, friends and community?  And how nice to be able to readily measure the effect - on real people, not on hype and feel good PR ops and photo shoots.  No group is going to save the planet or prevent global warming anyway, save big corporations, you know, the ones who caused the problem to begin with.  And even they will only have an effect if working together.  Economically strapped citizenry, no matter how courageous and determined, stand no chance.   If global warming is successfully fought against, it will be because the elite cronies, who do all the polluting, saw it was in their interest and chose to do it - collectively.  Relatively speaking - these political groups have very little money.  Their funders may have deep pockets, but they need very little of it to achieve their real mission here - to foster a pacifist society.

By robbing us of our time and re-directing our energies, so-called progressive organizations diffuse discontent.   Participation provides a sense of satisfaction and political involvement, but nothing is accomplished.  We consume prefabricated stuff on so many levels.  This is a form of vicarious living because it's seeking satisfaction through something that is a substitute for the real thing.  We do this with Hollywood and pro sports.  We regurgitate prefabricated religious scripts.  We even succumb to prefabricated food.  Everything is ready made for our convenience so that we are institutionalized in every sense, even politically.  In such a state, we are comfortably numb and helpless to create real change.   We settle for vicarious comfort in a perceived noble cause, even when no measurable effect can be demonstrated.  What has been the measurable effect of today's groups involved with peak oil, climate change and saving the planet?  Aren't they then creating a false sense of change?  How many of them can demonstrate - really demonstrate - that your time and money is best spent supporting them?  How many rob us of our time so there is little left to spend where it ought to be spent?  

Watching "Whale Wars" may be an effective way to gain vicarious satisfaction (perhaps even achievement?) through a tv program.  But why support someone who makes a spectacle of themselves chasing a band aid solution, wastes enormous sums of money, pollutes heavily and participates in violence?  The truth is, there is no feasible way for us to prevent the killing of the whales.  If big business wants to exploit any natural resource, then they will do it.  Only they can stop themselves.  For us to try to stop them is not only futile, it's wasteful and gives us a false sense of progress.  Therefore it's detrimental.  Just imagine the alternative uses for that energy and those resources, uses which would have measurable effect ... The way to engage them is never head on, issue by issue.  The way to engage them is simple non-violent non-participation. The non-violent way to progress has to be slow, inherently, as we slowly find more and more ways to get what we need outside the system, we withdraw our support from it. 

And is the ultimate objective of National Geographic really "Inspiring people to care about the planet since 1888", or is it to make a good showing, to masquerade as a progressive entity, providing a place where vicarious fulfillment may be had by those who need to feel connected to progressive causes?  In fact, in their book "Reading National Geographic", Lutz and Collins argue that the D.C. based National Geographic Society "cultivates ties to government officials and corporate interests."  Besides finding intimate ties to the American establishment, Lutz and Collins build a strong case for National Geographic's undercurrents of racism and the strong need to validate middle class American values, while simultaneously posing as environmentally concerned and culturally aware.  National geographic is also contributing to a doomsday mentality revolving around conservation issues like peak oil and global warming. (http://www2.whidbey.net/zipmont/revamp/nationalgeographic.html)  Conservation is great, but the shock and awe spin that National Graphic is very disingenuous, and has ulterior motives that are hard to miss unless one wants to miss them, or unless one has no interest whatsoever.  (http://www2.whidbey.net/zipmont/revamp/globalwarming.html).

..............................................................................................................

Interestingly, the oldest human skeletal remains ever found in the Western Hemisphere were recently uncovered on the hanks of the Columbia River-the remains of Indian fishermen. What kind of government or society would spend millions of dollars to pick upon our bones, restore our ancestral life patterns, and protect our ancient remains from damage-while at the same time eating upon the flesh of our living People . . . ? 

                          Sid Mills - Yakima Indian -   (from Howard Zinn, "A People's History of the United States",  p.527)

.............................................................................................................................................................................................           

Big corporations and government are opposite sides of the same bad coin, working together to keep the masses in a state of relative servitude.  We are coached - by the corporate mass media - to defend one or the other, as we are coached to defend a religion.  But there is no one or the other.  There is no left wing and right wing in effect.  It's a charade.  There is an up wing and a down wing.  Words like oligarchy, plutocracy, and kleptocracy are the words we should be using in our dialogues, not capitalism, socialism or democracy.  The resulting power consolidation at the top speaks for itself:

"So a picture begins to emerge that suggests that power on the planet is not only concentrated, it is extraordinarily concentrated."  

                   David Rothkopf -  from "Superclass - The Global Power Elite And The World They Are Making" - p. 37

Our efforts to combat our perceived enemy - the opposing political party - are wasted energy and have rendered us sterile.  Antagonism between political parties, like racial antagonism, perpetuates a system which beggars both.  Real change does not involve political solutions.  Why waste time in something that is bought and paid for?  Real change occurs in individuals and in communities, when folks begin to realize that they are not, after all, each other's enemy, and begin forming alliances together, and by remaining committed to non-violent non-cooperation.  Things like developing the local food shed and "getting off the grid" anyway we can, and developing useful talents go a lot farther towards independence and self-fulfillment than organizing politically and attending meetings to be dictated to, while pretending to be "progressive".  Such groups create zero change.  They're often created to prevent it.  Such prevention is accomplished through placating and diffusing radical energy, so that the real agenda, power consolidation at the ultimate level (global governance - http://www2.whidbey.net/zipmont/revamp/globalistagenda.html) can move forward.  We can see this clear trend throughout the 20th century, in the establishing of the CFR in the 1920s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations), the Bilderberg Group in the 1950s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group), and the Trilateral Commission in the 1970s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateral_Commission)*, in the massive campaign during the 1940s to "liberalize" international trade, including the founding of the United Nations, Marshall Plan, World Bank, IMF and GATT...   facilitating huge multinationals to exploit natural resources, slave labor, and friendly tax laws around the world, as well as opening up economies for trade, so that the behemoths can also peddle their wares everywhere in the world, inevitably destroying local economies in the process.  

These efforts have resulted in the the slaughtering of hundreds of millions of people who were in the way, usually in the third world, although this slaughter is always attributed to someone or something else.  They shelter us from it, because at the moment we are unique, and they need us to acquiesce and be complicit.  We are the so-called "superpower".  But that unique status is not going to last.  In fact, it is in its twilight.  We, too, may be indispensable soon.  What, then, is the right way to proceed, especially considering we have young children and grandchildren in the picture?  I would suggest that accepting the truth about elite rule, corruption and the myth of democracy is fundamentally important.  This would then lead to the obvious conclusion that seeking political solutions is futile.  Our votes mean nothing.  What counts is our actions - how we spend our time and money.  Government is fashioned to serve elite interests.  Don't tangle with them their own forums.  Don't engage them in their bought and paid for political processes.  Change is possible, but not there.  Don't be lured into a place where your ability to create change is neutralized.  They're rolling out the red carpets for us there.  I wonder why?

How might we create real change?  By exiting the forums we, as political and consumer oriented motivated beings, are drawn into, and instead entering our own, self-wrought, spontaneous collaborations ... you know, the ones people enter into naturally (uninfluenced by the propaganda of the mass media...).  For example, how about the myriad of occasions where parting with our money is an obligatory cultural expectation, including holidays, birthdays, weddings, anniversaries ...?  Do you love your job so much that the thought of cutting your monthly expenses by 50% seems uninteresting?  How much or your disposable income (not to mention time) do such things take up, on the margin?  And for what?  Can't we think of better ways to connect with people?!  Why would we believe the popular culture which foists these ideals upon us?  And how nice to free up those financial resources and be supportive of your innate passions and home economy.  Don't the costs of these obligations outweigh the benefits?  And by corollary then, the benefits of parting with these absurd, bovine habits outweigh the costs of keeping them.  This os one way we can create real change - measurable, transformative change.  Pretty easy.  And what would pop culture say about that?  Probably to go out and borrow money you don't have to purchase a brand new, American made gas guzzler, and then revamp your wardrobe using plastic if you need to, to help boost the economy.  Nice.

The "spreading democracy" and "manifest destiny" fairy tales have helped pave the way and give license to living ideological fantasyland, which may work in the short run.  But down the road, we are making it more difficult for our children, helping the globalist, expansionist warmongering machine, who, in short order, will be asking Congress for another war, incurring massive debt, or acting alone on new and improved Presidential war powers, or finding newer and still more improved ways to act unilaterally, justified by some new, phony, looming catastrophe.  By engaging in so-called "political" forums, we are robbed of our time - and we are neutralized.  And we put ourselves into a position to be dictated to while neglecting our much more effective, natural ability network and collaborate locally to help ourselves.  It is possible to engage in real politics, in free thought, independent study and quality discourse with those we care about, and walk away from mass media hype and what the establishment coaches us to call "politics" and "religion" or whatever.  The extra time and money we can free up can be put towards any number of things our lives, real things that real, measurable results.  We can all think of a million things here, can't we?  The name of the game is turning a negative into a positive, something that turning a blind eye cannot do.

Is this capitalistic or socialistic?  Is it righty or lefty?  It is neither.  It is simply an attitude that advocates for common people through adaptation.  And has either capitalism or socialism ever existed?  Where?  When?  Are these terms even relevant?  Is it classical or is it jazz?   Who cares?  It's music.  And why must it fit into that bipolar mode of thinking anyway?  It seems that since we have no time to think about it, and since we are urged not to, that we a re reduced to this bipolar mentality.  If socialism was defined as cooperative ownership and sharing the earth's resources for the good of mankind, I would be all for it.  But is it?  And where/when has this ever happened?  Ever??  Is there a widely accepted - specific - definition?  What?  And what do our historic examples of "socialism" tell us?  Which were the most"socialistic"?  Weren't they each quite different?  Sure, it may be argued that certain examples - perhaps today's example of the Scandinavian countries - are better, for various reasons.  That may very well be.  But we would be squabbling over tiny concessions, like monkeys over peanuts, all the while the status quo remains intact with consolidation of the earth's resources into the few hands and war and corrupt central banking exacerbating this more everyday, including Scandinavian countries.  The oligarchs are happy to see us squabbling over nothing.  Divide and conquer anyone?  We are complicit only if we participate.

Or we can untether ourselves.  We can find ways to slowly decrease our participation.  We can pursue what is real, and adapt to current conditions.  I don't labor under the delusion that the status quo is to be confronted head on, or that it can be turned around anytime soon.  I don't believe we should seek public forums, draw attention, or proceed in any sort of aggressive manner.  What makes much more sense is simple non-participation ... adapting to the status quo in ways which lead to self-sustenance and make us less beholden to existing structures of power.  Many of the details will have to be worked out at the individual level, then outward from there.  Everyone has talent.  Everyone can find a niche.  Through finding our niche and collaborating locally, we might not change the status quo today, but we can affect the shadow it casts by changing the light.  How might we be that light?  There is where we will find success, predictability, independence and satisfaction.  Change may come slowly but it will come.  It must come over many generations and through passing on information to our legacy, which necessitates keeping the family unit intact, something globalism struggles with.  It's not that globalism is inherently bad, it's just that those currently pushing it are advocating a very specific type, controlled by the few.  The notion that it has to be that way is absurd and a cop out.  Yet this is the idea that is so often advanced:

"It is the unvarying law that the wealth of the community will be in the hands of the few. . . . The great majority of men are unwilling to endure that long self-denial and saving which makes accumulations possible . .. and hence it always has been, and until human nature is remodeled always will be true, that the wealth of a nation is in the hands of a few, while the many subsist upon the proceeds of their daily toil."   

                  Supreme Court Justice David J. Brewer     

Things like the 911 attacks (http://www2.whidbey.net/zipmont/revamp/911.html) and the JFK assassination ( http://www2.whidbey.net/zipmont/revamp/jfk.htm ) teach us that many still choose to embrace the status quo, even in the face of glaring inconsistencies and flagrant internal contradictions.  Similarly, many of us today are aware of the political and religious lies that we were indoctrinated into as children, yet we still embrace these lies because they stroke our ego, but also because mankind has been taught, throughout history, that deception by the elite is "for the good of the whole", and is thus to be tolerated.  From Plato's "noble lie", and "Machiavellian deception" to the framers of the US Constitution:

"The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government."    Alexander Hamilton

"When economic interest is seen behind the political clauses of the Constitution, then the document becomes not simply the work of wise men trying to establish a decent and orderly society, but the work of certain groups trying to maintain their privileges, while giving just enough rights and liberties to enough of the people to ensure popular support."  

                     (from Howard Zinn, "A People's History of the United States",  p.97)

The Constitution, then, illustrates the complexity of the American system: that it serves the interests of a wealthy elite, but also does enough for small property owners, for middle-income mechanics and farmers, to build a broad base of support. The slightly prosperous people who make up this base of support are buffers against the blacks, the Indians, the very poor whites. They enable the elite to keep control with a minimum of coercion, a maximum of law-all made palatable by the fanfare of patriotism and unity.     (from ibid, p.99)

Still, the mythology around the Founding Fathers persists. To say, as one historian (Bernard Bailyn) has done recently, that "the destruction of privilege and the creation of a political system that demanded of its leaders the responsible and humane use of power were their highest aspirations" is to ignore what really happened in the America of these Founding Fathers.      (from ibid, p.101)

More recently we find more evidence of undemocratic, political deception theme in political thinkers like Leo Strauss ( (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss - under "Noble Lies and Deadly Truths"),  widely considered to be the father of the neoconservative movement, and in PR moguls like Ed Bernays, widely considered one of the fathers of public relations.  Bernays argued in his book, "Propaganda", that scientific manipulation of public opinion is necessary to overcome chaos and conflict in society.  And we see this ethic in the modern secret meetings - in big business interests meeting privately with one another and with heads of state (CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group ...) with no accountability to the people whatsoever.  Hasn't it become clear that the government does not serve the people at all, and in fact it works actively to constrain them?  In 1975, the Trilateral Commission published a report called "The Crisis of Democracy", which actually argued that there is too much freedom in contemporary democracies, and that it is necessary to curtail personal freedoms in order to preserve the governability of democracies.  They called for "some measure of apathy and noninvolvement on the part of some individuals and groups” ( (http://www.trilateral.org/ProjWork/tfrsums/tfr08.htm -  p. 114 of the pdf file ...) ).   So the sentiments of today's elite echo the sentiments of the Founding Fathers, and way beyond.  By the way, Zbigniew Brzezinski, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission (along with David Rockefeller), was Barack Obama's foreign policy advisor during the 2008 Presidential elections.  An interesting connection, don't you think?

There may be some truth to the deception that the elite so avidly believe in.  But even if there is, it is short-sighted.  Their lies were not intended to serve us beyond making us comfortable.  And they do nothing towards establishing a milieu conducive to widespread and deep human satisfaction and fulfillment.  Thus even if they serve us now, they are not likely to do the same for our children and grandchildren.  The same freedoms that are available to us are not likely to be available to future generations if we participate in the current system, which results in wealth and power to consolidate.  The idea that a society based on political and religious deception will be an enduring and positive force in the world is ludicrous, and is only being tolerated on account of our current outlandish, artificial (and very unsustainable) abundance.  

The solutions are numerous, but they all seem to stem from non- violent, non-participation and connecting locally.  Being interconnected globally may indeed bring certain benefits to our society, but these can never take precedent over being well connected locally.  We should all understand where our food and everything we buy comes from and why this matters.  There is no reason we should sacrifice our local identity in the process of creating global economy.  The two are not mutually exclusive.  We have much more control at the local level.  Are we not best served to embrace this control, regardless of what is going on globally?

..............................................................................................................................................................................

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

Smedley Butler - Major General, U.S. Marine Corps, one of 19 people to be twice awarded the Medal of Honor,, one of three to be awarded both the Marine Corps Brevet Medal and the Medal of Honor, and the only person to be awarded the Brevet Medal and two Medals of Honor, all for separate actions.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler)

"To turn $100 into $110 is work. To turn $100 million into $110 million is inevitable."

  Edgar Bronfman

"Indeed one of the surest signs of the potency of political money is that for all the outcries against its influence, it has managed to forestall real reform.  In fact, in the political bloodstream of the United States, money often serves the role of both the red cells, carrying ideas to the heart and brain of the system, and the role of white cells, killing ideas that special interests find threatening."

                  David Rothkopf - from "Superclass - The Global Power Elite And The World They Are Making" - p. 84

.................................................................................

Related:

The System is Working - 

As expected, it didn't take long for the Obama administration to begin looking like its predecessor.  From obstructing war crime investigations and refusing to release prisoner abuse photos to refusing to repeal the enhanced, kingly powers of President, ushered in during the Bush/Cheney era, and beating the the war drums.  It all sounds too familiar.

No need to be surprised by what's been happening.  Concerned, yes, but not surprised.  Government abuse makes perfect sense if we look at how our system was set up.  The system is not failing, it's succeeding.  This is what is was designed to do.  The genius of the United States government, from its very founding, was never its vision of equity and promotion of popular governance. The US Constitution was founded by monied interests and fashioned to protect those interests.

And strong opposition to popular government - by the overclass - has a strong historical precedent. 

The connections between the Trilateral Commission and the Obama administration are so numerous it would be futile to attempt to list them all.

The ruling oligarchs have promulgated the idea of democracy and self-rule for the purposes of creating a milieu conducive to self-censorship, improved morale and productivity.  They similarly promulgated the embarrassingly ridiculous idea of "chosen people" and "manifest destiny."  

The Corporate/Bureaucratic Elite are Globalists -  Historically, different parts of the world cycle through periods of prosperity followed by periods of difficulty, at different times.  They will say that the push for global governance is precisely what is needed to bring the entire world into a common rhythm and to ameliorate uncertainty of these inconvenient cycles.  We should no sooner accept this than the ridiculous notion that World War 1 would be "the war to end all wars", or that after World War 1, the purpose of the League of Nations was formed to prevent war from breaking out again.  Shouldn't we be skeptical when elite, round table consortiums profess to be aiming to prevent war, or, as David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission was supposed to, bring "peace and prosperity"?  Uncertainty is going nowhere.  War is going nowhere.  They are both here to stay.  The question is, will we also have the ultimate power consolidation - that of global governance - to accompany and exacerbate them?

The Two Party System -  Even adding one more party (one that actually wins elections on a regular basis like dems and pubs do...) would confound things monumentally, making it statistically impossible to reign in public opinion.  This is precisely why the media emphasizes (gives credence to) only two parties.  With this mechanism in place, any initiative or legislation can garner significant public support simply by associating it - through the media - as righty or lefty initiative.  In other words, having prominent lefties or righties endorse it publicly.  A third (fourth, fifth ... ?? ) party would cut way into the efficacy of this mechanism for obvious reasons.  The elite easily install their puppet in every election and subsequently whip up the requisite public support - through the media - for the initiatives they desire, which are drawn up long before the election.  It is utterly impossible for a true grass roots candidate to gain any traction in this sort of system. 

As children we are programmed for our role as consumers by our tvs, which conditions us to be self-censoring.  Crowd control is much easier if you can get the crowd to censor itself, which is precisely what we have. 

The subtext emanating from the mass media echoes this sentiment perfectly.  The subtext is: there's something at stake here that is more important than the truth.  We all sense that rabble rousing media righties and lefties like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann are not reporting the news in a responsible, forthcoming fashion.  Their righty and lefty hollywood editorializing is pathetic, yet we not only tolerate it, we embrace it.  The reason is that we have been trained to accept imaginary, alternate realities in lieu of the truth.  We live vicariously through Hollywood - why not get our principles in a similiar fashion, prefabricated like big macs?   Hence we direct our frustrations at each other instead of the real source.  Pseudo-principles, just like pseudo-food.  It's just so easy and convenient.

The discourse between dems and pubs has come to resemble pro wrestling, and it serves a similar purpose - filling an empty void.  We need diversion, entertainment, and distraction, and they give us that, but we also need principle.  Having been manipulated into embracing our worker/consumer roles, and are no longer able to live our true principles, so they have been replaced, as if we were hosting a virus.  We are increasingly dependent and beholden to the system.  We spend far too little time doing what we love, and far too much time doing what the overclass loves.  Our principles now come from without, instead of from within.  They are artificial, like the food we eat and like the vicarious living.  None of it real.  It's just another Hollywood production - a cheap substitute for we really need and want.  And underlying it all is a fake economy that no one understands or wishes to talk about.  

The Globalist Agenda and the End of National Sovereignty - Conservation is being framed up by the media as part of a leftist or progressive agenda.  But the fact is, the prominent people behind it are much more concerned about making money than they are about conservation or reducing their carbon footprint.  But even this, as bad as it is, isn't the main concern.  There is a much broader agenda here. The left side of the political spectrum is now being used, by the corporate, bureaucratic elite, as a platform for putting globalization into hyperdrive.  The current trend involves the consolidation of power around global authorities.  I would also suggest that this is no better - in fact it may be worse - than power consolidation in multi-national corporations.  The fact is that the two are intimately intertwined, working together towards a global paradigm shift, one that will probably hinge upon an economic "crisis", which will itself probably be induced by another crisis (energy, disease outbreak, climate change, any combination thereof).  And if history is any guide, the underlying cause of the "crisis" will be real, but it will most definately be overinflated, and promulgated by elite industrial interests which have the power to control governing bodies, whether at the national or global level.

So there a global trend which is an insidious process by design (though many of the events and sub-plots involved may be more acute ... ).  Efforts are continually made to gradually erode the sovereignty of countries to capitulate to unions.  The unions, in turn, capitulate to the central global authorities, "for the good of the whole" and in the spirit of "teamwork", of course.   But this is a power grab, pure and simple.  Whether anything but totalitarianism will come from it remains to be seen.  But I think the rampant use of deception might be instructive here.  The global warming issue will almost certainly play a pivotal role in this process going forward.  Here, too, we see rampant deception by leading figures who have obvious ties to big industry, who use a good cause towards a bad end.  

Global Warming -  The fact that the climate change issue has galvanized around the UN is not an insignificant issue, given the UN's history as a tool for big corporate interests (see Chomsky on "forced acquiescence" and "the Washington consensus").  The idea that these big corporations, which control the UN, suddenly wish to talk about the environment has zero credibility.  On the other hand, the idea that they have an ulterior motive is much more salient.  Even a quick look into the backgrounds of the movers and shakers behind this movement reveals an obvious elitist bias.  These sorts should have zero involvement, let alone leading involvement, in any legitimate effort.  Clearly, they have a lot more than just global warming on their agenda.  And profiting from trading carbon credits is not the only ulterior motive.  Nor is the manifest destiny style of green investing that Al Gore has found an interest in.  There is also a very concerted effort underway to foster globalization, which in turn entails increasing global governance, global taxation, and the consolidation of government power at the global level to the detriment of the sovereignty of nations.  Those who want this are big corporations who stand to establish still more dominance from liberalizing international trade.  And they would love nothing more than to legitimize their dominance around a global, central government authority.  So, increasingly, we will see things dealt with on a supranational level, for the "good of the whole", or course.  This will have the desired effect, namely the gradual ceding of national sovereignty and simultaneous consolidation of power around global authorities.

Investing With Al Gore  -  Where the problems arise is simultaneously being a spokesperson for one's own investments.  How nice to have Paramount Pictures, now a subsidiary media juggernaut, Viacom, distribute "An Inconvenient Truth".  No doubt that year was particularly good for Gore's very green investment firm.  And how nice that Paramount also helped fund Gore's "Alliance for Climate Protection", which further promotes his investments.  And, though there is nothing wrong in using one's celebrity to sell books, doesn't it cross a line when the content of those books dovetails so very nicely with personal investments, especially when one is a founding member of a very relevant investment firm, and a partner of a very relevant venture capitalist firm?!

Generation Investment Management also owns a 10% stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange, which owns half of European Climate Exchange, creating yet another conflict of interest for Gore, since he benefits directly from the trading of carbon credits. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Investment_Management).  By the way, Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers don't exclusively invest in green technology.  Their "Pandemic Biodefense Fund" should do fairly well if all the hype over swine flu vaccination continues.  (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE53N6YO20090424)   So too should an old friend, Donald Rumsfeld, since he also has very large stakes in Tamiflu (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/04/swine-flu-bringing-home-bacon).  

Shock and Awe with National Geographic  -  In the past we have looked at cronies like Al Gore and Maurice Strong who are cashing in on "crisis".  But National Geographic?  Who would have thought?  As it happens, this all makes perfect sense, really, when you consider who has partnered up with National Geographic (and many years ago, I might add) - it's an old friend from team Bushcraft, Ruppert Murdoch.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/georgianne-nienaber/fox-owned-inational-geogr_b_112699.html  ...  http://www.allbusiness.com/media-telecommunications/telecommunications/6645689-1.html.   Yes, it would seem that Ruppert is now concerned with conservation.  Amazing that this round of shock and awe is so mysteriously different from, in fact diametrically opposed to, the previous, Fox News style one.  Hmmm ...