George Orwell - from  Notes on Nationalism

---

2011

Burning the Pom-Poms

What's most surprising is not that we have oligarchy.  It's unfortunate, but understandable.  What's far less understandable is that many still refuse to acknowledge it.   Instead, we have the nauseatingly stale rhetoric of the political blame game.  We have cheerleading and log rolling, while the elephant in the living room goes largely ignored. 

 But alas, if we accept these truths, then the two parties begin to look too much like one, and there ceases to be any point to our beloved mudslinging, cheerleading, log rolling, and magical thinking.  And what fun would that be?

The National Academies on Climate Change?

No doubt the US National Academies possess the credentials, and therefore the potential, to provide the valuable service of forming legitimate, scientific consensus on important issues, as do the national academies of other countries.  Instead, they are being used to advance the usual realpolitik and oligarchic agendas.

 
Tethered to a Pary Line


The global warming debate smacks of a power struggle at the the top which goes largely unnoticed because of the log rolling charades at the bottom, spurred on by the mainstream and "independent" media.  But it isn't difficult to see where the bigger interests lie, at least if one takes the time to look.  Sure, corporate America (or corporate whoever else ...) would love to go on polluting unabated.  And they are happy to pay for research that will help them do just that.  This is bad, and has to be addressed.  But the answer is not to commodify carbon, providing the perfect bureaucratic control over industry, especially at the global level.

This movement, in it's current form, is a classic, rhetorical Trojan Horse.  It smells of a sophist.  It reeks of a "better safe than sorry" vaccine profiteer.  The eschatological, soap operatic manner in which it is currently being framed is eerily reminiscent of the end times scenario, urging adherents to fall into a sort of dogmatic slumber where "believing" is the most important thing.  This ought to be raising red flags all around.   If the movement is going to do any good at all, it will have to reconcile the very inconvenient truths hiding behind it, particularly the ushering in and administrating of what could easily become the largest commodity market the world has ever known.  The ego loves to come to its own funeral.  

The Next Subprime -

 It looks like the cards are in place for a repeat of something we've all seen before; looting via fiat.  As it happens Kyoto is up for renewal in 2012.  It will be interesting to see what happens at the Durban meetings which begin next month.  The topic of "emissions trading" is on the agenda, and will probably be very well represented by the big business elite.  After all, hydroelectric dams which lay waste to entire river valley ecosystems in the third world are referred to as  "clean development mechanisms" under Kyoto, an accord authored by big business, providing a way for people to think they care about the environment without actually making any sacrifices.  My guess is that trading carbon credits (or pollution quid pro quo) is a foregone conclusion given the current financial milieu of hucksterism.  In the end, it's ok to pollute, especially if it can be commodified and hence gamed by the top dogs.   And even better if they can get those pesky third world peoples off of their ancestral lands, so rich in natural resources, in the process.

US Attacks on Libya -

Why has there been so much activity in north Africa lately?  Egypt.  Somalia.  Tunisia.  Libya, not to mention Bahrain, Syria, Yemen, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.  You don't suppose this region is of key geopolitical significance?  No surprises then to hear these reports of covert CIA involvement in Libya, and how very much in control of the "resistance" the establishment is - as usual.

New Retirement Age? 

I guess working until you're 80 isn't that bad if you love your job.  And of course everyone loves their job.  Besides, how dare anyone think they should be able to enjoy their golden years?  Yeah, let's put the elderly back to work, put a pick and shovel in their hands.   That will bring back the ailing economy.  Throw in some tax hikes, cutting of social services, a little inflation and wage cuts for good measure ...   Way to get at the source of the problem.

Occupy Wall Street - Will the movement be co-opted?

Debt Deal Dust-Up

Does anyone really think this time will be different?  Have they turned over a new leaf?   Let's just call it what it is, another rubber stamping, log rolling, charade.  If history is any guide, the financial elites have already made the decision - long ago - regarding the outcome of this so-called "crisis", which they created in the first place.  One would think the historical precedent, consensus in scholarship, books ... films ... independent media ... (and even the mainstream media to a certain extent), would be enough to prompt everyone to stop playing along, pretending that the existing system is working or even salvageable.  It got ridiculous and embarrassing a long time ago.   One almost has to wonder if there is a hidden camera somewhere or that we're are part of an experiment to see how much bs people are capable of assimilating.

Social Security - 2011

... all we need are some "radical changes" (under Myth No. 1: Social Security won't exist when I retire"),  including increasing the retirement age, increasing taxes, and reducing benefits.  Then everything will be just fine.  Watch for more "radical changes" coming down the pipeline.  IMF global austeriy programs, perhaps, coming to a neighborhood near you?   Such pleasant goings on, huh? 


Sky Set to Fall


More Doomsday Claptrap  -   Let's stop the cheerleading already, and call it what it is:  oligarchy.  The same old thing over and over ... ad nauseam ...  Always has been, always will be. 


Obama Emulating Bush

Maybe when they said "change," they just meant that the President's name would change.  And at what point do we stop the cheerleading, and admit the obvious ... that our Presidents all have the same boss?  Maybe when there's a mushroom cloud on the horizon?  Maybe when they raise the debt ceiling one too many times?  

Goldstein a Goner?


Should They Release OBL's Death Photos?


The New Religion - 

There is a new religion on the political left.  Like its fundmentalist cousin on the right, this religion is also a doomsday religion.  Also like its cousin, this doomsday religion is characterized by a dogmatic slumber of the membership, by a deference to authority when it comes to entertaining ideological thoughts, as opposed to really delving in and meting out one's true stance.  I realize it's not really accurate to call this religion "new," but it certainly has taken on new significance in it's current context or apocalyptic form.  And like its eschatological cousin on the right, this religion's underlying thought system is simple: "just believe."   Toe the party line and you're in.  What is valued are things like function, convenience, and party affiliation.  More important things, like principle, substance and truth have clearly taken a back seat.  So we are willing to acknowledge certain truths, especially if they make us feel good and aren't too threatening.   Meanwhile the bigger, far more significant and telling truths are swept under the proverbial rug.  We stand ready to acknowledge that there is global warming, but unready to acknowledge the fact that that certain big wigs are making a killing off of this development or what other ulterior motives may exist.   Similarly we are prepared to poo-poo globalization, but scarcely do we ask why it is that major "grassroots" NGOs and "anti-globalization" forums are being funded by big foundations owned by the very corporate interests driving globalization.

"Political Awakening" - 

"Pirates"

More "Change"   


State of the Union  -  The number of bipartisan standing ovations ("stand-sit-stand calisthenics") at the State of the Union Addresses has been rising ...

Wikileak Baloney -  Front page news doesn't get there against the establishment's wishes.  In all likelihood, wikileaks is an intelligence operation, which will build up to more encroachment on civil rights, control of the internet, or something else along those lines, all in the name of "grave national security", much in the same spirit as Bush's Patriot Acts, Military Commissions Act or Defense Authorization Act.

"Iran Shielding Its Nuclear Efforts in Maze of Tunnels" -   I had no idea they did photo ops like this for the New York Times.  Naturally, that would be in their interest.


"Popular" Candidates and Movements  -   Any "populist" or "grass roots" movement, whether masquerading as libertarian, constitutional, green or anything else, cannot make it's way onto the big stage without serious help.  And by the time it gets there it will be turned on it's head, watered down, defanged, and turned into a useless piece of window dressing, calling for an institutionalized masses to cheer on command, like with everything else.  Feel good operations abound.  If they ever do decide to fix the broken money system, some other mechanism of control will slip in through the back door.   Similarly, when they finally decide to address pollution, it will come at a great cost to the common man, and/or great benefit to the uncommon (multinational) one.  The ego loves to come to his own funeral.

Chomsky on Liberal Administrations -  He discusses Roosevelt and his "planners" who designated an area called the "Grand Arena" which had to be "dominated" by the US.  He talks about "later liberal administrations" which contended that "if we control the Middle East, we can control the world--that's where the energy resources are."  He alludes to "high-level planning meetings in State Department, Council on Foreign Relations, and so on" and the idea that there can be no "exercises of sovereignty that interfere with that dominance." 




2010

Riots erupt after Berlusconi survives no-confidence vote


Election Time 2010 -

Election time again.  What a fun time.  Just look at the rhetoric circulating in the corporate mass media ...  So exciting!   

But has anyone noticed that campaign adds, whether local or national, are a tad stale?  The rhetoric and antagonism bears a striking resemblance to that of the pre-adolescent schoolyard, and is reminiscent of the standing ovations (every 30 seconds or so) during a State of the Union Address. What a wonderful system.  So sincere.  Why do we play along then!  Are we awash is spare time or something?! 

We've been trained and conditioned our entire lives to accept imaginary, alternate realities in lieu of the truth.  We live vicariously through Hollywood - why not get our principles in a similiar fashion, prefabbed for us - like twinkies?  Pseudo-principles and plastic food, but it sure is easy!  Vicarious living at its best.  So-called "politics" today seems a subset of popular culture, best described as a soap-operatic charade which gives us a false sense of civic duty and simultaneously diverts our attention from the real goings on.  So-called "politics" today is the proverbial rubber room, a safe place where adults can go to watch cartoons ... to keep themselves out of trouble.

Tea Party Movement - 

There is a lot of resentment from the left directed toward the tea party movement lately, such as the chain letter (of "unknown" author) entitled "A Message to the Tea Party - What Took You so Long to Get Angry?"   Needless to say, this is creating quite a stir in the blogosphere, as it was intended to do. 

But according to Noam Chomsky, the question we ought to be asking ourselves is: 

"why the peace movement, the left, the activist organizations ... are not organizing these people?"

since 

"a lot of what they're protesting is pretty sensible."

Jekyll Island, 2010 - 

No, last week's Jekyll Island meeting was not so secretive as the 1910 meeting.  In fact, it even made the news.  The deeply entrenched (too big to fail???) institution we call the FED even made the gesture of publicizing their presumable agenda, flaunting fancy terms like "quantitative easing".  But this is all voluntary PR.  The fact remains that they are a secretive organization.  The FED still, to this day, enjoys an utter lack of transparency.  Its officials are unelected and unaccountable.  "Audits" of the FED have always been either nonexistent or toothless window dressing that did nothing, right down to the current administration, which proclaims (suddenly) to support a FED audit.

HR 1207 -

 In May of 2010, the  Obama administration announced that they decided they supported a FED audit afterall.  Unfortunately, they do not support Ron Paul's version of it.  So the new bill, with the help of Bernie Saunders, will be a watered down, toothless version of the original, real one, and will not provide transparency for what the FED is doing overseas with foreign governments, central banks and financial institutions. 

Progressive Organizing -

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.

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 ...  





2009

"Fed Refuses to Disclose Recipients of $2 Trillion"  - http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=apx7XNLnZZlc&refer=home

This story came out on the Bloomberg site last month, regarding a federal lawsuit Bloomberg filed against our beloved "FED" in November.  The suit seeks no damages, just the recipients of more than $2 trillion of emergency loans from U.S. taxpayers and the assets the central bank is accepting as collateral. 

"Where'd the bailout money go? Shhhh, it's a secret" - http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008547803_apmeltdownsecrets.html?syndication=rss

"But after receiving billions in aid from U.S. taxpayers, the nation's largest banks say they can't track exactly how they're spending the money or they simply refuse to discuss it."

This kind of “globalization” smacks of power consolidation and of multinationals that are bigger than countries and that destroy local commerce everywhere they go and control governments.  But worse, they are governments!  It has become relatively easy for most of us today to name the corporate associations of many of our most important leaders. 

The net result?   The global elite are getting richer.   No surprises there.   What should we expect when we ”liberalize” the globe in the name of the free market global economy, giving giant transnationals unfettered access to the markets of their choice, regardless of how that might affect the local economy there?  (What would we expect if we took things like weight classes and age limits away from the Olympic games?  Wouldn’t we expect to ruin the competition?)

But don’t worry, it’s just globalization.