The ostensible reasons for war are
never the real reasons. The ostensible reasons are always sugar
and spice and everything nice, naturally. This is set forth to
hide the ugly truth, to hide the fact that wars are scrambles for
loot. When another party shows up to save the day, they are
simply capitalizing (on behalf of their corporate masters) on an
opportunity to seize natural resources and geopolitical
power.
It's not because the public of the imperial aggressor is naive that
they go along with the lie. They go along with the lie because
they have been cast in an appealing role. The public fancies
itself the democratic, the good, and the free, an example for the whole
world ... in a nutshell - it fancies being the "chosen ones". The
herd has been conditioned and indoctrinated with this idea in several
different forums since their childhood. It would seem they
are so addicted to their perceived "top dog" status that they are
willing to cultivate the lie even though they know it is such.
They don't quite know how to reconcile the concept of military power
with their professed religion which calls for non-violence, but they
turn a blind eye to this. Sometimes they will even try to trick
themselves by asserting that in "today's world" war is inevitable, even
though they know that non-violence is timeless and universal, and those
that taught it were light years ahead of them. Common sense tells
most everyone - both the more learned and the less learned - that the
propaganda is a lie, but historically the masses have somehow been able
to suppress their rational thoughts like a dirty family secret, like
the proverbial mad uncle who lives in the attic. The herd quite
likes its role in the play - its identity in the world. The fight
is noble - "God's work". "The ends justify the
means." Yadda, yadda, yadda ... The think tanks have
done a fabulous job of writing the script. They've made us an
offer we couldn't refuse.
And the think tanks are owned by ...
The media portrays the world's richest as being billionaires.
Does anyone seriously believe that the likes of a software engineer can
even be in the same neighborhood as the dynastic family fortunes?
The bankers of the old world? The oil and steel magnates of the
industrial revolution? The likes of the Rothschilds, Morgans,
Carnegies, or Rockefellers? Billionaires are paupers by
comparison, simply used as shining examples of what a little hard work
will get you in the modern day slave state. Needless to say, the
wealth of the world's true elite is not widely covered in the
media. Though some of them have had their wealth estimated in the
many trillions, there's no need to get side-tracked with this.
Suffice it to say that they have way, way too much. But more
importantly, they are a net drain to the rest of humanity the way that
a monopoly is to the marketplace.
That the system is inequal is not the problem. A certain
pyramid is intuitively appealing. A certain hierarchy is
natural. It's the breakdown that is instructive.
Virtually all of the world's wealth and resources are controlled by a
disproportionate, very unnatural few at the top. How is
such an unnatural state sustained when the slaves outnumber the masters
by such a wide margin? Control of the media? Thanks to
computers and the internet this isn't as significant as it used to
be. The populus has much better access to free flowing
information than ever before as well as the ability to more easily
communicate with one another. This militates against the
domination and consolidation of the media and allows us to stay
informed if we so choose. But the burden of crowd control is
mediated today by the aid of an unlikely source - the people
themselves. The modern day slave state is a more sophisticated
one - a more subtle one. Slaves today are given "stuff" - lot's
of stuff - to anesthetize them. And after decades of unparalleled
prosperity and superpower status, Americans and other privileged
peoples of the world have become complacent consumers, apathetic to the
geopolitical realities of our time. We have been conditioned into
being self-censoring. Information, though available, isn't sought
out. Ignorance is bliss. When you've been assigned
the task of being the "consumer", ignorance becomes the more viable
option.
Thus the immoral leadership of corporatism and imperialism is
tolerated. Many may speak out against it - a bit anyway.
But not too much. Pavlov's "conditional reflexes" come to
mind here - subconscious, automatic, involuntary responses to specific
stimuli. An dog can be made to salivate upon the ringing of a
bell once it has been conditioned to associate food with that
bell. Likewise, a people can be made to endorse war, or put up
only token resistance, once they have been conditioned to associate
prosperity with war. But unlike dogs, we have a wealth of
available information as well as the ability to think rationally,
understand the information and our responses to it. Thanks to
computers and the internet, we can no longer say we had "no way of
knowing". Ignorance is no longer acceptable. It is becoming
deliberate, an active process, a choice, a process of
self-censorship. Anyone willing to raise a pinky can attain a
basic understanding of the way the world works today ... anyone willing
to pull themselves away from the entertainment they are abuzz in.
And since we are able to understand our willingness to fund the
slaughtering of other people, or put up only token resistance, we also
are - clearly - accountable for it, just as a terrorist ought to be
accountable for his actions.
What form this accountability will take remains to be seen. I
suspect the first consequences will be spiritual and emotional as well
as economic. I suspect we are already in the early stages.
The media is an accurate representation of this movement, catering to
and exploiting the vulnerabilities of its audience like a drug
dealer. The media's milieu of consumerism and violent crime is
reflective of a culture whose genuine, traditional ideals are
increasingly being replaced by materialism and pop-culture like a
virus, with the growing paranoia of a people who, like a drug
addict, need more and more to secure their "stuff". Thus the
degradation of our media is not only tolerated, but embraced because we
receive affirmation for our addiction. We are assured that our
addiction is not just ok, but downright cool. Hip. To be
desired. Furthermore we receive clues regarding the existence of
any potential threats to our stuff, as well as pointers on how to best
deal with these threats. And noble causes are also exploited to
no end; "you are special people - it's up to you to help the less
fortunate people of the world even though they don't want help because
they don't know what's good for them. You are the chosen
people." Ever certain that lower life forms are perpetually
on the lurk threatening their special status, the masses don't seem to
notice the exorbitant cost of buying into this babble. Loss of
control. Loss of independence. Loss of sovereignty.
More war. More debt. More power for the corporate high
priests. More power for the government.
Institutionalization. The parallels between this insidious
decline and that of a drug-addict are chilling.
Hallmarks of this decline are delusion and denial. Simple
observation of the obvious is flat out refused, clearing the path,
conveniently, for policy makers both on foreign and domestic policy
fronts. Various forms of the all powerful buzzwords
"change" and "progress" can never be worn out. And cleverly
named social programs are touted in the name of noble ends like safety
or national security or some sort of humanitarianism. The real
purpose of this social change is never the alleged one (heroics), and
the net result is institutionalization. Is the "no child left
behind" act really as wonderful as it sounds? Standardized
tests? Military recruiter access to our schools? Are you
kidding me? Is there anyone who can't see through this one?
And as occupiers of so-called "rogue nations", is our primary purpose
really the alleged one? Are we really there as liberators, simply
spreading "democracy and freedom"? Please. By now
everyone should have learned to ask questions any time they see some
entity with too much of something, usually money or democracy, that
they simply wish to share with everyone. The ostensible purpose
of mobilized military troops or grant money from "tax-free charitable
foundations" or even the public sector is always sugar and spice and
everything nice. But their true motive can be found by taking a
closer look at the behemouth transnational conglomerates that hold
their puppet strings. In addition to the fantastic pr of their
heroic escapades, the elite puppetmasters also acquire the far more
important end of making the populace increasingly dependent on
them. They set up their walmart/nafta style infrastructure all
over the world because they know the masses cannot resist low price -
that they won't look beyond that low price ... at the true cost ... at
the subsidies from tax dollars that support those low prices ... at the
multinationals that take away jobs and ship them overseas to "tax
friendly" jurisdictions with negligible civil rights
laws.
What is the true cost of so-called "philanthropy" from the likes of a
Rockefeller or Carnegie? Is the superclass not simply
investing in itself down the road? The tax benefits of their
"philanthropy" are peanuts taken next to the control they secure.
To control a people you must institutionalize them. Indeed
education itself has been institutionalized. For nearly 200
years, through the colonial period and into the beginning of the
republic, most education in America was private and very
effective. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote of Americans’outstanding
literacy in the early 1800s. And what have been the results of
turning that system into a public, compulsory one? Of
institutionalizing our schools? Are we willing to look below the
surface? Is it very difficult for any of us to see the problems
of our youth today? Is it difficult to see that the seriousness
and pervasiveness of these problems are escalating rapidly? How
long will we ignore it? How long can we stomach it? Public school is crucial spawning ground for
these
values.
With their think tanks, educational institutions, and so-called
charitable foundations the elite throw their massive, inherited
dynastic wealth at pretty much anything they want to control, a control
that goes way beyond great PR and tax benefits. They literally
manufacture public opinion, or "fashion consensus", setting
consumeristic values and cultivating spawning grounds for these
values. So-called "think tanks" such as The Heritage
Foundation, The Hoover Institute, RAND Corporation, Brookings
Institution, etc ... are ideologically driven in accordance with
the interests of their funders, ie; the interests of corporate giants
and/or those who own them. The term "think tanks" is quite a
misnomer really. These entites don't engage in rational thought
as in the scientific method - doing research and then drawing
conclusions. Rather they do the opposite; they begin with
conclusions congenial to their business interests and then "think" of
ways to justify them, ensuring that the incredible wealth that
was handed to them on a silver platter over many generations stays
there. Is the purpose of the Rockefeller Foundation,
established by John D. Rockefeller in 1913, to "promote the well-being
of mankind throughout the world", as they claim? It seems like
there may be more to it than that, given their complicity in MKULTRA, a
secret mind-control experimentation program conducted by the United
States government in the 1950s and 60s. I'm pretty sure the
Rockefellers would love to erase many things from the history books,
from MKULTRA to the Ludlow Massacre to the Reese Committee's
findings. Would it really suprise anyone to learn that the real
motive behind these so-called "philanthropists" is not
philanthropy? That their stranglehold on the education system in
the US got so bad that Congress had to investigate it in 1954?
Thousands of scientists and scholars from the most prestigious schools
in the world have received fellowships and scholarships from
"charitable" foundations like Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford for
advanced study, and now sing their praises and teach their brand of
business, in an ongoing process of social engineering to mold the
thinking of the masses into something more in keeping with the demands
of the industrial age and the corporate elite.
Is the purpose of the uber prestigious Wharton School, established in
1881 through a donation of Joseph Wharton, co-founder of the Bethlehem
Steel company, really "to provide for young men special means of
training and of correct instruction in the knowledge and in the arts of
modern Finance and Economy", as they claim? Top students of the
MBA Program are awarded Ford Fellowships. Joseph Wharton was also one
of the founders of Swarthmore College, which enjoys an average
endowment per student of close to $1,000,000, and whose students have
received hundreds of scholarships including Rhodes Scholarships,
Fulbright Scholarships and many others. The interlinks between
the trustees at Rand, and the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie
foundations were so numerous that the Reece Committee listed them in
its report. Ford gave one million dollars to Rand ( a "think
tank" founded by the US Air Force !!) in 1952 alone, at a time when the
chairman of Rand was simultaneously the president of Ford
Foundation. Associations between these entities and United
States Department of State, US presidents and the leaders of major US
political parties are mind-bending. Is it really that difficult
to connect the dots here? Ah, but the hollywood obsessed, hero
worshipping, anesthetized imperial masses can tolerate their servitude
just fine if its kept whisked away in the closet. They'll even go
as far as to call it "democracy and freedom" if they are given enough
stuff with which to celebrate their convenient location on the
pyramid. Is it any wonder? Look deeper into your local
"philanthropist". You may be very surprised at your
findings.
Ask yourself this; Are the
trillionaire "philanthropist" elites - who designed the educational
infrastructure in the US and modeled it after the Prussian system
- just cultivating the brightest people? Or are they more
about spawning leadership and workforce that will toe the line?
The Prussian system, as you may also know, is widely known to have set
out to manufacture a loyal, obedient workforce. The idea that
huge endowments cultivate the brightest minds makes a nice hollywood
story. Hence the easy sell. But it simply isn't true.
"Bright"? Sure. No doubt alot of exceptionally bright
individuals get coaxed into the system. Just read Charlotte
Thomson Iserbyt's book to learn all about how that sort of thing is
done. Ms. Iserbyt was a Senior Policy Advisor in the U.S.
Department of Education during the first Reagan Administration.
Rest assured, the first priority of educational endowments from the
trillionaire club is not very philanthropic. It's self-interest,
which comes as no surprise. It's simply to coax and to woo and to
win over with money. To make believers out of student body.
Not only is the curriculum controlled, but individuals are made to feel
beholden to the system because of the enormous sums of money given
them. The net result is the same sort of blind faith that we see
in fraternities, which have also mastered the fine art of coaxing and
wooing.
Any new social program or public policy may be ushered in on either the
right or the left side of the political spectrum. The beast can
be fed just as easily with either hand. Issues are presented in a
bipolar fashion, where "righty" and "lefty" opinions are prefabricated
like big macs, tailor made for the harried life of the corporate
slave. Ever quick to take sides to defend the one and only true
religion or the one and only true political system, people are somehow
perenially loathe to criticize that which enslaves them first and
foremost; the corporate high priests who fashion their every
thought.
"The conscious and intelligent
manipulation of the
organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in
democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of
society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling
power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our
tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard
of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society
is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this
manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.
... In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of
politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we
are dominated by the relatively small number of persons ... who
understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It
is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."
This is from Ed Bernays' book,
"Propaganda", where he argues that scientific manipulation of public
opinion is necessary to overcome chaos and conflict in society.
Bernays is widely known as the "father of public
relations". How does this reconcile with so-called "freedom
and democracy"?
And what's all this twaddle about
capitalism and communism? Just another form of partisan
politics. Just another thing for middle America to bicker
over. Does it even matter if the overlords do what they do
through the public or private sector? What if they dominate
both? What do you call that? Does it really matter if the
state dominates corporations or vice-versa? Isn't the end result
the same, or very similiar? Do we really want to spend alot of
time and energy fussing over which kind of fascism is worse? But
we're not supposed to ask these better questions. We're supposed
to be good little righties and lefties, tethered to our respective
party lines - engaged in that crippling, rubber stamping, log rolling
charade that is partisan politics in the United States of
America. Divide and conquer, anyone?
Isn't it amazing that we continue to see the same results over and over
... ad nauseam ... no matter what alleged "changes" occur?
More war, crippling debt, happier transnationals, regardless of which
sort of party is in power. Behemoth military is ushered in on the
right; gargantuan, economically crippling social programs
(medicare, social security ...) on the left. All the above
are servicing the men behind the curtain and their lazy, entitled
families who have wealth handed down to them on a silver platter and
need do nothing with themselves except think of a wonderful new
"charity" to further institutionalize the masses. Yet we treat
them like heroes. We treat the scourge of the universe like
heroes. How could the irony get any better?
Meanwhile the partisan hacks continue
to do their little dances, rehearse their little scripts which
collectively represent the intellectual equivalent of a rubber room,
facilitating the venting of political angst without actually getting
anything done. The rubber roomers remain steadfastly convinced
that their woes stem from the other party while somehow missing ( or
deeming unimportant ?? ) that there always seems to be a new war on the
horizon and that their national debt is exploding through the
stratosphere. It's business as usual for the military
industrial complex. Mission accomplished. Can the North
American Union be very far behind, as the latest solution to all of our
woes, in true "New Deal" or "Peace Treaty of Versailles" oh so
progressive form? Yes, we'll all be so advanced walking around
with national id cards and rfid chips like a bunch of branded cattle.
The global elite maintain a Hegelian dialectic that ensures them
perpetual power. The masses are poked and prodded very
precisely until they demand the very "social change" that is desired by
the overclass. Force is avoided which looks much better from a PR
standpoint. Safety and morality are ever the basic human emotions
which are exploited to encourage the polulace to demand change.
But the ensuing forms of socialization and their so-called
"humanitarian" and "progressive" aims invariably end up serving as the
underpinnings of servitude and estrangement.
My sincere hope is that it is not too late for us. I hope it is
not too late to recognize that which enslaves us, or too late to be
able to function outside this debt plagued institution, which feeds
upon perpetual war, and get moving back towards basic self-sufficiency,
at least on some levels. Can we not all see that this entitled,
privileged, chosen, consumer role bit is self-limiting? We have
all heard how difficult it can be for former inmates to adapt "on the
outside" upon being released from prison. And the same will apply
here to a certain extent. No doubt some prefer to be
institutionalized. Perhaps they need to be told what to do with
themselves. But many others do not. Many others don't keep
well in captivity. We are saddened to see so many people spending
an enormous portion of their time, on a rigged table, doing something
menial that they deplore. We find it abhorrent and disgraceful to
be told that this is what "responsible" people are supposed to
do. In fact, we find it pathetic. This prevailing mentality
is just another standardized test that selects for and produces
homogenous junkies. No thanks.
How well do you keep in captivity?